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

Lord Hain Excerpts

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

[Lord Hain (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about the vital importance of sports clubs, and I ask the Minister to look favourably on his proposal.

Although the focus of the non-domestic rating Bill is relatively narrow—to reset the next revaluation of business rates to take account of the pandemic, which of course I welcome—I urge the Minister to get the Secretary of State, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to think big about the future of town centres. Covid has accelerated their decline; it is now a really big crisis, on top of the online shopping phenomenon, which has also been accelerating.

The Government need to act because town centres can become the hub of local community and business life. They have been in the past, and, to some extent, they still are—but this role is rapidly shrivelling due to commercial and online pressures and changing lifestyles, which have been accelerated by the pandemic. I believe that business rates and rents have a crucial role to play here. Of course, there is a variety of complex exemptions, suspensions and reliefs, but it is now necessary to have a much more radical and comprehensive solution to this problem, or town centres will die just as we consider future policy to save them.

My own town centre in Neath is a cosy, pedestrianised area, which is very attractive to shop in, although the shops have been disappearing on all levels. There is an old market building with small stalls dating back to 1837 and renovated in 1904, and a great variety of small artisan shops—you can get your watch fixed there. Most people go into a jeweller’s and are invited to exchange their watch when the battery runs out rather than replace it because it is almost cheaper to buy a new one. This issue of the throwaway society, which is ecologically damaging, of course, can be dealt with if there are people who repair them, as they do in the Neath town centre market. A number of other small businesses and artisans offer that facility.

To keep that kind of vibrancy in town centres, they have to be supported, otherwise it is not viable. The town centre and markets are being undermined by high costs, high rents and business rates. This is not the local council’s fault: it does not have the funding or the legal basis to subsidise. We lost our Crown post office, which was put into the back of the local WHSmith, but how long will WHSmith survive across town centres such as Neath’s? We have bank branches closing the whole time; if local post offices assumed a post/bank role, banks could put their facilities in the back.

The Government need a completely new agenda on business rates as they apply to town centres. They should be completely scrapped for micro-businesses in town centres. Of course, there will be issues of defining what a town centre is: would this apply to large village centres, for example? At a central level, the Government have to fund local government because it cannot do this on its own. If rents are not scrapped for town centres, that has to be part of this as well. Of course, local government has had a 30% cut in the last 10 years, so it is no good the Government and Ministers passing the buck to local authorities; the Treasury must step in and take responsibility.

To reduce our carbon footprint and end the throwaway culture, where we never get computer printers repaired or watch batteries replaced because it is cheaper to just throw them away and buy a new one, we have to encourage a regeneration of these local skills and facilities, effectively through a subsidy. To do so, we have to end our society’s obsession with low tax. If we want a decent quality of life in town centres, which everyone says they do, we have to be prepared to pay for it. It is not going to happen on its own—market forces and commercial pressures on their own will not resolve this problem. Treasury funding, provided through local councils, is necessary in order to regenerate and revive our town centres, and I hope that the Minister will seriously consider this option in the future review, which has to be comprehensive.

Housing: Leasehold

Lord Hain Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I will not make such a statement today in the House but a statement will be made very shortly. Community land trusts are a separate policy matter. I agree with the noble Baroness that community land trusts are a way forward—not always the right way but one way to use land for the benefit of a particular community.

[Lord Hain (Lab) [V]]

What does the Minister’s commitment to carry out reforms “as soon as possible” mean in time terms, and will the Government end the current system of ridiculously expensive lease extensions, escalating ground rents and absurd service charges?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, there is no doubt that you need to turn to lawyers to know how long it will take to turn these things round quickly. We need primary legislation. I have been told by Professor Hopkins, who was in charge of the Law Commission work, that the preparations to get primary legislation ready for consideration by noble Lords will take approximately one year, so we are probably talking about the third Session.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Hain Excerpts

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

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, particularly when he is in grateful mode. I will speak only to Amendment 80, which is a probing amendment and links to the other amendments in this group only to the extent that the Bill contains temporary measures suitable for the medical and economic emergency imposed upon us by Covid-19.

