Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill
Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would extend the rate relief to publicly-owned libraries and community centres, and local authority properties, which are free to enter and which contain public lavatories that are free to use.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, as this is my first contribution today, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Amendment 1 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to amend Clause 1(3) of the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to bring into the scope of the Bill those toilet facilities that are in community centres, libraries and other local authority buildings and are free of charge for use by members of the public.
There are clear and undeniable public health benefits to having toilets that are available for the public to use. This amendment seeks to increase that provision. I recognise that in some cases, libraries and other public buildings already make their toilet facilities available to the public. This amendment supports them for doing that, but goes further, as it provides a welcome encouragement for those facilities that do not have the same access provision to be made available to the public. There has been a noticeable decline in public facilities over recent years, and this amendment seeks to reverse that trend by providing rate relief as an encouragement either to continue with the access presently provided or to extend access to the public to take advantage of this rate relief.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has tabled Amendment 9, which I am very happy to support, and the noble Lord will explain the effect of his amendment when he speaks shortly. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his support for my Amendment 9 in this group. I will speak to both my amendment and Amendment 1, which the noble Lord has just moved. I declare my interest as a member of Pendle Borough Council, which no longer has public lavatories but is the rating authority for those that exist. I thank the Government for scheduling this Committee fairly quickly after Second Reading so that we can progress this Bill; it gives us real hope that the Bill will manage to pass in this Session.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would follow up amendments moved in the Commons and comments made quite widely by people at Second Reading in your Lordships’ House. They pointed out that very many lavatories that people consider to be public lavatories and that operate as public lavatories are ancillary to other facilities provided by local authorities and other voluntary bodies, and so on. The problem is that, from a rating point of view, they are part of the same hereditament as the facility to which they are basically ancillary and therefore would not come under the provisions of this Bill as it stands. The Minister has kindly written to interested Members of the House putting forward the view that the Government put forward in the Commons that, to exempt these genuine public lavatories from business rates would be onerous—particularly on the Valuation Office Agency, which is responsible for doing all this— and that it would therefore not be practical to go ahead with it.
My Amendment 9 tackles some of the affected lavatories, which would probably not be a very large number. I believe that this could be done without any onerous burden being placed upon the VOA or anybody else. It reads that, for the purposes of subsection 4(I), which is what this is all about,
“a self-contained public lavatories facility which forms part of a larger hereditament and which may be accessed independently from outside that hereditament forms a separate hereditament.”
It is possible that it would have to be done technically in some other way: it might be that it could be done via secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has amendments later on, to which I am not going to speak, but at this stage I will just say that I strongly support them; they provide an opportunity for the Government to tackle the technical details, and there are huge technical details in all this, because it is about rating. They would allow the Government to pick up a lot of the points that we are making in these probing amendments at this stage.
It seems to me that, when a lavatory is part of a council-owned building in the middle of a small town or village—it might be a library, market hall or any other council-owned building—and has an outside door so that, even if there is also an inside door that could be locked when the main building is not open, people would be able to access that from outside, sorting out the separate valuation for a limited number of instances like this would not be a great burden, and it could, and should, be done. In practice, the VOA will have done it anyway when it assesses the rates on the whole building, because here is a separate use from the main building and it will have a look at it and say, “What is the amount that that contributes?” Somewhere in the depths of its records, it probably has the information anyway. Even if it does not have it, however, it is not an onerous task for it to do. The number is relatively small compared with the great majority of lavatories in libraries and so on. I hope the Government will accept the principle of this—I do not expect them to accept my amendment as it is today—and go away and have a look at it. I invite the Minister to say that he will do that.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. Both amendments in this group—from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock and me, and from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—attempt to probe how the Bill could increase the number of public lavatories and prevent further closures.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about toilet facilities at stations. I regard these as public lavatories. It would be good to extend the provisions of the Bill to cover them. In recent years, charges have been removed at virtually all mainline stations in London—with the possible exception of Marylebone. This is good news.
