International Women’s Day

Lord Addington Excerpts

Friday 10th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, in this rather unexpected role of summing up in this debate, it may be a real case of a fool rushing in where an angel would have turned tail and got out of there right quick.

The tone that I take from this debate is primarily that we are pointing out the lack of resource, or rather the resource that we are turning down, for the betterment of society. If we do not allow 51% of our population to play their full part—I speak for the 49%—we are making our lives rather more difficult than they should be. We are not allowing ourselves that luxury of the support that is out there. There is enough status to go around, to be perfectly honest. If we settle for just half—after all, it is slightly more than we are entitled to—we will not be doing too badly.

The specific points that I was going to raise were to do with women in education. This was inspired by my long-standing interest, of which I remind the House, in special educational needs, particularly in the neurodiverse sector. Something that we have discovered during the past couple of decades is that a problem that we thought was almost exclusively male is rather better shared out between the sexes.

We think that the number of dyslexic, dyspraxic and autistic females, and those with ADHD, were not spotted because of something that works in favour of women—they handle the classroom better than their peers. They soldier on, just about get through and keep their heads down. They try to get on. They put that bit of extra work in, as opposed to taking the traditional male route—this a stereotype; there are obvious exceptions, but it seems to be the rule—and thus they do not get noticed. The boy at the back with ADHD who kicks off, has a meltdown, runs around and gets himself thrown out of the class is noticed, while the girl with ADHD is sitting there playing with her hair obsessively, rearranging her pencils or fidgeting. Those coping strategies are for the same condition, but one is just about acceptable in the classroom and the other is not.

There are costs beyond education departments. A girl with high-functioning autism who is not spotted or paid much attention to in the classroom has the enormous stress of trying to handle that unfriendly environment and adhere to the norms of not only the classroom but her classmates and the break period. I was told of one case, “Yes, she got through the classroom; the meltdowns come when she gets home.” They can totally withdraw from the rest of the family when they get home, because the stress involved is far too high to remain bottled up for ever.

The same is true of dyslexia, particularly for the person who is not dramatically badly affected but who is just about getting on with it, or not failing dramatically enough to be noticed. That person in the middle, who puts their head down and is okay, will carry on, while the one who kicks off or complains loudly will be spotted. Dyslexia, which is the world I know best—I am dyslexic, and took the female approach for most of my career—was said to be four times as common in males as in females. Every time someone has looked at it, that figure has come down a little more. Anecdotally, I suspected that it could not be true—although I probably repeated it in this Chamber—and that we were not spotting what was going on.

The real reason I raise this today is that yesterday we had that wonderful, much-delayed Statement on special educational needs. I am afraid that the same Minister is about to speak. When she sums up, could she give us some idea of the amount of training being delivered to spot the quiet person who is struggling on? That is so important, as is getting in there early. I spoke about the waste of potential; we are wasting potential and making that person’s life more unpleasant. We are not getting them the help and structure that they need.

It is very odd that there seems to be some stigma when this is spotted in the classroom. At universities, there is not; if you have struggled through to them, they are quite good at helping you get support, help and the assessment that goes with the disabled students’ allowance. It is quite common to find someone who has been assessed there later on, but not at school. What is the education sector doing to make sure that it spots everyone, not just the noisy ones? This is an extension of the fact that the whole sector is dependent on the tiger parent.

Unless we get schools and the education structure to do more of the spotting of what is going on, we will always underestimate these groups, particularly among those who do not come from what we will call the exam-passing classes. A person in such a group might be the first to get a qualification. I hope that the Minister will have a few words to say about this when she winds up, because underestimating this group is probably the best bit of unconscious prejudice I have found in a while.

What is the Minister doing to encourage girls to take up sports that give them status? They are generally male sports, of course; the prejudice is historical. I hope the Minister will encourage girls to play the mainstream popular sports. Football is the first and rugby is not doing too badly. The fact that women now have their own Six Nations competition, not tucked in behind the men on a Saturday evening, is a step forward, as is England Women doing so well in the World Cup—and I am somebody who cheers for Scotland. I hope the Minister will give us a hint about what the Government are doing to make sure that these big team games that get attention are being made as accessible as those played by men—or, if they are not doing that, that they are encouraging blokes to play netball.

