Non-Domestic Rating (Designated Area) Regulations 2021
Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. This has been an interesting debate, much wider than the regulations before us. As for the regulations, this is a government scheme that allows local authorities to retain some of the income from non-domestic rates that they collect. The regulations before the House today designate the Tees Valley Combined Authority and Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council to be recipients of the rates raised in their areas.
I have a few questions for the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, and some comments to make on the contributions made by a number of noble Lords. When he responds, will the Minister explain the process for selecting this particular area to come forward at this time? What is the process for adding further areas? I think he said that over 200 areas have now been allowed to retain a large element of their rates. I remember the Government confirming—I think it was as far back as November last year—that other authorities, in Manchester, Liverpool, London and elsewhere, would retain an increased proportion of their business rates. If he can, will the Minister update the House on the progress of this? Does the Government have some sort of priority list?
My noble friend Lord Hain raised the decline of our town centres, an important issue that was contained in many speeches this afternoon. As my noble friend said, the decline has been accelerated at a pace by the Covid-19 pandemic. I agree that we need urgent action by the Government to deal with the unfair competition that many high streets now have from out-of-town shopping and online operations that are accelerating their destruction. Over the last year we have all seen reports of many well-known and loved chains disappearing. They have closed down and will not reopen, leaving boarded-up shops in their place. If we want to have anything like the high street we know and love, we have to do something to save it. I hope that the Minister can update the House on the work his department is doing on that issue. If he cannot do so today, will he write to the House and send a copy of his letter to Members who have taken part in this debate?
The noble Lord, Lord German, made a fair point when he highlighted that business rates are a disincentive to setting up new operations. I agree that our business rates and council tax systems are not fit for purpose. We need urgently to address how we are going to fund local activities; we need to get this right. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, made reference to the commitment in the Conservative Party manifesto to reform the business rates. I look forward to some proposals from the Government, as early as possible in this Parliament, on how they are going to do that. I think we should all agree on getting more money into the hands of local authorities to equip them better to spend money locally.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, for his work in the area of regeneration over more than 40 years. He is rightly recognised for the excellent work that he has done. The noble Baroness also raised the Portas review. I remember that; it took place soon after the coalition Government came to office. It is now well over 10 years since it reported and it would be good, at some point, to hear what has actually happened on the back of that review. I think the noble Baroness is right that very little came from it. There were a number of interesting proposals which the Government should perhaps look at again. The problem now, of course, is that we are 10 years further on and the problems are more difficult to deal with—but we do need to look at that. I also join the noble Baroness in supporting the call for the extension of the business rates holiday. I hope that the Chancellor will address that when he delivers his Budget.
The noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, rightly highlighted the importance of giving local authorities the flexibility to support local businesses. Local authorities do know their businesses and communities, and having the flexibility to make a difference locally is really important. I am sure that the Minister supports that. Equally, I support the noble Lord’s call for support for faith-based organisations and recognition of the important part they play in our local communities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, asked about the length of retention periods for money raised by local authorities. She gave examples of how they are quite different in Croydon, Brent Cross, Birmingham town centre and Liverpool. There may be very good reasons for this, but I am not aware of what they are. If the noble Lord cannot respond now, could he highlight what those reasons are in a letter to the House?
The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, raised the important point of supporting public and private partnerships and businesses through such schemes, as illustrated by these regulations—I fully agree with that.
Today’s debate has been much wider than the very narrow issue about the business rates retention scheme in the Tees Valley, and I suppose it was always going to be. We have raised really important issues about our high streets, which we all love—we want them back, prospering and working well. However, to do that, we have to support them and shop local to ensure that they are there. If we do not make sure that we support them, they will not be there in the future, which would be a detriment to us all. This has been an excellent debate, and I am sure the noble Lord will respond to what he can today and that, if not, he will come back to us in a letter.
Building Safety
Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I declare my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, chair of Heart of Medway Housing Association and a non-executive director of MHS Homes Ltd.
Three and a half years on from the Grenfell tragedy, in which 72 people lost their lives, decisions made by the Government have left thousands of people trapped in unsafe homes and many more unable to move. The Government’s announcement has come far too late for many and is, sadly, a repeat of undelivered promises. It backtracks on a key promise that no leaseholders should have to pay for the cost of this scandal, which is not of their making. On 11 March 2020, nearly a year ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that
“all unsafe combustible cladding will be removed from every private and social residential building above 18 metres high.”—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/20; col. 291.]
But that has not happened.
The funds set up have been dogged with problems. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell the House how much of the money available has been spent so far. I believe there has been a major underestimation of this scandal—this problem—by the Government. Can the Minister tell the House how many buildings are unsafe, where they are and what danger they pose? Until the Government have credible answers to these basic questions, there will continue to be mistakes and the offering of piecemeal solutions that must be updated when they do not deliver. Can the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, update the House and guarantee that the funding provided will cover all buildings over 18 metres high?
Will the Government set up an independent task force to prioritise buildings according to risk, with powers to get the funds out of the door and the ability to go after building owners when they fail to get the work done? That has been a consistent problem that we have raised again and again. Ministers have now promised 17 times—yes, 17 times—that leaseholders will not bear the cost of fixing a problem they did not cause; these were the promises made to the innocent victims of this scandal. But the Government have betrayed their promise that leaseholders will not pay for the building safety crisis. Three and a half years on from the Grenfell Tower disaster, hundreds of thousands of people cannot sleep at night because their homes are unsafe. On top of that, the Government have decided to pile financial misery on them. This is wrong; it is an injustice, and it is unacceptable.
Can the Minister tell the House why this arbitrary 18-metre height limit means the difference between a safe home and, potentially, financial ruin? What are the terms of the loan? What will the interest be? Will leaseholders be required to pay the interest as well as the main costs? On the point that the leaseholder will not pay more than £50 a month, if they sell the property, does the loan have to be paid at that point? Does it go with the former owner, or does it stay with the current owner? We need to know where we stand. How long will the scheme run for? Will it go up by the rate of inflation each year? What will the Government do if these homes remain unsaleable? How will they ensure that freeholders take up the loans? How will the Government speed up remediation, given that the current stalemate cannot continue?