Amendment 9 from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, provides for those public toilets with a separate entrance to be brought into the scope of the Bill. The noble Lord is right; there are probably not that many facilities which would come into this category, but it would be a welcome move.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that it would not be onerous to identify the different facilities which would come into the scope of the Bill. I do not accept the Minister’s comments about onerous costs on local authorities. In effect, the facilities would self-identify. I do not believe there is a huge amount of work involved. I do not accept the argument that the cost would outweigh the benefit to the local authority going forward. I am also grateful for the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.
We all support the aims of the Bill. It is good as far as it goes. If we want to stop the decline in the number of public lavatories—and the public health benefits that go with them—we will have to go a bit further than this welcome Bill. This is the point of our amendments. I am sure we shall bring them back on Report. I hope that the Minister will reflect on whether, if we all want the same outcome, we should go further. I do not accept that the costs outweigh the benefits. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I have nothing really to add: the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has set out very clearly and carefully what he seeks to get from his amendment. As we have heard, it is a very good probing amendment that gives the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, the opportunity to set out carefully for the Committee what is meant by “or mainly”. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, this is a good House of Lords way of getting into the detail of the Bill, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. Amendment 7 seeks, of course, to provide a welcome definition of what “mainly” could be construed or interpreted as, giving weight to public use of public lavatories. I will leave it there, and I look forward to the Minister’s explanation.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am beginning to learn how the House works, and I appreciate the education; I am sure I will get used to this way of drawing out important information. These amendments probe the current definition of a public lavatory that would qualify for this relief, and seek to amend this definition to capture some of the facilities that the Bill does not currently cover.
The Government have carefully drafted the scope of the Bill, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to set out for the House the rationale behind this decision. Subject to Royal Assent, the relief within this Bill will apply to all hereditaments that
“consist wholly or mainly of public lavatories”.
Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, probes the meaning of “mainly” in this provision. The phrase “wholly or mainly” can be found across government legislation and, in particular, exists within that legislation which provides for an 80% business rate discount to properties used
“wholly or mainly for charitable purposes”,
as the noble Lord mentioned. Local authorities are responsible for deciding which properties are eligible for business rate relief, and the use of “mainly” provides for some discretion on their part.
However, I will directly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on how this would work in practice. Councils should reflect on all relevant matters, including any relevant case law and guidance, when making these decisions. The use of “mainly” means that an authority may, for example, look at the floor area of a building and see that less than 50% is being used directly as a public lavatory, but it may still feel that it meets the criteria for this relief because the remaining area is used as storage or for other matters of little consequence. That is very similar to the example that the noble Lord gave. The Government consider it right that the Bill provides local authorities with this level of discretion because these are decisions best taken on the ground and on the basis of local knowledge.
The second amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, follows on from the first and would act to define “mainly” within the Bill in reference to the extent to which a property is used as a public lavatory, rather than for other purposes. I appreciate that the intention of this amendment is to provide for the relief to be available to buildings that do not constitute separately assessed public toilets but that serve that purpose to a large extent. As I set out earlier, an expansion of the relief beyond those toilets that are separately assessed and have already been identified and separately rated would bring with it significant administrative burdens and costs.
In the case of this amendment, local authorities would be required to not just identify qualifying facilities but assess the extent to which the public are using them for different functions. The public use test would be particularly cumbersome because it would go beyond an assessment of a property’s physical elements and would require an analysis of the extent to which these elements are used by the public. The results of such a test could change relatively frequently, and local authorities may need to make the required assessment on a regular basis.
As currently designed, the measure in the Bill does not carry implementation costs disproportionate to the benefits to ratepayers, nor any significant implementation difficulties for local government. As such, we are not in favour of any amendment to this relief which would increase the complexity of its implementation, create unnecessary burdens for local authorities, or indeed create administrative costs disproportionate to the total benefit to ratepayers. However, I would be keen to engage with noble Lords on some of the technical reasons for not expanding the scope of the Bill.
I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his amendments, which probe the design of the relief before the Committee. However, for the reasons that I have set out, I do not consider that the potential benefits of the amendments would outweigh their substantial costs and I hope that the noble Lord will not press them.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would confine the rate relief to public lavatories that are free of charge to use.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 3 in my name seeks to add the words
“which are free of charge for anyone to use”
to Clause 1(3). The Bill provides a financial benefit and the effect of my amendment would be to restrict that benefit to public lavatories that are free to use—a very reasonable aspiration and objective. I do not see why those public lavatories that you must pay to use should be a beneficiary of this relief. The purpose of the Bill is to provide encouragement in this area, and I think that this amendment strengthens the Bill in this regard and provides a clear focus on the free use of public lavatories.