I hope that the Minister in her reply to my one or two points—and the many other, probably more expected, points—will be able to give us an idea of how the Government will look at and identify women in society who have slightly more hidden problems. If you get them wrong in the education sector, you are always running with a sack on your shoulders.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Baronesses and noble Lords who have spoken today. In particular, I welcome my noble friend Lady Lampard; like hers, my mother was both a refugee and an indomitable woman, so I can identify with some of what she said. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned the warm welcome she got when she arrived in this House from the noble Baroness, Lady Gale; the noble Baroness gave me an incredibly warm welcome and I know that my noble friend will receive an equally warm welcome from all sides of your Lordships’ House.

Our debate today has provided a space in which to reflect on the many challenges that disproportionately affect women and girls. However, it has also shone a light on the progress we have made in overcoming some of the barriers that prevent women and girls fulfilling their true potential.

Of course, as your Lordships have noted, it is critical in achieving this both at home and abroad that girls and young women get a proper, broad education. It is only fitting, therefore, that I remind the House that the UK is a world leader in championing girls’ education. We used our presidency of the G7 in 2021 to agree two ambitious global targets: getting 40 million more girls in education and 20 million more girls reading by the age of 10 by 2026. Educating girls helps to prevent child marriage and early pregnancy; it helps women into the workforce; and it boosts household incomes and economic growth.

There is a huge global education crisis, exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, with 244 million children out of school globally. More than half those children are girls. Through the girls’ education action plan, which we published in 2021, the UK supports education systems in developing countries to deliver quality education for all children in a way that is safe, inclusive and sustainable. That is so important to overcome some of the stereotypes that a number of your Lordships referred to, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Ludford, my noble friend Lady Jenkin and the noble Lord, Lord Sahota. Indeed, I got a text message from my daughter this morning because apparently the Financial Times is running an article titled “Style Your Life FT Pink”. She reminded me that, when she was a child, she thought her father got a grey paper and her mother got a pink paper because her mother was a woman. Someone had better break it to the editor of the FT.

At home, the Government recognise the huge contribution of the early years workforce to making sure that every child has the best start in life. The noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins, Lady Twycross and Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Monks, all stressed the importance of accessible and affordable childcare. I was concerned about the case the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, raised of a woman who found it too complex to navigate. Supporting the childcare and early years workforce continues to be a priority for the department. That is why we are supporting the sector in early years to recruit and retain more staff, for example by providing additional funding for graduate-level specialist training leading to early years teacher status. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, knows, we are also funding an accredited level 3 early years SENCO qualification so that all children with special educational needs and disabilities, in particular the young girls to which the noble Lord referred, are identified at the earliest possible point.

In relation to childcare, we know that the sector is facing economic challenges similar to the challenges faced across the economy. We have already announced additional funding of £160 million in 2022-23, £180 million in 2023-24 and £170 million in 2024-25, compared with the 2021-22 financial year, for local authorities to increase the hourly rates paid to childcare providers. This is crucial for improving the cost, choice and availability of childcare for working parents.

More broadly, in relation to flexible working, which the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, referred to, on 5 December 2022 the Government published the response to their consultation on flexible working, which committed to give all employees the right to request flexible working from their first day of employment. This will ensure that an additional estimated 2.2 million people will be able to request changes to their hours, times or place of work. The Government have also committed to further legislative changes that will support more open and constructive engagement between employers and employees to find acceptable flexible working arrangements.

My noble friends Lady Seccombe, Lady Meyer and Lord Shinkwin all expressed their concerns about the relationships and sex education curriculum in schools. Just to clarify for the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, the Government are clear that biological sex is a fact. It exists and it clearly matters.

There is a very sensitive and precious relationship between schools and parents, and keeping that confidence and level of trust between schools and parents, particularly in these very sensitive areas of the curriculum, is critical. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister was absolutely clear earlier this week when he said that schools should not be teaching inappropriate or contested content in this area. Our priority should always be the safety and well-being of children, and schools should make the curriculum content and materials available to parents. We will be bringing forward a review of the statutory guidance on the relationship, sex and health education curriculum and starting a consultation on that as soon as possible.

My noble friend Lady Sater and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to the importance of school sport. I feel I need to readjust the noble Lord’s perception of status: I think, given the performance of the Lionesses, that perhaps status has tipped a little in favour of the women—but I will leave him to consider that point.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

The point I was making was that football is traditionally seen as a male sport—that is the status they have gained—not the fact that women’s sport itself has changed.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

It was a joke, mate.