Other properties do not have dangerous cladding, but these people have been charged thousands of pounds per flat to fix other safety issues. The Government should focus on securing our economy and rebuilding after Covid, not saddling homeowners with further debt. The Government should pursue those responsible for payment and prevent leaseholders and taxpayers carrying the can. The Government have announced a levy and a tax, which I welcome, but those responsible should bear the cost. How much do the Government anticipate the levy will raise? Will they pursue others, such as the cladding manufacturers, responsible for putting the dangerous cladding on in the first place? The Government have missed every target for removing ACM cladding and 50,000 people are still living in flats wrapped in it. This is the same cladding that was found on Grenfell Tower, and thousands more have other dangerous cladding on their buildings. When will this all be removed?
What about the skyrocketing insurance costs that innocent victims are being forced to pay? Can the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, tell the House what he expects, on average, a leaseholder to pay? People cannot continue to live in unsafe, unsellable homes. Homeowners should not be faced with financial ruin—bankruptcy, even—to fix a problem they did not cause. Unfortunately, these proposals, instead of providing justice, will still leave too many people struggling and facing loans. This is a very poor Statement from the Government—they will have to come back to the table and do what they promised in the first place: ensure that no victim of this scandal will have to bear the cost of fixing a problem they were not responsible for.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the repeat of this important Statement on the Government’s response to the cladding crisis. I remind the House of my interests, recorded in the register, as a member of Kirklees Council and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I was pleased when I read the heading of the Statement, “Building Safety”, and the opening paragraph, which refers to the mission of the Secretary of State being that of “safety and fairness”. Unfortunately, the Statement then fails to live up to those laudable words. The first issue I have with it is that throughout, there is reference only to “unsafe cladding”. In fact, what has become clear, as the vast scale of the problem that the Grenfell tragedy exposed, is that the building safety failings go far beyond “unsafe cladding”. As flammable cladding is removed, in some buildings further significant construction failings are revealed: flammable insulation has been used; firebreaks have not been built into the structure as a way of slowing the spread of a fire; balconies are not made of fire-retardant material; and spandrel panels are also seen as a potential safety concern.
How do I know this? In January 2020 the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government issued guidance note 23, relating to the seven building components under review, requiring building owners and managers to take urgent action on these. The question for the Minister, therefore, is: will the additional government funding pay for all the defects revealed when the unsafe cladding is removed? If, for instance, it becomes evident that there is an absence of firebreaks, will the funding cover the costs of installing them? If not, the leaseholders will still be faced with large bills to pay for failings in the construction.
The next fundamental question that I hope the Minister can answer is: why has 18 metres been chosen as the bar above which cladding removal is funded by the Government and below which the leaseholders and tenants are required to pay? Is the 18-metre figure an historic one that needs to be reassessed? Serious fires can occur in blocks of varying heights: for instance, the fire in a block called The Cube, in Bolton, was very serious—although fortunately, there was no loss of life—but the building was lower than 18 metres.
That leads me to the question of fairness. As noble Lords will recall, this is the mission of the department in respect of building safety. Can the Minister explain how it is fair for leaseholders in blocks below 18 metres high to have to pay for remediation? I recognise that low-interest loans are available and that the currently anticipated maximum payment is £50 per month. This will, no doubt, be added to the service charge and will be one of the costs that potential buyers will consider. It will make these flats less attractive to buyers and they will almost certainly command a lower value. How is it fair to require leaseholders to pay for building remediation which is not in any way of their making?
One of the roles of government is to ensure that safety regulations are appropriate to the task and that there is an inspection regime. The Government have failed to do this, so they are partly culpable, must bear the cost and recoup it from those who share culpability.
Then there is the question of building regulations. It is alleged that some of the buildings affected by this scandal failed to comply with building regulations at the time of construction. Can the Minister confirm this and provide some estimate of the numbers involved? Where breaches of regulation are involved, will the Government require full remediation costs to be met by the developer? This is what happens with the manufacturers of cars and white goods, for example. Surely it should also apply in these instances. Does the Minister agree?
Next, I turn to the total funding package. The additional funding provided by the Government is a start, but this £5 billion needs to be put into context. During the debate on the Fire Safety Bill, the Minister confirmed that the total cost of remediation was likely to be in the region of £16 billion. Does that imply that £10 billion or more will be paid for by leaseholders through the loan scheme? Perhaps the Minister will let us know whether this is what the Government have calculated.
It is proposed to recoup some of these costs from developers by raising £200 million per annum via a tax on the sector. The cost of the minority of the remediation to be recouped from developers is pathetically small. During the last four years, the five largest developers made profits of around £16 billion, which rather puts the proposed figure into context. Will the Government reconsider the level of this tax to make it fairer?
Finally, I hope that the Government do not need to be reminded of the terrible, personal cost of the cladding scandal. For instance, Laurel and Jonathan in Manchester are seriously considering bankruptcy as the only way out of their predicament. Hayley in Leeds has already been forced into bankruptcy. In an Inside Housing survey last year, 23% of respondents said that they had considered suicide. Such is the stress of living in an unsafe home and being forced to pay huge increases in insurance and service charges. For leaseholders and tenants, this building safety crisis is not in any way of their making, yet they are expected to pay the price while those who created it are not being similarly expected to pay in any significant way. Can the Minister explain how this adheres to the department’s mission of fairness? Will he press for a review of the current proposals as more information comes to light?
Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill
Lord Kennedy of Southwark ExcerptsThursday 4th February 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Act 2021 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 146-I Marshalled list for Grand Committee - (1 Feb 2021)
“Statement on consultation with the Valuation Office Agency and local authorities
Within one month of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a statement detailing how the Valuation Office Agency and local authorities were consulted in relation to the provisions of this Act prior to its passage.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would highlight the need for the Government to work closely with the Valuation Office Agency and local authorities by ensuring that the Government details how they worked with them in relation to the provisions of this Bill.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, as this is my first contribution, I draw the attention of the Committee to my relevant registered interests: as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, chair of the Heart of Medway Housing Association and a non-executive director of MHS Homes Ltd.
Amendment 1 would put on the face of the Bill a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to publish a Statement setting out
“how the Valuation Office Agency and local authorities were consulted in relation to the provisions of this Act prior to its passage.”
