Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Russell of Liverpool]

290: After Clause 123, insert the following new Clause—
“Developer contributions: childcare(1) This section applies where a local authority is making a consideration under—(a) section 106(1)(d) of TCPA 1990 in relation to a “major development”, or (b) Part 4 of this Act. (2) When this section applies, the local authority in question may have regard to—(a) the current availability and affordability of childcare services in the local area,(b) the impact that any new development will have on the availability and affordability of childcare services in the local area, and(c) the need to promote high-quality affordable childcare in line with sections 6 and 7 of the Childcare Act 2006.(3) When setting obligations to which this section applies, the local authority must publish a statement setting out the reasons underpinning their decision to allocate the level of funding or support they have to early years or childcare services and settings.(4) Nothing in this section prevents a local authority from having regard to any factor not mentioned in this section when making a relevant consideration.(5) “Major development” here has the same meaning as in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/595).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would make clear that local authorities are empowered, but not required, to use developer contributions to fund childcare services and settings. It would also require them to publish a statement explaining why – in relation to large developer contributions – they did or did not direct any funding towards childcare services and settings. This would only apply to major developments, as is currently the case for affordable housing considerations.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 290 in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Young. I thank all those who have supported this amendment, in particular the large number of Conservative noble Baronesses I have managed to nobble—it was 16 at the last count, I think —all of whom have indicated their strong support, in principle, for it. I will not bore your Lordships or broadcast my ignorance by opining on the 24 other amendments in this rather large group; I am confident that others will make their own cases at an appropriate, or even inappropriate, point.

We are all aware of the challenges facing parents of young children in the country today. Childcare is too expensive and often extremely hard to access. Even if one is able to afford it, often it is not there. I think we would all agree that, when a parent will lose money if they go back to work because the childcare that they can access is more expensive that what they can earn back in the workplace, the system is not working as it should.

Over the past seven years, the children’s charity Coram—I declare my interest as a governor—has done some research and indicated that prices have risen by 40%, far outstripping inflation and wage growth. However, these price rises have been driven in part by the growing scarcity of childcare services. The Government’s own data shows the systematic underfunding over several years of the so-called free hours, giving nurseries a rather invidious choice between closing down and pushing prices up for the hours that they charge for. The end result is that 5,000 providers closed their doors for good last year. In more than half of local authorities, there is not enough childcare provision for very young children. This is letting families across the country down and is holding back our economy as new parents are forced to give up careers.

Against this backdrop, the Chancellor has announced an extremely welcome massive expansion of government-funded childcare over the next three years. This will see hundreds of thousands of children receive some childcare for free but, potentially, increasing demand for already scarce nursery places. The Government have recognised that this cannot happen overnight but they have not—so far, at least—put in place funding specifically to increase the number and capacity of nurseries. This amendment is by no means the complete solution to the problem but we suggest that it should be part of the picture as we work out just how we are going to deliver on the promises that the Chancellor has made.

It is a long-established principle that, when developers build new homes at scale in what is termed a “major project”, they must contribute towards the extra public service capacity that these developments take up. Whether they are schools, GP surgeries or public transport links, these contributions help to ensure that a major development is acceptable and additive to local communities. Unfortunately, one area where this simply is not happening is the provision of childcare services and facilities. Over the past five years, around £35 billion has been raised from developers to fund affordable housing and community infrastructure. About a third of that has been spent on infrastructure such as repairing roads and extending or building new schools. However, of that £35 billion, the total amount that has been spent on childcare provision is £22 million, which is not very impressive. That is equivalent to £1 for every £1,667 raised from developers—a slight imbalance, perhaps.

There are some areas that have done well. In East Sussex, over £900,000 has been spent on expanding two nurseries. On the Isle of Wight, £200,000 has been spent on extending a family centre. In Knowsley, in Liverpool, almost £2 million has been spent on two new nurseries. However, these represent a disappointingly small set of areas. In responding to a freedom of information request to identify what they had or had not done, more than 90% of local authorities indicated that they had not spent a single penny of developer contributions on childcare or early years support. Since the guidance on both the community infrastructure levy and Section 106 contributions does not mention early years settings at all, this should not come as a great surprise.

Amendment 290 would not force local authorities to spend their money differently. All it would do is make it crystal clear and explicit to them that they can do so and that, in doing so, they will potentially help the Government to deliver on their commitments and policies. Local authorities have focused primarily on schools, not early years provision. While early years provision is meant to be understood as being implicitly included in the schools category, it is mostly not being included or considered at all. On Report in the other place, the Minister, Lucy Frazer, said that

“it is crucial that children get the support, care and education they deserve. It must be the case that nurseries and pre-schools fall within the definition of ‘schools and other educational facilities’”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/12/22; col. 962.]

However, the clear evidence from the freedom of information data is that, 90% of the time, that simply is not happening. I am sure that this is not wilful or intentional neglect; I just think that local authorities do not regard early years provision as a priority to be fully considered. All our amendment asks the Government to do is to make it explicit, rather than implicit, that the need for childcare services should be taken into account. It asks the local authority

“to publish a statement explaining why … they did or did not”

allocate funding or support to childcare services.

