Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl of Lytton and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I will briefly respond to the noble Earl. He is right to raise this issue, which is clearly important; we look forward to seeing how the Government respond to it. There are serious issues that need to be addressed somewhere. As has been observed by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and others, the open nature of this Bill offers an opportunity for things like this to be properly discussed and to be, if not solved in this way, perhaps solved in another way.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it is very good to respond to this debate. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, sees that there is some advantage in the way that we have drafted the Bill.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for raising what is a really important matter. We all recognise that there are failings in the system by which construction products are tested, assured and made available for sale. The noble Earl described his amendment as probing whether the Government are prepared to use the powers in Clauses 1 and 2 to regulate products used in construction. The noble Earl has huge professional expertise. He referred to the BBA and the specific approval given but warned of the risk of misuse; I very much take that point.

The straightforward answer is that we think this issue is very important. We intend to bring forward robust regulatory reforms in order to provide confidence in the construction products regime and to ensure that only safe products are used in buildings and infrastructure. To that end, we also intend to ensure that the testing and assessment of products’ conformity must be undertaken by those who are competent, impartial and effectively held to account. We have committed to working with the sector on system-wide reform, including examining the institutions that play a key role in the construction products regime, so that businesses and, in particular, consumers can have confidence in the products and services they purchase. The proposed new clause to be inserted after Clause 2, through the noble Earl’s Amendment 46, would place a duty on the Secretary of State to use the powers and to make provision for construction products regulations within a year of Royal Assent of the Bill.

I turn now to the Building Safety Act 2022, about which the noble Earl made some interesting points. That Act already includes powers to introduce construction product requirements and regulations. We are exploring how best to use those available powers, including their sufficiency—I take his point on that—as part of considering system-wide reform. He will know that since the Grenfell tragedy in 2017 some action has been taken on construction products, but we know that more needs to be done.

In December 2018, regulations came into force that banned the use of combustible materials in and on the external walls of buildings over 18 metres. The national regulator for construction products was established in 2021 and leads on market surveillance and enforcement of construction product regulation across the UK.

The Government extended the period of recognition of CE marking for construction products in September this year to give the industry sufficient certainty to support supply chains and to allow time to address the inadequacies across the wider construction products regime, but we recognise that this action is piecemeal and does not go far enough. We have confirmed that we will respond to the Grenfell inquiry within six months. We are also committed to bringing forward proposals for system-wide reform of the construction products regulatory regime.

I have listened very carefully to the noble Earl’s analysis of the Building Safety Act and his suggestion that it is not sufficient for our purposes. We are considering this and I will write to him in some detail about the points he has raised. But to be fair to him, I have to say that this Bill does not specifically exclude construction products and that there could be an opportunity to use the Bill powers in the future should we discover that the Building Safety Act 2022 may be insufficient.

I hope that he will accept this as a positive response to the issues he has raised.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that reply and I am certainly prepared to accept what he says in relation to the Government’s intentions. I will need to consider very carefully what he has said, particularly if he is writing to me—I am grateful for that offer. I will consider things in the light of that.

Without further ado and given the hour, I simply beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill

Debate between Earl of Lytton and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Wednesday 10th November 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move that Clause 1 does not stand part of the Bill. Of course, I hope that in the end Clause 1 does stand part of the Bill, but I want to use this as a way of raising issues I would have raised at Second Reading; noble Lords will recall that its timing was moved at very short notice indeed. I would like to register my protest to the usual channels about that, and the fact that none of us who had put our names down were consulted, which is a very poor show indeed.

My primary interest concerns the Government’s decision to establish a £1.5 billion fund to support further reliefs from business rates in the 2021-22 financial year for those businesses that have not received business rates relief. It is absolutely right to support those left-behind businesses, as I call them, but I have questions, which centre largely around the process of releasing this money. The businesses that this is aimed at are arguably some of the most in need, and yet they are having to wait much longer than is acceptable to have a chance of receiving any of this money.

In March, the Government announced the fund and said:

“This is the fastest and fairest way to support businesses outside the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors who have been adversely affected by the pandemic.”—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/21; col. 78WS.]


But here we are in mid-November, eight months on, and still not a single business has received any money.

To give one example of the real-world impact of not releasing these funds any sooner, English UK, the body representing the English language schools sector, has informed me that, in the last month alone, no fewer than five English language schools have been forced to close, largely because they were excluded from business rates relief. Indeed, 38 English language schools have closed since the pandemic started— 15% of that trade body’s membership. It is hardly surprising: some schools had to pay £300,000 in business rates over the last two financial years, with virtually zero customers.