A property’s rateable value, which business rates are based on, has been assessed independently of Ministers by the Valuation Office Agency since 1990. The Bill will, among other things, make a change to when the Valuation Office Agency must publish draft rateable values. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, has told us previously that this is to support the smooth transition of the revaluation. The publication of these draft rateable values will be aligned with the timing of decisions relating to the multipliers and transitional arrangements.
This is only a probing amendment and I am hopeful that the noble Lord will be able to set out for the Grand Committee exactly how what is asked for in the amendment has been done. If the agency and local authorities have not been consulted, can he tell us why not, and why the Government think that that is an acceptable course of action?
Amendment 6, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Thornhill, would insert a new clause into the Bill. I am very much in support of this new clause, as it would provide for an impact assessment of the timing of a rates revaluation. I am sure that we will get a full explanation of the amendment from the noble Baronesses.
There is of course a wider debate to be had about the whole question of business rates and their appropriateness as an element of local government funding. It is important to note that the Government have cut £15 billion from central government funding for local government in the last decade. The Covid-19 pandemic has had a catastrophic impact on local authority finances, with income falling and costs rising. The current lockdown, which is the right thing to do, will also have a serious impact. Here, the Government need to keep their promise to fully fund local authorities for the costs of the pandemic.
According to the Local Government Association, local councils in England will face a funding gap of more than £5 billion just to maintain services at current levels. But to respond to demand pressures and plug the existing funding gap, an additional £10 billion per year in funding will be needed by 2023-24. For those reasons and many others, which I am sure we will hear from the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Thornhill, I support their amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornhill (LD) [V]
My Lords, I, too, am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I wish to speak in favour of Amendment 6, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Pinnock, and to support Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
I am very aware that this is a narrowly focused Bill and that it has had broad support and been welcomed. However, it is significant that, despite that, several Members of your Lordships’ House have taken the opportunity to table amendments. I believe that that shows the depth of concern around the whole issue of business rates. The amount of interest shown in both this tightly drawn Bill and the Government’s consultation for their ongoing business rates review shows how important it is for the review to be both bold and radical.
It is also significant that all the amendments seek to hold the Government’s feet to the fire with regard to the various ongoing impacts of the Bill, be they on sports clubs, the high street or local government finance—hence, Amendment 6 stipulates a timeframe of six months. This is due to the fact that the instability and uncertainty provoked by the impact of Covid-19 are exacerbating issues that were already of significant concern—and we are not out of the woods yet.
Indeed, the amendment seeks to continue to draw your Lordships’ attention to the challenging situation regarding local council finances. The latest figures from the Local Government Association show that the financial impact of Covid-19 on local authorities is an estimated £9.7 billion for 2020-21, with a further £2.8 billion of lost income from council tax and business rates. However, it must be noted that these figures were reported before the lockdown and the spread of the new strain was known. This is a significantly different set of circumstances from when the 2020-21 funding package was last evaluated, and is part of the reason for continuing concern around council finances. I am sure it is appreciated by all noble Lords just how important business rates are to the individual finances of a local authority.
One reason for the amendment is to highlight the volatility of the tax base, which is so unpredictable at present. For example, the loss of office space to residential—a topic much discussed with the Minister in this House—is a trend that is likely to continue with inevitable loss of revenue. The Valuation Office Agency is currently negotiating appeals and challenges for offices, airports and factories under a material change of circumstances appeal, due to Covid-19. A rebate of up to 25% was mooted. The reduction in income could be substantial. If a rebate were forthcoming, would subsequent losses be repaid to local government in line with the recently announced tax income guarantee? Some 75% of losses will be guaranteed for 2020-21, but nothing has been said yet about 2021-22. Of course, local government must make up the other 25%.
The amount of money that councils have had to put aside for appeals is also significant, hence local government concerns around cutting down the window of time to appeal and getting the number of appeals reduced. The more certainty that we can add to the processes the better. To date, councils have had to divert £3 billion from services to appeals. A significant amount of money is also tied up in irrecoverable losses for both business rates and council tax. With debt recovery and enforcement activities understandably limited due to the pandemic, and with limits on activities and pressures on court time, councils’ ability to recover debts and secure income as they usually would, will be restricted. These are not usual times, and more businesses are likely to fail.
I use these points to illustrate one purpose of the amendment and the volatility of this important tax base. There is much instability in the system at present, which is being masked by the current, much-needed and much-valued reliefs offered to businesses from the Government. This could change significantly when the reliefs end; it could impact on local authority incomes, but we do not know when this will be. If the amendment is not accepted, could the Government at least agree to look closely at the impact once all reliefs have been suspended? This could provide vital evidence on which sectors are most impacted as well as on local councils’ finances.
Regarding Amendment 1, it was noted by several noble Lords at Second Reading that the VOA has been formally criticised as being cumbersome and difficult to deal with, and its valuations opaque and inconsistent. This is why I endorse what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and support his amendment and additional amendments tabled by my noble friends. In short, the amendment asks the Government how the pandemic that happening now will affect the revaluation in 2023, based on values at April 2021, which will not be looked at again until 2028.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for his full response on the issues raised by the two amendments. I will read the noble Lord’s response carefully before considering whether this is an amendment to which I will wish to return on Report.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, made a compelling case for her amendment and set out the difficult situation in which local authorities find themselves. We will come to amendments later on regarding appeals, but the noble Baroness highlighted the real problems that are faced today. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, raised further important points and questions that, again, we may need to come back to on Report. However, at this point, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
“Assessment of impact of timing of business rates revaluations on prosperity of towns and high streets
Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the timing of business rates revaluations on the prosperity of towns and high streets.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would create an assessment of the impact of timing of business rates revaluations on the prosperity of towns.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 2 in my name seeks to place in the Bill a new clause that would require the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact of the timing of business rates revaluations on the prosperity of towns and high streets. We need a root-and-branch reform of the business rates system to make it fairer and to help bricks-and-mortar retailers compete fairly with the online, out-of-town warehouse operations that are putting our much-loved high streets at risk.