Social Mobility Commission

Lord Addington Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have no plans to do that. Katharine made very clear why she left in her article in Schools Week. The Minister for Women and Equalities has been very clear about how grateful she is to Katharine for her time as chair and also to Alun Francis, her deputy, who has now taken over as interim chairman. The commission has done excellent work under Katharine’s chairmanship and Alun’s deputy chairmanship, and that work will go on, so we have no plans to change anything at the moment.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, as I have read it, the person who has resigned felt that they were doing more harm than good in the end. Can the Government make sure that they define exactly what they are supposed to do, and that the public know what that is, so that when the next person takes up this role on a permanent basis, we can all know what to expect and they can know what to deliver?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, it is very clear what the SMC should be doing. It is written down in its agreement with the Government. It has been delivering that, and it will continue to deliver that. I know that the commission met on 9 January under the deputy chairman, Alun Francis, and it is continuing to work and continuing with the priorities set previously by Katharine, Alun and the commission.

Building Safety Defects

Lord Addington Excerpts

Wednesday 5th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

Sorry; that is north London. Someone who has served in local government will have experience, obviously, of public housing. I was leader of Hammersmith and Fulham for six years and a councillor there for 16 years. Of course, when it comes to public housing or social housing, there are things that you can do, but this is something that goes right across the built environment—both private housing and public housing. We will look at measures, obviously driven through local government, but that will not solve this crisis in the round. Noble Lords have to await the announcement from my right honourable friend in the other place.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, do the Government not agree that the arbitrary line of 18 metres has led to much of this confusion and the fact that people feel they have been trapped? Can the Government please give us an assurance that they will not make that sort of arbitrary line in future?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

It is not arbitrary; it is well established that 18 metres is the cut-off point for a high-rise building. It helps us to categorise buildings. We do it in storeys as well. We have had The Cube, which I think was 17.5 metres in height rather than 18 metres, so it is anything above six storeys. But it helps us to understand the scale of the problem. The reality is that the scale of the problem is far greater in high-rise buildings; you cannot get ladders up tall buildings. As many will know, when it comes to firefighting— I happen to be the Fire Minister as well—it is much harder to help evacuate high-rise buildings than medium or low-rise ones. Therefore, I think it is right to have this line. But we will have something called a PAS 9980 that will help to risk assess the problem, irrespective of height, and that will be introduced shortly.

Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Lord Addington Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, follow that. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, started with what we might call a tricky spin and then we had straight bowling at the wicket from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.

Anybody who has been around this issue will have heard variations of these points before; they are the obvious points. If you have a scheme that people are not accessing, you might as well not have it.

One of the points I wanted to make was this. With varying savings of 22p and £7.95, it might seem churlish to complain, but are those savings at the cost of guiding people through the benefits? I am thinking of somebody wanting to pick up the phone to be told how to do it properly, especially if this is something that they do not do very often and they are not that confident.

This is a useful tool in the battle against climate change, because it gives people information about how to go on from here. But are we going to make sure that the housing stock changes? To my knowledge, there has been agreement for over 30 years that we have very badly insulated housing in this country. This is no surprise to anybody who has been around this issue; even if you had wanted to avoid knowing it, it would have been very difficult not to have found it out. How are we going to get through that?

A small reduction is lovely—everybody likes that—but are we even going to notice a 22p change and a seven quid change on the fees? What is the cost here? Have we made sure that there will be somebody at the end of a phone line, to chat through the process and make sure people know what they are getting, how it is being used and the benefit? What if you get something wrong online and there is nobody to help you? On such occasions my use of expletives goes through the roof. If you are not used to using the system online or have limited access, things may not happen as they should. How are we going to talk people through it?

I totally endorse the points made about the fact there should be a long-term, reliable strategy to address the long-term problem—that has been here long before any of us were—of badly insulated housing, and that people are wasting money and we are messing up the environment. I thank the Government for what they have been doing and the greater incentive they have brought forward. But there is a long way to go and this is an old problem. I look forward to the answers that the noble Lord gives.

Northampton Town Football Club

Lord Addington Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, if there are criminal matters, it is for the police to investigate those, and it is for the Electoral Commission to investigate any other wrongdoings. It is important that we learn the lessons of this, so that it does not happen again, and that the recommendations that follow from the public interest report are carried out in full.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, if we take it as read that something has gone very wrong politically here, could the Minister cast his eye over the situation of Northampton football club? Would its situation be better if the Government had taken seriously the suggestion by the Minister’s honourable friend Helen Grant that there should be a commissioner to look at football finance, which could be funded by football? Surely that might have taken the edge off the situation.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am not an expert in football finance, but I can say that it is very ill-advised for the leader of any council to undertake a loan that is not properly secured; this has resulted in the loss of a tremendous amount of income to the people of Northampton.

