Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill

Lord Greaves Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Greaves]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “consists wholly or mainly of” and insert “is used wholly or mainly as”

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 2, which is in the same group. This follows what I thought was an interesting and useful discussion in Committee on the meaning of the words “wholly or mainly” when it came to defining whether a hereditament qualified for the zero rating under business rates as a public lavatory. In Committee I probed whether “mainly” was about the area it covered, perhaps the floor area, the value or the use. The Minister made it very clear that it was about the use; I have been reading what he said in Committee and that is very clear indeed. I will come back to that because Amendment 1 is the more important of these two amendments.

Amendment 2 is about the percentage use of the hereditament that qualifies for non-payment of any business rates. In Committee the Minister made it clear that the words “wholly or mainly” were put in because, he said, they are commonly used words in this kind of legislation, particularly in relation to charities. He referred to case law and to local authorities having some flexibility in whether they decide it is a public hereditament. He said:

“The use of ‘mainly’ means that an authority may, for example, look at the floor area of a building and see that less than 50% is being used directly as a public lavatory, but it may still feel that it meets the criteria … because the remaining area is used as storage or for other matters of little consequence.”—[Official Report, 24/2/21; col. 852.]


The useful discussion that we had there again put the emphasis upon the use of the hereditament. The Minister went on to refer to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and its reference to charities.

The interesting thing is that it is not entirely clear that 50% is absolutely clear and written into the legislation. The Minister kept saying that he did not want greater burdens to be put on local authorities and did not want them to spend more time on this, yet there seems to be some disagreement, in the context of business rates relating to use for charitable purposes, about whether the proportion of the use that is taking place has to be 50% or more. The Charity Tax Group says in its briefing:

“In order to benefit from the mandatory exemption from business rates it is important to understand the meaning of ‘wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes’. Case law suggests that ‘mainly’ probably means ‘more than half’; but there is a certain amount of ambiguity about this and the interpretation may vary from local authority to local authority”


which is unsatisfactory.

“It is sometimes argued that ‘mainly’ in fact means more than 75 per cent. Charities may have to try to negotiate this with their local authority.”


I am no expert on this area and I do not know how much of that goes on, but it seems sensible that if “mainly” means 50% or more that ought to be written into the Bill.

Amendment 1 would put into the legislation the exact words in the charitable legislation and the exact words that the Minister said in Committee referred to this legislation. I looked it up. Section 45A(2)(b) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 reads, for charitable relief,

“it appears that when next in use the hereditament will be wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes.”

There is then another paragraph that refers to community amateur sports clubs that has the same wording.

I am therefore trying, in an attempt to be really helpful to the Government, which I always attempt to do in legislation because if we get good legislation it is clear what it means and it is workable, to put into the Bill the wording in the Local Government Finance Act, which in Committee the Minister said applied to this Bill, which is to say that it is not, as this Bill states at the moment

“consists wholly or mainly of”,

but

“is used wholly or mainly”

for public lavatory purposes.

This is a very sensible little amendment. The Government ought to say, “Yes, of course. It’s sensible. Let’s put it in.” I beg to move.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my residential and commercial property interests as set out in the register. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for these two amendments which would change the way a public toilet is defined for the purposes of qualifying for the relief within this Bill.

As currently drafted, the 100% business rates relief will be available to any eligible hereditament which consists wholly or mainly of public lavatories. The first amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would amend this so that eligibility is determined on the use of the hereditament.

The Government aim to make this relief as simple as possible to administer for local councils. When determining whether to award the relief, local authorities should be able to apply a degree of common sense and ask the essential question: “Does it look like a public lavatory”? Therefore, the Government favour an approach based on the physical characteristics of a hereditament, and “consists” achieves this better than “used” does.

While I appreciate the intention of the noble Lord in bringing forward this amendment, I hope that the House will agree that the extent to which a hereditament consists of public lavatories is less likely to be subject to change than the extent to which it is used as a public lavatory. As such, the approach chosen by the Government will result in fewer reassessments of awards of the relief being required.

Furthermore, the Government do not consider that the adoption of either option would result in a material difference to ratepayers. A hereditament consisting of a public toilet is unlikely to be used for any purpose other than that for which it has been designed. This contrasts with the business rates relief available to charities, which hinges on the use of the hereditament. The wording of the charity rate relief reflects that, for example, a hereditament consisting of a shop may be used for either charitable or non-charitable purposes. I do not consider there to be an equivalent issue in the case of public toilets.

I would like to reassure the noble Lord that it is not the Government’s intention for this relief to be available to toilets which are permanently closed and out of use. That is why the Bill amends only Section 43 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988—the section relating to occupied hereditaments. As such, the relief will not apply to unoccupied public lavatories.

The second amendment would define the meaning of the word “mainly” for the purposes of awarding the relief in the Bill as meaning “at least 50%”. As I have set out, it is councils and not central government which are responsible for determining eligibility for business rates relief and it is right that there is some element of discretion in this process. The use of the word “mainly”, which is used elsewhere in rates legislation where it remains undefined, achieves this.

It is right that local authorities have the ability to take a common-sense approach in marginal cases and to reflect on their own local knowledge, as well as any relevant case law and guidance, when making their decisions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his proposals. However, on the basis of the points made I hope he will agree to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for devoting some brainpower to this, actually thinking about it and coming up with sensible arguments. On balance, I do not agree with him. It seems that common sense would be to make it as simple as possible —his words—for local authorities, using exactly the same wording they are used to for other things.

I am particularly grateful for his use of the term “common sense”. He may find himself quoted from Hansard in future, when local authorities, as they sometimes do, make completely stupid decisions. It is now written down; it is laid down that common sense has to be used. I should declare my interest as a member of Pendle Borough Council.

I have tried to bring this into line—it will not destroy the Bill. The Minister said that the physical characteristics of public lavatories are very clear and do not change—but their uses do change. We once had a planning application for turning a public lavatory into an ice cream parlour, but I do not think that that succeeded. I think that, had they tried to sell ice cream from it, people would not have thought that it was still a public lavatory, but it is still very true.

I am grateful for what the Minister said; I am sorry that he will not accept my amendments, but I will not push them to a vote—they are not of that degree of importance. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Greaves]

4: After paragraph (2)(a) insert—
“(aa) the provision of public lavatories by town and parish councils,”

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I first pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Randerson for the campaigning which she does on this issue, together with colleagues and campaigning organisations. Not very long ago—perhaps 15 or 20 years ago—there was a view that public lavatories were on their way out. I hate to say this, but they were being flushed away, first because it was thought that they were not necessary and, secondly, because of cuts in local government spending which, as we know, have been particularly strong in the last 10 years. The organisations and groups that campaigned for them then were felt to be rather old-fashioned and out of date. That view has substantially changed now. People are coming to understand that they are so important if we want people to spend time on British beaches, at holiday resorts, using car parks in the hills, and going to town centres, particularly ones which do not have large, emporium-type shops whose lavatories you can use.

But who provides them? I do not know what proportion of public lavatories in this country are provided by town and parish councils, but I suspect that it is a lot higher than the proportion of the population of the country that is covered by them. They tend to cover wider, rural areas that tourists go to, main roads and so on. As my noble friend said, it is getting increasingly difficult to find public lavatories in big cities. They are being closed down. In cities, you can usually find somewhere to go in a pub, a restaurant or a large shop. That is not so in the countryside. It is very difficult to find a parish council, of any size, or a town council that does not own and run at least one public lavatory. Many of them have more than that. They are vital.

I will now get on to something which is a hobby-horse of mine at the moment. I spoke on it in the debate on the Budget last week and I will speak on it on every available occasion that comes up. These democratically elected local bodies called town councils are becoming increasingly important in towns—small and medium-sized ones particularly, but some large ones—which have lost their own local authority councils and which are increasingly losing them as the country moves towards unitary authorities. In place after place, it is these councils, the representatives of the local community, which are providing public lavatories.