Amendment 10 from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is very sensible and I fully support it. Why should we provide financial benefit when the lavatory is not open for extended parts of the day? But I will let the noble Lord explain his amendment to the Committee.
On a more general point, in resisting amendments in previous groups, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, has relied on the argument that the Government do not want to place additional burdens on local authorities and that any savings would be outweighed by the cost of identifying these lavatories. When he replies to the debate, it would be useful if the Minister could evidence that. I have heard nothing from any local authority—the National Association of Local Councils, the District Councils’ Network, London Councils or the Local Government Association—to suggest that the argument that the Minister is relying on has any basis in fact. So it would be useful if he could explain that to the Committee. Or is it just the assertion of the department? I look forward to his response to the debate.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 10 in my name and Amendment 3, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, which is fairly basic. I am old enough to remember one of the great hue and cry campaigns by women; it would be called a gender campaign nowadays. Not only did they have to spend an old penny—one of those great big things which people under 40 or 50 have never seen—but they had to go through a turnstile, which caused problems for pregnant women. That was a huge hue and cry at the time and was, I think, sorted out—but there are still plenty of supposedly public lavatories where you have to pay. The most disgraceful ones in my view were at mainline railway stations, which started charging considerably more than a penny, but that seems to be being changed now.
Amendment 10 would prevent bodies benefiting from free rates when the lavatories are not open for a reasonable amount of time and at reasonable times. I am always told by lawyers and Governments that the word “reasonable” should never be put in legislation because all legislation has to be reasonable before you start. Nevertheless, this seems to me to be a reasonable thing to discuss in this Committee.
There may well be some public lavatories in tourist areas which are not needed, or not in such quantity, at some times of the year. There may be ones which are needed at some times of the week and not others. It may be perfectly reasonable to lock public lavatories overnight to prevent them being used for undesirable purposes. That was certainly done in my part of the world. There may, indeed, be public lavatories which are open only on special occasions because of where they are and what takes place there. We used to have one which was opened at various times of the year, particularly on Remembrance Day, because it was next to the cenotaph. What is reasonable ought to be up to local decision-making by the owners of the lavatories, but they ought to be stopped from keeping them shut when they ought to be open. That decision ought to be made by the rating authority.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who referred earlier to some confusion in the Bill about what a public lavatory is, in terms of ownership. Does this Bill apply only to facilities owned by councils or by other public bodies, or to other voluntary bodies and charities as well? Does it apply to commercial enterprises that might provide a public lavatory at the entrance of their commercial facility—there might be a park, or whatever—which is open all the time for public use? Could the Minister clarify that? Is it use as a public lavatory, under the Minister’s terms, that matters, or, is it who owns it that matters? That would be a helpful clarification.
My amendment is about how the Government are going to stop people freeloading and getting rate relief when they are not providing the facility they ought to be.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, wanted to know the evidence that this would cause a burden disproportionate to the level of relief provided. The reality is that, under these proposals, we are not asking local authorities or the Valuation Office Agency to do anything in addition to what they already do. But where we are widening the scope, we are asking local authorities to do something they do not currently do, so by definition that will increase burdens on them and, in some cases, on the Valuation Office Agency.
The effect of the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Greaves, would be to apply a set of conditions that would need to be satisfied before the relief could be granted. I will expand on the reasons why I do not believe these are helpful in the operation of the relief. As a principle, I do not agree we should be moving away from the clear and simple aims of the policy by limiting this much-needed support.
The effect of Amendment 3 would be to exclude those who own and run facilities where a small fee is charged from receiving this relief. The Government’s policy aim and purpose in Clause 1 is to target the relief to best support the provision of public lavatories. In particular, we want to support facilities that exist where there are unlikely to be any other publicly available toilets, where removing the additional costs of business rates could make a real difference to the ability of councils or others to keep the facilities open. I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, about free-to-use public toilets. Nevertheless, the purpose of this Bill is to provide targeted support to separately assessed public lavatories, recognising the particular circumstances they face, not to draw a distinction between those that charge and those that do not. Such a distinction would add complexity, uncertainty and an unnecessary administrative burden for local authorities and would increase the pressure on those facilities that are not able to access this support. I do not agree that those ratepayers that operate a public lavatory and charge a minimal fee for the first service should be excluded from this vital support.