At Second Reading, I mentioned that I had undertaken some research on behalf of the Minister to find, given her distinguished 10-year tenure as the leader of Wiltshire Council, a term in Wiltshire dialect that would clarify the intent of this amendment. The noun that I found was “jiffling”, which, in everyday English, means “confusion”. I hope the Minister will agree that, of the myriad amendments that she has dealt with so far and will deal with in future, this is one of the more straightforward, more diplomatic and least contentious ones. It is also fully aligned with the direction and intent of government policy and its purpose, which is simply to eliminate the possibility of any jiffling when local authorities evaluate the potential need for childcare services when reviewing any major project. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and add a brief footnote to the speech he made on Amendment 290, to which I have added my name. As he said, the amendment makes it explicit that the infrastructure levy can be used to make childcare accessible and affordable.

I will make four brief points. First, in standing back and looking at total expenditure on all ages of children under 18, I believe we spend too low a percentage on under-fives and too great a percentage on older age groups, in terms of outcome both for society as a whole and for the individual child. I believe that a pound’s worth of investment spent earlier yields a greater return than if spent later. This is not the time to defend that assertion, but it is relevant to the debate.

Secondly, I therefore welcome the priority the Government have recently given to childcare, with £204 million of additional funding this year increasing to £288 million by 2024-25, on top of the £4.1 billion previously announced, together with earlier announcements about family hubs.

Thirdly, in expanding free entitlement, if that additional funding is inadequate, there is a risk that, as the noble Lord just said, providers continue to remove themselves from the market or reduce the quality of care provided. If the latter happens, it would place the priority of providing employment opportunities for parents above the purpose of child development. Increasing the demand for childcare places by making it cheaper without increasing funding for staff salaries may make it harder to find a nursery space in the first place. At the moment, it is not at all clear where the extra places will come from. Sam Freedman, an author and political columnist, posted the following on Twitter:

“we haven’t been given a figure for the new hourly rate but based on the overall cost for 3+4 year olds (£288m for 2024/5) it looks way too low. We proposed adding in £2bn to make it sustainable”.

Fourthly, the current business model for much of childcare relies on cross-subsidy from the better-off parents who can afford the extra hours to make good the gap in statutory funding. I was rereading the report of the Lords Select Committee on Affordable Childcare, published in February 2015, which said this about cross-subsidy:

“There is evidence that the funding shortfall in the rates offered to”


private, voluntary or independent

“providers for delivery of the free early education entitlement is met in some settings by cross-subsidisation from some fee-paying parents. This means that parents are subsidising themselves, or other parents, in order to benefit from the Government’s flagship early education policy”.

At the moment, of course, nurseries subsidise the too-low, free, hourly rate by charging more for one and two year-olds, hence the high prices. But, if one and two year-olds get free hours, as proposed, you cannot get the cross-subsidy. As free entitlement is expanded to more of the market and more of the week, it undermines the current business model for those who are providing childcare. If we want to achieve the Government’s policy on childcare and levelling up, we need to ensure that extra resources are available. That is what this amendment does.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

This is about not just the new infrastructure levy but the whole Bill. We know that where local authorities have local plans, they build more houses. The Bill is there to enable and encourage local authorities to have local plans. It is the combination of all these things within the Bill that should deliver more houses.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

Well, my Lords, time certainly flies when you are talking about local government. I pay tribute to the stamina of the many people here who have a background in local government. I also congratulate them because I think this is the first time I have heard a debate on local government where about five people have not popped up, one after the other, and stated that they are a vice-chair of the Local Government Association. Eureka—we seem to have got away from that. I do not know whether the Minister is grateful to the Government Whips’ Office for putting such a compact group of amendments together; maybe it is an efficient way of dealing with this. I pay tribute to her for her stamina, for being on her feet for nearly 50 minutes and for being as detailed as she has been. I think all of us genuinely appreciate that. She deserves lunch really quite soon.

I thank the noble Lords who spoke specifically about my Amendment 290. Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I am not going to go into detail on any of the other amendments. What I would like to come back to is the fact that I think all of us who are concerned about the level of provision of childcare services would really appreciate a detailed letter which very explicitly says what is covered, what is completely clear and what may be slightly less clear. We are in a situation where it simply is not working at the moment.

If we are going to get value from the Chancellor’s huge expansion in free childcare services, we have to be sure that we have enough places to put the children in, in the right places. We also need to be completely clear that we need both capital funding, where it is required to ensure that we have new childcare facilities, and funding to actually make it possible for them to be run. Part of that is about ensuring that the fees charged cover the costs and, in most cases, leave a degree of profitability for those services—most of which are private —otherwise they will continue to go out of business. We would be most grateful if we could have a really detailed response on that.

I am sure other noble Lords will follow up on their amendments as well. Again, I thank the Minister for the length and thoroughness of her response. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 290 withdrawn.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 17th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the Bill’s laudable intentions, but great expectations, in my experience, are rarely fully met. The Minister has heard a wish list and a half this afternoon—and it ain’t finished yet.

My wish list is small and very focused; in fact “small” is probably the operative word, because the part of the population I am talking about will, by now, I hope, be in bed. I would like to focus on how we can use this Bill to deliver more and better early-years provision. Indeed, earlier this afternoon—for those of your Lordships who can remember that far back—the Oral Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on early-years provision, was not dealt with hugely convincingly by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, but I shall read carefully the excuses she made in Hansard tomorrow.

I declare my interest as a governor of Coram, the children’s charity. When we used to have our board meetings as trustees, underneath the boardroom was a nursery. So, while we were deliberating on the various ways in which we could try to help children in various states of difficulty, it did exercise the mind slightly to hear a great deal of children in various degrees of difficulty or anger making a noise just underneath.