In most cases, that is because they are heritage lavatories, in the sense that they were bequeathed to them by a previous town council or, in many cases, the district councils and unitary councils in the boroughs, which previously ran the facilities, where they have a town or parish council, are passing them over to them and saying, “Here it is—we’ll give it to you. It’s not exactly an asset, but nevertheless we will give it to you. It’ll cost you money to run, and it is your responsibility to decide whether you want to keep this going in your area, because we cannot afford it anymore.” That is happening in more and more places.

The problem is that, when a town or parish council decides that it wants a new public lavatory, how is it going to finance it? Very often, town councils are now charging levels of council tax which only a few years ago would have been thought extraordinarily high and impossible, because they are taking on more and more facilities such as parks, leisure centres, community centres and all sorts of things and having to pay for them. The boroughs, districts and unitary authorities are not doing them anymore and cannot afford them, whereas the town councils can put the council tax up and, if local people agree to it, they can keep those facilities going.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Randerson, Lady Thomas and Lady Greengross, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for their amendments, which would require the Government to publish a review of the impact of this Bill on the provision of public toilets.

Every year, the Valuation Office Agency publishes a snapshot of the number of separately assessed toilets as of 31 March. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, my brief research indicates that there were 6,087 public toilets in 2000, and that number had reduced dramatically to 4,627 by 2014 and to 4,383 by 2016. I do not have the exact figure for 2010 but it is clear that we have seen a dramatic reduction over many decades. As I mentioned in Committee, the current figure stands at 3,990 such facilities in England and Wales. This annual data release also breaks the aggregate total down to a local authority level, thus giving an overview of the distribution of these facilities across the country. The VOA will continue to make this data publicly available each year. Any future trends in the total provision of separately assessed public toilets, as well as their distribution across the country, will therefore be apparent.

Of course, the Government do not want to see further reductions in this figure. However, it is important to recognise that the ability for any public toilet to remain open is based on a number of issues. This does not diminish the importance of this Bill, but it does mean that hanging any trends in the provision of toilets solely on this business rates relief would not be the right thing to do. Operators of public toilets—in many cases, local councils—make decisions on the provision of public toilets in their area having reflected on relevant building regulations and their equality duty, as well as financial considerations.

In the first instance, the provision of toilets reflects the relevant building regulations. For example, under current building regulations, all new non-domestic buildings are expected to include a unisex, wheelchair-accessible toilet. Furthermore, I appreciate that Amendment 3 refers specifically to Changing Places toilets. I am pleased to be able to say that a major change in building rules in England made at the start of this year means that it is now compulsory to include a Changing Places facility in certain new public buildings. This is estimated to add these crucial facilities to more than 150 new buildings each year.

The House may also be interested to hear that the Government are currently undertaking a review of Part M of the statutory building regulations, which covers the access to and use of public toilets. This review will cover issues of mobility, demography and wider inclusion, and it will look at the size and layouts of toilets alongside the range of facilities needed to meet the requirements of people with different needs. This review will therefore look at the need to make any changes to building regulations in the context of the need for a fair provision of accessible toilets—including Changing Places facilities—and baby-changing facilities.

Clearly, a one-size-fits-all approach to toilet provision would not be appropriate, and it is important that any support given to the total provision of public toilets is not blind to the need to ensure that the needs of all are met by this provision. That is why my department is undertaking a technical review of toilets which will consider the ratio of female toilets required versus the number for men, as well as the need for a fair provision of accessible and gender-neutral toilets. We have received over 17,000 responses to this review as part of the call for evidence, which ran from 31 October 2020 to 26 February this year. The Government are now considering these representations and will respond in due course.

As well as the important measure in the Bill, the Government are providing significant grant funding to directly support the provision of public toilets. In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, I am happy to give some more detail on the £30 million fund put in place by the Government to support the provision of Changing Places toilets. I am happy to say that the Minister for Regional Growth, Minister Hall, has now announced that this funding will be provided to councils on an opt-in basis so that they can install facilities in their local areas and boost the number of Changing Places toilets in existing buildings. District and unitary authorities in England will be invited to complete a short expression of interest and will soon receive full details of how they can access this funding.

I can also confirm that the Government are partnering with the charity Muscular Dystrophy UK—as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas—to develop guidance to support the allocation of this funding. Muscular Dystrophy UK is an expert in this field and co-chairs the Changing Places consortium. I am sure that the House will agree that this partnership is a positive and important element of a significant multiyear programme to accelerate the provision of these vital facilities.

Finally, I would like to take the opportunity to thank those from across the House who took time to meet me and representatives from the British Toilet Association earlier this week. It was a valuable and constructive meeting and there was broad agreement on the importance of this measure in supporting toilet provision. While I do not think that an assessment of toilet provision in the context of the business rates system would be appropriate, I would be happy to meet again with any Peers who have an interest, as well as with the British Toilet Association, the National Association of Local Councils and the Local Government Association. I hope that this will provide us with an opportunity to further explore what is clearly an important issue, not just to those in this House but to many people across the country, and to build that ambition around the future provision of public toilets that has been called for by so many in this House.

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Randerson, Lady Thomas and Lady Greengross, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for their amendments, which recognise the importance not just of the total provision of public toilets but of having appropriate facilities which meet the needs of all. However, on the basis of the points I have made to the House, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, will withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, along with others, no doubt, I thank the Minister for his great interest in this area. I should apologise for not being able to make the meeting on Monday. I intended to, but I was caught up in a site meeting on ward issues. They are pretty difficult to organise at the moment, so it took rather longer. I apologise for that, but I have had good reports.

The only point I want to make is to thank the Minister for underlining what I was trying, less effectively, to say about the opt-in provision for new Changing Places-type provision and the fact that it does not apply to town and parish councils. However, major public buildings in a small town—a big community centre, a town hall or a leisure facility—may well belong to and be operated by the town council, and often are. The larger town councils at least ought to be included in that, and I wonder whether the Minister could go back and have a look at that. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 4 (to Amendment 3) withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, the amendment seeks to add a new clause. Its purpose is to require a report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament on the number of public lavatories and changing place facilities within 12 months of the passing of the Act, and every 12 months after that.

The report has to address a number of important points and consider whether the Act has increased the closure of public lavatories and, importantly, changing place facilities. We need to have proper conversations with the relevant stakeholders. Like the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I was sorry that I was unable to get to the meeting with the British Toilet Association because I was here, considering the Domestic Abuse Bill at the time. However, I welcome the offer from the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, to talk further on these issues, along with stakeholders such as the British Toilet Association, which does invaluable work for us.

Proposed subsection (4) of the amendment refers to whether the relief should be extended. That is very important. How does one extend rate relief? If the legislation is working, if the number of toilets is increasing and they are not being lost, we may well need to extend that rate relief. I make the point about changing place facilities because they are important. As I mentioned previously, there is now a changing place facility in the Tower of London. It is good enough for one of our historic royal palaces, so we should ensure that many other public buildings provide such a facility.

In the previous debate, I was reminded by my noble friend Lady Andrews of the importance of public health. I love the London Borough of Southwark—Southwark is in my title. The old town hall has a sign saying:

“The health of the people is the highest law”.


It was put there in Victorian times by the old St Mary Newington Vestry Hall. It is absolutely right. Think about what was being done in those times in terms of public health, sanitation and all the important things that had to be addressed. That motto is relevant today in terms of moving forward and ensuring that we address public health by having enough proper toilets available.

If the amendment is agreed, the Government will be asked to bring reports back to this House every 12 months. I suppose that the Minister is not going to accept the amendment. I may be wrong, but I hope that he can respond positively and genuinely because the Government need to arm themselves with that sort of information in order to get this matter right and ensure that the situation is improved for all our citizens.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment. I do not need to say any more about it. It concerns a slightly different aspect of what we have been talking about. Apart from that, I have made the points that I wanted to make. All that I will say is that I will keep on making them until the Government wake up and understand the role of town and parish councils. Having said that, I will sit down.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews.

Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill

Lord Greaves Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as this is my first contribution today, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Amendment 1 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to amend Clause 1(3) of the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to bring into the scope of the Bill those toilet facilities that are in community centres, libraries and other local authority buildings and are free of charge for use by members of the public.