Even before the Covid-19 pandemic, we saw a serious decline in footfall on our high streets, and we now have the tragic situation where, on average, one in 10 shops is standing empty. Something must be done to reverse this decline. My amendment seeks to focus minds on this pressing problem. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to consider it carefully and to accept it.
Amendment 5, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is another that I am happy to support. It gives us an opportunity to examine whether the revaluation based on property values as on 1 April 2021 is right. There are some suggestions that property values will fall even further, and, if that is the case, we could be creating further problems for our hard-pressed high streets.
Amendment 7, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Moynihan, brings us back to an issue that both noble Lords spoke about at Second Reading. It proposes a new clause that would require the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact of the changes in the timing of business rate revaluations on amateur sports. I fully support this amendment and cannot see any reason why the Government would want to resist it.
Some amateur sports clubs have charitable status and some have community amateur club status, which provide a level of tax advantage. Charitable status provides for 80% rates relief, with the ability of the local authority to offer a top-up. But many sports clubs are not charities and will not be able to secure this benefit, and I think that it is important to understand the effect of these changes on these organisations. I am sure that we will receive detailed explanations of the amendments later in the debate but, at this stage, I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in this short debate.
I was not particularly convinced by the Minister’s response to my amendment. We are asking only for an assessment of the impact of the timing of the business rate revaluation on the prosperity of towns and the high street. I would have thought that the Government would have wanted to do this anyway, to arm themselves with some data, facts and information so that they make good, sound decisions that will have the right long-term effects. So we may come back to this amendment on Report.
I very much support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. I fear, though, looking at the Government and their record, that the soundproofed silos referred to by the noble Lord are firmly in place and contribute significantly to the issues and problems that the Government face. We often hear that departments do not talk to each other. The Government have a lot of issues here, many of which can be traced back to the way in which the Government operate on policy matters.
I also agree with the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Addington. I very much support the call for further support for community sport, particularly in our poorer communities. The call to exempt for ever community sports clubs is the right thing to do. We want to see everybody get active, fitter and healthier. Almost every night of the week, we see those adverts from the Government asking us all to be healthier, get fitter, walk more and do more sport, so that is absolutely the right thing to do.
If we support providers of community sport and improve our health as a nation, the savings to the NHS and the Exchequer will repay the relief many times over. In that sense, it is a no-brainer. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, these clubs give us the activity levels that we all want to see—so, again, I very much support his amendment. Indeed, I hope that he and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, will bring their amendment back on Report. I assure them that, if they do not get the assurances that he wants from the Government then, we will happily support them if they want to divide the House at that stage. Perhaps we need to pass this amendment to give the Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer a little more encouragement to do the right thing. But at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Assessment of the impact on appeal waiting lists
Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the Act on business rates appeal waiting lists.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would create an assessment of the impact on business rates appeal waiting lists.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 3, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, has added her name, raises the important issue of business rate appeal waiting lists.
As we heard at Second Reading, there are still 40,000 unresolved rating list appeals from 2010—11 years ago. As a result of this backlog, local authorities had to divert more than £3 billion from services to deal with the appeals risk from 2010 and 2017. This is an unacceptable situation; I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, would agree with me on that. Local authority finances are under extreme pressure, and this unacceptable situation is being made even worse.
The amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to conduct and then publish an assessment of the impact of the Act on business rate appeals. This is an opportunity for the Minister to explain the position of the Government and how they are working to deal with this backlog of appeals. I beg to move.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, I draw the Committee’s attention to my interest as a vice-president of the LGA.
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and speak to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, to which I have added my name. I am familiar with rating appeal tribunals from my previous life when I sat on domestic rating appeals. Some had been waiting in the pipeline to be heard for a very long time. The noble Lord referred to these timelines.
However, this is about business rates. Some years ago, before the Government transferred the retention of business rates to local authorities, unitary and district councils were responsible for collecting business rates but had no say in setting them; nor were they able to retain the rates collected. If the local authority had no major facilities in its area that would attract business rates, this was straightforward. However, if there were major infrastructure projects—I use this term loosely—this caused huge problems as, for reasons best known to the Government, these facilities were expected to pay business rates despite not trading as businesses.
I can speak only from my experience of Somerset but feel certain that this situation will have been replicated across the whole country. Taunton Deane Borough Council and South Somerset District Council were lucky enough to have major infrastructure in their areas. In Taunton Deane, it was the MoD camp at Norton Fitzwarren and a large hospital at Musgrove Park, in addition to several superstores. In the case of South Somerset, it was the MoD Royal Naval Air Station at Yeovilton and Yeovil District Hospital, as well as superstores. The MoD bases and NHS facilities are of course funded from central government budgets in the first place. All these assets attracted business rates covering millions of pounds. The MoD, NHS hospitals and superstores appealed against their business rates—the latter were in a slightly different category as they were trading businesses and, hopefully, making a profit, but millions of pounds were at stake.
The Government informed local authorities that they could, if they wished, agree a lower figure with the appellant. However, any difference from the figure originally set and the lower figure agreed by the local authority would have to be made up to the Government from local householders’ council tax. Many of these pending appeals waited four, five, six or even seven years to be heard. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, has just said, we have now been waiting more than 10 years for the 2010 appeals. All this time, local authorities were wondering whether they would be faced with massive bills in unpaid business rates that the Government would be expecting to receive. When appeals were heard and were successful, this money was passported back to central government. However, there was also an expectation that any shortfall would be made up by local authorities, so it was a win/lose situation for local councils and their taxpayers.
We now have a situation where local authorities operate under a business rate retention scheme. However, with high street retail outlets and other town centre businesses under extreme pressure because of the Covid pandemic, huge numbers of appeals against business rate assessments are likely.
Household rates and housing benefit levels are set on a sub-regional basis by the valuation office. Our valuation office was based in Bournemouth; the price of a property in Bournemouth was vastly different from the value of one in South Somerset. Can the Minister say whether business rates are similarly set on a sub-regional level and whether the buoyancy of the local economy is considered?
Previously, our town centres have been made up of well-known retail high street clothing stores, yet these have all but disappeared. The brands are being snapped up by online businesses that buy the brand and stock but not the premises, as we have seen this week. My noble friend Lord Stunell has already referred to this. How are local authorities that now depend on business rates to balance their budgets to proceed with an increasing number of empty properties?
