Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

The best thing we can do with these government amendments is to reject them. The Government can bring forward fresh legislation if they want to insist on these, and that can be consulted on properly by local authorities and public bodies. They can have this debate as we all get ready for a general election and see how it goes down in a country where swimming in our rivers and on our coasts has become a dangerous sport. We can stop these dangerous government amendments—and we can do that by simply voting “not content”.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

I shall speak to my amendment, Amendment YYZB, to which the Minister offered her support. It proposes two brief additions to the new clause proposed in Amendment 247YY, prompted out of concern about the wording of the clause we are being asked to approve.

I make it clear that this amendment is a probing one only. I very much regret—this follows a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben—that we are being asked to deal with this at such short notice at Report, particularly in view of the importance of the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Moylan. This is a great misfortune, because we should really be dealing with this in the ordinary way in Committee, when we have the freedom to propose and discuss amendments and improve their wording stage by stage. We are faced with a measure produced at Report, and my amendment is an attempt to probe and draw attention to defects, not to cure a basic defect in the way the whole process is being handled.

My wording, and the points I have mentioned in my amendment, have been reinforced by what was said by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in paragraph 9 of its report: that the power proposed to be given to the Secretary of State by this clause is

“subject to little by way of constraint”.

That is a generous understatement, I suggest. It is a broad, open Henry VIII clause. In its full vigour as it stands, it lacks any requirement for consultation or any indication of the criteria that must be satisfied in this highly sensitive subject.

There is one other aspect of this clause that I, as one who believes in the quality and integrity of the legislation we are asked to approve, find very disturbing. This is a very controversial subject that has been worked through already, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, pointed out in her reference to the Environment Act. The question raised in my mind when I saw that we were dealing with the whole issue of nutrients in water was, “What does the Environment Act say about it?” There is no indication in the Government’s new clause that that Act has been given any thought at all.

Water is dealt with in Part 5 of that Act, and the powers of the Secretary of State in relation to water quality are set out in some detail in Section 89. We find here a set of carefully designed powers that are combined with requirements for consultation before they are exercised. They also take account of the fact that some of England’s rivers flow into or have their source in Wales or Scotland, so there is provision for consultation with the devolved authorities.

There are other safeguards in that Act as well. Section 20 provides for Ministers making Statements to Parliament about Bills making changes to environment law. We have not had that, because of the way this has been handled. Of course, Section 22 provides for the establishment of the Office for Environmental Protection, with important regulatory and reporting powers. What disturbs me—I may be mistaken—is that all this seems to have been ignored by the Government in formulating this new clause. It is as if the environment protections, which we spent so much time two years ago discussing in great detail, in an Act which the Government themselves promoted, did not exist. I think that many of us remember the satisfaction we felt when that Act was eventually passed, because we had done such detailed work on improving the Act in the interests of our environment. Yet apparently—and I stress the word “apparently”—it has been ignored.

My amendment seeks in a modest way to meet the point that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee makes in paragraph 11 of its report about the warning by the Office for Environmental Protection. There appears to have been no public consultation prior to the publication of these new measures. The first paragraph of my amendment would require regulations made under this clause to be consistent with what Section 89 of the Environment Act requires, and the second would require consultation.

However, this is a probing amendment, and I will not be moving it when the time comes. The first reason for that is that I support those who argue that this new clause should not form part of the Bill. It is not just a matter of small amendments; it is a much more fundamental objection, as others have made clear. The second is that, quite frankly, I am not confident that my amendment, with its mere reference to Section 89 of the Environment Act, is an accurate way of trying to reconcile the clause with what is in the Environment Act. It requires more careful study, and simply to accept my amendment as the Government propose to do is not the way to deal with it.

I do not suggest, and I never did, that I have the complete answer to this; I simply raise issues for the Government to consider. If the Government succeed in the vote that will take place, then I urge them to consider an amendment along these lines at Third Reading. However, if they bring back the legislation at some later stage, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, contemplated, then I very much hope that they will pay attention to the points that my amendment raised.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, in the spirit of brevity, I will not speak to the amendments to which I have given my name. However, I would like to address the amendments that the Government have brought forward, which, if accepted, will be a profound change in how we regulate for the environment in this country. To be clear, we are not talking about all water catchments or all houses. We are talking about the most environmentally sensitive sites: those which are home to our curlews, lapwings, and shelducks. These are our internationally and globally significant chalk streams—sites of greatest environmental sensitivity. That is what we are talking about, not the whole country and not all homes.

