Business and Planning Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

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

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I too support the Bill as an urgent and temporary measure designed to alleviate the effects of Covid-19 and stimulate the planning system. However, can the Minister confirm clearly that these are truly intended to be temporary measures and that standards of good design, particularly for the permanent future, will be maintained and, if at all possible, enhanced? I agree with every word of my noble friend Lord Best about the dangers of relaxing the high standards of planning design that we rightly aspire to. Modern techniques allow the most attractive, low-cost homes to be built at genuinely low cost. There is no need to cut corners.

I have one concern about the Bill, as a resident of the London Borough of Hackney. Our hard-working police force, based at Stoke Newington police station, has faced unacceptable challenge from disorder in the streets and unlawful large-scale drinking. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the changes contained in the Bill simply cannot be the basis of heightening disorder—whether it is by young people or older people, it does not matter. The police should not be required to attend at these scenes; the scenes should not occur.

My third point is about the way in which planning and party politics intersect. When I first became a Member of Parliament, for the beautiful Welsh constituency of Montgomeryshire, Lord Hooson QC, who had been a Member for Montgomeryshire before me and who had led me in a number of planning appeals when I was a young barrister, spoke to me very firmly about planning. He said that there were dangers in planning applications for politicians and political parties. He reminded me that one should never allow one’s political interests to interfere with sound principle. So my final point is to ask the Minister to confirm that it is embarrassing and sometimes unethical for developers to be seen as being too close to political parties, Members of Parliament, Ministers and councillors. Planning is an objective matter—there are rules—and paying large sums of money to have dinner near someone who is thought to have influence should never be acceptable. The lessons of history—some very high-profile cases—tell us that.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 13th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, with his detailed knowledge of local rules. However, I wish to emphasise the importance of balance, and to remind noble Lords that these are temporary measures. We must not get bound up in regulatory amendments, however justified these might be for permanent laws. We have to get the economy and our high streets going again and allow vibrancy to return to our bars and pubs. Our hospitality sector has been decimated and it needs all the help it can get.

There are safeguards: there is scope for suspending licensing conditions for up to three months, or removing permission for sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises. There are quite onerous requirements for Covid-19 risk assessments prepared in consultation with employees and unions. There are also various forms of guidance which, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Blencathra, can contain anomalies. But the economy needs to open up. Bars and pubs must be part of the revival and regeneration, whether by young people, tourists or those of us at a more stately stage of life. The Local Government Association has, rightly, supported the Bill, including pavement licensing freedoms, and we need to get on with turning it into law.

Finally, I did not get a chance to say so, but I will be returning to digital verification on Report, as there is more to be done—and quickly.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. Like her, I absolutely recognise the economic imperatives behind the Bill, including this part of it. In your Lordships’ House we have excellent spokespeople for disabled people and real expertise, ranging from a colleague with enormous Olympic achievements to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who I congratulate on his admirable—if uncharacteristic—feat of pedantry in this debate, showing the absurdity of some of the rules. I support the notion that there should be the best possible uniform standard for enabling disabled people to negotiate our streets and built environment, even when economic imperatives lead to the opening up of those streets for eating, drinking and café society.

I will add a comment on Amendments 6, 7 and 8. There are good reasons for planning restrictions, and we do not want to see our built environment damaged significantly as a result of the economic imperatives that we are following. In particular, we need to protect the peace of places where people live and not see them turned into drinking streets because they happen to have a couple of pubs in the vicinity. I therefore support the requirement set out in Amendments 6, 7 and 8 for a proper consultation period.

Because of the internet, everybody knows that it is necessary at the current time to curtail some of the more officious parts of planning law, I would regard 14 days, rather than a week, as a reasonable period. However, it is important for such applications to be screened on the internet by local authorities, which can do it very easily, and for people to be given a meaningful number of days in which to make their representation. That would enable local authorities to make a quick assessment of the level of objections, if there were any, and to make an empirical judgment, rather than reacting only to the economic imperatives. I will keep back some of the things I want to say on similar issues to the debate on the next group of amendments.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Holmes, Lord Blencathra and Lord Cormack, on their amendments. This is a difficult area. On the one hand, we want to proceed quickly as these are temporary measures and we want to make good and recoup some of the losses that the hospitality industry has suffered. On the other, we want to allow access for those who are visually or otherwise impaired, or who are wheelchair users. When he sums up on this group of amendments, will my noble friend clarify how the Government imagine that the guidelines will be fit for purpose in this regard? Although I can see that there is an argument for consultation, does my noble friend not agree that that could potentially delay the coming into force of these arrangements?