Many businesses will survive: insurance agents, estate agents, solicitors, food outlets and supermarkets. However, many supermarkets have long since withdrawn to retail business parks, where there is a significant turnover of retailers as each goes into administration. Mothercare, Staples and Homebase are examples; their premises are often left empty for a considerable time. It seems that now is the time for a radical rethink of just what the Government expect business rates to deliver and what type of business they propose to be classified as liable for business rates. This will now include large warehouse facilities servicing online purchases.
The exponential rise in online shopping has been the saviour of householders who have either been subject to lockdown or, prior to lockdown, isolating to protect themselves due to their underlying health conditions. From my office window, I have an excellent view of the C-grade road that serves the 12 houses in our area. The number of delivery vans going up and down has dramatically increased since Christmas. Whether it is with home deliveries from supermarkets or deliveries by DPD, Yodel or another, they are extremely busy and often call long after it has gone dark. Apart from the supermarkets, the vans are delivering goods that householders have ordered from online businesses. Surely now is the time for these businesses to play their part in the local economy and pay business rates; the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, referred to this.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. I agree with all the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. She is right when she calls for all online businesses that deliver goods bought online to pay their fair share of taxes.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, made a compelling case for intervention to stop the rapid collapse and decline of businesses on our high streets. No one wants to see, in effect, an end to our high streets, but that is what we will face if the Government do not take urgent, effective action. I fail to see why they are not acting with more urgency on this. They have given no convincing reason or justification either today or previously when these matters have been discussed.
The point that the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, made about offices is exactly the conversation that we are having at MHS Homes, where I am a non-executive director. We have a fantastic office in Chatham, where all the staff, except those working on the ground, were based, but we are now wondering what our operation will look like in the future. There is nothing unusual about that—many organisations and businesses are having exactly the same conversation about what to do.
I will look carefully at the response from the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, but I may well decide to bring this issue back on Report. However, at this stage, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I first remind the Committee that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, has made some very salient points, notably that it is vital that urgent action is taken to help high street businesses by reducing their operating costs. I recall the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, saying at Second Reading—and again today—that it would prove very hard to estimate rentable and hence rateable values for the traditional retail sector even with this deferral, because new lettings will for the time being be rare events.
When I spoke at Second Reading, I pointed out that retailers pay over a quarter of business rates in England and Wales. That is a very large amount of money, but it will now decline significantly as less is generated from high streets. There is, though, an immediate opportunity to even up business rate receipts by switching a greater burden from the high street to online businesses through the revaluation process itself, because we do not have a fair balance at the moment.
At Second Reading, the Minister said the Government would report in the spring on its fundamental review of business rates. He said he was
“sure that the fundamental review will look at alternative taxes to capture the shift in our shopping habits.”—[Official Report, 18/1/21; col. 1069.]
I welcome that and hope it happens, and I draw his attention to the potential for an e-commerce levy on online businesses.
As we have heard, the move online of Arcadia brands and Debenhams in recent days represents what seems to be an irreversible trend—but that cannot be allowed to mean lower rents and rates for online businesses at the cost of the high street. This proposed new clause would require an assessment of the impact of any business rates revaluation on local high streets to be undertaken within six months, looking in particular at the ability of high street retail outlets to compete with the huge retail businesses that operate online.
The timing could fit well—if the Government wanted it to—with the fundamental review of business rates, and I hope that they will take the opportunity provided by the amendment. It would be strongly and warmly welcomed by high street retail businesses because, as the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, said a moment ago, the matter has become very urgent.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 4, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to insert a new clause into the Bill which, as we have heard, would require an impact assessment of the timing of rates revaluations on local high streets and, importantly, would look at the impact on their ability to compete with businesses that operate online.
We have a serious problem with our high streets. The problem was in many cases a crisis before the pandemic, as we have discussed today on previous amendments. We can all point to the closed and boarded-up shops in areas that we know. The pandemic has created an even more serious problem for high streets and has put many businesses at risk. We need action from the Government to deal with all the issues that are destroying our high streets and our shopping parades.
We will all have seen the news that Boohoo is purchasing Debenhams and that ASOS is purchasing Topshop, but they are purchasing the names and not continuing with their high street presence. Why they are doing that is the question we need to look at. Clearly, they have taken the view that they do not need, or that it is too expensive to operate, a high street presence. This is why urgent action is needed. The issue with online retailers needs to be addressed. It has been discussed in the other place. My honourable friend the Member for Manchester Central, Lucy Powell MP, has said:
“The pandemic has accelerated changes to the way we shop, yet the government continues to disadvantage bricks and mortar businesses against online companies … The support on offer for struggling business has been a series of sticking plasters. Unless the Government puts in place a long-term plan to help high street businesses survive this crisis and recover on the other side, we will see more well-loved high street names vanishing, and many more jobs lost.”
I could not agree more. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, that we need vibrant, healthy town centres. As he said, the power to help the high street is in the hands of the Government. I hope the Minister will address that point.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for a further opportunity to speak about our high streets. As I outlined when we debated the second group of amendments today, we will not know the impact of the revaluation on rates bills until later in 2022, so it would not be possible to produce now the report outlined in the amendment we are discussing. However, we can be sure that, once we publish draft rateable values alongside the multiplier and the transitional relief scheme later in 2022, ratepayers will be able to see precisely how revaluation will affect their rates bills.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised an important point about online businesses compared to those that operate on the high street. Businesses which sell mainly or wholly online do not avoid business rates. They may also operate shops—many high street retailers also sell online—and they will require significant warehouse and distribution facilities, often in high-value locations. Nevertheless, business rates are a tax on the use of property and the rates bill is based on the value of the property. It follows that business models that occupy less property and perhaps operate from less valuable locations will pay less in business rates.
Property taxes have several key advantages over other forms of business taxation: they are relatively efficient to collect, they provide a relatively stable source of revenue to local government that helps ensure the provision of essential public services, and they provide relative certainty for ratepayers from one year to the next. However, there is undoubtedly a click-and-collect revolution, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. The Treasury’s fundamental review of business rates is considering alternatives taxes, including a potential online sales tax. The review will need to consider matters such as the economic impacts of such a tax and assess the concerns and risks that have been raised in the call for evidence.