In the House of Commons at Report Stage, the Member for Walthamstow, Stella Creasy, put forward an amendment that in the end was not moved, but which is quite specific. It aims, quite explicitly, to add childcare facilities to the list of infrastructure in Schedule 11 to the Bill:

“facilities which must be funded, improved, replaced or maintained by the charging authority, as well as allowing local authorities to use levy funds to provide subsidised or free childcare schemes in their area.”

This amendment was supported by 31 Members of Parliament, of whom eight were members of the Minister’s party. Although the Minister in the other place tried to make a good fist of saying that this is included because it is under “education”, my contention and that of the 31 MPs supporting this amendment is that it is not specific enough.

Freedom of information requests are being made to try to understand exactly what is or is not going on at the moment. Those FOIs indicate that fewer than 10% of local authorities are spending either Section 106 money or community infrastructure levy money on early-years in any form.

We need to be explicit, not implicit. I did some homework for the Minister and tried to find a word in the Wiltshire dialect which would bring home what it is I am talking about. I do not wish there to be any “jiffling”, which, as the noble Baroness will know, means “confusion”. I look forward to trying to reduce any “jiffling” on the part of the Front Bench in Committee.

Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move the regulations. This statutory instrument was laid before the House on Monday 31 January 2022 under paragraph 12(1) of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It was debated and moved in the Commons Second Delegated Legislation Committee on Tuesday 8 March. Mirroring legislation has been prepared for data registered against properties in Northern Ireland and was considered by the Assembly, also on 8 March. Scotland operates its own energy performance of buildings register and is not covered by this instrument.

This is probably one of the most straightforward statutory instruments that noble Lords will be asked to consider this year. It is almost exactly 12 months ago that I introduced and we last debated a similar measure, and last year the Committee dubbed that SI

“as simple as they come”.—[Official Report, 18/3/21; col. GC 9.]

The instrument relates to the statutory fees that are charged when data is registered for energy performance certificates, display energy certificates and air conditioning inspection reports for properties in England and Wales. Fees are applied to two classes of data registration covering domestic and non-domestic properties. This instrument proposes to reduce fees from £1.64 to £1.50 when data is lodged for domestic premises and from £1.89 to £1.70 for non-domestic premises.

Fees charged for data registrations in England and Wales were last adjusted nearly one year ago. A significant reduction in fees was possible at that time because government had invested in a new, cloud-based digital platform and had moved away from the fixed hardware model, run on concession contracts, that had been in place since 2008. In the last 12 months, contractual costs for building the service have fallen out of the model, which means that we have the opportunity to extend last year’s reductions further.

The new EPB register became operational in September 2020 and has been managed in-house since then. Significantly, it passed the digital service assessment in December 2021 and is the first citizen-facing digital service in my department to be hosted on the GOV.UK platform. It is also one of very few government digital services to publish performance statistics. The register now carries approximately 28 million energy certificates across all types, which includes more than 2 million data lodgements since September 2020, which we are receiving at a rate of around 155,000 each month. Importantly, by managing this cloud-based service in-house, we have delivered efficiencies and reduced the overall burden on public resources.

This instrument builds on the fee reductions we introduced last year. New fee rates set out in this regulation will allow costs of operating the Energy Performance of Buildings Register service to continue to be met. We aim for the register service to be cost neutral, without profiteering, but we do not expect taxpayers to subsidise a loss. Costs of the service, and the fees we propose, have been calculated in line with government policy and tested with stakeholders in the property energy profession.

Officials in my department have engaged with officials from the Treasury, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Welsh Government, and all have agreed that, given uncertainty in the property market, recent movements in interest rates and higher inflation, the modest reduction proposed today represents the most practical way to amend fees and ensure that the register is run on as close to a cost-neutral basis as possible.

The small differentiation between fees for domestic and non-domestic lodgements reflects technical differences between the classes of data, but it is now significantly smaller than historically.

The Committee will recall that the United Kingdom aims to bring greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. Heating and powering buildings currently accounts for 40% of the UK’s total energy usage. We must therefore ensure that buildings are constructed to high standards of energy efficiency.

In December last year, we implemented an uplift to Part L of the building regulations to improve conservation of fuel and power. When it comes into force this summer, new homes and new non-domestic buildings will be expected to deliver 30% and 27% fewer carbon emissions respectively. We are still on track to develop the full technical specification for the future homes strategy and the future building strategy, which we will consult on in 2023.

The Energy Performance of Buildings Register is a key tool in supporting our aspirations for improved energy efficiency. It holds valuable information about the energy performance of buildings. We want homeowners, commercial building owners and occupiers to improve the energy efficiency of their buildings.

Energy certificates improve market information, so that consumers can make informed choices. An energy performance certificate is needed whenever a property is built, sold or let. At a glance, a consumer searching for a new home or for commercial premises can determine how efficient a property might be, while an owner can consider recommendations for how they might improve the energy efficiency of their property.

To conclude, these regulations serve a very specific purpose: to reduce the statutory fees charged when data is registered for domestic and non-domestic energy performance certificates, display energy certificates and air conditioning inspection reports. Over the two classes of fee, reducing domestic data registration fees from £1.64 to £1.50, and non-domestic data registration fees from £1.89 to £1.70, extends the savings that we introduced last year.