So, the need for speed is very apparent, but there is a problem in that the guidance to local authorities over the distribution of the money is still awaited. Many businesses do not know whether they will qualify for the fund, given that, as I understand it, the criteria have not yet been published. We just have to go on the March announcement:

“The £1.5 billion pot will be distributed according to official data on the impacts of the pandemic on different sectors, ensuring an even and more proportionate allocation of support across England based on the economic impacts of COVID-19 and not on estimates of the impact on a property’s value.”


As I have already said, there is a real risk that many businesses will not survive long enough to take any benefit from the fund. We do not have the guidance, and my understanding is that the Government’s intention is that it will not come at least until the Bill has received Royal Assent. Surely, given the urgency of the situation, the draft guidance could be issued so that local authorities can begin to prepare their schemes. How long are businesses going to have to wait to get this relief? Of course, I understand that the guidance has to be prepared carefully; there are matters to be enunciated through that guidance, but the policy announcement was made in March. Eight months later, we are still waiting to know what the criteria are for the distribution of these funds.

In addition, for English language schools a complex situation arises because a small handful of councils interpreted the expanded retail discount differently and awarded business rates relief. Consequently, it has been something of a lottery, depending on where the schools are situated. I do hope that the Minister will confirm that just because some councils took the bold step to offer business rates relief to English language schools, this will not jeopardise the chances of those that did not to receive additional funding.

Obviously, I welcome the Government’s existing pandemic support for businesses via the expanded retail discount focused on helping businesses in retail, leisure and hospitality. The release of the additional funds is also welcome, although it is a tacit admission that the previous relief did not reach all those businesses, which, as I said, could show a catastrophic impact due to the coronavirus restrictions. However, the lack of guidance to local authorities suggests to me that it will be many months before businesses receive any of these funds. I am using this opportunity to urge the Minister to sort this out, to get the guidance out quickly and to make sure that local authorities understand that the money has to be distributed as quickly as possible, according to fair criteria. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, noble Lords will know of my professional interest in business rating and that I was at one time an employee of the Inland Revenue Valuation Office Agency. I added my name to this clause stand part debate for reasons very much along the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, set out in making an excellent case for why this clause should be challenged.

I give the Government their due: they have made a massive commitment to the relief of business rates during the pandemic, but I do not believe any business thought, following a relatively modest individual level of relief, and given the overall scale of the impact of the pandemic on business activity, that the Government would then make an arrangement such as to eliminate a main ground of material change of circumstances for everyone.

That is the purpose of Clause 1. It is a binary choice; it is either in or out. My understanding is that the Government are not going to concede on the point so this will probably be my last comment on this bit of the Bill. Clause 1 is the only bit of the Bill that concerns me.

Although I welcome the Chancellor’s further business rates announcements, the fact is that the underlying problems have not gone away. I have very little doubt that someone in HM Revenue & Customs thought quite hard about this and concluded that the removal of a Covid clause for material change of circumstances also conveniently eliminated many other forms of material change, in so far as it would probably be impossible to make a reliable distinction between one and the other. I guess they calculated that those who had not benefited at all could be ignored—that they could afford to concede a short-term position but recover, no doubt with added interest, in the longer term—something they would keep quiet about in the interim. HMRC would thus hold to the mantra of fiscal neutrality, which I have mentioned in the House before, and reinforce its view that there are too many appeals, that managing appeals does not sit easily with the general direction of travel, and that making things administratively cheap to run trumps fairness and equity to ratepayers in a system that has become overstretched, if not overstressed, by the demands made of it over many years. This of course has followed the earlier massive reductions in the capacity of the Valuation Office Agency.

Whatever may be promised by way of additional resources to that agency, which is a critical part of all this, it will be years before the capacity and technical excellence of a once venerable body of professionals gets back to anything near its former self, always assuming that the new resources—if indeed they are new—are other than a race to develop some automated valuation algorithm.

The Government are particularly good at window dressing, but in making a promise of £1.5 billion to be spent by local authorities for further relief of certain business rate payers, they make no reference to the manner, timing or precise purposes to which this relief will be put, so it remains, to some extent, a “jam tomorrow” aspiration. The Minister might like to enlighten the Committee—here I follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath—on the origins of the £1.5 billion figure and how it has been calculated, just as every business rate payer and every billing authority would like to know how it will be distributed in practice.

While I am at it, perhaps the Minister can also tell us when the promised further guidance that relates to that distribution will be published. I may be accused of harbouring dark suspicions, but I suspect that it will be too late do anything about it for the 2022-23 fiscal year. This will also be the assumption of local government finance officers and businesses alike, if the Minister cannot assure us of an early date, this side of mid-January 2022, when finance officers will be fixing their budgets and businesses considering their forward programmes. A company that got hammered—excuse the term, but I think it is right—in 2020, may not get any help until 2023. If I am right, that will be just another facet of the creative accounting by the taxman which ultimately costs jobs, blunts enterprise, discourages investment and dents productivity—end of homily.