I bow to the good will and common sense of the restauranteurs and bar owners who will seek to use a pavement area only if it is physically safe for the category that falls within the remit of these amendments. It is up to them, working with the environmental health officers and the police, to make sure that these provisions are enforceable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Balfe [V]]

I do not agree with my noble friend Lady Noakes: we are not trying to make it more difficult; as I see it, we are trying to get the balance right. I referred in my initial speech to the changes in the regulations—what I think of as the Blair/Jowell reforms—which opened up our high streets to a wild west of alcohol licensing. One thing those measures had in common with this legislation is that they came into force in August. We are proposing to bring this into force at precisely the time when local authorities are going for their summer break—indeed, at precisely the time when we are going for our summer break. By my definition of local authorities getting “a move on”, extending the consultation from seven to 14 days is quite reasonable; I do not think that it is difficult at all. If someone sends an application by second-class post and gets their proof of posting at 5 pm on a Friday, it is unlikely to get there before the next Tuesday—particularly in Cambridge—so we are not even giving seven days. Seven days from date of receipt would be bad enough, but seven days from posting is just not enough.

I asked in my previous contribution whether people who wished to extend in front of unused shops would need to get the permission of their lessee or owner. That is an important point, because otherwise we are basically saying that a premises can just expand on to next door’s territory without any agreement.

I asked earlier, and did not get an answer, whether a local authority could reject an application because it had not had enough time to consider it. In other words, if it arrived on a Tuesday and was due to be determined on a Friday, and it is August and everybody is on holiday, could the authority say, “No, we reject it. We need another seven or 14 days to consider it”?

Amendment 16 states that conditions may

“incorporate views and concerns expressed in the public consultation under section 2.”

How will those views and concerns be gathered? If the local authority asks for views and concerns, it will effectively be giving the general public 24 or maybe 48 hours and then it will have to meet to decide what to do with the public consultation. We keep hearing about the need to open up the economy, but the majority of people in Britain do not feel safe going into a restaurant as it is. I do not agree that the economy will be opened up by this legislation. What we will get is basically another version of the wild west. We need to legislate at a reasonable pace, because if we do so in haste, we will regret at leisure. That is what happened in the earlier, 2003-04 experiment and it is what we are heading for here. Please let us take this at a reasonable pace.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew [V]]

My Lords, the points I would have wished to make in this group of amendments have already been made skilfully by others and I see no need to repeat them. All I would say is that I absolutely support and adopt the approach taken and submissions made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. The noble Lord said extremely skilfully what I would have tried to say, so I have nothing further to add.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, spoke on the previous group, he said he had visited an establishment over the weekend. I share with noble Lords that I went to four establishments over the weekend and found them all very busy. I was pleased to “eat out to help out” as much as I did.

I do not know whether any noble Lords tuned into local London news last night, but it was interesting that the images of Soho this weekend were much different from those we saw the weekend before. One of the small establishment owners interviewed on “BBC London News” was very compelling in what he said about the tables and chairs outside his business making a massive difference to whether it would be able to survive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew [V]]

My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on having the courage to present this important amendment, and on doing it so well—[Connection lost.]

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

Lord Carlile, are you still there? We had better move to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and we may try to get the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, back later.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Can we get the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, back?

[Lord Carlile of Berriew [V]]

My Lords, I apologise—just as I was speaking, there was a power cut in my home. I was saying that in 2015, some 115,000 people died of smoking-related diseases in the UK alone, at a time when knowledge of the dangers of smoking was complete. Since at least 2006, when a significant report was published by Stanford University, it has been known that exposure to tobacco smoke outdoors is less damaging but still potentially very damaging. The noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, who is a considerable medical expert in your Lordships’ House, described clearly how the effects of tobacco can be transferred outdoors.

Let us turn to the nature of the venues that we are discussing. We are not talking about people smoking cigarettes in a field or in a park, or walking along a pavement and making steady progress. The nature of many of the venues that we are discussing here involves canopies, umbrellas and, by definition, proximity. We need only look at the courtyard of every public house.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra [V]]

My Lords, despite his eloquence, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, since I am opposed to Amendment 15.

The Government have repeatedly underlined the point that this is emergency and temporary legislation. It should not be used as a Trojan horse to ban smoking outdoors for the anti-smoking fanatics. Even the Labour Party’s amendment is not as extreme as that and does permit for some consultation. Initially, I did not understand the ambivalence but, as my noble friend Lord Balfe reminded us in the first group of amendments, it is just indulging in rhetoric. Labour says it cannot support the government amendment, but it seems it will not vote against it. It says that they are holding the Government to account and pressing them hard, but it is not voting against it. This is the sort of irresolute, sitting-on-the-fence opposition I would have loved as a former Whip.

At the moment, smokers use outside tables—perfectly correctly, since they are banned from being inside. There is no danger whatever from passive smoking outside. Those who confess to being worried about the public health impacts of smoke inhalation should ban toxic diesel buses, which are far more dangerous than someone having a fag at a pavement table. There are legitimate arguments for and against smoking outside but, if extremists and ASH want to bring forward a ban on smoking outdoors, there must be proper consultation, proper debate and subsequent legislation—not this sneaky back-door attempt.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I mean what I say when I say that it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. He always speaks in primary colours, so we know exactly what he means. But on this occasion, I am afraid that he and I are, not for the first time, going to disagree with convivial cordiality.