Supporting the high street is a priority for us. In this year alone, no retailer on the high street is paying business rates. With the assurance that the matter of online business is being considered as part of the fundamental review and the updating of rateable values to better reflect the impact of the pandemic which will come from the 2023 revaluation, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, can agree to withdraw their amendment.
No-fault Evictions
Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I will look at what it will take to ensure that there are proper securities for renters, while recognising that we also need a healthy private rental sector and the role that good landlords play in that process.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant interests as set out in the register. In March 2020, the Government made a commitment that no renter would lose their home due to coronavirus. Can the Minister tell the House how ending the evictions ban aids that commitment?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I point out that billions have been provided in welfare support. In addition, raising the local housing allowance of the lowest 30th percentile is adding nearly another £1 billion of support—some £600 of support to people—in the private rental sector. There is a great deal of support in addition to the discretionary housing payments. All of this shows that we are committed to supporting renters at this time, but we need to get the balance, with support for landlords.
West Yorkshire Combined Authority (Election of Mayor and Functions) Order 2021
Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the Grand Committee to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I am pleased that the order is before the Grand Committee today. It is progress in delivering another devolution deal, as the Government like to call them, but several issues need raising. I do not like this odd patchwork which the Government seem so keen on, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, will recall my many interventions in this regard. There is also the issue of where we go forward with this type of model in Yorkshire as a whole, and then there is the question of the powers and the small sums of money that accompany this type of arrangement.
But before I comment on any of that, I pay tribute to Mark Burns-Williamson OBE, the police and crime commissioner for West Yorkshire. He will be standing down when his term comes to an end, as this deal transfers the office and powers of the police and crime commissioner to the new mayor of West Yorkshire. Mark has done an excellent job since his election as the PCC in 2012, and prior to that he served as the chair of the West Yorkshire Police Authority and as an elected councillor.
Looking at this model, I am not sure how much power is devolved, and it feels a lot like the powers that the former West Yorkshire County Council had prior to its abolition in 1986. That is not a view that only I have expressed; I saw that Michael Meadowcroft, the former Liberal MP for Leeds West, had the same view. I also think that at least 20 of the 22 authorities in Yorkshire have expressed support for the One Yorkshire model, which the Government will have to address at some point. This feels to me like a very temporary arrangement.
I am very much in support of proper devolution of power, and this is something the Government will have to focus on if they want to keep the United Kingdom intact. That means giving up power at the centre and giving it to the regions and nations that make up the United Kingdom, but I do not feel that they are ready to do that yet.
The sums of money on offer are also very small— £38 million is all that is actually on offer—and it will cause significant problems for whoever is elected as the first Mayor of West Yorkshire. I hope that it will be my honourable friend in the other place, Tracy Brabin—the Member for Batley and Spen who is the Labour and Co-operative candidate for West Yorkshire—but whoever is elected, I wish them well in this important role.
I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, in looking forward to the leader of Leeds City Council, my friend councillor Judith Blake, joining the Labour Benches in the next few weeks.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised important points about the consultation. Again, I have raised these points many times before. If you look at the number of people who engage in these consultations, they are small—I think it was 4,000 people, but 2.5 million people live in this area. These are very small numbers to gauge, and the Government must look better at how to get more consultation. As I said, all that is guaranteed is funding of £38 million a year.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and my noble friend Lord Adonis raised the issue of why the planning infrastructure powers have not been devolved, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, can give us a full response there. I also agree with the concerns raised by a number of noble Lords about the issue of HS2 and the eastern leg possibly being dropped or delayed. That would do immense damage. I lived for many years in the East Midlands, and the thought that the eastern part of our country will not get the same attention as the western part is, I think, of concern to many noble Lords.
My noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton raised again the issue of the practicality of the elections and the count afterwards. I hope the noble Lord will take these points back to his colleagues in government and make some clear announcements urgently, because otherwise it risks another shambles, with last-minute panic changes. Thinking particularly about the count, that was a really important point my noble friend raised; I tabled some parliamentary Questions on these issues yesterday. We have to get this right, because there would be no point announcing these things if the elections are postponed at the last minute. Candidates, councils and returning officers need to know what is going on.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, is right about the east-west connectivity in terms of Leeds and Bradford. They desperately need a mass transit system to deliver that.
In conclusion, it is good as far as it goes, and, in that sense, I will support the order before the Grand Committee today. However, major issues have been raised by a number of noble Lords which we need to look at as we move forward. This certainly cannot be seen as the end; it can only be the start of a process to level up our country.
Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill
Lord Kennedy of Southwark ExcerptsMonday 18th January 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Act 2021 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, first, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Secondly, I am very happy to support both Bills before us today, but I will want to explore options for improving both Bills in Committee.
On the public lavatories Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, set out what the Bill will achieve: 100% mandatory business rate relief for public lavatories in England and Wales, whether publicly or privately owned. The closure of public toilets over many years is a matter of concern for the general population, particularly those with specific needs—they could be medical needs but not exclusively so. I agree with my noble friend Lady Andrews that this is a long-overdue Bill—of course, it was lost previously due to the general election of 2019. As my noble friend said, Covid-19 has exposed deficiencies in matters that previously we probably all took for granted. I am sure that we will want to deal with them in this Bill.
An increasing number of people are affected by the state of Britain’s public toilets. These include those with disabilities, carers, the infirm, the elderly or people with babies and young children. As I said earlier, people of all ages who are coping with a range of issues and/or medical conditions are not finding adequate provision when they are out and about.
With the closure of bars, cafés and public buildings during the Covid-19 pandemic, we have also seen a reduction in the number of places where people can ask to use the toilet. Although these closures may be only temporary, they have highlighted a real issue for delivery drivers and others who work long shifts on the road getting food to the shops and delivering other essential supplies. Multi-drop goods delivery has always been very hard work. Let us pay tribute to those drivers, who have been outstanding in delivering in these difficult times and ensuring that food is on the shelves. They are struggling to find places where they can go to the toilet when working long hours.