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

Lord Addington Excerpts

Report stage & Lords Hansard
Monday 1st March 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Addington]

2: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Assessment of effects of timing of business rates revaluations on amateur sports clubs and clubs providing other facilities
Within six months of the passing of this Act, and biennially thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish the report of a review analysing the effects of the timing of business rates revaluations on amateur sports clubs and those providing facilities for physical recreation and cultural activities.”

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I return to the subject of support for amateur sports clubs which I raised in Committee. I, too—I might as well clarify it now—do not expect to divide the House at the end of this debate. Of course, the Minister might just manage to inspire me by his answer, but that is not normally his style. Let us see if we can be consistent about that.

The reason why I am raising this again is that, although the Minister gave me some answers, I want a bit more detail and thought about how the Government are planning for the future of sports clubs and sport itself. The Government have accepted their importance by giving them some support throughout the lockdown period, but the problems sports clubs have will, as in all sectors, not stop the minute they get back. Actually, the minute we start activity again, problems will be exposed and identified. All of them can be accentuated by finance. Business rates are part of that. That is where it comes from, so let us see if we can get some idea of whether the Government are prepared to go across department and across thinking to make sure that they accept that this group is worth keeping on.

Why are sports clubs worth keeping on? It is quite simple: in this country we have a tradition of sports clubs running themselves and being set up without government support, often with the help of employers—indeed, employers have set up sports clubs which have survived when the employer has gone. We have a tradition of self-help which has provided the infrastructure for sport to take place. At amateur level, sport is dependent on that structure. These clubs and centres depend, for example, on their bars and on renting out rooms for other functions to keep themselves going. They are small businesses and act in the business environment even with charitable status. They have a consistent relationship of raising their own funds. How the Government are thinking slightly longer term to make sure they can carry on doing that is vital.

Let us not kid ourselves: there is a major problem coming through here. I do not know how enforced inactivity has at the moment encouraged people to retire early from a club; for instance, retiring at 32 as opposed to 35. There has been a break in activity. To take a classic example, you will not get fit as easily as you did and you have started doing something else, so you ask yourself whether you want to go through the pain and discomfort of getting back into shape. It is one of the first considerations. Also, perhaps people think they should spend more time with something else. It is when that interaction stops that people stop going. We all know that; anybody who has been involved in this knows it. I do not know how rugby union is going to handle it, having had probably the biggest break. It is probably the biggest example of this model. It will have to restructure. I do not know how, but it will be something to come back to. The Government have said they value these clubs and all the activity outside, education and structure. Clubs are going to have a problem structuring how they take on their activity and how that relates to funding.

Rates is part of that, so I will be looking to get from the Government today an idea of how they think this bit of government fits in. The idea of getting an initial review and then a continuing one is very important. Let us face it: I am not an expert on rates. Having attended a couple of meetings with my colleagues, I decided that I probably do not want to become one. This is a complicated, difficult thing. Something that has no intellectual friends is probably business rates. There is probably someone hiding in a cupboard in Whitehall who quite likes them, but that is about where they are. Can we have a look at how this local taxation affects sports clubs? How are the Government taking this on? Sports clubs are important. We are hearing about social interaction and mental health problems. Sport is a great medium for that. It is the social connection that goes through. It is physical connection and support, and something that is tied into so many other bits of government that it is not true. I hope that when the Minister answers this amendment he will give us an idea of how his department is taking a lead or feeding in on this, because it is one of the links in the chain. If this link is strong and healthy, the rest of that chain may just survive. I beg to move.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to my interests in sport as set out in the register. It is a pleasure and a privilege to follow my noble friend in sport, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and support Amendment 2 in his name. During the passage of this Bill, the noble Lord and I have simply sought to point out that, at a critical time as we seek to emerge from Covid-19 in 2021, it is hoped that the Government will finally take the vital opportunity to initiate new policies. This includes the adoption of this new clause to give a new national impetus to sport, recreation and an active lifestyle, which was missed at the last opportunity created by the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in support of us, particularly my friend in sport, although I prefer “collaborator”. I thank the Minister for his reply about the current system and for saying that if you have done the right thing, you will get some benefit out of it. That is fair enough, as such things are fairly hard won in the first place. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, had a chat about the creation of community amateur sports clubs—a conversation which, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and I were both in on, in the Moses Room. Civil servants were more or less told to go back and think again, so a precedent has been set that should perhaps be looked at at some point. These groups do good things and do the Government’s job for them.