There are clear and undeniable public health benefits to having toilets that are available for the public to use. This amendment seeks to increase that provision. I recognise that in some cases, libraries and other public buildings already make their toilet facilities available to the public. This amendment supports them for doing that, but goes further, as it provides a welcome encouragement for those facilities that do not have the same access provision to be made available to the public. There has been a noticeable decline in public facilities over recent years, and this amendment seeks to reverse that trend by providing rate relief as an encouragement either to continue with the access presently provided or to extend access to the public to take advantage of this rate relief.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has tabled Amendment 9, which I am very happy to support, and the noble Lord will explain the effect of his amendment when he speaks shortly. I beg to move.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his support for my Amendment 9 in this group. I will speak to both my amendment and Amendment 1, which the noble Lord has just moved. I declare my interest as a member of Pendle Borough Council, which no longer has public lavatories but is the rating authority for those that exist. I thank the Government for scheduling this Committee fairly quickly after Second Reading so that we can progress this Bill; it gives us real hope that the Bill will manage to pass in this Session.

The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would follow up amendments moved in the Commons and comments made quite widely by people at Second Reading in your Lordships’ House. They pointed out that very many lavatories that people consider to be public lavatories and that operate as public lavatories are ancillary to other facilities provided by local authorities and other voluntary bodies, and so on. The problem is that, from a rating point of view, they are part of the same hereditament as the facility to which they are basically ancillary and therefore would not come under the provisions of this Bill as it stands. The Minister has kindly written to interested Members of the House putting forward the view that the Government put forward in the Commons that, to exempt these genuine public lavatories from business rates would be onerous—particularly on the Valuation Office Agency, which is responsible for doing all this— and that it would therefore not be practical to go ahead with it.

My Amendment 9 tackles some of the affected lavatories, which would probably not be a very large number. I believe that this could be done without any onerous burden being placed upon the VOA or anybody else. It reads that, for the purposes of subsection 4(I), which is what this is all about,

“a self-contained public lavatories facility which forms part of a larger hereditament and which may be accessed independently from outside that hereditament forms a separate hereditament.”

It is possible that it would have to be done technically in some other way: it might be that it could be done via secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has amendments later on, to which I am not going to speak, but at this stage I will just say that I strongly support them; they provide an opportunity for the Government to tackle the technical details, and there are huge technical details in all this, because it is about rating. They would allow the Government to pick up a lot of the points that we are making in these probing amendments at this stage.

It seems to me that, when a lavatory is part of a council-owned building in the middle of a small town or village—it might be a library, market hall or any other council-owned building—and has an outside door so that, even if there is also an inside door that could be locked when the main building is not open, people would be able to access that from outside, sorting out the separate valuation for a limited number of instances like this would not be a great burden, and it could, and should, be done. In practice, the VOA will have done it anyway when it assesses the rates on the whole building, because here is a separate use from the main building and it will have a look at it and say, “What is the amount that that contributes?” Somewhere in the depths of its records, it probably has the information anyway. Even if it does not have it, however, it is not an onerous task for it to do. The number is relatively small compared with the great majority of lavatories in libraries and so on. I hope the Government will accept the principle of this—I do not expect them to accept my amendment as it is today—and go away and have a look at it. I invite the Minister to say that he will do that.

[Lord Lucas (Con) [V]]

My Lords, as I said at Second Reading, I welcome the Bill. That the Government have chosen to encourage the provision of public lavatories is a great public good, because adequate lavatory provision is a liberation for many millions of people, for whom the thought of not finding one when they go out is a significant restriction on their participation in society as a whole. There are said to be some 14 million people in this country with bowel or bladder problems. That is a very large proportion of the population who are worried about being able to access a public lavatory when they go out.

I really encourage the Government, perhaps not immediately but during the progress of the legislation, to look at opportunities to extend its reach. An obvious example is lavatories in stations, which everyone regards as public lavatories. Victoria station is very well used. It is only in a very peripheral way a part of any other hereditament. The same applies to lavatories in other public buildings, and to push in the direction which is being opened by Amendment 1 is thoroughly worth while.

There is no obvious need for a public lavatory to be a separate building. It seems, given the attractiveness of public lavatories, that having them in a building encourages other uses of that building too, and that their integration into public buildings should be encouraged. If we can find a way round it over the next few years, we should not be privileging just those public lavatories which are free standing.

As has been said, I really hope that the Government look on this as an opportunity, over time, to encourage facilities that are needed for the general public enjoyment of public facilities by extending the rather narrow rating release in the Bill to the many other deserving facilities that are provided at public expense and otherwise, and without which we will find ourselves rather too often caught short.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Greaves]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “or mainly”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment to explore the meaning of “mainly”.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

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

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

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

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

Amendment 7 suggests that “mainly”

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am beginning to learn how the House works, and I appreciate the education; I am sure I will get used to this way of drawing out important information. These amendments probe the current definition of a public lavatory that would qualify for this relief, and seek to amend this definition to capture some of the facilities that the Bill does not currently cover.

The Government have carefully drafted the scope of the Bill, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to set out for the House the rationale behind this decision. Subject to Royal Assent, the relief within this Bill will apply to all hereditaments that

“consist wholly or mainly of public lavatories”.

Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, probes the meaning of “mainly” in this provision. The phrase “wholly or mainly” can be found across government legislation and, in particular, exists within that legislation which provides for an 80% business rate discount to properties used

“wholly or mainly for charitable purposes”,

as the noble Lord mentioned. Local authorities are responsible for deciding which properties are eligible for business rate relief, and the use of “mainly” provides for some discretion on their part.

However, I will directly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on how this would work in practice. Councils should reflect on all relevant matters, including any relevant case law and guidance, when making these decisions. The use of “mainly” means that an authority may, for example, look at the floor area of a building and see that less than 50% is being used directly as a public lavatory, but it may still feel that it meets the criteria for this relief because the remaining area is used as storage or for other matters of little consequence. That is very similar to the example that the noble Lord gave. The Government consider it right that the Bill provides local authorities with this level of discretion because these are decisions best taken on the ground and on the basis of local knowledge.

The second amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, follows on from the first and would act to define “mainly” within the Bill in reference to the extent to which a property is used as a public lavatory, rather than for other purposes. I appreciate that the intention of this amendment is to provide for the relief to be available to buildings that do not constitute separately assessed public toilets but that serve that purpose to a large extent. As I set out earlier, an expansion of the relief beyond those toilets that are separately assessed and have already been identified and separately rated would bring with it significant administrative burdens and costs.

In the case of this amendment, local authorities would be required to not just identify qualifying facilities but assess the extent to which the public are using them for different functions. The public use test would be particularly cumbersome because it would go beyond an assessment of a property’s physical elements and would require an analysis of the extent to which these elements are used by the public. The results of such a test could change relatively frequently, and local authorities may need to make the required assessment on a regular basis.

As currently designed, the measure in the Bill does not carry implementation costs disproportionate to the benefits to ratepayers, nor any significant implementation difficulties for local government. As such, we are not in favour of any amendment to this relief which would increase the complexity of its implementation, create unnecessary burdens for local authorities, or indeed create administrative costs disproportionate to the total benefit to ratepayers. However, I would be keen to engage with noble Lords on some of the technical reasons for not expanding the scope of the Bill.

I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his amendments, which probe the design of the relief before the Committee. However, for the reasons that I have set out, I do not consider that the potential benefits of the amendments would outweigh their substantial costs and I hope that the noble Lord will not press them.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Pinnock and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for their support in this little group, and I thank the Minister for agreeing that we will have some discussions about it. He said that this would be to explain to us what we did not understand, and that we would then understand it. That is fine; I am totally in favour of understanding things.