As I said at Second Reading, I want to understand the sunsetting provisions in the Bill on which, in principle, I congratulate the Minister. Will all the provisions in the Bill lapse, and when? If not, why not? Why is there a disturbing provision in Clause 25 to,

“make transitional, transitory or saving provision in connection with the expiry of any provision of this Act”?

This seems extremely open-ended for an emergency Bill. How do we ensure that the various measures in the Bill are not extended when they have been subject to a relatively low degree of scrutiny?

[Lord Hain (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I too welcome the eloquence of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, in speaking to her amendments. Like my noble friend Lord Kennedy, I welcome the concession that the Minister gave. I will speak briefly to Amendment 61, which intends to ensure that developers do not delay implementing planning consents.

Clause 17 is another example of lack of ambition in the Bill. It proposes extending the time limits for planning permissions where development has not yet started. There is a horrendous shortage of homes for people, the worst since World War II. Yet there are over 400,000 houses waiting to be built in England and Wales where planning consent has been given but not yet implemented. Developers are dragging their feet to manipulate local property markets. They build up land banks—stocks of sites on which planning consent has been given—but go slow when it comes to completing development, expecting land values and property prices to rise in the meantime.

The Government could have explored applying council tax to sites where planning consent has been given but development has not gone ahead. They could even have considered rendering planning consent liable to forfeit if development is not complete within a reasonable time, perhaps five years as this amendment provides. Instead, the Bill sidesteps the scandal of developers with planning consent leaving construction sites idle for years. This amendment seeks to address that and get the millions of affordable houses we desperately need built after this Government’s terrible record of promising great numbers and delivering pathetically low ones. I therefore hope that the Minister will respond positively.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I give my full support to Amendment 53, in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. I will disappoint him when I speak to my Amendment 56, which he has kindly supported, because I do not indulge in long speeches of expertise.

These two amendments seek to give clarity to local authorities about what can be allowed. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will reassure me, as he has already done at Question Time and elsewhere, that the Government will not be relaxing any planning rules regarding environmental protections. What worries me is that, in practice, a lot of developers—and, to some extent, councils—are not sure exactly what this means. For example, I am sure that the newspaper headlines will say, in relation to my noble friend’s amendment, that building work can be done at any time. There may well be local conditions, but many people will be confused. It is exactly the same, except that residents can actually complain and get things sorted out. However, the natural world and the environment have no such voice. I know of many examples, both locally and elsewhere, where developers will ride roughshod over some of the conditions in the hope that nobody understands them.

What I want from these two amendments is what my noble friend described as a national backstop. I want clarity in the Bill, so that people know exactly where they stand.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hain]

77: Before Clause 22, insert the following new Clause—
“Employee-employer cooperation
(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, lay before Parliament a strategy for employee-employer cooperation in regard to businesses implementing the provisions of this Act.(2) In producing the strategy, the Secretary of State must consult—(a) trade unions and other organisations which represent employees,(b) relevant businesses, and (c) any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

[Lord Hain [V]]

Amendment 77 is also in the names of my noble friends Lord Hendy and Lord Monks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. It promotes much closer employee-employer co-operation and requires the Secretary of State, within six months of the Act being passed, to lay before Parliament a strategy for employee-employer co-operation with regard to businesses implementing the Act’s provisions. In producing this strategy, the Secretary of State must consult trade unions and other organisations that represent employees, relevant businesses and any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

Surely the Government cannot possibly object to close partnership between employers, trade unions and —where no unions operate in businesses—employees. Will that not better help keep business running safely, rebuild the economy and support those businesses badly damaged by the Covid-19 crisis? Everyone acknowledges that this crisis is by far the greatest Britain has faced since World War II. Unless the Government extend open arms to trade unions and employees to work in partnership to overcome the crisis, they are disabling themselves and everybody else.

Trade unions have already demonstrated in practical ways their value in helping employers to work through this crisis while ensuring the health and safety of staff and customers. Take, for example, the communications sector, which has been crucial to keeping the nation connected and supporting economic activity through the lockdown. The Communication Workers Union, for which I should declare that I worked for 14 years before being elected a Member of Parliament, has played a critical role in sustaining our postal and telecoms services and helping businesses to open up safely where they were initially forced to close.