Colleagues in Northern Ireland are introducing their own mirroring legislation to ensure coherence between different parts of the United Kingdom that use the same register. This will ensure that fees charged for Northern Ireland data lodgements are in line with those for England and Wales.

I hope colleagues will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I commend them to the Committee.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I warn noble Lords that there is likely to be a series of Divisions in the Chamber quite soon, so prepare to be interrupted.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I spent many sleepless nights reading this through in detail, but I must admit it was time well spent.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I will keep off that subject.

I congratulate the Government on implementing a computer system that means it is actually cheaper to do something—perhaps the department could speak to the National Health Service about its implementation of digital systems, which could be better.

I am pleased that the Minister went through the slightly broader issues of home efficiency. This is a big subject and I am not going to speak for long on it, but I need to talk about it a little, and I welcome the fact that he did. I recognise that making our homes and buildings more generally energy efficient—we have 29 million of them in the UK and 2 million commercial buildings—is not an easy task. We all recognise that. But it is something that has to be done to meet net zero.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

My Lords, there is a Division in the House. The Committee will suspend, in theory for 10 minutes, but if noble Lords were able to vote more quickly than that and indicate to me that they have voted successfully, we can recommence more quickly.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 9th June 2021 Grand Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I have received one request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

I should just like to ask the Minister to perhaps write to all Members involved in this debate to give a bit more detail about what proportion of pension funds are impacted, given that my understanding is that the pension funds are fully aware of the intention to abolish ground rents and extend that to existing leaseholders. I should still like to understand the balance of impact between the 4.5 million leaseholders and the pension funds, if that is to be deployed as a significant argument in this issue. I am very happy for the Minister to write to us later about this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has done us a great service. We have all read about these situations. I am not aware of the details of any of them, but there has been enough coverage in the responsible media for me to see that this is a problem. I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to address it.

I assume that in this group we are also dealing with my noble friend Lord Young’s Amendment 12, although I notice that it is not listed. It says “After Clause 6”. Is that after this debate?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

It was in the first group.

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

We have dealt with that one, have we?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

Yes, we have.

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

I apologise. I very much support what the noble Baroness said. I need do no more than ask my noble friend on the Front Bench to take it really seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 8 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

That concludes the work of the Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.

Committee adjourned at 4.51 pm.

Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development etc.) (England) (Amendment) Order 2021

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

We have been unable to resolve the technical problem but we have worked out how to resolve the situation. I call the Government Chief Whip.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, with the agreement of the usual channels, we are going to defer both votes until tomorrow, so they will be on tomorrow’s Order Paper. After this, to give everyone time to move over to the next business, we will have a short adjournment.

Fire Safety Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Tuesday 20th April 2021 Lords Chamber

In conclusion, I hope that the Government will seriously take on board what we have said and try to present a way forward on this very real problem. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

My Lords, if Motions A1 and A3 were both agreed to, A3 would replace A1.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and to speak to Motion A2 in my name. I refer to my vice-presidency of the LGA and my professional involvement with property and construction over many years. I thank the Minister for keeping his door open for discussion; that has been enormously helpful. This amendment is an attempt to find a way out of what I see as an impasse, which, if not dealt with, may cause unquantifiable financial loss, bankruptcy and hardship—as referred to by the right reverend Prelate.

I am indebted to my local fire and rescue service in West Sussex and to the National Fire Chiefs Council, for briefing me on the task ahead of them. I am sure we all agree that they do a fantastic job in keeping us all safe and dealing with risks in a fair and proportionate manner. I am also indebted to Members in another place who have convinced me that the issues I seek to address cannot simply be brushed aside. This is not a challenge to the essential principles of the Bill, which I entirely agree are critical in the light of the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

The problem arises because although the Bill is short and apparently inoffensive, and from a fire safety standpoint is the necessary reaction of any Government to a post-Grenfell inquiry, its means of implementation have much broader and effectively retroactive results. In amending the existing fire safety order’s scope, it extends to any building comprising two or more residential units. It relates not just to cladding but, ultimately, to a much wider range of fire safety issues and to buildings not previously subject to that safety regime.

Noble Lords should bear in mind that there are two lead organisations here: the local authority through its housing functions in respect of houses in multiple occupation and student blocks, and the fire and rescue services, particularly for higher-risk and taller buildings.

Every time there is a fire in a flatted building, it adds to the malaise. When, in the wake of the Grenfell fire, a four-storey block in Worcester Park was destroyed in September 2019, it became clear to me that no Government can risk specifying a cut-off point of safe versus unsafe buildings, and I acknowledge that. So as matters stand, many relatively low-rise buildings, where risks are considered fewer and without a clear threshold, will, for a time, be caught by this long enough to cause serious problems for a significant number of tenants and leaseholders. It is this unconstrained exposure to uncertainty and risk, and the reaction of the markets to it, that has created the problems that we now encounter.

Crucially, there is a significant gap between now and the time when the first 12,000 over-18-metre buildings in England will have been checked, a process which is estimated to be completed by December this year. Then there will be a further period, lasting until some 68,000 further buildings in the 11 to 18 metre height range have been dealt with. During this period, the issue of proportionality and risk will be left to the febrile mortgage and insurance market. I have no doubt that fire safety inspectors will take a fairly strict approach, and indeed would expect them to, at any rate until further guidance is available—which guidance itself might be an outcome of the analysis of the first tranche of inspections of the highest-risk buildings. That delay occurs before one gets to the design and specification of the remediation works by those who might have to satisfy their own professional indemnity conditions, followed then by tendering and ultimately remediation.