I hope that the Government understand that some of us, at least, are trying to help them with this, to produce a slightly better Bill. We are not trying to wreck it and certainly not trying to place lots of extra administrative burdens on local authorities. We are looking for ways in which common-sense solutions can be found to problems which are going to occur. Inevitably, a town council will say, “Why are we paying rates on this and not that?” They are not experts, and it will cause all sorts of grumpiness. Also, it will not do, in some instances, what the Government are trying to do, which is relieve the burden on councils, particularly town and parish councils which are increasingly taking on public conveniences. So I hope the discussion we have will be two-way

The Minister said two things. First, he said that, in deciding what “mainly” means, councils should reflect on all the “relevant case law”. He then said that he did not want to put administrative and other burdens on councils. It sounds to me as if the Government are already admitting that there are going to be problems. If you have got to go to all the relevant case law and goodness knows what, it inevitably results in the creation of new case law, because it will get to the courts.

The second thing the Minister said was that the rationale was similar to that for charitable 80% relief, and that that is for “wholly or mainly” charitable use. The word “use” is crucial there, because the Bill does not say “use”, but

“consists wholly or mainly of public lavatories.”

One of my amendments talks about use. Can we look at that, and give the rating authorities a steer that it is the use which is important, rather than the other things, as the legislation does for charitable relief? That might just be a way forward.

I hope that the Government will not be stubborn and say that they are not going to change this under any circumstances, if there are ways through some of these problems. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw at this stage and look forward to discussions with the Minister.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, Amendment 3 in my name seeks to add the words

“which are free of charge for anyone to use”

to Clause 1(3). The Bill provides a financial benefit and the effect of my amendment would be to restrict that benefit to public lavatories that are free to use—a very reasonable aspiration and objective. I do not see why those public lavatories that you must pay to use should be a beneficiary of this relief. The purpose of the Bill is to provide encouragement in this area, and I think that this amendment strengthens the Bill in this regard and provides a clear focus on the free use of public lavatories.

Amendment 10 from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is very sensible and I fully support it. Why should we provide financial benefit when the lavatory is not open for extended parts of the day? But I will let the noble Lord explain his amendment to the Committee.

On a more general point, in resisting amendments in previous groups, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, has relied on the argument that the Government do not want to place additional burdens on local authorities and that any savings would be outweighed by the cost of identifying these lavatories. When he replies to the debate, it would be useful if the Minister could evidence that. I have heard nothing from any local authority—the National Association of Local Councils, the District Councils’ Network, London Councils or the Local Government Association—to suggest that the argument that the Minister is relying on has any basis in fact. So it would be useful if he could explain that to the Committee. Or is it just the assertion of the department? I look forward to his response to the debate.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 10 in my name and Amendment 3, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, which is fairly basic. I am old enough to remember one of the great hue and cry campaigns by women; it would be called a gender campaign nowadays. Not only did they have to spend an old penny—one of those great big things which people under 40 or 50 have never seen—but they had to go through a turnstile, which caused problems for pregnant women. That was a huge hue and cry at the time and was, I think, sorted out—but there are still plenty of supposedly public lavatories where you have to pay. The most disgraceful ones in my view were at mainline railway stations, which started charging considerably more than a penny, but that seems to be being changed now.

Amendment 10 would prevent bodies benefiting from free rates when the lavatories are not open for a reasonable amount of time and at reasonable times. I am always told by lawyers and Governments that the word “reasonable” should never be put in legislation because all legislation has to be reasonable before you start. Nevertheless, this seems to me to be a reasonable thing to discuss in this Committee.

There may well be some public lavatories in tourist areas which are not needed, or not in such quantity, at some times of the year. There may be ones which are needed at some times of the week and not others. It may be perfectly reasonable to lock public lavatories overnight to prevent them being used for undesirable purposes. That was certainly done in my part of the world. There may, indeed, be public lavatories which are open only on special occasions because of where they are and what takes place there. We used to have one which was opened at various times of the year, particularly on Remembrance Day, because it was next to the cenotaph. What is reasonable ought to be up to local decision-making by the owners of the lavatories, but they ought to be stopped from keeping them shut when they ought to be open. That decision ought to be made by the rating authority.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who referred earlier to some confusion in the Bill about what a public lavatory is, in terms of ownership. Does this Bill apply only to facilities owned by councils or by other public bodies, or to other voluntary bodies and charities as well? Does it apply to commercial enterprises that might provide a public lavatory at the entrance of their commercial facility—there might be a park, or whatever—which is open all the time for public use? Could the Minister clarify that? Is it use as a public lavatory, under the Minister’s terms, that matters, or, is it who owns it that matters? That would be a helpful clarification.

My amendment is about how the Government are going to stop people freeloading and getting rate relief when they are not providing the facility they ought to be.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Greaves]

8: Clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert—
“(8E) Subsection (4I) does not provide any relief from non-domestic rates under the Rating (Empty Properties) Act 2007.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that rates continue to be charged on public lavatories that are permanently locked up and out of use.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am happy to give that clarification. I understand the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in his amendment and support what he is trying to achieve. However, let me set out why it is unnecessary. His aim is to ensure that the relief cannot be applied in circumstances where a public toilet is permanently closed and out of use. I can assure the noble Lord that this is the Government’s intention. The Bill is therefore structured to reflect that aim. The Bill will amend only Section 43 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which relates only to occupied hereditaments. The Bill would therefore ensure that the relief would apply only to eligible occupied hereditaments, not to unoccupied public lavatories. As usual, local authorities will be responsible for determining the award of relief, having regard to the legislation, as they do with other relief schemes.

I hope that that clarification on how the measure would apply will help the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I will read carefully the Minister’s reply—and go one more step towards being able to pass my GCSE in business rating. I accept his assurance that what he said will be the case. As on all these occasions, if it happens not to be the case, we will come back and harass him in the House. However, his reply was acceptable; I will read it carefully and attempt to understand it.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall)]

Do I take it that the noble Lord wishes to withdraw his amendment?

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

I am sorry. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

I urge the Government to recognise that the Bill on its own solves nothing. They need to take this situation forward to a better place. In 2021, the availability of clean public toilets is a reasonable expectation for us all. As we recover as a country from Covid, we need to encourage our tourism industry. The state of our public conveniences is a source of national shame. For this reason, if for nothing else, the Government need to do more than just this Bill.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

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

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

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

Lord Greaves Excerpts

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

[Lord Greaves (LD) [V]]

My Lords, coming last after so many people speaking, astonishingly, about public lavatories, which has delighted me, there is nothing substantially new that I can say. I will just talk about one or two things that have happened in my part of the world and about how things need remedying. Before doing so, I declare an interest as a member of Pendle Borough Council. I am not a vice-president of the Local Government Association; I used to be but I resigned in order not to have to declare an interest all the time—I am still sent the briefings. Like other speakers, I commend the National Association of Local Councils, which has provided so much good evidence and, in many ways, run this campaign. In a sense, I am not surprised that there have been so many speakers in this debate in the House of Lords. When you think about it, the demographic of the House suggests that more people here might be concerned about public lavatories than perhaps a younger generation might be.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said, almost at the beginning, the important thing is that there is a need everywhere. There has to be a sufficient number of lavatories in the right places, and many, unfortunately, are not of a sufficient quality; they are what she described as “a disgrace”. The noble Baroness said that there is a need for a national strategy. What worries me is that, if is too much of a national strategy, when national finances get into trouble and there are big cuts, it will be too easy to cut something such as public lavatories. I remind everybody that it was the nationalised railways that closed down a third of the network. I believe that local care and resilience are vital in very local services such as this.

I want briefly to tell a tale of two towns: one is Colne, my own town, and the other is Barnoldswick, next door. Both are on the Yorkshire border. Back in Mrs Thatcher’s time, there was government pressure for what we thought then were massive cuts—little did we know. The council officers thought that public lavatories were an easy thing to cut. They did not have to provide them and thought they were an anachronism in the modern age: people had cars, it was an old-fashioned service and the lavatories were expensive to maintain. They put a lot of pressure on councillors to close them down. In Colne, where I was chairman of the Colne and District area committee, we resisted this as far as we possibly could. Then I took a council holiday and another party took over in Colne and closed down almost all the public lavatories.

