Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage
Monday 22nd April 2024 Lords Chamber

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

It is good to hear that they have a strategy; maybe the Minister can explain to the Committee what the strategy is. All I see at the moment is that there is a lot of support for commonhold—everyone is committed to it and wants to bring it in in due course—but I would like to see some sort of timeline. When are we going to get it? They will have had this report from the Law Commission for four years in July. Where is the plan? If they had a plan they could set out for the Committee, I am sure they would get a lot of support from us here, but the worry is that we will be sitting here in another four years. What is the plan from the Government?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords—

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

I am sorry, but I asked a couple of questions there and I am hoping for a response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the purpose of Amendment 13 in my name was to encourage a debate on commonhold and the route to achieving it, and in that it has been successful. I am pleased about that and thank all noble Lords for their involvement. It has been a long time since the first legislative proposal was made to abolish leasehold. I think it was in the Liberal Government of 1906, so we are going back a long way.

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

It was 1880, with Henry Broadhurst.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I do not think that that was a legislative proposal—I was very careful in the words I used. What this debate has achieved is that it is very clear across the Committee that there is overwhelming support for the move to commonhold. That is very positive. The next achievement is that it has brought forward three different ways, or perhaps four, in which the Government can move. One is a draft Bill, which seems to me to be a very interesting proposal and one that again I think would get support across the House, because the move to commonhold is complex. I and everybody else who has spoken accept that, so let us find a way of working together to achieve that common end.

The second proposal was a “Let’s get something done” type of proposal for a sunset clause. If nothing else happens, let us adopt that. The third proposal, from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, was similar to a draft Bill: to get the Government to agree a draft strategy. Unfortunately, the Minister used the phrase “in due course” a number of times. The trouble with “in due course” is that the due course can go on for a very long time, as it has already. Some of us are concerned to enable all existing leaseholders to achieve commonhold and be part of home ownership. The party opposite always talks about that, so you would think it is in its interest to push it. That is why it is very disappointing to hear the Minister say “in due course” and, “We are considering the recommendations of the Law Commission”, which was four years ago now.

Finally, we have heard from various Members on the Labour Benches that, if they ever have the privilege to serve—that is the phrase they are using—this will happen quickly. I look forward to maybe 2025 when we might see whether the Minister will bring forward a proposal for a draft Bill on commonhold or whether somebody from the Labour Benches will do so, in which case we will make progress. We on these Benches will hold both parties to account if they fail to do that at the earliest possible moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Lords Chamber

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

I accept entirely that when the noble Lord was a Minister, we got that first stage of ground rents through, and that was very good to do. The problem of course was that I could not persuade him on the next stage, but hopefully it is coming soon. But the noble Lord certainly got the first thing through, and I am very grateful for that.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, good debate. I agree.

Local Audit (Appointing Person) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, a member of Kirklees Council and a member of that council’s audit and governance committee.

The Redmond review into local authority financial reporting and audit is far-reaching in its recommendations and broadly welcomed by those in local government, who want greater simplicity and transparency in financial reporting and auditing. One challenge facing local government audit requirements is the narrowing number of private audit firms willing to take on such audits. Yet sound auditing is an essential prerequisite for value-for-money judgments and financial transparency, as local government financing becomes ever more complex.

The proposals in this SI tackle some of the issues regarding process. These relate to fee scales, deadlines, standard fee variations and the length of time for which an auditor is appointed. Setting the end of November as the deadline for setting fee scales so that up-to-date information can be included in the calculation seems sensible, as does setting standardised fee variations. However, can the Minister confirm that such fee variations will be in proportion to the local authority accounts being audited?

I have some concerns about the potential for an auditor to be appointed for as long a period as five years. As external auditors rely heavily on a good working relationship with the local authority finance team and its internal auditors, there is always a risk that a cosy relationship develops. Can the Minister explain the thinking behind the ability for the same auditor, rather than the same audit company, to continue for five years? An explanation of the criteria that will be used by the appointing person to appoint for shorter periods “where desirable” would be helpful, as would an outline of the circumstances for audit firm rotation partway through an audit period, to understand the thinking behind that. If the Minister does not have all that in front of him, it would be good if he could write me a note.

There is a far deeper concern with local authority audits than will be dealt with by this SI. The Financial Reporting Council, which regulates the accounting industry, said this year that 60% of the English local authority audits it had reviewed did not meet its required standards. The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee detailed the problems this July. I will quote from the summary of its report, as we need to think about it:

“Without urgent action from government, the audit system for local authorities in England may soon reach breaking point. With approximately £100 billion of local government spending requiring audit each year”,


the Ministry of whatever it is called now—levelling-down, communities and whatever—

“has become increasingly complacent in its oversight of a local audit market now entirely reliant upon only eight firms, two of which are responsible for up to 70% of local authority audits. This has not been helped by the growing complexity of local authority accounts … If local authorities are to effectively recover from the pandemic, it is critical that citizens have the necessary assurances that their finances are in order and being managed in the correct manner.”