The right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in her amendment, endeavour to protect the tenant and leaseholder from the effects of the Bill by saying that they shall not bear the financial burden. I am compelled to express the view that this needs to be taken further: if, as a result, the building owner as freeholder is made liable for something that they in turn cannot afford or cannot be made responsible for, beyond the assets of whatever corporate ownership vehicle holds the freehold or other superior interest, then the liquidation of the holding company and the vesting of the negative-value asset in the hands of insolvency practitioners will do little to get the building remediated. To that extent, the responsible person under the Bill might be a man of straw, and that I see as a weakness in what the Government propose.

To deal with this, one needs a scheme, and the Government have commendably said that they will introduce one to fund remediation, but this suffers from several limitations. First, it applies only to cladding. Secondly, it does not cover all buildings with claddings—even less the other fire safety issues that the Bill might also trigger. Thirdly, I very much doubt that the sum allocated is enough. That said, I am extremely grateful for the government commitment to making £5 billion in funding available, as the Minister has explained.

Apart from properties becoming unsalable, uninsurable and unsuitable for mortgage lending, in some cases they might well be so risky as to be declared unsafe for occupation, pending remediation works. Displaced occupiers will be wondering what it is in the principle of safety and proportionality in relation to their own home, given the nightmare imposition of unimaginable costs and liabilities, that justifies rendering them homeless in addition. Of course, it might well not come to that, and it is my purpose to encourage the Government to ensure that there is a scheme to make certain that it does not. The full extent of the problems may still be yet to come, but I strongly suspect that many of the responsible persons are holding on until this Bill receives Royal Assent before proceeding further.

No Government can simply look on and say that it is not an issue of a very serious kind when people have been seriously threatened in their own homes by negative equity, bankruptcy and worse. With an entire market section being blighted, action is essential. By the same token, no agency apart from government has the power to procure a change, which ultimately must be by some form of consensus, but which requires regulatory and other powers—or the threat of them—and a degree of arm-twisting involving some very powerful players. There are too many interests and moving parts here, and neither constructors, owners, leaseholders, tenants, insurers or mortgagees can procure effective solutions on their own. It is a systemic failure, in which it is right for the Government to intervene. Indeed, taking these hard decisions is why we have government intervention at all.

By the same token, if there is to be a government safety net of a type that is effective, no leaseholder can simply expect the taxpayer to foot the Bill for all and every fire-safety shortcoming. This is where, particularly in relation to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I differ from that approach. I do not suggest that any of this gets construction warrantee providers, approved inspectors, designers, constructors, housebuilders or building managers off the hook. It will take time to establish liabilities; it is time that those finding themselves in financial fetters do not have at their disposal. That is the problem. Absolutism by government on the one hand and by leaseholders alike will not get the necessary work done or erase the terrible personal tragedies that I fear will result.

The deal is this: for a monthly sum which should be affordable, even if most unwelcome, the capital cost of remediation could be amortised via a loan, funds for early inspection and remediation raised, and works put in hand as soon as possible. This might also fund short-term interim safety measures. The long-term bond so created would, I believe, be saleable. The important thing for affected flat owners is that they could not be charged until a scheme was in place, but the scheme has to be driven initially by government, and that is what this amendment is about.

The current government scheme seems to be based on rolling things out in due course. I appreciate the Minister’s point that he does not wish the Government to be unduly pressurised or under the cosh on this, but the need to get this safety net into place right now is overwhelming. By the end of this coming summer, impossibly large bills are most certainly likely to have dropped onto doormats, prohibition notices and evacuation orders may be in place, and bankruptcies may have grown to a national scandal. I hope that we avoid this, but I for one cannot simply stand by and let that happen unchallenged or by default. I realise that it goes against what some have been asking for, but what is better: to know that you are innocent but that your home remains unsalable and you risk being put in an impossible financial position or rendered homeless, or to know that there is at least some means of funding the remediation so that, in any event, at least some benefit is salvaged out of this debacle?

I know that it also goes against the grain of government to interfere with private legal arrangements and liabilities, but the circumstances are truly exceptional, and the scope of the works is relatively specific. The alternative is a high level of sector-wide economic damage and individual financial destruction.

I know that the Minister is not minded to accept any of the arguments that I have put forward, or my solutions. I make it clear that I do not intend to press this Motion. It is my wish to get further explanations from the Minister. My questions are these. If not this amendment and scheme, then what? If not in this Bill, which triggers it, or even in the building safety Bill, then how? If not now, with the ill-effects so apparent and very likely worse to come, when? Further, if not by government, by whom and by which agency?

If, as I suggest, the objection to broadening things comes from HM Treasury, I ask whether the Government have considered the political and economic enormity of the outcomes if this problem is not addressed now. To that end, could the House be advised what impact assessment has been made of the wholesale value of write-offs and the risk of sectoral market collapse? Lastly, if the Minister feels my concerns are misplaced and things are not as bad as I have suggested they might be, surely then the risk of exposure for the taxpayer is of itself a stopgap, a confidence-building measure, rather than a serious run on the Exchequer.

Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Report stage & Lords Hansard
Wednesday 17th March 2021 Lords Chamber

Amendment 2 not moved.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 3. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 3

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I warmly commend the four noble Baronesses who have put their names to Amendments 3 and 6. In speaking to this group, I declare my professional involvement with non-domestic rating as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as head of the National Association of Local Councils, and through my involvement with rural tourism and public access generally. So I hope noble Lords will forgive me for having a slightly dry, technical assessment of this approach.