My amendment also mentioned physical, recreational and cultural activities. We did not really get round to them in the debate but they are also important. Maybe we should think about dance classes, local am dram and music group facilities as well. The Minister has acknowledged that the Government as a whole have a responsibility here. It is not something that can be pushed off to health, DCMS, education or meetings at junior functionary level, and then be ignored; it is a priority. The most important point here is that the Government as a whole should support this as it does their work for them in many fields. I do not think there is much dispute about that.

However, if rates is not the way forward, I look forward to dragging out of whoever happens to be sitting where the Minister is now how they are going to do it and combine the various areas, because that is the important thing to come out of this. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

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

Lord Addington Excerpts

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

The Bill will help, and our amendment will help further. I urge my noble friend the Minister to talk to colleagues in the Treasury and seek the changes that are an essential component to the survival of the sector. Should he accept the amendment, he would unite the Committee and the House, giving my noble friends in sport Lord Botham and Lord Addington—and, dare I say it, even Jeremy Clarkson, who much maligned my noble friend the Minister on another occasion—the opportunity to show their gratitude on behalf of the world of sport.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lord Addington Excerpts

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

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, my taking part in this Bill is totally down to the presence of two other names on the list. The first is that of my noble friend Lady Thomas, because of the points she made when one of these Bills was first presented to the House. When I heard her speech, I said, “I should have been there to back her up.” The second is the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, because when he puts his name down you can reckon there will probably be something about sport. There was not a big jump from rating to small sports clubs—it was not down, but it was something that was going through.

To deal with them in that order, the provision of public toilets, particularly for giving some support to those who are disabled and need access to them, is something a civilised society should do. If you think about it, what you are trying to avoid is a disabled person being fundamentally humiliated—or risking that—when they go out in public. To be perfectly honest, if someone fouls themself, it is not only unpleasant and unsightly, but that person has been marked down as “other”—as being beneath you in public. That is what it effectively amounts to. You have to bear that in mind. You have to actually put that down and say, “That will restrict that person; that fear will restrict them more than just about anything else.” Anybody with them does not want to go through that either.

In coffee shop culture, if we ever get back to it, where cafés have a loo, there is also that little sign that we used to see only in pubs: “Customers’ use only”. It is not a public facility; you are not sure if it is there. You have to go into the place and find it. Is it upstairs or down? We do not know. Many of the suggestions we have heard today, about making available the knowledge of where toilets are and so on, are things that, as a civilised society, we should take on board fundamentally.

To turn my attention to the points about the rating value and the amateur sports groups or smaller sports clubs, we have agreed the principle; let us get the practice down so that it is easy to administer. Let us help these groups. In our society we have a huge bonus in our small sports clubs because, due to historical accident, they are usually self-funded. Local government is not required to provide the stade municipale, as it would be in France. Small clubs have financed themselves. They have given us an infrastructure that will implement government policy—and has been seen as something to implement public policy—for many years. Give them this little bit of help. The principle has been accepted; just say, “Go and get on with it.”

I do not know how many times I have said this, but we have institutions funded either by people taking part and paying a match fee—or whatever you call it—or by the bar. Neither of those income streams is coming in. The Government will have to look at this and are probably keeping an eye on making sure that these institutions stay there, but the higher echelons of most of these sports are not generating the money that used to trickle down. We have a major problem there to keep something that we need and use—to implement the rest of government policy—functioning, or at least functioning at the rate it should. You will not get more people being more active without the use of these things. Even in later-life activity, if you have never moved till the age of 50, and then someone says, “Why don’t you go for a walk with everybody else?” it will be like climbing the Eiger to go up a small hill, to be perfectly honest. We have to make sure that the facilities are there.