They have secured agreements with Royal Mail, British Telecom and a range of other employers on the adequate provision of PPE and social distancing measures, higher levels of protection for riskier front-line roles, the introduction of thorough workplace risk assessments, the safe use of vehicles, home working for office-based staff with suitable equipment, support for the clinically vulnerable and comprehensive safeguards for staff and customers in high street retail outlets before they opened in the middle of June.

The amendment also exemplifies what a missed opportunity the Bill represents. Yes, it provides a range of measures to help businesses develop new ways of working as the country recovers from Covid-19—but what a narrow range, and what tunnel vision. Paragraph 72 of the Explanatory Memorandum reports that representations have been received from the trade union Unite about the difficulties bus and truck drivers face in getting medical reports to keep their driving licences valid. Difficulties are understandable in current conditions, of course; not all today’s tailbacks are on motorways. Some are outside GPs’ surgeries.

However, what neither the Bill nor the Explanatory Notes acknowledge is the call by Unite the Union’s leadership for the Government to involve the country’s 100,000 trade union health and safety representatives in helping with test, track and trace and in finding safer ways of working that deal with the ongoing risks from Covid-19. Independent evidence shows that workplaces where unions are recognised have half the accidents of those where unions are absent. Have the Government even acknowledged Unite’s offer? There is, seemingly, no response to it in the Bill.

Clause 14 is a small step in the direction of helping businesses to adjust to safer ways of working, but what the British economy needs are giant strides towards a bolder objective—more productive ways of working—which is what this amendment is designed to achieve.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy recognised long ago that the way that work is organised and how people are managed are key factors in determining workplace performance results. None of that wider awareness is visible in the Bill. The Covid-19 crisis is also a chance to make workplaces more productive by encouraging closer co-operation at work and by challenging both sides of industry to boost productivity by working in partnership. The Bill, again, fails to grab that chance.

The crisis has shown that many established ways of working are past their sell-by date and that working people often have much more to offer than established working practices allow them to contribute. They are trapped in traditions and wrapped in routines that stifle creativity and dull initiative. Instead of work that they find fulfilling and rewarding, with opportunities for advancement, too many employees feel locked into undemanding humdrum jobs and are prisoners of rigid rules, hierarchical structures and narrow horizons.

The problem stems from both sides of the bargaining table. Too many managers cling to a command- and-control approach, fearful of sharing information with employees and too many union representatives, while talking a good game about teamworking and joint endeavour, although not necessary pursuing it. By working together, unions and employers can deliver big improvements in performance, boosting productivity and profitability, lifting living standards and improving job prospects. For instance, a mutual pledge on co-operation and a problem-solving approach to employment relations can free up management time, promote effective teamworking and improve dignity at work.

An agreed undertaking to find more flexible ways of working that suit both employer and employees can cut customer order lead times, boost motivation and morale and improve the work-life balance. A shared resolve to boost training and personal development can make continuous improvement a reality, ease the take-up of new technology and enhance employability and pay. A mutual commitment to accident prevention and risk avoidance can streamline production, boost reliability and make workplaces safer. Surely that is priority No. 1 in the Covid-19 crisis.

Both management and unions need help if we are to be able to grasp this opportunity to create a new framework for co-operation at work. Something like President Roosevelt’s National Labor Relations Board could even up the balance of power between bosses and workers and encourage union recognition. It could help poorly paid key workers and the nearly 4 million people in insecure jobs to get a fairer deal.

The Government should build on the success of Ministers’ recent sector-by-sector meetings with trade union and business leaders by backing sectoral bargaining. This could put a floor under pay and conditions of employment, raise standards and stop responsible employers being undercut by irresponsible rivals and workers being exploited unfairly. I have every intention of returning to this issue with my noble friends on Report unless, as I hope, the Minister can accept our amendment or at least embed in the Bill a version of it.

[Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hain for moving this amendment and I agree with everything that he said in support of it. I shall add just one point—the essential modesty of the amendment.

Last month, 30 June marked the 70th anniversary of the ratification by the United Kingdom of Convention No. 98 of the International Labour Organization, one of the two most fundamental conventions in international labour law. It has not merely been expressly ratified by no fewer than 167 nations but is also considered to be part of customary international law. Article 4 of the convention calls on ratifying states to take measures

“to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers’ organisations and workers’ organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements.”