It is right that, in the light of mass closures of public lavatories up and down the country, we should have a better idea of the provision and what is happening in terms of trends. I do not have the figures to hand, but my expectation as a chartered surveyor would be that in the context of the overall cost of the facility of heating, lighting, water supply, cleaning, building repairs, insurance and maintenance, the business rate element of a public lavatory would not be a tremendously significant factor. However, I stand to be corrected. Maybe a superior facility would indeed attract a willing payment per use at economically viable levels. Certainly, some municipalities are starting to buck the trend, and I am very pleased to note that Wales is leading the way—a point made so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.

The measure demanded here would obviously involve devoting some government resources to the review referred to. The distribution of Changing Places facilities is known, if I apprehend correctly from the British Toilet Association’s information. However, those run by other organisations—parishes, municipalities, venue and beauty spot managers, stately homes, royal parks, shopping centres and so on—is information not necessarily collected in one place. Though the dispersed knowledge must be held somewhere, it is not comprehensibly in the rating lists, for instance, which only record those separately in assessment. However, I do think that there is a collective will to close this information gap if the Government were so minded to tap into it.

As we have heard, public lavatories are clearly part of essential infrastructure. The old, the young, those with medical conditions, and the fit and healthy, all need access to decent lavatory accommodation. Manifestly, there are gaps in provision, because I am certain that we are all, like the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, aware of unsuitable areas being used for informal toilet purposes. This is a personal hygiene and general public health issue, potentially damaging to the general environment, and must be addressed.

Regarding Amendment 4, I applaud and support the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in advocating the role of parish and town councils. Many parish councils would willingly take on public lavatories, but as we have heard, are no more able to raise the money to run them than the principle authorities who may run them now. Even in transferring responsibility to parish councils, as happens, it is commonplace for the financial provisions not to form part of the transfer. This adds to the problem, and the essential funds for this essential infrastructure are therefore not ring-fenced. This is part of the process of attrition.

Beyond that, it is a matter of economic consequence for optimising the use of destinations to which the public may resort, and the public enjoyment of urban and rural space for shopping, recreation and so on. I find it tragic to hear, as we just have, of people who dare not venture far from home because of distance from suitable facilities or certainty of any provision whatsoever. I am mindful of the gross indignity that such an absence of facilities can create. These issues are very important. I am less certain that they are necessarily a matter for the Bill, given its long title, but having been accepted as amendments, I assume that they are in scope. Accordingly, I accept the general thrust of these, and look forward with interest to the Minister’s comments.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has withdrawn from this group, so I call Baroness Pinnock.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Randerson has a wealth of knowledge of the value and importance to our communities, large and small, of the provision of clean, well-maintained public toilets. Her argument is a powerful one. We learned from the meeting that we had with the representatives of the British Toilet Association and the Minister that, in fact, there is no longer accurate mapping of open public toilets around the country. During these 12 months of Covid closures, public toilets have been shut out of concern that their use might enable virus transmission. As the country seeks to return to a more normal way of life, what is vital is that public toilets are available in every community. All noble Lords who have spoken so far have made that point. That is why I totally agree with my noble friend that this Bill lacks ambition and what is needed is a strategy for public toilets from a public health perspective.

I have a suggestion for the Minister. The Government are allocating funding via a Towns Fund to help regeneration. Perhaps he can urge his department to attach a requirement to successful grant applications that towns ensure, as a minimum, that they have a well-maintained and accessible public toilet for the disabled.

My noble friend Lord Greaves pointed out how important parish and town councils are in maintaining existing public toilets. He also pointed out the difficulty that those councils have in accessing capital money in order to restore or build new facilities. That, too, is something to which I hope the Minister will respond.

The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, urges us, as a society, to recognise the essential need for decent public loos, and that their provision is in crisis. I agree wholeheartedly when she says, “If Wales can do it, so can England.” It was well said.

My noble friend Lady Thomas speaks with long experience of the barriers that are unwittingly created for disabled people by the rest of the community. There has been a failure to provide public toilets that are both available and accessible. If we all had to plan our days out shopping or visiting on the basis of the availability of an accessible toilet, my hunch is that many more would soon be provided.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for pursuing a similar amendment and for supporting the purpose the amendments in the names of my noble friends. Of course, we on this side totally support this Bill. It will have some limited impact that might well ensure that some public toilets remain open. Unfortunately, it fails to address the wider issues of comprehensive provision and the role of government in encouraging and supporting the funding of such facilities. Hence, I fully support all the amendments in this group. Perhaps the Minister can provide some hope that the Government will return to the lack of provision of public toilets in future legislation. Better still, they could use the current funding regime to make their provision a priority for grants. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer some evidence that the Government take the matter seriously, and I look forward to his response.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 5. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 5

Moved by

Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 18th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I fully support the comments of my noble friends Lady Thomas of Winchester and Lady Randerson on the NDR (Public Lavatories) Bill. It is essential, in terms of equality, that the number of disabled lavatories and access to them should be increased, not only in town centres but in visitor attractions and beauty spots around the country. Other Peers have spoken eloquently on that issue.

