Business and Planning Bill

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 6th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the Bill and will speak about pavement licences and bounce-back loans. I declare a non-financial interest: my brother owns a pub. Many in the pub trade are counting on the Bill to enable them to trade viably, and it is a pity that it did not come along faster. It will be mid-August, and a lot of summer gone, before pavement licences are issued. There are big differences between locations and what can and cannot work reasonably. There are more spaces than pavements that could adapt to temporary conversion for outside hospitality use, including areas within the boundaries of properties but not under the licence.

Last week, I did a pre-opening pub crawl, speaking to landlords and looking at the range of preparations. Surprisingly few in my area would benefit from a pavement licence. For some, there was no space on the pavement; for others, there was no need due to gardens; elsewhere it would be in the way for queuing and one-way access. What was clearly of more benefit was repurposing space, such as putting a few tables in part of the car park. It would surely make sense to accelerate licence variations on outside areas belonging to the property in the same way as for pavement licences, and I intend to table an amendment on that for Committee. Would the Minster also advise on the scope of wording in Clause 1(4)(b), which seems very wide:

“food or drink for consumption on or off the premises”?

That seems to cover any food selling, such as supermarkets. Is that intended and is it helping the hospitality industry?

Turning to the bounce-back loans and the disapplication of the CCA, I am concerned whether it is right to disapply all court interventions in Section 140B. I understand that banks have been asked not to apply the usual due diligence concerning affordability, but Section 140B covers more than affordability and relates generally to abuse of power. Why should that be disapplied? These loans last for six years and, during that time, it will be possible for the lender to engage in heavy tactics. Even though the loan is guaranteed by the Government, that does not prevent it being a pawn in other financial arrangements. I would be happier if the disapplication related only to refunds for unaffordability.

Neither should there be reach-across between the loan and other financial arrangements with the lender, such as including it in triggering events or the so-called normal approach to repayments that gave us GRG and other scandals. These are not normal loans; they are encouraged by Government and government guarantees to those struggling due to coronavirus and are to help both them and the wider economy bounce back. Stripping the full content of Section 140B and the related FCA rules is not appropriate and is likely to keep the APPG on Fair Business Banking busy for years. Are big lenders requiring the complete disapplication of Section 140B as their price to play ball?

I shall return to this in Committee but, meanwhile, what terms, other than interest, cover the loans? The agreements seem thin—answer 20 questions and get your money—which is all the more worrying when consumer protections have been removed and there does not seem to be anything else in the agreement literature.