When we are through the worst of this pandemic, we should keep washing our hands with the same increased frequency as we have all been doing in recent months. It would keep us all safer and help prevent the spread of all sorts of infections in the future. We need to be conscious of the age profile of our population and the needs of its older members.
In the past, Britain has—and will do so again in the future—welcomed many millions of tourists to this wonderful country. It is something that we all want to increase and build on. However, it will place further pressure on our existing facilities. Sometimes, these facilities do not give the best impression; for example, when you visit a tourist area and find that facilities are non-existent or, if you find them, they are not in a particularly good condition and do not have a proper cleaning rota.
I am, however, pleased with the progress that has been made in making toilets free at all the mainline railway stations. London Bridge is a station that I use frequently. I have been impressed with the work that has been going on there to make the toilets safe to use during the pandemic. I have not been through Marylebone station recently—the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, mentioned it, as he did in our debate in 2019—but I hope that they have now taken away the charge there.
We should all be concerned about public health, hygiene and environmental standards in toilet facilities. I very much agree with the British Toilet Association, which has been mentioned many times in this debate, in its campaign to improve these essential facilities. Good access to toilets that the public can use is all about health and well-being, quality, social inclusion, privacy and public decency.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, in his comments on Bradford and Saltaire; I know the area fairly well, although not as well as him, and I thought the points he made were very valid.
Public toilets must comply with parts 1 and 4 of British Standard 6465, BS 8300, parts M and R of the building regulations and other requirements. It is all about keeping us safe and well.
The British Toilet Association has done some excellent work with the Changing Places consortium, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, and others. The campaign is about the ability of the quarter of a million people in need of Changing Places toilets to get out and about and enjoy the day, which many of us have taken for granted in the past. It is important that, when we go out—when we move on from the pandemic—we can use toilets safely and in comfort. For many that will require a Changing Places toilet, with the adjustable bench, hoist and so on; we need to ensure people with profound disabilities can go out and use them with dignity.
I congratulate Tesco, which has just opened its 100th Changing Places toilet. The Tower of London also has its first Changing Places toilet, put in by Historic Royal Palaces. Again, many congratulations—it is probably the oldest public building in Britain with a Changing Places toilet.
We are in a lockdown, but that will come to an end. When life returns to something like we knew before, we need to ensure that we have legislation in place—possibly with amendments—to ensure that people can enjoy their time outside without any concerns or worries about adequate toilet facilities.
Why cannot any organisation that installs a Changing Places or other disabled toilet facility in its premises, which is available to the public, make use of some sort of business rate relief? Maybe it could be a double relief or revert to 100% relief? I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who asked why organisations that let people come in and use their toilets cannot have the benefit of some sort of relief. We will want to explore those issues in Committee and expand this Bill to make things better.
As I have said, this is a public health issue, which we might not have taken as much notice of before the pandemic. We need to take notice of it today. Will the Minister set out how this measure will increase the provision of facilities for women and user groups such as wheelchair users, the elderly and people with young children and families with medical conditions? The way in which this Bill is designed does not do that at this stage, but perhaps we can ensure in Committee that it does.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, made a powerful case for highlighting the needs of disabled people. What problem would there be in saying that, by investing in facilities for disabled people, young children and families could not actually attract extra relief?
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, made the very valid point about the issues facing women and men with children and the general problem we have seen, particularly during the pandemic, about the availability of toilets. I mentioned additional reliefs; that would be one way of encouraging provision for disabled people, for example. I intend to bring these issues back in Committee.
A number of noble Lords made points about lavatories in town halls, libraries and other public sites. Again, we should look at those in Committee.
The “Can’t Wait” card is a very good initiative. It always annoys me to see places that have signs up telling you that “You’re not welcome—you can’t use the toilet”. We need the situation to be much friendlier and to recognise that some people cannot wait; they do need to use the toilets. I remember trying to find the public toilet in Stratford-upon-Avon in the summer of 2019. There were signs up pointing to it but I could not find the thing—it was literally impossible—so I went into the theatre and they let me use the toilet there. A place such as Stratford-upon-Avon relies on tourism. There were coaches of people and tourists everywhere, but it seemed that the council had got to the point where it relied on people going to use toilets in bars, restaurants and cafés. Many let them in, but I did not think that is right. If people are letting them in, why can they not have a benefit from providing that public service?
I also very much support the calls from the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Addington, about support for local sports clubs. Thinking about where I live, a place such as the Francis Drake Bowls Club is that sort of organisation, as is Lewisham Borough Football Club, which plays on Ladywell Arena—I think the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, will know it from his time as a Member of Parliament for that area. There is also Fisher Athletic football club. I must also mention Millwall Community Trust, which I am delighted to be a trustee of, and the work we are doing down at Surrey Docks stadium and the facilities next to the Den.
I support the Bill but, as I have outlined, I will table some amendments in Committee where we can improve it. The Bill is narrow in scope but very welcome. We will see if we can improve it, particularly to reflect on how life going forward after the lockdown may have things in it that we did not all focus on before.
Moving on to the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill, I am very supportive of the points made by the Local Government Association. As we have heard, this will move the revaluation date to 1 April 2023, based on property values on 1 April 2021. The legislation keeps the period between future valuations at five years although previous Bills, which were of course lost, sought to reduce it to three years. When the Minister responds to the debate, can he tell us whether that proposal has been dropped for good? The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and others raised this in their contributions.
Closer working with the valuation office and local authorities is very much needed, as is reducing the backlog of appeals. As we have heard, according to the latest Valuation Tribunal for England statistics, there are 40,000 unresolved appeals from 2010—I repeat, 40,000. Councils are having to hold money to one side as these have not yet been determined, and this cannot carry on. I support the calls from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and others: this matter really must be dealt with sooner rather than later.
I support the call from the LGA to see reforms to ensure that appeals can be received no later than six months after a new rating list has come into force. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was right to say that we need root-and-branch reform of the business rate system. Our high streets are in crisis and we need a sustainable, long-term solution to the problem. We should make sure that companies all pay their fair share. I endorse my noble friend Lord Hain’s comments urging the Government to think big. My noble friend Lord Reid of Cardowan also drew the attention of the House to the wider issues that this welcome measure will address but which the Government do need to deal with.