Turning to the NDR (Lists) (No. 2) Bill, I have a few points to make. While I support moving the date for compiling the lists to 1 April 2023, this is an opportunity to move from a five-yearly review to one every three years. Other noble Lords have spoken to this issue. I would not support moving to a yearly revaluation as this would be too great an administrative burden on local authorities, but a three-yearly revaluation would be a good compromise.

It is important that we fully understand what is happening to our high streets. During lockdowns, most of the retail and market outlets are not able to trade. Some retail outlets have been able to move their business to online trading and delivery, but most have not. We have reached a stage where enormous warehouses have been constructed to service online business, but they do not contribute in the same proportion as high-street businesses. Now is surely the time to readjust the rating system so that the rateable value and rates paid by high-street retail outlets is radically reduced permanently. At the same time, online warehouse operations should be taxed in proportion to their size, turnover and profitability.

While it has been enormously beneficial to people to be able to buy goods online during lockdown, especially in the run-up to Christmas, the effect on the high street has been catastrophic. Many retail outlets rely on the December trade to see them through the rest of the year. I am sure the Minister does not wish to see a return to the moribund state of our high streets during past recessions. I welcome the rate relief which the Minister has set out to alleviate hardship during Covid, but that is only short-term.

I will speak briefly on mixed hereditaments. Many, many years ago I sat on rating appeal tribunals. While a large proportion were about dates, there were a proportion of mixed hereditaments, with those living in premises above retail outlets which they ran having concerns about their rateable value. The Government have been keen to increase the housing supply by allowing developers to give notice to quit to business tenants in blocks of flats in town centres over retail outlets. These premises were then allowed to be converted into domestic dwellings. These conversions have not been subject to building controls, and in many cases have resulted in substandard accommodation with very limited space.

Can the Minister say whether these newly converted domestic dwellings were subject to reassessment of their rateable value? Were they changed from business rates to domestic rates? Did the local authorities in which the dwellings were situated receive less in rates payments than previously or more? As the Minister knows, local authorities are very dependent on the receipt of rates to help balance their budgets and to fund their vital services to the community.

While providing homes for those desperate to escape sofa-surfing with their long-suffering friends and relatives, it is important that the accommodation provided through office conversions is adequate, meets minimum standards and provides a dignified living space for their residents. I look forward to the Minister’s response on this and other matters in this debate.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has withdrawn from this debate, so I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell.

Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, sitting in an office in London dreaming up flexibility to the planning laws to encourage more housing sounds a good use of time. I know; I have done it myself as Planning Minister. I just want to give a cautionary tale. It comes from my former constituency and concerns the Westminster Road area of west Handsworth in Birmingham.

Some 20 years ago, when I left the Commons, the private rented sector in Birmingham accounted for some 10% of households. By 2018, it was 33% and growing. An area that was saved in the 1970s and 1980s by the urban renewal programme of half a dozen streets in Handsworth, half a mile from the Commonwealth Games village has gone backwards to the 1960s, according to residents. The successor to the specially formed housing association in the 1970s, which did much to enhance and improve the housing, is pulling out. Midland Heart housing association has no heart in Handsworth. The door has been opened up for a new breed of landlords to buy up the larger properties, either for HMO use or the more lucrative supported housing.

Recently, a for sale notice by agents Bairstow Eves stated, “For sale: potential 17 bedrooms”—a clear signal for exploitation. Across the area, landlords are converting garages, outhouses and even sheds into what are cynically called bungalows. For example, signs appear on the front walls of houses stating “Bungalow 6A and 6B at rear”. At 61 Westminster Road, a house converted into an HMO some years ago, providing 11 units, the landlord recently converted four garages in the back yard into living accommodation, with a secure fence to hide what had happened. There is evidence that residents of these dwellings are told to dump their rubbish in black bags on the opposite side of the road.

No. 229 Church Hill Road was a large family house. Used as business premises, it is now applying to be an HMO by claiming it was a “hostel”. No. 22 Livingstone Road, a former family home, has been converted in three social rented flats. Midland Heart cleared the tenants out and sold it at auction in Liverpool for £260,000 on the basis that it would generate an income of £18,000 a year. The new owner maintains that it is still flats, but locals see it run as an HMO, and just two of the tenants are generating over £27,000 per annum.

The HMO Action Group in Handsworth describes it as a “community under siege”. This is a cautionary tale. It ought to be taken note of.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

Since the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, was unable to join us at the beginning of this debate, I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

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

Amendment 51 withdrawn.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 52. I remind the Committee that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate. The Minister wishes to speak before I call the mover of the amendment.

[Lord Greenhalgh]

For the convenience of the Committee, and perhaps to save some time, I intervene to notify the Committee that, with regard to Amendment 73, we will bring forward a government amendment on Report that seeks to include mayoral development corporations, Transport for London and parish meetings within the Coronavirus Act 2020.

Clause 16: Modification of conditions relating to construction working hours

Amendment 52

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I give my full support to Amendment 53, in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. I will disappoint him when I speak to my Amendment 56, which he has kindly supported, because I do not indulge in long speeches of expertise.

These two amendments seek to give clarity to local authorities about what can be allowed. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will reassure me, as he has already done at Question Time and elsewhere, that the Government will not be relaxing any planning rules regarding environmental protections. What worries me is that, in practice, a lot of developers—and, to some extent, councils—are not sure exactly what this means. For example, I am sure that the newspaper headlines will say, in relation to my noble friend’s amendment, that building work can be done at any time. There may well be local conditions, but many people will be confused. It is exactly the same, except that residents can actually complain and get things sorted out. However, the natural world and the environment have no such voice. I know of many examples, both locally and elsewhere, where developers will ride roughshod over some of the conditions in the hope that nobody understands them.