Then came austerity, and the cuts to our budgets that we never dreamed would happen did happen. The council as a whole decided that it could not continue to provide a public lavatory service; it simply had to stop doing some things because its budget over 10 years had been cut by half in real terms—I am not exaggerating. So we offered the remaining public lavatories to town and parish councils. Some were taken over, in particular by the very local parish councils, which have looked after their public lavatories—sometimes with volunteers and sometimes using the local odd-job person—and they have been very successful. They have looked after them much better than Pendle council ever did.

Barnoldswick Town Council, on the other hand—I give the plug that it was under the control of my party, the Liberal Democrats—took over the three public toilets in Barnoldswick and significantly increased the council tax precept, because that was the only way we could get extra money. Since then, the public toilets have been looked after by a local contractor from the town, with local care and maintenance. The service has been well received and successful, despite the fact that people are paying more money locally for it.

In Colne, where we have been denuded of almost all our public lavatories, the town council set up a community toilet scheme, which people have been talking about. It got going quite well and had some success, but unfortunately another party then took over the town council and lost interest in the scheme. As I said, it was quite successful but we learned the problems: if you rely on private premises to provide public facilities, they are not open on half-day closing, and quite a few people, for various reasons, are not happy about going into town-centre pubs to go to the toilet or for any other reason. It is not a perfect solution at all. The perfect solution has to be new provision where there is not any. In order to provide that—I think Colne Town Council would be willing to do that and to run it—money is needed to invest in new facilities.

This comes back to one of my beefs: that there is no conventional, easy way for town and parish councils to get capital funding from the Government. Capital grants for town and parish councils are needed if we are really serious about them taking over and providing new facilities. Indeed, when they take over facilities from the principal councils, improving and upgrading them, they have to have sources of money over and above the council tax, because there is a limit to how far people will pay extra council tax for their town and parish councils.

Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement

Lord Greaves Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Bethell is absolutely right and the matter is under review.

[Lord Greaves (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of Pendle Council. Pendle is a small district in east Lancashire. I speak again from the sunlit uplands of east Lancashire but they are not sunlit from the point of view of local government finance. The Minister talks about a 4.5% increase in core spending power but in my authority, if we did not increase council tax by the 2% that is allowed, we would have a reduction in core spending power, which is grossly unfair. About two-thirds of our council tax payers are in band A, which puts that band up to unsustainable levels. It is getting out of hand. People simply cannot afford the council tax that they are now being asked to pay. What is the Minister doing about that? Will he give an absolute commitment that not only is there the £1.5 billion in the settlement for Covid-related extra costs but there is still a commitment from the Government that all extra costs to local authorities from Covid during the next financial year will be met by government grant?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I remind everyone that we have seen a seismic contraction of the economy and that many people have lost their jobs and will need to retrain. This has been a dreadful pandemic and it continues to be extremely tough as we enter another lockdown, but with the glimmer of hope that we have with the vaccine being available. We are providing grant funding that is absolutely flat in cash terms. Baseline funding remains £12.48 billion, the revenue support grant has increased a tad from £2.32 billion to 2.33 billion. Other grants have increased from £4.98 billion to £5.26 billion. That is quite a sizeable increase. There is no reduction at all in cash year on year, with inflation at relatively low levels and, as I mentioned, huge amounts of support for Covid-related pressures. I think that is an excellent financial settlement for local authorities. It really is up to the people in town halls to show some civic leadership and decide what they tax the local residents. If they choose to tax them heavily then they may have to pay the price at the ballot box, but that is democracy for you.

Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2020

Lord Greaves Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of a planning committee, among other things, in a local authority. I very much support the comments made by my noble friend Lord German on the way in which this has been rushed out under the cover of Covid-19. There has been no consultation on the details, as opposed to the principles. Some of them, such as the use class changes, would have benefited from some pilot studies on real issues in real places, to see how it is going to happen. There will be a lot of unintended consequences of this.

Having said that, I want to raise two or three specific points. The first, following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is about the number of neighbour disputes that the proposed new use classes AA and AC will result in. Those of us who have spent too much of our lives on planning committees and within planning know perfectly well how nasty things can get and how disputes can develop on existing planning applications for ordinary extensions—two-storey extensions and so on. The idea is that people will have a fast track to extensions upwards by one or two storeys, but just imagine a couple of semi-detached houses where one is going to be doubled in height. This will result in a lot of aggro, as the noble Baroness suggested. Also, the fact that a rapid, fast-tracked process will be able to push this through beyond the normal planning permission will result in a great deal of disquiet. Quite frankly, I wish the Conservatives the best in explaining this to people who feel like this.

The Explanatory Memorandum says that, given the impact on neighbours during the construction of the additional storeys and any engineering works to strengthen the building,

“the developer must prepare a report setting out the proposed hours of operation and how they intend to minimise any adverse impacts of noise, dust, vibration and traffic movements during the building works on occupiers of the building and neighbouring premises”.

It does not say what the strength and value of such a report will be. Will that report have to be approved by the local planning authority? If it is breached—if the hours of operation are breached, for example, and people start working at midnight—will the local planning authority be able to step in and stop the work? It is not at all clear if that will be the case. So that is my specific question on that.

My second general point is on design. The report Planning Reform: Supporting the High Street and Increasing the Delivery of New Homes says that the Government will consult on the detail of a proposed right which would allow vacant commercial buildings and residential blocks to be demolished and replaced with well-designed new residential units. Previously, the Conservatives had promised us a new generation of “beautiful” buildings. The new National Planning Policy Framework follows up on this, suggesting that where development would be consistent with the prevailing height and form of neighbouring properties and the overall street scene, can maintain safe access, et cetera, it will be okay.

My second question to the Minister is: how much power will local authorities really have to rely on the NPPF to demand that these new extensions and the new buildings, where buildings have been demolished, are of good design and, indeed, beautiful? Will that be an overriding issue, or will the fact that full planning permission is not required mean that it will actually be something of a chimera?

My third point is about town centres. I am checking how much time I have—not very much. I will just say one sentence, then. The implications of all this for the ability of local authorities and councils, not just as planning authorities but as authorities looking after and managing the future of their town centres, will be reduced considerably. There are huge concerns about this.

Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020

Lord Greaves Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I very much support the two eloquent opening speeches from my noble friend Lord German and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, which set out why this proposal is what, in my vernacular way, I would call silly nonsense.

First, it will not have a major impact on the number of houses built or kick-start the economy; it will simply cause a lot of difficulty and nuisance in a few places. I declare my interest as a member of Pendle Borough Council and of a planning committee. I cannot think of a single property in the whole borough of Pendle to which this would apply, so I am not talking about problems in our area.

The Government do not understand just how much pressure local authorities and planning departments are under at the moment. Covid and the cuts in local government spending have reduced many planning departments to a skeleton of what they used to be. Frankly, the new complicated proposals being introduced, such as this, will in practice not be very different from an ordinary planning application.

The Government say that this is a quick way and will be quicker, but the actual work required to deal with one of these applications will require consultation with residents and with statutory bodies—notably, in the case of districts, the highways authority, which will be the county council—and consideration of design and amenity. Highways design and amenity are just about the most important things people get worked up about when there are medium and relatively small developments of this nature being proposed. That it will somehow be much easier and simpler for planning departments is simply not the case.

The other problem is that it is yet another example of the Government micromanaging planning at a national level when planning is really about local communities and places. It is different everywhere. The idea that you can simply impose national rules like this without consideration of the importance they will have in a particular locality is quite wrong.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020

Lord Greaves Excerpts

Wednesday 29th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, all these proposals are fraught with controversy, and the way in which the Government are bringing them in simply by announcement, with no proper consultation and within two months, is an absolute disgrace. I fear it will come back and bite them where it hurts.

These regulations are just about the fees and, at least in the case of upward extensions to flats, which in many parts of the country, such as my own, where I declare my interest as a councillor, will not be used very much, although they may be in big cities. Nevertheless, it is welcome that local authorities can make a charge, although whether it will cover the costs is a matter of opinion. But the idea that people can, without having to get planning permission, convert properties in town centres into housing, is fundamentally wrong. It flies in the face of local planning in many cases, and the assumption is that all town centres are collapsing. Well, not all town centres are collapsing, and this will mean that people will allow properties to become empty in town centres that are not collapsing, such as in Colne, for example, where I live. Where we have empty properties, we are making huge efforts to bring them back as shops. This will fly in the face of that.