Many noble Lords mentioned the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. He made that very valid point about high streets and ensuring that online businesses pay their fair share, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, made some excellent points about support for the high street, small shops and towns such as Louth in Lincolnshire, which I know well. As I said earlier, tourism will once again be an important part of our economy. We have to have the shops for tourists, as well as local people, to visit. As I said, the big online businesses—the Amazons—have to pay their fair share, and the Government need to ensure that they do so.
Finally, my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick made a point about the correlation between business rates and the prosperity of our towns—their revenue-creating potential. As my noble friend said, we need root and branch reform.
This has been an excellent debate. I am delighted that there were many more speakers than when the House looked at the public lavatories Bill in 2019. Noble Lords have made fantastic contributions—we are clearly going to have a very interesting Committee stage for both Bills. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Covid-19: “Everybody In” Scheme
Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the most important thing is to define terms. Certainly “rough sleepers” are very much considered to be a priority category. The right reverend Prelate makes a case for whether we should consider the broader category of those with a statutory duty to be housed, who may be in accommodation but not settled accommodation. I will take this forward and see how we can make sure that the vaccination goes to the most needed groups, which I am sure is the point behind the question.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant interests as set out in the register. On the Minister’s responses, the solutions are by no means world-class, world-beating or world-leading; they are extremely disappointing. We had people sleeping rough on our streets last week and last night, and we will have them again tonight. If the Minister goes to Waterloo Station, he will see a whole group of tents there, with people sleeping under the bridge between the station and Waterloo Road. The Prime Minister and members of the Government tell us that this pandemic is serious; it is deadly serious, and lives will be lost. There is no justification for not getting every single homeless person off the street today. They have particular vulnerabilities and we must do this, because we are not doing what we did last time.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
The noble Lord has reminded me to declare my residential and commercial property interests as set out in the register. I thank him for that. I understand where he is coming from. As a Government we have a moral mission to end rough sleeping. That is not an easy task, as the noble Lord knows, but we will do our utmost. The first thing is to prioritise the cash, with escalating amounts of money to do precisely that. We will need the support of local government. He points to Waterloo, and I know that is in the noble Lord’s “patch”, if you like, so we need the support of the London Borough of Southwark to show the leadership required to deal with this issue.
Leaseholders: Properties with Cladding
Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, that is a very pertinent question and I thank my noble friend for raising it. There are ways to deal with that. Frankly, they have made large sums of money in the last few years and their profits are often publicly available. There is a soft power aspect: developers want to continue to build if they are in business, and they can afford £60,000 for a fire alarm and to pay for remediation costs. They do the right thing. We saw with the aluminium composite material programme that around half of building owners did the right thing and did not to have to resort to payment and subsidy by the taxpayer.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant interests as set out in the register. Does the Minister agree that it is important for all building owners and managers to be open, honest and transparent with leaseholders about the fire safety defects and other risks in their buildings as part of dealing with the cladding and fire safety scandal and future problems? Will he agree to look at what specific legislative measures could be included in the building safety Bill, including serious criminal sanctions for those who fail to do so?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, there will be a lot of legislative work in the next calendar year on the building safety Bill, and we still have the Fire Safety Bill to play ping-pong with. I will ensure that we consider the noble Lord’s proposals very closely indeed to ensure that we hold building owners to account. That is the whole idea of the building safety Bill: that there is an accountable person.
Religious Groups: Financial Support
Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I completely agree on the role of British Sikhs. It is fundamental to their faith to help people in need, and, although I have only 15 followers, I specifically tweeted out my support for Langar Aid in Kent. It is alongside many charities, including the Salvation Army, which provided much needed sustenance at a very difficult time throughout the Christmas period.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, throughout the pandemic, faith groups have provided comfort, care, guidance and support for people and communities—as we saw in Gravesend with the Sikh community. We should pay tribute to them and thank them for that, but, as the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, said, we should go further. Will the Minister agree to speak to his colleagues in the Treasury to see what could be done through the tax system to provide bespoke levels of support to faith communities? I also join the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, in condemning those who wrongly seek to blame the Muslim community for the pandemic.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I will always commit to talking to the Treasury. I am not sure it will always listen to me, but I promise to make every endeavour and possible representation to ensure it sees the light and takes up the noble Lord’s suggestion.
Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement
Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, first I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Secondly, I place on record my thanks to the whole of local government, including elected mayors, councillors, officers and all staff, for the fantastic job that they have done in the most difficult of circumstances over the past year.
When our communities have been most in need, local authorities and their staff have stepped up and delivered in every field—teachers, social workers, care staff, refuse collectors and all the others doing the important jobs that must be delivered. However, this is a disappointing Statement from the Government. It will lead to job losses and cuts to key front-line services, such as adult social care, which will cause great hardship to people and communities. On top of that, the Government are proposing that councils raise additional revenue through a 5% rise in the council tax, taking money from hard-pressed people who are already struggling.
Council tax is a regressive tax. It hits people and families on lower-than-average incomes much harder than people on higher incomes. In our most deprived areas, people on lower incomes will, as a result of this Statement, see the bills that they pay rise and the services they rely on cut. “Pay more, get less for your money” seems to be the by-line of the Government—not a great deal in my opinion.
So can the noble Lord tell the House what plans the Government have to support local authorities during the year as we seek to get out of the nightmare of the pandemic? It is very likely that Covid costs will outstrip even the revenue that can be raised from the council tax increase.
What plans do the Government have to support hard-pressed families? Is the noble Lord talking to the Treasury to ensure that support packages are available after March this year? Can he say something about the support that will be available for councils to help families who find themselves homeless? Does he think that the funding system for local government is fair and fit for purpose? If he does not, what action is he taking to change it? If he does think it is fair, can he please justify that?
At the start of the pandemic, the Government said that they would provide local authorities with all the support they needed. Sadly, however, I do not think that many in local government would say that that is the case at the start of 2021—that promise has not come to fruition.
Another huge issue for local authorities is the costs associated with people who have no recourse to public funds. How does the noble Lord intend to address that with this settlement? On a more general note, does he see the practical sense, particularly in these extraordinary times, of providing a multi-year settlement for local government? It would seem to be worth considering and would certainly help local government with its long-term financial planning.