Business and Planning Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

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

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

My Lords, I support Amendment 51 and thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for tabling it. I agree with what he and all other noble Lords have said. The noble Lord reminded us that the performing arts are about education and stimulation, and are a balm for our souls—I guess we need that now—as well as for the economy. There is clearly a strong case to help the entertainment industry where that can be done safely. There are good links between this amendment and other matters in the Bill, such as the role of local authorities in giving permissions for new venues, and the fact that many pubs and hotels also support and are venues for live entertainment, especially for freelancers.

Various open spaces are regularly used for entertainment. Like all other noble Lords, it appears, I have strong connections with the Minack, having spent many teenage summers literally just up the road. However, there are many other spaces where it might be necessary to obtain permission from the local authority. I would like to know whether such permissions could be achieved more rapidly. I know that the usual ones are already in my local area, because we regularly have summer outdoor Shakespeare plays, but I imagine that more venues will be needed, not least because you cannot fit quite so many people when audience seating has to be socially distanced.

There must be many other entertainments that are not so threatening in terms of the aerosol effects that cause concern. I am sure that a string ensemble is not quite so threatening, or musical soloists. They could fit into smaller spaces, including pub gardens. We also have some excellent mime performances locally. Nothing compensates for the loss of theatres and concert halls, but surely that is all the more reason to be as permissive and inventive as possible to help the performing arts survive with open-air performance until indoor performances can recommence.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, which would add a new clause after Clause 15 on the specific issue of outdoor entertainment. As we have heard, like the hospitality industry, the entertainment industry is struggling more than most. I agree that our cultural offering is the envy of the world and that it needs our support to come back to life as soon as possible, and in a way that is safe. Theatres and similar venues have been warned that they might be the last to reopen and, as we have heard and seen in the news many times, staff have been laid off.

The noble Lord’s amendment focuses on outdoor entertainment. I will be interested to hear the Government’s response from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. Every summer for many years, my noble friend Lady Kennedy and I have enjoyed going to the Regent’s Park outdoor theatre, which is a wonderful venue not far from here. We were last there last summer to see “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”. It was a wonderful production. However, it has cancelled its entire 2020 programme; it has completely gone. It hopes to be back in 2021 with a production of “Romeo and Juliet”. I have also enjoyed going to the Luna Cinema, which shows films in locations all over the country. That is also a wonderful thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, my name is attached to Amendments 52, 54 and 79. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has made an excellent case for Amendment 52. I also fully support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. These amendments are all broadly similar. It is important that no applications are permitted for changes to existing conditions if they are there to reduce, remove or limit environmental impacts. Existing conditions are in place as a consequence of detailed planning consideration at an earlier date. Such restrictions, agreed or imposed then, should not be affected by this legislation and I seek the Minister’s confirmation that my fears that they could be are completely unfounded. Amendments 52 and 56 would solve the problem and I hope that the Minister feels able to accept them.

Amendment 54, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Pinnock, is about fees charged by local authorities. It proposes a fee for extended construction hours, up to a maximum of £195, which is a reasonable figure to write into the Bill. The principle is that councils should be able to recover their costs. It does not need to be about profit, but it must ensure that the direct costs of processing, assessing and agreeing an application are achieved. Neither does it need to be about full cost recovery, if that includes councils’ general overheads. The principle of recovery of direct costs for an application is a reasonable conclusion to reach.

Amendment 79, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would ensure that any further regulations made by the Secretary of State would require scrutiny through the affirmative procedure. That is the right approach and I fully support it.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his announcement of the concession that the Government will bring forward an amendment to address the issues which I raised on Amendment 73. We had a very productive meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. We made some points, the Government listened and I am very grateful.

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

76: Before Clause 22, insert the following new Clause—
“Three-month parliamentary reviews
(1) This Act expires at the end of a review period unless the condition in subsection (2) is met.(2) The condition is that both Houses of Parliament have, following a debate, passed a resolution during the review period in the form in subsection (3).(3) The form of the resolution is—“That the provisions of the Business and Planning Act 2020 should not yet expire.”(4) The first review period begins on the day 90 days after the day on which this Act is passed.(5) Subsequent review periods begin on the day 90 days after the day on which the previous review period ended. (6) A review period ends at the end of the seventh sitting day after the day on which it begins.(7) In this section, a “sitting day” means a day on which both Houses of Parliament are sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would ensure rolling three-month parliamentary reviews of the legislation.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate, and anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, in my first contribution I should have declared my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as president of National Pubwatch.