Article 6 of the 1961 European Social Charter—of the Council of Europe, not the EU—was ratified by the UK 48 years ago and makes similar provision.

In addition to compliance with domestic law, the rule of law requires states to comply with such ratified provisions of international law. As the late Lord Bingham put it in his well-known public lecture on the rule of law in 2006, the existing principle of the rule of law

“requires compliance by the state with its obligations”

in international law—the law that, whether deriving from treaty or international custom and practice, governs the conduct of nations. I do not think that that proposition is contentious.

This modest amendment does not ask, as the UK’s binding international legal obligations do, for machinery for collective bargaining to be established in the present context. It merely asks for the Government to provide a strategy for collective co-operation. It is a point of principle shared by me and noble friends that workers should be involved in important decisions of the businesses that employ them, as that is to the mutual benefit of both, as my noble friend has just pointed out. Many such decisions will arise in relation to this Bill. For myself, I am unable to discern any rational objection to the amendment and I look forward to hearing the Minister on the subject.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, made some powerful and extremely significant points on co-operation between employers and employees, and putting that important principle into the context of the current crisis. I thank him for the way he did so. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, who joined him in putting forward this amendment, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for their contributions.

As has been explained, this amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce a strategy for employer-employee co-operation in regard to businesses implementing the provisions of the Bill, which should be done within six months of the Act coming into force. In producing the strategy, the Secretary of State would be required to consult trade unions, other employee representatives, relevant businesses and other appropriate parties. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hain, will take it from me that we recognise the importance of effective employer-employee relationships, particularly in the current context. We encourage a constructive approach from both sides.

The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, asked me to say why we would object to an amendment of this kind. We do not think that a ministerially led strategy for employee-employer co-operation is necessary in the context of the Bill. The simple reason for that is that decisions on how to implement the provisions of the Bill rest best with individual businesses, their employees and their representatives, who know far more about their specific circumstances than any government Minister. We do not need to involve the Government in those processes.

I agree that workers’ voices should be easily heard, so it is worth my adding that the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004 provide another important avenue for the worker’s voice in the workplace. We have recently lowered the request threshold from 10% to 2%, which we believe will encourage employers to be more open with staff about what is happening in their workplace. This has made it easier for employees to secure information and consultation arrangements with their employer on key matters relating to the employer’s strategic direction. That is another reason why we believe that this amendment is not necessary.

The Government recognise that trade unions can play a constructive role in maintaining positive industrial relations. Indeed, to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, we have worked with unions, employers and other parties throughout this pandemic to ensure that workplaces remain safe; we will continue to do so as the UK looks towards economic recovery. This is an important subject, not least because so many people owe their lives and their well-being to a great many trade union members. However, for the reasons I have given, and much as I am with the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in spirit, I am not able to accept this amendment. I hope that the Committee will agree and that, for now at least, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hain [V]]

My Lords, I thank my co-signatories to this amendment, my noble friend Lord Hendy and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. My noble friend Lord Hendy’s expertise and knowledge of employment law is second to none in this House. I am grateful to him for his support, as I am to my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark—particularly for his mention of other unions such as USDAW and the bakers’ union which have been crucial in combating the Covid crisis. We can look right across the board, to UNISON in the health service, the Royal College of Nursing, the GMB and others, which have all played a vital role. This amendment seeks to get proper statutory acknowledgement for that role. I thank also the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Pinnock, for their support.

The Minister is always a model of ministerial courtesy and consensus. I thank him for that, but I find his argument that this amendment is not necessary, frankly, pretty shallow. The amendment is extremely modest, as my noble friend Lord Hendy underlined. All it is asking is for recognition that there should be consultation with trade unions and employees—and with other organisations where no unions are recognised. How can we combat this crisis effectively unless we are all pulling together? As we all know, we are facing an absolutely major crisis. Trade unions are performing a critical role. I find it very disappointing that the Minister is not able to support this amendment. Therefore, I give notice that my noble friends and I will seek to return with another, similar amendment on Report. Meanwhile, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 77 withdrawn.