Upper extension of ordinary houses, which is not in this particular order but was referred to by the Minister, because it is part and parcel of the thing, is okay for big detached houses separated from the community, but for ordinary semis and terraces, it is alarming that this can take place without proper planning permission or residents having the right to complain and protest and put their views forward in the normal way in the planning system. It is driving a coach and horses through local planning, and it is a disgrace. I hope that the Government will have some serious second thoughts about it.

Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2020

Lord Greaves Excerpts

Friday 24th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and I will stand for the north of England together, but I think we might disagree about how to do it. I speak as a Liberal Democrat and many members of the party will support what I am going to say. This order is one relatively minor part of the Conservative Government’s intentions to drastically reorganise local government throughout England; to do so at ridiculous speed and with little regard for the wishes of people in communities and local areas; and to effectively abolish local democracy in vast areas of England, notably in the shires but in a lot of other places, too. I remind the House of my interest as a district councillor, not in Yorkshire but within spitting distance, just over the border in Pendle.

The Government are embarking on this ludicrous and disgraceful ambition in the middle of by far the biggest crisis that this country and its local councils have seen since the Second World War—one in which every sinew and every effort needs to be focused on clearing out Covid and rebuilding our economy, our society and our services, so many of which require the total attention of our elected local councils and councillors. Instead, we shall see the waste of many millions of pounds—every reorganisation costs millions and we are threatened with a large pile of them—the diversion of the time and energy of council staff and councillors, and enormous losses of skills and local and historical knowledge as people retire at the very time when they are desperately needed. But, of course, the people in Whitehall and Westminster always know best, as we have seen from the enormous success of the centralised, top-down schemes to tackle local Covid-19 outbreaks, while the local people with those skills and knowledge have repeatedly complained of being sidelined or ignored. For the benefit of Hansard, let me say that that sentence should carry an ironic emoticon. Why do the very clever but often ignorant people at the top never learn?

In spite of my origins in Yorkshire, I do not want to interfere in an internal Yorkshire dispute between One Yorkshire and this distinctly less ambitious proposal, except that I see no dispute. There is almost unanimity in support of One Yorkshire, except in the Government. Is this because One Yorkshire could be the start of genuine regional devolution in England, instead of this rather shoddy plan? This will not be devolution at all. The powers that are to be shared with local authorities will inevitably be gathered up by the combined authority from the councils. Proposals that will be concurrent—a sinister, bureaucratic word, in my view—with central government will inevitably be met by that Government with something like, “We hear what you say, and thank you for your ideas, but if you want the brass, this is what you will do.” We have seen this far too often.

We hear that they are coming next for Lancashire, in the near future. Let me warn them: in some areas of the country at least, if they press on with the destruction of local democracy, it will be nothing but pain for the Conservative Party in some of the very towns that have given it its majority in this Parliament. There will be battles ahead all over the country—all over England—and the Government must not think that they will easily win all of them.

Industrial and Mining Towns

Lord Greaves Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Greaves]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to enhance the economies of former industrial and mining towns and villages in the North of England.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)]

My Lords, this Government are committed to levelling up regions and supporting communities in former industrial and mining towns in the north of England through the continuation of our numerous devolution policies. Alongside the refreshed northern powerhouse strategy and building on considerable investment through the local growth fund, the Government are providing funding to towns through the £3.6 billion towns fund and the future high streets fund. The north will also benefit from an array of national funding pots.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, the old industrial towns and villages are suddenly in the news following the general election. We are not the major regional centres, such as Newcastle, Leeds and Manchester, but across the north of England and the Midlands there are hundreds of such places. They are the towns around, the areas on the edge, the places in between. We need the resources, powers and, often, new infrastructure to tackle problems such as transport and flooding, but our futures cannot be successfully micromanaged from Whitehall or even from the large cities. Do the Government understand that the local successful futures of these areas must be firmly in the hands of local councils, local people, local organisations and local businesses? The local communities themselves, with local democratic control, will let a thousand democratic local flowers bloom.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I agree with much of what the noble Lord said. I am very pleased that we have commenced a grand tour of the north. On Monday we focused on Yorkshire, and here we are on Thursday focusing on Lancashire. The noble Lord has spoken about local communities, and that is exactly what we are aiming to do. We are committed to levelling up the economy across the UK, with a focus on the north. We have made huge strides in rebalancing the economy. Over the past few years, the Government have delivered on one of the most ambitious devolution agendas in more than 70 years. The noble Lord might also like to know that the details locally are coming through. He will know about the redevelopment of the Brierfield Mill, which will see the mill changed into a mixed-use leisure, learning and community destination, to be known as Northlight.

Neighbourhood Services: Government Support

Lord Greaves Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Greaves]

That this House takes note of the levels of government support for neighbourhood services provided by district councils and other local authorities.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, in moving this Motion, I remind the House of my registered interest as a member of Pendle Borough Council.

I refer noble Lords and the Minister to previous debates that we have had on this matter and in which I have taken part. Having read what I said then, I simply reiterate that it is all still true, because the concerns that I put forward at that time, along with other noble Lords, have simply not been taken up by the Government. On 19 October 2017 there was a debate on the future availability of resources for the provision of district council services; a debate on local government finance generally was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in July 2017; and on 25 September this year I made a speech in the debate on the public spending review, which I shall refer to later. However, nothing has changed. Neighbourhood services continue to be the Cinderella of public services in this country. Things such as bin collection, street cleansing and local leisure facilities have less and less money spent on them every year, and the quality and quantity of what is happening, taken as a whole, is deteriorating.

These services comprise much of the work of ordinary district councils in two-tier areas—I am a member of one—but they are also carried out by unitary authorities, metropolitan councils and London boroughs. Some services, such as the maintenance of local highways, are carried out by county councils. However, the amount of funding provided and allowed for them by central government is the same whichever council carries them out, and it is going down. Indeed, an increasing number of these services are being provided by town and parish councils. In many areas, county, unitary and district councils are deliberately seeking to transfer some services to town and parish councils, which can levy an extra council tax to pay for them as an alternative to the services being closed down or seriously deteriorating.

We are told by our new Prime Minister that austerity is over, yet, as far as local government is concerned, the only real increases in funding, with a few exceptions, are for social care. As we know, that itself is inadequate and the social care system is in serious crisis but, nevertheless, there is real extra money going to those authorities that deal with social care. For neighbourhood or street-level services, whether they are provided by districts or larger authorities, there is no extra money at all. In fact, in real terms, the money this year is being reduced yet again.

What are these services that people like me go on about? They include street cleansing—where sweepers and other people clean up litter—and litter removal generally, as well as the local highways and streets services which tackle the potholes that the Government panicked about last year. Other services include local traffic management, street lighting, pavements and housing standards. The increasing number of private landlords in many areas of poor housing mean that housing standards are a growing problem; housing stock that had been improving over several decades—50 years, perhaps—is now in many cases deteriorating again. There are services addressing environmental health, pollution control and antisocial behaviour measures, for which district councils have responsibility following legislation a few years ago. There are local public health initiatives and all the services that safeguard the local environment, with green spaces, local amenity areas and mini parks. All this concerns not only the green environment but the whole urban environment and any public spaces.

If the district councils and local authorities do not go out deliberately to look after these areas and keep them decent, they deteriorate. It is an easy thing not to do. We are talking about children’s play areas, parks, leisure facilities, sports pitches and facilities, community centres and community facilities generally—the whole question of managing the local environment. Town centres, and towns, pose a huge problem at the moment; we are not talking about the big cities here but towns that may be large, small or medium sized. The local authority is very often the body that has to try to get a grip on maintaining viable, decent, properly maintained town centres. If it does not, who else will?

At the moment, there are lots of competitions that authorities can enter to get extra money for town centres, but they are competitions. People spend a lot of time and effort entering these competitions. Some win and get amounts of money—but resources are required for local authorities generally to look after their town centres, not just those lucky enough to win competitions. At a local level, the planning system is absolutely crucial for keeping areas as good places to live.