Both the FRC and the Public Accounts Committee report raise fundamental issues about local authority auditing which are not addressed by this SI, but which I hope the Minister can respond to either now or in writing. Having said that, with the exception of the questions I raised earlier, I concur with the changes that have been proposed.

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

My Lords, I, too, declare my interest to the Grand Committee as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Audit is about ensuring the proper inspection of a body’s financial affairs, ensuring that the financial dealings of the organisation, and the information that residents get, is correct and proper. It gives confidence to local people and, of course, to the Government and everybody else that an organisation is acting properly—or it identifies irregularities.

I was first elected a councillor in 1986—I am showing my age now. I remember the old district auditor, who used to look after the accounts. Of course, that is now all gone; we have local audits run through the Local Government Association.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised an important point on fee scales, what those fees are, when they can be varied and changed, and why. There is also the risk around the relationship: if the same person does the work every year, there may be an issue with things becoming too cosy. For me, there is the whole question of value for money. This is council tax payers’ money that we are spending here—so what are we doing to ensure that, when any fees are varied, we are getting value for money? The noble Baroness made the point that fewer and fewer firms are willing and able to do this work, which is also an issue for the Government to look at.

For me, it is about ensuring that public money is spent wisely, properly and legally. If fees are going to be varied, how do we ensure value for money? Then there is the issue of the reduced number of firms doing this work. How do we ensure that the relationship is not too cosy and is always properly professional? Having said that, I have no issue with the regulations, and I shall leave it there. I hope that the Minister can respond to the issues raised. I know that, if he cannot, he will come back to noble Lords with a letter and place it in the Library of the House.

Fire Safety Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 27th April 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I join noble Lord in paying tribute to the fire and rescue services, and the bravery they have shown recently and every day. But these heroes—they are heroes—are FBU members. They have not always been shown the respect they deserve from many people, particularly the Prime Minister when he was Mayor of London. He did not always show the FBU members the respect they deserved, and these are the same people. I make that one point.

I draw the House’s attention to my relevant interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, a non-executive director of MHS Homes Ltd and chair of the Heart of Medway Housing Association. It is most disappointing that we are back here again, and I accept that it is very unusual for us to push this again, but I will test the opinion of the House.

My amendment is based on the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, and it would ensure that no costs are passed on to the leaseholders or tenants. That the subsection would remain in force until such time that we get the Government’s statutory scheme. Further, it would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to come back within 90 days to publish draft legislation to ensure that leaseholders and tenants do not have to pay, and to publish a timetable for the implementation of that legislation. Finally, we would also require a progress report from the Secretary of State within 120 days of the passing of this amendment.

Now, why are we back here again? It is because the Government have been quick to promise and slow to act. We are here because they are not listening to the innocent victims of the cladding scandal, who should be at the forefront of the levelling-up agenda, if it is anything but a slogan that the Government have no intention of delivering. These people are families whose homes are blighted. They need their Government to come to their aid but, instead, the Government made promises that they have spectacularly failed to deliver. That is no way for a Government to behave. As I said, I intend to divide the House when the time comes.

“We will do whatever it takes” is a statement that the Government regularly put about, whether from the Chancellor announcing new measures or the Culture Secretary regarding the European Super League. Sadly, it is never said by the Government when it comes to dealing with the innocent victims of the cladding scandal. Perhaps, in replying to the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, the Minister for Fire Safety, can explain that failure to the House, because we have never heard from the Government what the plan is, which is part of the problem. If we are informed of a clear, well thought-out pathway and route map to help the victims we could make progress, but for some reason the Government will not do that. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell the House about this road map when he responds to the debate.

I want to see this Bill on the statute book, but I do not accept for one minute that this puts it at risk. We still have days before the end of the Session. I do not want to hold the Bill up. It is good in what it does, which is to implement the first recommendation of the Grenfell Tower inquiry—the first bit of legislation since the fire, now nearly four years ago. No one can accuse the Government of acting in haste. On a separate matter, we still have six families in temporary accommodation following the fire at Grenfell Tower.

It is vital that our dwellings are safe and that people can sleep safely at night, without fear. The Government have committed £5 billion—I accept that that is a significant amount of money—but the situation is far from satisfactory and it is in the Government’s gift to do something about it. Only the Government can do something about it, but they are not willing to at present. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans told us when we last debated this—I pay tribute to him for his leadership and for seeking a solution to this scandal—the result can be bankruptcies, enormous mental health strains and possibly worse. Part of the problem is that there have been no assurances to prevent the remediation costs being passed on to leaseholders until the Government’s scheme is operational. This is what my amendment seeks: to prevent the costs of this scandal being passed on to tenants and leaseholders, the innocent victims.