On previous occasions, I have mentioned the total lack of trust and confidence among those medium-sized and large businesses whose rates bills do the heavy lifting in this area of local government finance. I have previously pointed out the business rate unfairness, its asymmetry with regard to the use of local government services and the dangers of gaming the system of valuation and fair access to appeals, which have now gone on for many years. The Government may consider that the fundamental review that they have responded to will save business rates as a tax, but I am fairly confident that, economically and practically, it is probably too late.

I believe that the Minister is an honourable man. I do not blame him: he inherited this situation, so I give him the benefit of the doubt in suggesting that he can do something about rolling back a bad position in his response today, which I await with interest. That is why I oppose Clause 1 standing part of the Bill.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Earl of Lytton and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Monday 15th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am very glad to speak in this debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for moving the amendment. I was very pleased that the Government confirmed in Committee that domestic abuse protection orders would cover the workplace as well as the home. This is a very important step in ensuring that victims remain protected at work, and it is a first step to ensuring that domestic abuse is seen as a workplace and trade union issue. Home and work cannot be neatly separated, and this has never been truer than during the Covid pandemic.

I declare my interest as a member of UNISON, and I was particularly pleased that its campaign was so successful. I warmly congratulate its new general secretary, Christina McAnea.

There is no room for complacency, as the noble Baroness said. I am certainly convinced of the need to ensure that victims of domestic abuse are protected at work and that their employers do everything they can to support them. I have already said that home and work issues cannot always be neatly separated. Abusive and violent behaviour does not always take place in the home; it can frequently cross into the workplace, where victims experience stalking, threats, harassment and even worse. Equally, work can be a lifeline to independence and survival for victims of domestic abuse, as they are ordinarily able to leave their homes to go elsewhere and can maintain a level of income independent from the perpetrator.

All victims should feel safe in the knowledge that they can take action to put their lives back on track with their employment secure, and that they will be protected while they are at work. The Government have a responsibility to ensure that victims of domestic abuse are protected at work and that their employers do everything they can to support them.

We know from a TUC survey from 2015 that one in 10 of those who experienced domestic violence reported that the violence continued in the workplace. Over 90% of respondents to the survey who had experienced domestic violence reported that it had caused conflict and tension with co-workers, and a quarter of respondents reported that their co-workers were harmed or threatened.

This is where discussion about the code of practice comes in. The requirement that the code should be

“designed to ensure that persons affected by domestic abuse who are workers receive appropriate care and support”

is certainly an interesting suggestion. From listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, I can certainly see the attractions of a code of practice. As she said, she has had discussions with relevant organisations on it.

However, I put to the noble Baroness the risk that, in any criminal or civil proceedings, compliance with the code by an employer may become the issue, rather than the domestic abuse carried out by a perpetrator. In the experience of UNISON, with which I have discussed the amendment, the introduction of a policy would seem to be much more effective in encouraging victims to volunteer that they are affected by domestic abuse, enabling referral to appropriate support agencies. In other words, while employers must ensure that they are meeting their duty of care, this might be seen as a blunt instrument. But I recognise that it is being moved with the best of intents and, in the work that goes forward, I am sure that it will be important to consider a code alongside the other measures that are clearly important to take.

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

My Lords, as someone involved in a small business as an employee, and having run a number of small businesses over many years, I can certainly applaud the general sentiment behind this amendment. However, its scope would potentially enmesh a category of small business that could be regarded as disproportionately wide. We should bear in mind that many are microbusinesses: they do not have HR departments and may well operate, as my employer does, in a very dispersed and diffuse mechanism. Setting in place a code and signposting this issue is, however, certainly desirable.

Work environments are not always on fixed premises—they may be in all sorts of places. In construction, certainly, they can be literally anywhere and in all sorts of circumstances. All sorts of people may be involved in those setups as an employer or employee, within the definition proposed here.

I want to refer to the other examples that we have for ensuring better workplace consciousness. We had this on health and safety: ultimately, that was backed by statutory provisions but it had a massive effect on the culture of safe working in construction, in particular—possibly not so much on farming, where children were particularly at risk. More recently, we have had what might be described as a much more voluntary process on mental health. Much has been said about this over the last two or three years to do with employees looking out for what might be troubling their colleagues and just asking them: “Are you all right?” So often it is that which is brought to the attention of somebody who matters and can achieve an effect, rather than necessarily the employer, who may be somewhere else and not in direct contact.

This is a matter of best practice. It goes along with general health and bereavement, and that sort of thing. I am less sure that making it prescriptive is the right way forward. As I said, I applaud the principle and general sentiment behind the amendment. If the Minister felt that she could concede to the point of at least producing some detailed statutory or other guidance that could be followed, it would be a material step forward.