I understand the practice of charging a fee is reducing, but those that charge do so on the basis of a commercial decision. In some cases, that fee may be charged to meet the ongoing costs of maintenance and cleaning, which is entirely reasonable. Nevertheless, I recognise the importance of knowing which facilities charge and what services they provide, so I welcome the work of the British Toilet Association, which provides an online service called the Great British Public Toilet Map, which has been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. This provides visitors with critical information about toilets in a specific area, including whether they are free to use, whether they are accessible and whether they have baby-changing facilities. Users can then make a decision in good knowledge and plan appropriately. I also commend the community toilet scheme, which was first devised by the London borough of Richmond upon Thames and is now used by local authorities across the country. This enables local businesses to work with councils to widen lavatory access so the public can use their facilities without making a purchase.
Amendment 10, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would limit the relief on the condition that the facilities should be open at set times and days as reasonably necessary. As I have outlined, our aim is to increase the support for the provision of public toilets, not to reduce the level of assistance for facilities that are most in need of support. I would not support the creation of a further burden on authorities to assess and police the opening and closing times of a toilet before awarding relief. The establishment of such a regime would be disproportionate to the value of the relief and would not represent good value for money to the taxpayer. As I have set out, the relief applies only to occupied facilities and is awarded only in these circumstances. While I understand the intention of the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Greaves, in practice, they may, at best, be unhelpful and, at worst, unnecessarily increase pressure on toilets to close.
I hope that I have helped clarify the Government’s intention about how the measure would apply. With these assurances, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, can agree to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. We are identifying issues the Government should reflect on before this Bill comes back on Report.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, has not sought to challenge my general point from my earlier remarks, that the position of the Government, in resisting any amendment here today, is that we are creating burdens on local authorities that far outweigh the benefits. Yet, as I have said, I have looked and cannot find any organisation from local government—the LGA, the Welsh LGA, the District Councils’ Network, London Councils, the National Association of Local Councils—or, in fact, any local council or local authority in England or Wales that would support the Government’s position. If they actually asked them, I suspect there would be a lot of support from local authorities for increasing the benefits of support for their network of public toilets. I will leave that point there, and at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendments 4 and 12 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, enable us to debate important issues. He seeks to ensure that lavatories that operate in accordance with national standards benefit from this relief.
The trade union Unison has campaigned on the issue of disability and the barriers that disabled people face when using a standard toilet. Many disabilities are hidden. The sign that we often see indicating disabled facilities is a person in a wheelchair, but fewer than 10% of people who meet the Equality Act definition of disability use a wheelchair. Signs that say “Some disabilities are invisible” have become more prevalent given the requirements of the pandemic restrictions. Crohn’s disease and colitis are two examples of conditions that may mean that a person has to use a disabled toilet facility while having no outward signs of disability.
As we move forward we need a greater understanding and respect for difference, and we must ensure that people are protected. These are not easy issues; if they were we would not be debating them today. What we also need is many more Changing Places toilets, which are a very important to cater for. We will get on to this later.
The comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, reminded me that all the toilets by the reception at Southwark Council are gender-neutral, individual toilets. They are there for public use. So things are certainly changing, but we must at all times have respect for difference and for people. As we move forward on these issues we must ensure we keep those thoughts to the forefront and provide the facilities that people need.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his amendments, which would provide the Government with the power to limit this relief to only those toilets that meet prescribed criteria of their choosing. The underpinning nature of the amendments is the desire to see toilets for all, and I am very supportive of the need to have toilets for those who need disabled access, gender-neutral toilets and gender-specific toilets. As I set out to the House earlier, the Government do not intend to limit the measure within the Bill to only those toilets that meet certain criteria. Subject to Royal Assent, the Bill will support the provision of separately assessed toilets across the country. I therefore do not agree that it would be right to make any amendments which could limit the benefits of this measure.