We have all seen in the media the heartbreaking reports of the crippling costs that leaseholders are having to bear, such as interim fire safety costs and high insurance premiums. Surely the developers that built these defective flats, the insurance companies that provided the guarantees but no longer want to honour their commitments and the professionals who signed off the buildings as safe should be paying through their professional indemnity insurance. Instead, innocent victims are left bearing the costs of this scandal, despite the promises made to them.

This leaves them with a dilemma: sell their lease and take on the debt resulting from negative equity, or stay in their leases and face huge debts in the form of remediation bills. They might possibly declare bankruptcy. Surely that is wrong. The leaseholders are playing by the rules and paying their taxes. They are buying a home and doing the right thing, but are not being supported. They had no indication that this was coming. This is a dreadful tragedy. In the absence of an adequate plan and scheme to deal with these issues properly and fairly, there is no other way forward. I hope that the House will support me. We need to find a solution to pay these costs. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I start by drawing the attention of the House to my interests, as recorded in the register, as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a member of Kirklees Council.

On three separate occasions, this House has confirmed its view that the Government should urgently address the plight of leaseholders and tenants who will be significantly and adversely affected by the consequences of the Fire Safety Bill. The provisions in the Bill are not the issue; they are a welcome small step to address the failings exposed by the dreadful Grenfell tragedy. The Government and, no doubt, the Minister will state how important it is that this Bill is passed, as we heard the Minister say a few moments ago. Both omit to say that the Government have been tardy in regard to the passage of the Bill; the Report stage in this House took place in November 2019. If the Government had made the Bill a priority, we would not be here, in the final throes of this Session, seeking to find a just solution for those directly impacted by it.

Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

3rd reading
Tuesday 20th April 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for his engagement in this small but important Bill. I am pleased that it is finally now going to pass; this is the second time I have worked on this Bill—because it was lost before the general election—so it is something I am very well aware of. I thank the noble Lord; he has been very helpful, as always. I join him in thanking all the organisations he mentioned—the LGA, the National Association of Local Councils, the British Toilet Association and others—for their helpful advice, guidance and support. I also thank Ben Wood from the Labour group office for his help and support on the Bill.

I thank all noble Lords who engaged in the Bill, particularly Lord Greaves, whose last speech in this House was on this Bill, as noble Lords may remember, some weeks ago, before he sadly passed away. Although Tony was in a different party from me, he was well respected in the House and was a very good man. He worked as a local councillor and as a Member of this House and he will be missed by us all. I am delighted that the Bill is going to pass.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I point to my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a member of Kirklees Council. Liberal Democrats support the measures in this Bill, and during the debate we have sought to improve accessibility and to extend the reach of the Bill to include other public buildings. I thank the Minister for his positive responses during the passage of the Bill, and for the meetings he held to enable an exchange of ideas. I also extend my thanks to those associations that have helped in the progress of the Bill, so that we all understood exactly what we were trying to achieve.

The Bill was the last time my noble friend Lord Greaves spoke in the House before his sudden and untimely death. It was typical Tony: promoting the value of parish and town councils, making a strong case for the very basic and essential public services provided for communities by local government, and exploring the meaning of the word “mainly”, used throughout the Bill. Tony will be greatly missed on these Benches for his humanity and commitment to communities. I rest my case there and thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for his help in getting this Bill passed.

Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report stage & Lords Hansard
Wednesday 17th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my interests in the register as a member of Kirklees Council and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I must say that I enjoyed the forensic probing that my noble friend Lord Greaves has undertaken. The words in the Bill that he is keen to clarify are ones that legislators frequently use. One wonders whether this is for the precise purpose of storing up business for lawyers when a challenge is made and the words then have to be to defined. My noble friend has done his research and quoted case law. The Minister’s response will be of interest to many of us because it will relate not only to this Bill but to others where charitable institutions are involved.

My noble friend also drew our attention to the difference in the use of “consists” and “used”. As he rightly pointed out, a “well used” facility may not get relief, whereas one that consists “wholly or mainly” may well do. Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain the reasoning behind the use of the words in the Bill that my noble friend is questioning. I look forward to what I am sure will be a most informative response.

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

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for tabling the amendment. We debated issues around similar words in Committee. I thank him for raising these important matters again because we have to be clear. I was very struck by the points he made towards the end of his remarks about how important it is to get legislation right and to have good legislation. If we are not clear what we mean and mean what we say we will have all sorts of problems.