Refuse collection is on the front line of recycling, which is so important as part of climate initiatives. On community safety, councils may work with the local police and other bodies. The local authority has no duty to get involved but, if it does not, efforts will often not succeed. All this has a particular impact on ordinary districts, because this is what they do. It also affects everybody else and neighbourhood services everywhere.

The fabric of communities all over the country—not all of them, but many—is falling apart, as is the structure of the local services which maintain that fabric. There are rich areas and poor areas, and there are areas which are more affected by this than others. As far as the climate emergency is concerned, local authorities have an absolutely crucial role to play. A large number—maybe over 200—have declared a local climate emergency, but without the resources to do things to tackle climate issues locally, across the wide range of everything they do, it will not come to anything.

On resources, according to the National Audit Office, since the 2015 spending review, districts have had a 13.9% reduction in core spending power in real terms. That feeds across to non-districts in relation to the services they carry out, which would otherwise be district services. Since 2010-11, the median reduction in core spending power for all districts is over 30% in real terms. For the worst-hit districts, including my own, it is 50% or more. If a local authority’s spending power is cut by more than half over 10 years, it has a huge effect on what it can and cannot do. The areas that are affected are very often the poorest areas, because they are the ones which do not have the ability to raise extra money in other ways.

I raised this on 25 September in the debate on the public spending review. The Minister at that time, the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank, promised to write to me to explain how everything was happening. I have his letter here. It says:

“The Government also announced that it will consult on a 2% core council tax referendum principle, which will allow councils to access additional funding for their local services”.


We know that, but of course 2% is less than the rate of inflation. So it is not enough even on the amount to be raised by the council tax alone, and the amount from other sources is either static or has gone down. The Minister’s letter also says that,

“local authorities should be able to make decisions to meet pressures where appropriate, informed by local knowledge, and be accountable for them”.

I am afraid that if that is what the Government are saying, it will result in a lot of belly laughs in a lot of local authorities.

I am not here to engage in any special pleading for my own local authority in Pendle, although I will mention as an example that the number of people employed by that authority has halved since 2010. Local authority services depend on employing people. There may be greater efficiencies—I am certain that there are—but when you slash your staff numbers by half and many of your remaining staff have gone down to a three- or four-day week, and you are trying to do the same things you did before, it is impossible.

The affected authorities are often old industrial towns in the north of England and elsewhere. Generally, they are places on the edge and in the areas in between. Even in the south-east, authorities are affected. We are not talking here about major cities, but about all the ordinary places that get missed out. I had better be careful about what I say with my noble friend Lord Goddard sitting in front of me, but the north of England is more than just Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield.

One very good example is the new homes bonus, which was introduced to encourage local authorities to give planning permission for new housing. In practice, it top-sliced government money for all local authorities, including the poorest, and redistributed it to those that could build new houses, which were very often already in the pipeline. The truth is that it resulted in the redistribution of money from poor areas and areas where people did not want to build houses to places with high demand for houses and where new housing had already been planned and agreed. It resulted in a redistribution of funding from the north of England to the south-east, the south-west and the east taken overall, with individual exceptions, of course. Now that the new homes bonus has been cut, the top-sliced money has not been returned to the poorer areas from which it was taken in the first place.

I could talk for the whole of this debate, but I will not. The dark clouds of austerity still hang over far too many of the ordinary streets and roads, towns and communities of England. Further cuts are not sustainable. It is no wonder that people in many of these areas are fed up with the system, fed up with everything and vote for unicorns. Two years ago, in a debate in 2017, I said that things were “at breaking point”. They are not broken yet, thanks to the efforts of the staff, the councillors and everybody working in these areas, but it is pretty damned near broken. Something has to happen to put more resources into the ordinary services that people expect when they pay their council tax.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. Her remarks about community bus services, having new request bus services and refashioning libraries as community hubs, and co-locating other community services, were extremely well made. It is vital that we deal with underfunding, but it is also important that we get the best value from the resources, the infrastructure and the funding that is currently available, and redesigning services along the lines that she was discussing in relation to Lincolnshire, which she knows well, is a point well made.

I have a gentle criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. He said that there were problems, “even in the south-east”. Can I inform my noble friend that there are many problems in the south-east, and most of the issues that he talked about apply equally to London and the south-east as other parts of the country? It is a very bad idea for us to be setting the north against the south, as if somehow the south is a land of milk and honey and the north is all starved. These problems are fairly common across the north and the south, and many of the issues which the noble Baroness referred to about redesigning services are equally important in the south-east.

Recently I visited the wonderful new library and community centre run by Oasis, a brilliant charity run by the outstanding community leader the Reverend Steve Chalke in Waterloo, in the London Borough of Lambeth. He has turned a library that was threatened with closure into a community centre. It also has a school and a debt advice service. The police station next door, sadly, is being closed, and Oasis is hoping to bring that into the community hub, too. There is a community centre and a café there. It is a vibrant community service that has enabled the local authority, working in partnership, to keep open a service that would have been closed even without the cuts which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to. What we need to do—this is part of the role that noble Lords in this House can play—is showcase successful models of delivery, even though politically some of us would like to see fundamental changes in national policy, so that we can make the best of what we have got and utilise our still-rich panoply of local community institutions and infrastructure to provide still-better services.

I of course agree with the substance of what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, says. We need to join up the big picture here. Part of the reason why we are going through this Brexit crisis, and a massive crisis of confidence in our political institutions and our Government, is because the services on which people depend, all of those neighbourhood services, street collections, libraries, schools, housing—which I will have more to say on—have been seriously cut back in recent years, and people make a connection between the two. They think that the fact that they are getting such a raw deal in terms of their local services is part of the reason why they should lack confidence in their national Government. Alas, three and a half years ago the only question they were asked in a referendum was: “Do you want to leave the European Union?” They are now taking it out on politicians, particularly in communities more distant from London, such as Lincolnshire and parts of the north, that voted to leave.

It is very clear to me that, if we are going to deal with the massive crisis that we face as a country, we have to end austerity and fundamentally invest in our local communities—particularly poorer communities—and stop Brexit. We need to do the two together. It is a somewhat sad commentary on our failure in Parliament to put these together that this debate is so poorly attended, with so few of your Lordships taking part—because we must crack this issue of investment in local services. I am delighted to see that my noble friend Lord Kennedy is replying to the debate. He is a distinguished local councillor. Of the few of us who are here today, many are distinguished leaders of or have played parts in local authorities. Unless we can get this right, we are not going to crack the bigger problem of our whole relationship with Europe and our membership of the European Union.

I want to address the issue of housing. The speech by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was interesting and revealing. He talked about improving housing administration and the quality of local authority housing stock, but I suggest that that prospectus is not bold enough for the future.

[Lord Greaves]

I apologise for intervening, but we have plenty of time today. I was talking not about local authority housing but about private sector landlord housing in areas of poor housing.

[Lord Adonis]

The point is the same, my Lords. If we are to tackle this housing crisis, what is needed is a bold new programme led by district councils and lower-tier authorities—because they are housing authorities—of building new council housing. They should work in partnership with housing associations to improve dramatically the stock of social housing and affordable housing, which is a significant part of the social crisis that the country faces.

One of the biggest changes in public policy over the past 40 years has been that the provision of social and affordable housing, which was regarded as a core function of the state until the 1980s, has totally ceased to be. We need to be self-critical in this: I do not think that the Government of which I was a part did nearly enough. We thought that market-based solutions would meet needs for lower-cost housing; they manifestly have not.

I spent, for my sins, a large part of last night reading the third volume of Charles Moore’s biography of Margaret Thatcher, which I recommend to your Lordships—indeed, some of those whom I see here in the House today feature in it. It is an important contribution to political history. One of the most remarkable things about it is that council housing, which used to be one of the biggest political issues in the 1960s and 1970s, does not feature at all in that volume—it covers the years from 1987 to the end of Lady Thatcher’s career—except in one passing reference to council house sales, which was the only council house policy that Margaret Thatcher had in her 11 and a half years in Downing Street.