Furthermore, limiting the relief to only those public lavatories that fit a prescribed description would place a significant burden on local authorities, which will be responsible for administering the relief. Well-intentioned though the amendment is, it would weaken the effectiveness of the legislation were we to require its provisions to be subject to a new, locally administered system of controls.
While I appreciate the arguments that my noble friend Lord Lucas made in support of the Government having the power to make this relief more specific, any benefits must be weighed against the consequential impact on local authorities of using such a power. Although I do not think that the Bill would be improved by these amendments, I appreciate the points that my noble friend makes about the standards of our public toilets.
The Government are interested not just in the total number of public toilets in this country but in ensuring that everyone in our communities feels confident and comfortable using them. This means maintaining hygiene standards and ensuring fair provision of accessible and gender-neutral toilets.
Noble Lords may therefore wish to note that the technical review of toilets launched by the Government will consider the ratio of female toilets needed versus the number for men and take into account the needs of all members of the community, to ensure fair provision of accessible and gender-neutral toilets. The call for evidence, which closes on Friday, has received over 15,000 responses; a government response will be published in due course. As part of this review, the merits of any best practice guidance on the provision of gender-neutral toilets will be considered, alongside any guidance on the necessary provision of access to disabled toilets. These considerations also include provisions for older people and parents with very young children who need changing facilities.
I hope this reassures my noble friend that the Government are supportive of not just the total number of public toilets but the vital importance of ensuring that appropriate facilities are available to all. On this basis—and the basis that the potential administrative burden resulting from these amendments would outweigh the benefits—I hope that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would give rate relief to premises that consist partly of public lavatories according to the proportion of the premises occupied by those lavatories.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 5 in my name provides for a relief where there is a public toilet in part of a premises by enabling it to be calculated and charged separately and benefit from the zero rating. It would provide welcome support for public lavatories, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, will embrace it.
Amendment 6, also in my name, seeks to provide rate relief to a premises with a Changing Places facility. We need to do much more to support Changing Places facilities; providing this relief would be a very positive way to do so. Changing Places facilities provide the necessary space and equipment for people with disabilities —more than a standard accessible toilet can cater for. I mentioned at Second Reading that the Tower of London, a Historic Royal Palace, has a Changing Places facility installed. Noble Lords will know that that building’s construction dates from 1066, after the Norman conquest. The facility is in the New Armouries building, which was built in 1663. It has installed a Changing Places facility; we should follow its example and do the same elsewhere.
When lockdown ends, we want people to be able to get out, meet family and friends and do all the things we have all longed to do for so long. However, for disabled people wanting to enjoy those things that we often take for granted, we need to ensure more adequate, better and more suitable provision. It is not a lot to ask for. It is about dignity and letting people have the freedom to enjoy themselves. Supporting Changing Places facilities is a very welcome thing that we should all do. My Amendment 6 is a small step to encourage the provision of more Changing Places facilities. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, can provide a positive response. I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, the formula proposed by this group of amendments raises an interesting practical question. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said on Amendment 6 about the desire to provide for Changing Places facilities where required, but my interest is in a more practical question: whether what is proposed here works with the normal principles of rating and valuation law.
I understand that it is proposed to extend the relief to the more usual situation where there is a public lavatory, or perhaps more than one, within a larger building which is not accessible from outside—the situation contemplated by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in Amendment 9, which we considered earlier. This being so, these amendments correctly assume that a value has been given to the building as a whole; they seek to extract from that value the amount attributable to the public lavatory or lavatories by asking for it or them to be valued separately and the value given to the building as a whole reduced accordingly. As I said earlier, I am not and never was a valuer, but I fear that the exercise that the amendment contemplates is not nearly as simple as it might seem. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, touched on this earlier.
The problem is one that a valuer would readily identify. First, it is not normal for individual elements in a building, such as public lavatories, to be given values in the course of making up the value for the hereditament as a whole, so a valuation exercise would have to be undertaken which is not normally—indeed, probably never has been—undertaken in the course of the valuations we have today. There is also a consequence for the other part of the building that does not consist of these lavatories—the effect of extracting the value and whether the value attributable to the remainder can be properly sustained without some kind of examination. I suspect that this approach runs into quite difficult valuation problems which a valuer would need to explore with the Minister to see whether they could be resolved.