This gives the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, the opportunity to be very clear about what the Government mean. We need to be clear when we have words such as “mainly” and whether it is “more” or “less”. If we do not get these things clear then we get confusion. That leads to bad law and might potentially involve the courts. It potentially involves wasting more time in this House clarifying what we should have clarified in the first place.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is very good at picking these things up. I remember the debate that we had on rogue landlords, when he tabled an amendment on what was meant by the word “rogue”. It is important that we get these things right because then we will not need to clarify them. I thank the noble Lord for that. I look forward to the Minister’s response on the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Randerson has a wealth of knowledge of the value and importance to our communities, large and small, of the provision of clean, well-maintained public toilets. Her argument is a powerful one. We learned from the meeting that we had with the representatives of the British Toilet Association and the Minister that, in fact, there is no longer accurate mapping of open public toilets around the country. During these 12 months of Covid closures, public toilets have been shut out of concern that their use might enable virus transmission. As the country seeks to return to a more normal way of life, what is vital is that public toilets are available in every community. All noble Lords who have spoken so far have made that point. That is why I totally agree with my noble friend that this Bill lacks ambition and what is needed is a strategy for public toilets from a public health perspective.

I have a suggestion for the Minister. The Government are allocating funding via a Towns Fund to help regeneration. Perhaps he can urge his department to attach a requirement to successful grant applications that towns ensure, as a minimum, that they have a well-maintained and accessible public toilet for the disabled.

My noble friend Lord Greaves pointed out how important parish and town councils are in maintaining existing public toilets. He also pointed out the difficulty that those councils have in accessing capital money in order to restore or build new facilities. That, too, is something to which I hope the Minister will respond.

The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, urges us, as a society, to recognise the essential need for decent public loos, and that their provision is in crisis. I agree wholeheartedly when she says, “If Wales can do it, so can England.” It was well said.

My noble friend Lady Thomas speaks with long experience of the barriers that are unwittingly created for disabled people by the rest of the community. There has been a failure to provide public toilets that are both available and accessible. If we all had to plan our days out shopping or visiting on the basis of the availability of an accessible toilet, my hunch is that many more would soon be provided.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for pursuing a similar amendment and for supporting the purpose the amendments in the names of my noble friends. Of course, we on this side totally support this Bill. It will have some limited impact that might well ensure that some public toilets remain open. Unfortunately, it fails to address the wider issues of comprehensive provision and the role of government in encouraging and supporting the funding of such facilities. Hence, I fully support all the amendments in this group. Perhaps the Minister can provide some hope that the Government will return to the lack of provision of public toilets in future legislation. Better still, they could use the current funding regime to make their provision a priority for grants. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer some evidence that the Government take the matter seriously, and I look forward to his response.

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

My Lords, Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is a good amendment and I support it. I look forward to the Minister’s response. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to highlight these issues. An ageing population needs more facilities; parents need facilities for their children. The point the noble Baroness made about changing facilities for fathers and male guardians is very well made. We also need to ensure that proper facilities are provided for disabled people, so I very much agree with the noble Baroness on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, spoke to an amendment to the lead amendment. He was absolutely right in talking about people visiting town centres, beaches and so on. We are all looking forward to the lifting of lockdown over the next few months. The Government are going to say, “Get out there. Go out there and spend some money, visit some places and meet your family and friends”. I want to do that.

Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 24th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

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

Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 24th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[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.

Building Safety

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

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?

Fire Safety Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

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.

Fire Safety Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 29th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stunell has made a characteristically well argued and factually detailed contribution in moving Amendment 3. The basis is this: that the practical implementation of new legislation is as important as the legislation itself. Fine words butter no parsnips, as the saying goes.

The Grenfell tragedy taught us, I hope, that the concerns of tenants and residents must be listened to. At Grenfell, concerns were ignored, with horrific consequences. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in his amendment, seeks to list potential consultees. There is always a risk in this that some valuable contributions may not be heard because they were not included in the list. Constructors should be among those who are consulted, and I thank the British Woodworking Federation for its detailed briefing, as referenced by my noble friend when proposing the amendment. Hence I prefer the more general statement in our Amendment 3, which is much more open-ended.

Experts are invaluable, fire safety assessors never more so. In the debate in the House of Commons, the Minister stated:

“I share honourable Members’ alarm at the existence of unqualified fire risk assessors”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/6/20; col. 51.]


The fact that vital fire risk assessments are being carried out by people not qualified to do so is something that we should be taking very seriously. Later amendments seek to close any possibility of unqualified assessors by creating a public register of those certified to undertake the varying demands of the role. As my noble friend has pointed out, there is always a cost attached to improving safety regulation. The question then is: who will be required to meet that cost?