I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who has made a considerable effort to come towards those of us who support Amendment 15. I am afraid that I am always suspicious of clauses in statutes—especially for temporary legislation—which are peppered with the word “reasonable”. There are so many “reasonable”s in these amendments that it gives a clue to what is in reality a key to confusion. I believe that Amendment 15, moved so clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and supported by those who signed the amendment with her, does not commit any terrible act which would put any economic interest—including that of the tobacco industry—at any real disadvantage. We need to bear in mind that it applies not to existing open-air spaces outside pubs and restaurants, because they are not newly licensed premises under the Bill, but to licensed sites.

Why is it so important? We are dealing with a double problem: not merely health damage caused by the exhalation of tobacco smoke but the real danger of the exhalation of coronavirus with that tobacco smoke, if the people smoking are suffering from coronavirus or have the necessary symptoms. The draft guidance makes it clear that many of the licensed venues will effectively be largely enclosed and partly covered—[Inaudible].

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I have added my name to this extremely important amendment. However, I congratulate the Government on their introduction of the bounce-back loans and their enormous efforts to try to help businesses survive this crisis, which was not of their making or anybody else’s.

I am sure that my noble friend is sympathetic to the circumstances that could arise, and hope that she can reassure the House that the intention of this measure is not to change the balance of what is fair in circumstances where debts are being recovered by the lenders of these bounce-back loans. I find it difficult to understand why the Government have only really preserved the regulations relating to default and debt recovery for those loans up to £25,000, and only for micro-businesses. I would appreciate it if my noble friend could help the House in this regard. Restaurant owners and hairdressing salons which are limited companies may find that their equipment is subject to seizure when banks try to recover these bounce-back loans.

The banks do not need to recover the loans—indeed, they have expressed reservations and discomfort about being asked to take these borrowers to court. I believe there will be consultation with Ministers over the summer about how this is going to work. If they have a guarantee, they do not need, in theory, to press too hard to recover the loans. But if there are some attractive assets, it may be tempting for them to do so. I hope the Government will be able to state clearly that they want reasonable debt recovery only, and the intention is not to change the balance of fairness in these circumstances.

Forgive me if I am asking too much at this late stage of the Bill and with the emergency nature of the legislation, but I ask my noble friend to consider whether the Government might accept that they could take the power to make regulations, reapplying the Consumer Credit Act to debt recovery should that prove a popular and necessary measure, or whether they can include the range of £25,000-£50,000 in some other way so that we can avoid the reputational damage that may go along with this. Nevertheless, I welcome the bounce-back loans and I encourage my noble friend to give us some clarification.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew [V]]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, whose amendment this is—and I am very pleased to be a signatory—is a considerable expert on the subjects under discussion, as is the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. I have enormous respect for them both, and for their skills in this area. I am but a mere lawyer and feel, to an extent, inadequate to parry on the financial details under discussion.

I have spent a lot of my time in recent decades dealing with fraud cases in which people often got themselves into financial difficulty, through no fault of their own, and were then under huge pressure from the banks. We have recently heard cases in which the Post Office prosecuted people who pleaded guilty to criminal offences which they had not committed. We have heard about the remedial action that is having to be taken, very expensively, to put those wrongs right.

The bounce-back loans are of course very welcome, but they bring a whole new cohort of people into, what is for them, often very substantial borrowing. Many of the businesses we are talking about do not have substantial overdrafts in the ordinary run of things. They are able to live on a cash balance, albeit often small, and they do not have to enter into sophisticated agreements with banks. This applies particularly to family businesses, which have either been created recently or are long established. The debt picture and the debt threats for such companies are frighteningly great compared to the time before coronavirus.

Therefore, over the years, there are plenty of examples, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, of banks being sometimes very oppressive towards customers who are put out of business without understanding what redress they may have against those banks. Unfortunately, these provisions remove some of that redress, which they might discover they have against the banks.

In my view, some simple legal remedies with flexibility are needed, so that if, for example, a company defaults on a loan but can demonstrate that, within a couple of years, it can haul itself back to not only profitability but the ability to repay the loan, we would be in a much better position. Surely that would be a far better outcome. The amendment we are considering is one solution to that problem, and that is why I support it.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, with whom I have exchanged emails, at her instigation, about this amendment. I said to her yesterday in an email that the Government really should produce some kind of arbitral procedure which would enable loans in the range we are debating to be discussed, a solution to be found that would satisfy the banks in the long term, and the businesses concerned to carry on trading. These loans have of course been introduced in an emergency, but it is actually less of an emergency for the banks than for the people who take out the loans, and about whom we are talking. Unless something better is offered, this amendment would rebalance fairness so that there is a level playing field between the lender and the borrower.