There may be an alternative solution. I mentioned earlier the example of charitable relief; this time I will take another. Rather than engaging in the rather difficult exercise I have hinted at, it might be worth considering applying a derating formula across the board to all hereditaments comprising public lavatories. There is precedent for that approach in a statute introduced in the 1920s to provide relief for industrial hereditaments. These were hereditaments that were shown to be occupied and used as a mine, factory or workshop. The details are to be found in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act 1928. Hereditaments which met the tests for being treated as subjects of that kind were entitled to a reduction of half their annual value. The aim was to deal with the acute problems of unemployment and to stimulate the economy by encouraging the development of subjects for industrial use. Of course, an enormous problem was being addressed there that was shared across the economy as a whole, and one can well understand the measure and the extent of the relief that derating provided. I should mention that that statute was repealed some years ago so does not apply today.
A 50% reduction would be out of all proportion to what we are talking about when considering the public lavatories element in the overall hereditament, but that does not affect the principle on which the relief was given in these cases: that it is possible, without getting embroiled in detailed valuation exercises, simply to introduce a form of derating for a desirable purpose to encourage whatever one seeks to encourage. If the Minister is not willing to accept these amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, might find it worth considering a 1% or 2% deduction from the overall figure, perhaps adjustable by statutory instrument in the light of experience, as an alternative to the rather complicated valuation exercises that this group of amendments contemplates.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate the backing that the Committee has given to the measures in the Bill and recognise the arguments made in support of extending the relief further still. The first amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would provide for relief to be given to properties which contain public toilets that are not separately assessed, and for that relief to be determined according to the proportion of that property occupied by the public toilet. The second would have the same effect, but separately for properties which contain Changing Places facilities.
In designing the scope of the Bill, the Government have given due consideration to the benefits to our communities of extending the relief to those toilets that are not currently separately assessed. However, these benefits must be weighed against the significant practical and financial implications of implementing such a relief. I hope that my colleagues present today have received a copy of the letter of 2 February setting out these implications in detail—actually, I think most noble Lords today have referred to it. For the benefit of the Committee, I will set them out again now.
The Government have taken the deliberate approach of targeting the measure within the Bill at supporting those toilets that appear separately on business rates lists. This means that this support will be available to those facilities for which the cost of business rates has the largest bearing on their ability to remain open. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would require the separate assessment of the rateable value of public toilets that sit within larger properties, and for the awarding of a business rates discount relative to the proportion of the property that the toilet occupies.
A valuation exercise to provide an apportioned relief would be extensive and require the Valuation Office Agency to first identify where the facilities are, and then to assess the specific rateable value of each toilet relative to the property of which it forms a part. This exercise would carry significant financial and temporal costs, as pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. It would require business rates valuers to carry out assessments and, where needed, to make site visits up and down the country. As such, it would divert critical VOA resources from the priority of delivering the 2023 revaluation and could potentially delay the implementation of the core measure of the Bill before the Committee today.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, mentioned a formula-based approach to derating. This would also result in considerable burdens, for example by requiring the VOA to identify the location of the public toilets. Obviously, the scale of the intervention is different from that for mines in the 1928 Act, but I am happy to discuss that technical approach with my officials between now and Report.
I am proud to be here today championing a measure that will be of great value to our communities. While I recognise the importance of all publicly accessible toilets, the cost of extending this relief according to the amendment would be significant—far greater than the financial benefit to operators of such facilities. I hope that the Committee will agree that a relief with implementation costs disproportionate to its financial benefits would not represent good value for money for taxpayers.
Although extending relief to toilets that form part of larger properties would undoubtedly bring about significant and disproportionate costs and practical difficulties, I appreciate that the second amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, concerns Changing Places toilets in particular. I therefore hope that the Committee will allow me to set out the steps that the Government have already taken to support these vital facilities.
I am proud to belong to a Government who are delivering on their commitment to provide more Changing Places toilets. At the last Budget, the Chancellor announced a £30 million fund to further extend the provision of these vital facilities and my department will shortly set out the allocation of this funding. I would be happy to provide my colleagues in the House with further details on this funding once they are available.