It is surprising that those who have constructed buildings in the last decade are not currently being required to meet the majority of the costs of putting right their errors. Perhaps the Minister can say whether the construction firms are seen as being a significant part of the solution to those leaseholders now facing potential costs in the tens of thousands to make their homes safe.

In response to the last group of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, stated that construction firms and insurance companies are expected to contribute towards these significant costs—which is good news. Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain how quickly this will occur and what actions the Government are taking to ensure that decisions will not be long drawn out, as, for many, three years with no light at the end with the tunnel is already far too long. How much can these leaseholders expect to be paid from the government funding?

I look forward to the Minister’s response to these important questions.

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

My Lords, I very much support Amendment 3, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. My own amendment in this group is very specific. It is about ensuring that relevant organisations are properly consulted and that, after consultation, a report on the findings is laid before Parliament. I hope that the Minister will be specific about consultation on changes made by the Bill to the fire safety order, because we must go much further than the National Fire Chiefs Council. I am looking for commitments to consult local authorities, trade unions, including the FBU, and representatives of tenants and residents.

I noted the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in respect of my amendment, and refer her to (e), which adds

“any other bodies deemed relevant”.

The point of my amendment was to highlight that certain organisations must be consulted, along with any others that the Secretary of State is minded to.

The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is particularly appealing in respect of the requirements set out his proposed new subsection (5)(b) and (c). As the noble Lord set out, the potential implications of the amended fire order for individuals and organisations are huge.

We obviously support the intentions of this Bill very much, but one of our concerns is the question of who will be doing all this work. What will be the qualification requirements and levels? There is no quick fix to that. I am sure that I and other noble Lords do not wish to see a race to the bottom, with people who have very limited skills being authorised to undertake assessments and inspections, because that is a route to disaster and no lessons will have been learned. We need properly skilled, properly qualified people undertaking this work. There will be new obligations, and there must be a process, a route to achieving them, without cutting corners. Proposed subsection (5)(b) in the noble Lord’s amendment sets us off in the right direction.

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock [V]]

There are two related but separate amendments in this group concerning off-sales. The first, to limit the time for off-sales, was the subject of extensive debate in Committee and a commitment from the Minister to bring forward a government amendment on Report. The government amendments achieve that by limiting to 11 pm the latest time by which off-sales can be made. As this exactly replicates the proposal from these Benches in Committee, obviously we support these amendments and thank the Minister for responding so positively to the arguments made.

The second element is that of off-sales in open containers. My noble friend Lord Paddick has made another powerful case for limiting off-sales to closed containers, be it in cans or bottles. The reason is to prevent unruly scenes that may follow drinking from beer glasses in the street. Broken glass in the hands of those worse for wear is a nasty weapon. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, seeks to limit such off-sales to non-glass containers, but that misses one of the critical arguments entirely, which is that off-sales in open containers, whether glass or plastic, can lead to anti-social behaviour. There have been plenty of such incidents before sporting events that resulted in drinking limits being made. My noble friend Lord Paddick’s amendment seeks the same protections for local communities and, indeed, other sensible drinkers. We do not wish to see a Bill designed to help businesses becoming one which, as a side-effect, encourages irresponsible and unsafe drinking. My noble friend’s amendment is important for individuals, communities and policing, and it clearly has the full support of these Benches.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for tabling the government amendments. As other noble Lords said, a convincing case was made for the ending off-sales at 11 pm under these new licences. This was first raised in the other place by my honourable friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, Meg Hillier. She raised the problem she is having in her constituency even before these powers will come into play. There were huge problems in London Fields, and she raised the concern that if the Bill as it was then had been passed, it would have exacerbated the problem. I thank the Government for listening to that. I also thank the Covent Garden Community Association and the Soho Society. Weymouth Town Council was also concerned about this, as was everybody else who got in touch with me. It was also pleasing to see that we had the leaders of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the City of Westminster, Camden and Southwark, two Conservative and two Labour boroughs, coming together because they had a number of premises that would be affected by these proposals. It is good that the Government listened and I thank them very much for that.

On the question of containers, I see the point that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is making, but there is also the issue of buying beer to drink outside, which the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, touched on. I sometimes go to the Shipwrights Arms in Tooley Street, and if you go in there and ask for two pints of bitter, they will ask, “Inside or outside?” If you say “Outside”, you will get it in two plastic containers—you do not get glasses outside. You will meet a big, burly security guard, and you will not get past him if you are carrying glasses. I take the point that glasses are dangerous and can be used as weapons, and we need to be mindful of that. However, in many cases we have those plastic containers, which you often see at sporting venues. However, I see the point the noble Lord is making.