Amendment 76 in my name is a solitary amendment and was first raised in the other place by my good friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, Meg Hillier MP. The intention is to allow Parliament to consider the impact of the measures introduced by the Bill and to repeal them should unintended consequences occur. I very much agree with my honourable friend in the other place that it is particularly important for Parliament to take a power to repeal measures since so little time has been given for the Bill to be debated. Are noble Lords satisfied that we have had sufficient time to scrutinise the Bill? I suggest that we have not had enough time, but there is a lot of pressure to get it agreed. It is therefore important to ensure that we have a mechanism to deal with issues.

There is one important difference between my amendment and that which was debated in the House of Commons. In the amendment before the House of Commons it was for the Commons to conduct the review, while my amendment gives a role for the House of Lords. That is in recognition of the expertise in this House. For me, that was an omission in the discussions in the other place.

I expect I will shortly be told that this amendment is unnecessary as the Bill includes a provision for the affirmative procedure for draft regulations, but that affords little scrutiny, especially in the Commons where only a small number of MPs have the chance to raise concerns. This amendment would allow Parliament to review the impact of the provisions in the late autumn. If the Minister is unable to accept it, perhaps he could explain how the Government will allow the House otherwise to repeal aspects of legislation should the concerns around provisions prove founded. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his response to my amendment. Obviously, I never intended to press it to a vote, and the noble Earl made some valid points on my amendment. Equally, I think I raised some valid issues with the amendment. As I said, I support the intention of the Bill and, as I raised here, I entirely accept that these are temporary measures. Equally, however, I think there is an issue if, when we put something in place that is temporary but causes unintended consequences, we have the solution be, “Oh well, hopefully I have the power to do something about it.” This may not be the tidiest way of dealing with things—let us leave it at that.

In a number of places around the country, we leave it to the local authorities to intervene and deal with the issues when we could have a mechanism to deal with them ourselves. Anyway, I hope that this will not be the case and will not be necessary, but I it is a valid consideration. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 76 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 77 on employee and employer considerations, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, is a timely reminder that all the elements of the Bill have a consequence on working lives and employer responsibilities, and provide opportunities to develop better working practices and relationships. Liberal Democrats have long proposed employee involvement in businesses as a means for improvements to be gained, both by the employer and those employed. This debate is important, we support the sentiments, and I look forward to the response from the Minister.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 77, in the name of my noble friends Lord Hain, Lord Monks and Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, introduces the issue of employer-employee relations and highlights the role of trade unions and other organisations that represent employees in determining the success of these changes.

The Government will want to engage constructively with the relevant trade unions, and it would help the House if the noble Earl could set out how he has consulted them during the drafting of the Bill and sought their views on the issues contained in it, which have a direct consequence for the people they represent.

The Bill seeks to support economic growth, but if workers, their views and the views of their representatives are not taken account of and their safety is ignored, that is irresponsible—and I am sure the Government would not want to do that. The worst thing of course would be if we did not take their views properly into account and that failure contributed to a second wave of the pandemic, which would be—health-wise and economically—an utter disaster for the United Kingdom.

I agree very much with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, about how we should look to Germany and the work it does there with its works councils. I was over in Berlin a couple of years ago and saw the great work Rolls-Royce was doing at its factory just outside Berlin.

My noble friend Lord Hain mentioned the Communication Workers Union, and I fully endorse his comments. I also pay tribute to USDAW, the shop workers’ union. I was a member of USDAW for many years. Its members, the shop workers, are the people who have kept our shelves filled, and not without abuse and assaults from people. There have been some disgusting stories of offensive behaviour that shop workers have had to endure from people coming into shops. We should pay tribute to them. During the passage of the Bill concerns have been raised with me by the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, which of course has many members employed in pubs, about their safety as we move forward.

I also endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Hain that managers and trade unions working together can make a huge difference for businesses, local authorities and the rest of the public sector, particularly the NHS. We should not forget that when we clap NHS workers, pay tribute to shop workers, rightly praise local government staff and call firefighters heroes, they are members of unions such as Unison, Unite, the GMB, USDAW and the FBU. They are the same people—there are not two groups of people, one of heroes and great workers and the other of trade union people. There is something that has always frustrated me, and I raised it many times when the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, was Local Government Minister. When we discussed the tragedy of Grenfell Tower, the frankly totally unfair attacks on the FBU by the Prime Minister always irritated me. I repeatedly raised that, because it was totally unfair. Those heroes are members of that trade union. I will leave my comments there, and I look forward to the reply of the noble Earl to the amendment.

[Earl Howe]

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

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

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

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

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