The funding comes on top of the £2 million announced by the Department for Transport to provide Changing Places toilets at motorway services and the £2 million made available by the Department of Health and Social Care to install these facilities in NHS hospitals across England. I hope that that reassures the Committee that where a Changing Places toilet is separately assessed, the measures in the Bill, subject to Royal Assent, act to reduce the business rates liability of these facilities to nil. While there are significant practical reasons why the Bill does not cover toilets—Changing Places or otherwise—within larger buildings, the Government are delivering on their commitment to supporting Changing Places toilets directly through grant funding.
I hope that with those assurances, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I was particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for his explanation of what would appear to be a far simpler method of achieving what I am seeking to do. I might have a look at that before Report as it seems to be a simpler method.
I thank the Minister for his response. Obviously, I am pleased to learn of the additional government expenditure on Changing Places facilities. It is good to hear but we need to do more and go further. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Greaves’ Amendment 8 rightly explores the possibility of closed public toilets being eligible for the relief under the Bill. As those toilets provide no relief for the public, it is quite proper that no relief is provided for the authority paying the rates. It is clearly an issue that we need to explore, and be certain that the legislation ensures that authorities do not benefit from closing public toilets. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raises an important point and I hope that the Minister will able to provide some clarity on it. The amendment, on the face of it, highlights what would be an incentive to keep a public lavatory open. I look forward to the Minister’s response because, from what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, it would be perverse if, by closing a public lavatory, one would be eligible for rate relief. I am sure that that is not the Bill’s intention but it is important to get clarity from the Government on the issue that the noble Lord rightly raised.
“Assessment of the impact of Act on provision of public lavatories
The Secretary of State must within one year of the passing of this Act conduct and publish an assessment of the impact of this Act on the provision of public lavatories.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Government to publish a report on the impact of the Act on provision of public lavatories.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the amendment in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, seeks to insert a new clause that would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the impact of the Act. The Bill, though small, provides for significant rate relief for public toilets as they become zero-rated. In those circumstances, the Government would surely want to see what the effect of the policy has been. The proposed new clause would bring that into effect.
I am happy to support Amendment 13 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, which goes well with my amendment, by giving us information, year on year, about the effect that the policy is having, given that it will be costing the public purse revenue of which it would otherwise be in receipt. If we found that public toilets were still closing, that would be useful information to help us consider how we keep them open and whether something else needs to be done.
Amendment 14 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Thomas of Winchester, is on a similar theme to Amendments 11 and 13, but has an important emphasis on the review to look at the effectiveness of the Act in increasing accessible toilets and, in particular, Changing Places facilities, which we have talked about in earlier groups. I can see how beneficial it would be for the Government to have this information to hand. It would enable them to see that the Act was working effectively or highlight that more work needed to be done.
Amendment 15 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Pinnock, is in a similar place. It picks up on the point and gives power to make a recommendation whether other measures in this area need to be introduced.
I like all the amendments in this group. Perhaps all those who tabled them should get together before Report to table one amendment that takes all these points on board.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, asked me to speak to Amendment 13 in her name. We very much share the sentiments just expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. We all support this Bill and want to see it succeed. We want it as a foundation on which a renaissance in publicly available toilet facilities can proceed down the next decade or so. To know that we are succeeding or to know where any problems or challenges lie, we need good data. We therefore hope that the Government will accept an obligation to publish that information so that we can cheer them for their successes and encourage them to do better where that appears to be needed. It took around 50 years to persuade Victorian authorities to install public lavatories, let alone to agree funding and rates for them. With luck, because of this legislation, we will see increased provision at a much quicker rate. This amendment would let us keep track of progress and would be an essential expression of Parliament’s support for this measure.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, these amendments would require the Government to carry out an assessment of the impact of the relief on the provision of public toilets. The first, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would require an assessment to be made within a year of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, while the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, would require an assessment of the impact to be published on a recurring, annual basis. The amendment tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thomas and Lady Pinnock, would require an assessment to be made with particular reference to accessible toilets and Changing Places facilities. The fourth amendment, which has been tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Pinnock, would require such an assessment to review the impact of the relief on the cleanliness and maintenance of public toilets and the provision of baby changing facilities, in addition to the impact on the overall provision of public lavatories.