My noble friend Lord Mann made a point about policing resources. I remember being a young councillor in Southwark in the 1980s. At that point, the council gave the music and dance licence, and the magistrates gave the alcohol licence—of course, that has all changed now. I remember that the police came along to us, exasperated, and said, “You’ve granted all these music and dance licences, then of course the pubs are getting all these licences. On the Old Kent Road on a Friday and Saturday night, we have to put in a huge amount of resources when we do the weekly rosters. Then at the same time you’re moaning at us that you want more officers on the beat. We can’t physically manage it all.” I remember how that was important at the time.

However, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the government amendments that she has spoken to, I am delighted that the Government have listened, and I look forward to her response to the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock [V]]

[Inaudible.]—and related amendments, including one tabled by my noble friend Lord Addington that seeks to give sports clubs, which often rely on bar takings, the same facility as pubs and other bars to provide off-sales. An amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, seeks to achieve the same extension for small breweries. These amendments support small businesses and give essential support to community clubs, and as such we on these Benches support them both.

Another very important amendment, Amendment 52, would enable digital age verification. It is surprising that that does not already exist. A very strong case has been made for this change by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. In the light of the experience throughout this crisis of a significant shift being made across society to digital means of providing services, this proposal should surely be accepted by the Government. Perhaps the Minister will be able to indicate when that move to digital age verification will be enabled—as come it will.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lord Addington, relating to small breweries and sporting clubs. I am a bit disappointed that the Government have not found a way to do something here. We hear lots of talk about supporting small business, but we seem to be in a rigid situation, where we cannot move out of where we are. I do not see why we could not do something and it is regrettable that we could not find a way. I accept that breweries do not have licences now, but they could be given something temporarily. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made the point that sports clubs are often open only a couple of nights a week. Why have we not sorted them out? In this emergency Bill to deal with Covid-19, we have chosen to ignore them, and that is regrettable. I do not see why the Government have done that. They could have moved a bit more on that. I support the amendments, and it is regrettable that there will be no progress on them.

A convincing case has been laid out for Amendment 52, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and other noble Lords. I supported the idea in Committee. Equally, I see some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and I accept that this is a temporary Bill; perhaps doing something permanent in a temporary Bill may be a problem, but the least we should get tonight is a commitment. Technically, this can be done and the Government should get on and make sure that it happens.

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 14th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 77 on employee and employer considerations, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, is a timely reminder that all the elements of the Bill have a consequence on working lives and employer responsibilities, and provide opportunities to develop better working practices and relationships. Liberal Democrats have long proposed employee involvement in businesses as a means for improvements to be gained, both by the employer and those employed. This debate is important, we support the sentiments, and I look forward to the response from the Minister.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 77, in the name of my noble friends Lord Hain, Lord Monks and Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, introduces the issue of employer-employee relations and highlights the role of trade unions and other organisations that represent employees in determining the success of these changes.

The Government will want to engage constructively with the relevant trade unions, and it would help the House if the noble Earl could set out how he has consulted them during the drafting of the Bill and sought their views on the issues contained in it, which have a direct consequence for the people they represent.

The Bill seeks to support economic growth, but if workers, their views and the views of their representatives are not taken account of and their safety is ignored, that is irresponsible—and I am sure the Government would not want to do that. The worst thing of course would be if we did not take their views properly into account and that failure contributed to a second wave of the pandemic, which would be—health-wise and economically—an utter disaster for the United Kingdom.

I agree very much with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, about how we should look to Germany and the work it does there with its works councils. I was over in Berlin a couple of years ago and saw the great work Rolls-Royce was doing at its factory just outside Berlin.

My noble friend Lord Hain mentioned the Communication Workers Union, and I fully endorse his comments. I also pay tribute to USDAW, the shop workers’ union. I was a member of USDAW for many years. Its members, the shop workers, are the people who have kept our shelves filled, and not without abuse and assaults from people. There have been some disgusting stories of offensive behaviour that shop workers have had to endure from people coming into shops. We should pay tribute to them. During the passage of the Bill concerns have been raised with me by the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, which of course has many members employed in pubs, about their safety as we move forward.

I also endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Hain that managers and trade unions working together can make a huge difference for businesses, local authorities and the rest of the public sector, particularly the NHS. We should not forget that when we clap NHS workers, pay tribute to shop workers, rightly praise local government staff and call firefighters heroes, they are members of unions such as Unison, Unite, the GMB, USDAW and the FBU. They are the same people—there are not two groups of people, one of heroes and great workers and the other of trade union people. There is something that has always frustrated me, and I raised it many times when the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, was Local Government Minister. When we discussed the tragedy of Grenfell Tower, the frankly totally unfair attacks on the FBU by the Prime Minister always irritated me. I repeatedly raised that, because it was totally unfair. Those heroes are members of that trade union. I will leave my comments there, and I look forward to the reply of the noble Earl to the amendment.