I will leave my remarks there, but unless we address these fundamental problems, by making sure that somebody feels safe and has their personal dignity intact when they go out, they will not go out. Let us make sure that we have public toilets you can get to. When it comes to sports clubs, if you have something for free, provided by the general public, that implements government policy, it is insane not to make sure that they can continue to function in the future, especially after the experience of Covid.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Addington Excerpts

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

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Balfe on his interesting and in-depth trip down Mill Road. That brings back all kinds of memories from being a student at Cambridge. I will speak briefly, but I ask my noble friend the Minister to address all my points in detail when she sums up the debate because that may be the most expeditious way of resolving them. I shall speak to Amendments 36, 37, 40 and 43 in my name, and I thank other noble Lords who have put their names to them and have agreed to speak.

These amendments all have a clear purpose, one that I believe is in line with the purpose of the Bill, which is to get the economy moving again. We should have done this earlier and we could have done so, but we are doing it now and that is a good thing. I have a few issues with this part of the Bill, where I believe that we could improve the outcome for businesses, for individuals and for society.

The amendments address the position of small independent breweries which find themselves shut out of the provisions of the Bill—and thus the economic restart—as currently drafted. The amendments seek to enable small independent breweries to sell alcohol directly to the public for a temporary period in a safe and measured way that is in line with the other temporary measures being put in place for other sectors of the economy. In the circumstances, I believe that this would be both proportionate and low in risk. It could be done by using the normal licensing procedure in these circumstances and for this to be seen as a minor variation, as set out in Amendment 40.

Similarly, Amendment 43 seeks to allow the use of temporary event notices. Increasing the number of these notices would give the local authority even more control over the situation because it will issue them to businesses that have already been issued with them. There will be a track record and the authority will have a knowledge and understanding of how those businesses operate. That would not be a shot in the dark because HMRC knows these businesses. They will be on the system and they will have passed the fit and proper person test. The notices would be for a temporary period to enable small independent breweries to get back into business rather than potentially going to the wall or, indeed, needing to come cap in hand to the Government. This would resolve those issues.

There is also an important secondary benefit in having more venues open: patrons would be more able to observe social distancing because there will be more places to go to have a drink. Moreover, small independent breweries are not often located in residential areas or in zones such as those described by my noble friend Lord Balfe. It makes sense to spread people out so that they can go out for a drink safely and thus help start up the economy again.

As I have said, I hope that my noble friend the Minister can address all of the specifics raised in Amendments 36, 37, 40 and 43. I look forward to her response and to hearing the comments of other noble Lords.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I shall confine my comments predominantly to Amendment 38, which stands in my name. It is an attempt to bring sports clubs and other similar concerns with licences into line with the rest of the off-sales from the licensed premises sector.

We spoke about this at Second Reading and the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said in his usual disarming way, “Oh, don’t worry. You can get a licence or special arrangements can be made.” We are talking here about a short-term move that may last for two or three months. If sports clubs need to get a licence every time they require one, a fast-track system for doing so is needed or they will miss out on many opportunities. Those opportunities are important because sports and other clubs need their bar revenues to continue to function; it is that simple. The model for a sport such as cricket is that the bar is part of how the club ensures that it can maintain the ground, maintain kit and run the juniors programmes. That is why we want this provision in the Bill—we want these clubs to operate on similar terms to those of other businesses.

If there is a way around this that we have not come across before, that is great. It is not about doctrinaire issues but is purely practical. If there is another way of dealing with this, let us hear about it—but if we do not get this and have to have a process of licensing down there, people will miss out. I appreciate that the Government have to act fast with the difference in the two licensing applications, but can we have a practical solution to this? That is all I am really asking for.

We have other stages to go through on this Bill. If we can find one that works, I will be happy and the people who have been nudging me forward will be happy—at least, I hope so—but we need to make sure it is dealt with. The bars of clubs are important to their function, and their function is generally regarded as a public good. Surely putting them on the same terms for one or two days a week as a pub or anywhere else selling alcohol will not damage society greatly, and indeed may improve it.

Housing for the Homeless

Lord Addington Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, if we are to deal with the underlying problem of rough sleeping we must identify the individual cocktail of events that has led somebody there. We tend to think of them as a category of people. All of them will be a series of individual stories. Will the Minister say whether there is any plan to test for underlying reasons why a person has failed to get the support systems outside? Will they particularly check for what is commonly referred to as special educational needs, such as dyspraxia, dyslexia and attention deficit disorder—anything that would mean that someone would find it difficult to handle the process of filling out forms, attending meetings on time et cetera? If we can get a handle on this and get coping strategies into this group, we may well help ourselves.