The facts are now the facts: the average home in England this year costs eight times more to buy than the average salary; the average share of income that young families spend on housing has trebled over the past 50 years; because of the shortage of social and affordable housing, the number of people living in the private rented sector has doubled in the past 20 years, and private renters spend on average 41%—nearly half—of their household income on rent. Surprise, surprise, a majority, 57%, of private renters are now struggling to pay housing costs, and one in three low-earning renters has to borrow money to pay their rent. Some 800,000 people who are renting cannot afford to save even £10 a month; 27% of private renters receive housing benefit or the housing element of universal credit, which is approximately 1.3 million households nationwide. Meanwhile, the Government spend £21 billion a year on housing benefit because of the very high level of rents, which they have jacked up by removing subsidy and not building more social homes. Last year, only 6,463 new social homes were built nationwide. There are about 1.5 million fewer social homes today than there were in 1980.

I do not want to do death by statistics, but I think that your Lordships get the picture. What has essentially happened in the last generation is that we totally stopped building new social homes publicly. Housing associations filled the gap to a very modest extent, but not nearly sufficiently. We have had significant population growth in that time, alongside the cessation of social home building; a substantial proportion of the country cannot get near the affordable housing ladder, let alone buy housing; and we have a private rented sector in which Rachmanite, disgraceful, slum-type conditions are increasingly common, with local authorities having neither the power nor the resources to deal with them.

What should be the policy? It is very clear to me, because to all big questions there is usually a simple and correct answer—there is often a simple and wrong answer, too. The simple and correct answer to this crisis is for local authorities to start building social housing again. They should do this in partnership with housing associations, but they should be the prime movers because they are the public authorities—and they should build social housing at the level at which they did in the 1960s and 1970s, to deal with the chronic housing crisis.

At the moment there is precious little movement towards this. It is true that councils are building houses again in a very modest way, compared to the period from the mid-1980s until a few years ago when they were building none at all. But it is very modest; it is scratching the surface, and we now need a revolution in policy. To give some idea, the London Borough of Lambeth, for which I was looking at the statistics recently, is building fewer than 100 new social homes a year; it needs to build 1,000-plus to deal with this issue. So we need about a tenfold increase in the rate of new building at the moment. To put that in context, in just that one London borough, Lambeth—I am sorry to keep referring to London and the south-east, which may offend the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, but there are big problems there, too—the council house waiting list is 28,000. That is in a London borough that is able to build fewer than 100 new homes a year. We need to move these two figures much, much closer to each other.

The noble Viscount, who always does his best to reply to our debates, will I hope be able to give us some facts, and I would like to put a few questions to him. The situation that we are in now, which I have seen very often in public policy, is that everyone admits there is a problem—I do not think that anyone who follows me in this debate will say that there is not a big problem—but the difficulty that we face is that the policies do not remotely match the scale of the problem that most people have identified. At the moment, the noble Viscount and his party are in government, so this is a charge which faces them as to what they are doing about it. They have accepted that there needs to be new social housebuilding, but they are doing precious little about it.

I have three specific questions about policy. First, if there is to be significant new housebuilding led by local authorities, it can come from only one of two sources: either grant funding from central government and/or the capacity of local authorities themselves to borrow in advance of the receipts that they will get from then renting out the social housing. Of course, it was a combination of the two that produced the scale of council and social housebuilding in the 1960s and 1970s. The Government have introduced two policies in this respect. They have restored some grant funding to local authorities in respect of housing, but the amount is pitifully small and typically provides only for less than one-third of the cost of new social units. So what is the Government’s policy going forward? Are they going to significantly increase grant funding in respect of new social housing provided by local authorities and, if so—since I am told that unless that grant funding is in excess of 50%, it is very difficult to get building at volume—will the Government be prepared to look at increasing the grant funding to 50% of the cost of providing new social housing?

In respect of borrowing, the situation is more urgent. What we are seeing at the moment is a serious regression in policy on the part of the Government. One of the most welcome things that Theresa May did in her time as Prime Minister was announce an end to the borrowing cap in respect of local authorities building new housing. This was a deeply felt restraint on local authorities that had applied for the best part of a generation. Even though they could borrow cheaply from the Public Works Loan Board—which was the way that local authorities borrowed—and were able to service debt from rents to build new social housing, they were banned from undertaking the borrowing. Theresa May lifted that borrowing cap, which was extremely welcome, but earlier this month the Government announced unilaterally, with no consultation—smuggled out in a Statement on one of those many days when there were many other Brexit-related announcements so that almost no one noticed—that the borrowing rate from the Public Works Loan Board was going to be increase overnight from 1.81% to 2.82%.

We should let that sink for a moment: an increase of nearly 50% overnight in the borrowing rate levied on local authorities in the only place that they can borrow— except at the going market rates, which of course would make all of this totally unaffordable. The word on the street, which I put to the noble Viscount so that he can deal with it when he replies, is that the reason this was done is that the Treasury, which never wanted the borrowing cap lifted in the first place, is now trying to sabotage the whole principle of public borrowing by local authorities by massively increasing the interest rate, hoping that no one will notice.

I was, until the Brexit crisis came along, chairing the National Infrastructure Commission, so I know only too well how the Treasury works in these matters. That interpretation of what is happening seems to me to be extremely plausible. Can the noble Viscount tell the House why the borrowing rate from the Public Works Loan Board for local authorities wanting to borrow to build new housing has been increased from 1.81% to 2.82%? Is this a fixed policy? Finally, because I am always trying to be constructive—and I know the noble Viscount is, too—will he consider reviewing that policy? Will he meet me and other noble Lords who are concerned about this issue to discuss public borrowing by local authorities to build new social housing and how it can be done on an affordable basis?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate. At the beginning I was a bit worried that not enough people were taking part, but I think we have proved that, if the people taking part have a good enough argument and narrative and know what they are talking about, allowing them time to develop what they say can be better than them having to rush through a two or three-minute speech.

I think I have a couple of minutes in which to speak —I cannot see anyone objecting to that—so I would like to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, and my noble friend Lady Pinnock on libraries. If anyone ever finds themselves near the town of Colne, they should give me a ring and I will take them to Trawden in the Lancashire Pennines. It used to be a weaving village but is now very much a middle-class professional village. The Trawden community centre, which used to be run by the council, has taken over an old nursery and turned it into the only village shop, which is thriving as a community shop, and it works in partnership with the county council to run the local library. That is a superb example of how that kind of thing can be really successful. I should declare an interest as a non-active member of the community interest company that runs it. Therefore, it can be done and the service provided is far better than it ever was under the council. However, that will not happen everywhere. In poorer and working-class areas, it can be, and often is, done, but it requires a greater input of resources and harder work if the people taking part do not already have the skills that retired professional people have, so it is not the answer to everything.

I say to my noble friend Lord Goddard that what Stockport Council has done with the ground at Stockport County FC is brilliant. In Colne, where I live, Pendle Council owns the land of Colne FC, another up-and-coming non-league club. Colne FC has a free 99-year lease on the ground. That is the sort of thing that can be done. I know of other non-league clubs that have been put out of business by their councils demanding unpaid rent and the clubs having to go into liquidation. You can see the difference when a council regards its community as important, even if something like a local football club is owned not by the council but perhaps privately.

I shall not go through everything the Minister said—apart from anything, he would not allow that—but I will read what he said very carefully. I am very grateful for his comments and no doubt we will have many discussions about them in the future.

I have one final thing to say about neighbourhood services. I stress that I am talking about neighbourhood services, not local government as a whole. We have squeezed the pips until they squeal. We have cut to the bone. We have built partnerships with the private and voluntary sectors and got private sector money in. We have transferred services to town and parish councils, which often run them in a more community-oriented manner and much more cheaply. We have harnessed the volunteers who are there and will continue to do so. As I said in my original speech, however, we are reaching the end of this process in many places. Neighbourhood services will start to collapse seriously unless more resources are put into them. For as long as I am an active Member of your Lordships’ House, I shall continue to harass the Government over this matter.

Motion agreed.