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 13th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my interests set out in the register as a councillor and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. We on these Benches support the purpose behind this Bill, which is to provide additional flexibilities to businesses in the hospitality sector that have been forced to cease trading for three months and more as a result of government decisions to control the spread of the coronavirus.

As many Members have pointed out through the amendments discussed in this group, alcohol sales and premises are carefully licensed for a reason: undue consumption of alcohol can result in detrimental effects for both the individual and the locality. Although this Bill provides for temporary measures, temporary measures lasting 18 months can still cause considerable disruption for residents, communities and the environment. These factors must be carefully considered.

There are helpful proposals in these amendments to extend the flexibilities to include sports clubs and bars, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Addington. As he described, these provide a significant part of the funding for community sports clubs. I hope the Government will support this extension.

Equally, small breweries that currently do not have licences, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and others, also seem a worthwhile addition to the flexibilities provided in this Bill.

My noble friend Lady Bowles made a powerful case for businesses that are not directly part of the hospitality sector, such as supermarkets, to be excluded from being able to apply for pavement licences. I hope the Minister will make it clear that this Bill is not, in the words of my noble friend, a Trojan horse for struggling pubs, cafés and restaurants.

Flexibilities on current regulations can result in unforeseen additional concerns. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, to assess their impact after three months and to ensure that these temporary changes are indeed temporary is to be welcomed.

On safety concerns, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, made some interesting comments on the mandatory use of face masks. None of us wants the additional flexibilities to support businesses to result in easier routes for the virus to spread. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, about the use of cash and provision of toilets is therefore important.

Enabling digital verification, in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, which is supported by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, seems eminently sensible.

Temporary event notices are currently used for major local events such as festivals and fêtes. These are currently restricted to protect local communities and other licensees. Greatly expanding the number without a full consideration of the facts and impacts is questionable. With those comments, I pass on to other speakers.

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

My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant registered interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as president of Pubwatch.

Group 1 deals with a range of amendments relating to premises and alcohol licensing, including Amendment 39 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Berkeley on temporary event notices and Amendment 41 in my name, which seeks to add a new clause on health and safety to the Bill after Clause 11.

The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, referred to there being no votes today. We do not often vote in Committee—I have now been in the House for 10 years. I have made it clear in all my dealings with the Government, at Second Reading and in my meetings with them, which have been very helpful, that I will divide the House on Report if necessary. I have been very clear on that. I hope that we will get some resolution today so that it will not be necessary, but I am certainly not averse to having a vote. I would not be accused of that.

The first amendment in this group, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, raises the issue of cumulative impact zones, which are areas defined as contributing to community problems because of alcohol. The noble Lord rightly seeks to stop premises in these zones applying for pavement licences. I look forward to the response from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, explaining how she has consulted with groups such as Pubwatch and other groups representing towns and city centres.

I hope that the noble Baroness will also detail the wider assessment the Government have made of the impact of these changes on crime, and in response to Amendment 11, on police consultation, I hope she will confirm that dialogue with police, local authorities and other interested parties will continue after measures in the Bill are implemented.

The noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, made the point, which I agree with, about the need for the new street drinking to be controlled and managed safely. People can then relax and support the local economy while doing so safely and helping to avoid a second spike. That is very important.

My Amendment 39, plus two amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, deal with how the provisions can help businesses which do not have the necessary licence presently, as they rely on temporary event notices. This would also help street vendors who have been hit particularly hard in this crisis and have seen their doors close, some for good. Up to 15,000 businesses have lost all their income overnight and many tens of thousands of pounds have been tied up in rent for music festivals and rolled over to 2021.

The amendment would also help small breweries, which have suffered. Many noble Lords have spoken about the support for the small brewery industry. As we have heard, small breweries have seen up to 82% of their sales reduced because of Covid-19. They have not received the same level of financial support as pubs and the hospitality sector, and that is a matter of regret. One in four breweries—about 500 of the 2,000—does not currently have any way to sell directly to the public. The Government should adopt this measure as a way of helping them in the months ahead. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley, made a convincing case for the need to help small breweries, as did my noble friends Lady Kennedy of Cradley and Lord Wood of Anfield. As my noble friend Lord Berkeley said, these small breweries have made a fantastic contribution to the variety and type of beers sold in the UK; they employ local people, and they have been devastated. We need to do something and I hope the noble Baroness will be able to give us a positive response.