I appreciate the interest that noble Lords have in the efficacy of the measure within the Bill and assure the House that the Government keep all business rate reliefs under review. I also want to meet with interested noble Lords and the British Toilet Association before Report to see how we can review implementation of this relief. That is an important step and, I hope, will be an opportunity to discuss some of the issues that have been raised.
Before I turn to the detail of the amendments, I will respond to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that I failed to answer earlier. I can confirm that the relief for all separately assessed toilets applies irrespective of ownership. I want to be clear on that point.
On the provision of public lavatories, the Committee may be interested in the data that is already published annually, to which I have already referred. There are some 3,990 separately assessed public toilets in England and Wales, and this figure is constantly updated and monitored. We do not want to see reductions, and it is clear that by significantly reducing the operating costs of these facilities, the measures in the Bill will help to keep public toilets open up and down the country.
While these measures constitute a significant element of support for these facilities, a number of other factors determine whether a toilet is able to remain open. Ultimately, the decisions on whether to maintain or close a facility must be made by the operator of the facility, often the local council. These decisions will usually be based on wider funding pressures, as well as the number of toilets elsewhere in the local area.
The Government strongly support the continued operation of our public toilets. As I set out earlier, we are providing £30 million of grant funding to directly support the provision of Changing Places toilets in particular. I also set out at Second Reading some of the good work that councils have undertaken through community toilet schemes to maintain and increase provision in their local areas. However, it is clear that there are a number of factors that determine whether a toilet is able to stay open, and it would not be possible to attribute any future changes in the overall provision of public lavatories, or facilities of any specific type, solely to the measures in this Bill. Equally, I do not envisage any direct link between business rates relief and the maintenance and cleanliness of existing public toilets. For this reason, and because the number of separately assessed public toilets is already published on an annual basis, I hope that noble Lords will agree that any assessment of the kind proposed would be unnecessary and an ineffective use of government resources.
However, I welcome the fact that the Bill has shone a light on the interest from across the Committee in our public toilets, and I recognise the passion with which my colleagues have spoken of the need for adequate provision of accessible toilets in particular. I hope that the Committee will therefore allow me to conclude by reiterating the support of the Government for these vital facilities.
A number of noble Lords spoke about the importance of accessible toilets. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, again raised the issue of Changing Places toilets and the disbursement of the £30 million of funds. I am happy to give further details on the progress of that, I hope before Report. It is important to many people in the country that we ensure that the absence of accessible toilets is reduced, because lack of accessible toilets reduces the ability of people with a disability to make use of our public spaces with confidence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, raised the important question of design and doors opening inwards, thereby reducing space. That is a good point, and everyone here nodded in agreement with that sentiment. So I am pleased to let the Committee know that a technical review is looking at the ergonomics and features of toilets and will I hope take some of these points on board. We hope to see an improvement in design in the future.
While the Bill is important, the provision of public toilets is rooted in a number of factors, and in the particular case of accessible toilets, the Government are providing direct grant funding. On this basis, and as the number of separately assessed public toilets is already published on an annual basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I agree with the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Greaves, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thomas of Winchester and Lady Randerson, and my noble friend Lady Andrews. The decline in the provision of public lavatories is a matter of great concern. The adequate provision of toilets is a public health matter, as my noble friend Lady Andrews said in this debate.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that many accessible toilets are poorly designed, despite considerable sums of money having been spent on them. I also agree with her that the need to provide more toilets for women and for men, and more gender-neutral toilets, as well as accessible and Changing Places toilets, is of paramount importance. As I have said, it is about understanding needs, the lack of provision of toilets for women, and ensuring respect for difference, along with the provision of facilities that are clean, safe and secure, and which people feel are safe to use.
The Bill does not address these issues because of its narrow scope, but I am sure we all agree that those are important matters. They are relevant issues that need to be addressed. I was very pleased by the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, to meet interested Peers between now and Report, along with representatives of the British Toilet Association, and I look forward to taking part. However, at this stage I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Non-Domestic Rating (Designated Area) Regulations 2021
Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts(3 years, 5 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, 5 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, 5 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, 6 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, 6 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, 6 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, 6 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, 6 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, 6 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.