What I want from these two amendments is what my noble friend described as a national backstop. I want clarity in the Bill, so that people know exactly where they stand.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

The noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, has not joined the list so, after the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, I will move on to the speaker after her.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 55 and 57, originally put down by my noble friend Lady Pinnock and to which I have added my name. The reason I do so is that, at Second Reading, I raised the question of the possible impact on amenity of those who might be affected by the extension of working hours. In response, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, met my argument by saying that it was always a question of balance. Self-evidently, of course, that is correct, but the question is whether the balance is tilted in these proposals against individuals and organisations that might be affected by an extension of hours. It is important to remember that conditions in relation to hours are put down in order to preserve amenity, and if a planning authority has reached a certain judgment in relation to that, such that an extension as proposed is granted, then self-evidently amenity will have been affected. We tend to think of these matters as being about individuals, but of course hostels, schools, care homes and churches might all be liable to be affected.

It is worth reminding ourselves—there has already been a passing reference to it—that the duration of works can extend to a whole day. As I understand it, any extension granted would have effect until 1 April 2021, so this is not a temporary matter, and it is possible to conduct these extended operations seven days a week. That is why Amendment 55 is a reasonable and sensible obligation to place upon an applicant. It requires an assessment of impact on the community and plans for mitigation of any such effect. Here, to some extent, it echoes the position of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, on the need for an assessment of the impact on the environment and conservation interests and plans to minimise disturbance. I venture to suggest that an obligation to produce an assessment is as much in the interests of the applicant as it is of the planning authority.

Amendment 57 seeks to extend the period of 14 days by agreement and therefore allows for proper consideration and, if necessary, co-operation between the planning authority and the applicant. It is clearly the case that if these matters could be resolved by co-operation, then that is much more likely to be an acceptable solution for the applicant, the authority and the citizens or institutions that might be affected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]]

My Lords, having listened to the speeches of other noble Lords, I am beginning to wish that I had signed more amendments in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, for example, on land banking, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, both made excellent points, and I wish I had been involved in that.

I want to speak about construction permits, because the conditions that are placed on them at the moment are subject to a lengthy and intensive consultation and decision-making process. The conditions try to strike a balance between the competing interests of developing land and protecting the community and the wildlife around the development. I am deeply concerned that Clause 16 will throw much of that balance out of the window in favour of long construction days with little regard for the impact on the community—their rest, their sleep and their mental welfare—and on wildlife. Construction hours can already be long and noisy, routinely running from 8 am to 6 pm, especially at a time when large numbers of people are staying at home and, in the summer months, may have windows open or be outside. Therefore, extending construction hours will create an unacceptable noise burden for too many people.

I am also concerned about the impact that extended construction hours will have on the construction workers, many of whom are self-employed. What will the Government do to ensure that extended hours do not create unsafe working conditions or lead to other detriment for those workers? There might be limited situations in which extending construction hours is warranted, but generally Clause 16 is far too broad and will cause far too much disruption for local residents near noisy building sites.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

The noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, has withdrawn from the list of speakers, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.

[Baroness Pinnock [V]]

I remind noble Lords of my interests as set out in the register as a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. We on these Benches understand and support the Government’s purpose in bringing forward the changes to hours of construction in the Bill. It will enable a phased start at the beginning and end of the day for construction workers to ensure social distancing and provide an opportunity for developments to catch up on the last three months. But rather than be prescriptive about hours of working—although I have sympathy with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—Amendment 55 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem would ensure that the extension of hours took into account the impact that these had on residents, the wider community and the environment.

Planning conditions set out as part of planning consent invariably include limits on hours of working. As a rule, these are 7 am to 6 or 7 pm. They are there to minimise any impact on neighbours. Extension of these hours must therefore include mitigations for those affected. That could be, for example, to restrict hours when deliveries can be made, as construction traffic is often one of the main local concerns. Extension into the evening or a much earlier start will mean lighting up the site, with the inevitable impact that brings with it. Amendment 55 would balance out these issues, and that is the purpose of the further Amendment 57, again in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Campbell. Considerations about hours of working inevitably include not just planning officers but highways and environmental officers, hence we propose that, by agreement, developers and the council can extend the time for consultation beyond the 14 days. Some construction companies understand that working with local communities rather than bulldozing their way through to get what they want, regardless, has many benefits.

Amendment 54 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shipley would ensure that the planning authority was recompensed for the work done to extend hours. The minimum fee is £195 for planning applications and seems appropriate in this case. The Government must ensure recompense for work done. Planning consultants working for the developer will undoubtedly be paid handsomely for making the application to extend hours. It is only right that those making the decision be recompensed as well, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to that proposal.

The cross-party Amendment 73 is clearly about an administrative oversight and I am pleased that the Minister has given notice that the Government will seek to put the matter right. The three-month review proposed in Amendment 58 by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is one that the Government should consider carefully. A change of construction hours appears straightforward on paper but has many ramifications in reality, and time set aside to reflect is always a good idea. With those comments, I trust that the Minister will accept that our amendments are constructive in purpose and are in the interests of achieving a fair balance between construction, communities and the environment, and that the Government will be prepared to accept them.