My Amendment 41 seeks to highlight the importance of workers’ safety in the hospitality sector, which the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, also referred to. I am grateful to the support I have had from the Bakers, Food, and Allied Workers’ Union for its contribution about how to address this issue. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, will address issues such as the handling of cash and how that can be limited. In pubs and other small venues, small amounts of money are handed over. There are payment companies like Worldpay and Shopify, but in many cases if you go into a pub or a small shop and want to pay by debit card, or if you spend less than £10 or £15, they charge you. There needs to be some way in which the companies will not charge the 10p that they presently do. What contribution can they make to ensure that people use less cash and pay by debit card more? Companies would need to step up to the plate and maybe the Government could ask them to do that. It would certainly help reduce the amount of cash being used, with the benefits that that would bring.

It would be interesting to hear about the protection of security staff at entrances to licensed premises. That is very difficult normally, but particularly now that we are talking about social distancing. What support are the Government going to give those staff to ensure they can do their job properly as well as being safe?

How do we ensure that toilets are safe for staff and customers? What discussion has the Minister had with the British Toilet Association including advice on keeping toilets clean and safe? This will be of paramount importance for staff who need to ensure their toilets are kept clean and safe for their customers. Can the noble Baroness also explain what guidance the Government will offer to pubs on these other issues?

Other amendments in the group raise important points, and I hope that we will get a detailed response, particularly on Amendment 44, from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. They both made a clear case about allowing better enforcement of the drinking regulations, which would be welcomed. It will be interesting to see whether it is possible to bring that forward quickly. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, made it clear that there is support in the sector for bringing these matters in quickly.

I will leave my comments there and look forward to the detailed response from the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock [V]]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, has given the Committee an assurance that the Government will bring forward an amendment about restricting the time at which off-sales can be made to a limit of 11 pm. This is most welcome and deals with some, but not all, the issues raised in the amendments in this group. However, we need to see the detail of such an amendment, including the start time of off-sales under the Bill.

Noble Lords have heard the wise words of an experienced professional. My noble friend Lord Paddick knows what he is talking about. He knows at first hand the horrible injuries that can come from mixing too much drink with broken glass. He knows that this has to be curtailed. The arguments are powerful. All noble Lords who have previous or current experience in local government know how vitally important it is that these concerns are dealt with. I added my name to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Paddick and look forward to them having a positive response from the Government.

My noble friend Lord Shipley asked about reducing the late-night levy for businesses whose premises were closed under the coronavirus restrictions. This is eminently sensible, and I hope that the Government can agree to the content of the amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the announcement she made to the Committee at the start of this debate. I appreciate this and look forward to seeing the amendment which the Government will bring forward. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. When we met online they were very kind and listened to the issues raised, as they did at Second Reading when there was genuine concern around the House about the consequences of this additional permission. I am pleased that the Government have listened and look forward to seeing the amendment.

I also thank my noble friend Lord Whitty, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, for supporting the amendments I have put forward. There was also a formidable team in the leaders of the London Boroughs of Southwark, Camden and the City of Westminster, and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea—four boroughs with the vast majority of these licences, all saying that this would cause huge problems for them—who all came together to write a joint letter. It is good that the Government have listened to the points they made. I also have to thank the Covent Garden Community Association which was rightly vociferous about the problems this would cause—they accept that they live in a very lively area, but this would be a step too far. We began to receive support over the last few days from other local authorities and community groups, and we thank them all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock [V]]

The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, lays bare the deep concerns of the tourism sector. The Government’s response will be crucial. As my noble friend Lady Doocey said, the tourism sector is on a knife-edge. The example she gave from the Lake District is no doubt being felt elsewhere in regions dependent on tourism. In replying to the debate, I hope the Minister can give hope and help to these regions.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this group contains two amendments: Amendment 42, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and Amendment 78, in my name. These probing amendments seek to highlight wider issues surrounding support for the hospitality sector. As we heard in the debate, the industry desperately needs government backing to see it through the coming months, which is why this House is supporting the Bill and why it is seeking improvements to make it even better.

I welcome Amendment 42 and entirely agree with the comments of the noble Baroness and the noble Earl. The amendment introduces the requirement for a review of support. Given that these are labour-intensive businesses, we should bear in mind that there is an enormous unemployment risk if businesses in this sector collapse.

Amendment 78 in my name aims to start a debate on two issues plaguing the hospitality sector, the first of which is lack of consumer confidence. Many people are still cautious about visiting hospitality venues, and the Government must play an active role in encouraging customers to return safely. The second issue is rent disputes. One large pub chain told us that disputes between tenanted pubs and their owners are still unresolved and there is no effective mechanism to fix this. I hope the Government can explain how they will encourage consumer confidence to help people return to pubs.

Obviously, this is a probing amendment that highlights these issues and seeks a government response regarding how they see these points being resolved in a satisfactory way that keeps businesses open, staff working safely and customers coming through the doors, reassured that they can enjoy themselves and spend money safely. I look forward to the Minister’s response.