Here on these Benches, as on other Benches, we recognise the need for more homes. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I took slight exception to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Best. The current situation around nutrient neutrality is not a ban on housebuilding. There is a system whereby, if you wish to build houses in a particular sensitive fresh-water area, you can do so if you buy credits to mitigate the damage you will cause. For example, in Poole harbour, one of our most magnificent sites for wildlife and wetland birds in this country, a proposal came forward to build homes. In 2021, a site of 420 acres was built in Bere Regis to mitigate the damage that would have been caused, and 2,111 homes were built. There is not a ban; there is a system of mitigation where the developers must pay—I will return to this point in a moment—to mitigate the environmental damage they are going to cause.

There may well be problems. It is a system that has been in existence for six years; all of us would accept that it is not perfect. Mitigation credits are not, perhaps, coming on as quickly as they need to. The guidance to local authorities about what is acceptable for mitigation may not be as clear as it needs to be. However, that does not mean that, at the 11th hour, the Government can suddenly throw in an amendment to a Bill. You collaborate; you consult with all the parties; you give adequate parliamentary scrutiny. Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, I am sure Parliament would accept that.

We have heard a lot this afternoon already about a report which we are going to get from the Built Environment Committee. I will give you something from a report we have already had: the report of my committee, the Environment and Climate Change Committee, which has looked this year at how we will meet our 30 by 30 target, to protect our nature which is in such a dire state. We looked at the habitats regulations, which are what the government amendments will amend. We concluded, on a balance of the evidence, that those habitats regulations should be retained. However, we said that if they were going to be subject to amendment, because there were clearly some teething issues with this scheme, then any changes should not be

“subject to amendment without an appropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny or where the protections afforded by the regulations are weakened”.

We can hardly call this process today an appropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny. The Office for Environmental Protection has been clear: these government proposals will weaken regulations. Like the noble Lord, Lord Deben, I am distraught—I think that is the word I would choose—at how the Government have responded to the clear communication by the OEP, which was set up to be the watchdog for the environment in this country.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I offer my support for these amendments from a Scottish perspective and for very much the same reasons as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, has just been expressing. I also support it as a member of the Constitution Committee because one of the points which the Constitution Committee made was that if we are to make the union work, the key words are “respect” and “co-operation”, and this is a very good demonstration of respect for the devolved Administrations and the way in which they can co-operate.

I am glad too that the document that the Minister must lay before Parliament is to be published. The Minister is not being required to lay a document before the devolved Administrations—that is not the way it will be done—but because it will be published it will be perfectly plain to the devolved Administrations what the mission will do. The amendment is well phrased. It is extremely desirable for the reasons of principle that I have expressed. I am delighted that these amendments are there.

[The Duke of Montrose (Con)]

It is a privilege to follow the two noble and learned Lords who have just spoken and to see their enthusiasm for the way the Government are going. I was waiting to see whether there was any mention of a legislative consent Motion from the Welsh Government. I think the Scottish Government are still a long way from getting there.

I spoke at a previous stage about my concerns regarding agreement on devolved competences. It looks from these amendments that the Government have been working hard to find all the places where consultation might help. In Committee, my noble friend the Minister said that

“the Government are continuing to work with the devolved Administrations to understand whether there is scope to extend the EOR powers to provide a shared framework of powers across the UK. Once those discussions have concluded, the Government will bring forward any necessary amendments to both Part 6 and Part 3 to reflect the agreed position between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations”.—[Official Report, 22/3/23; col. 1803.]

I was grateful to hear my noble friend the Minister just now reassure us that these amendments are part of that negotiation with the devolved Governments.

The amendments all deal with the actions the Government will be solely bound to carry out. I understand that the Government, and particularly the Treasury, do not want to yield any powers that might end up costing money, but can my noble friend the Minister say whether what we have is anywhere near constituting the framework that they hope to achieve with the devolved Administrations or do they regard the framework as something to be left for further primary or secondary legislation? In my unprofessional view, a framework would be something that laid down the competences and responsibilities of each party and that was acceptable to all. Each Act of Parliament that has granted devolution is, to me, a framework. They are not set in stone. The difference here is that each of these Acts was set up by the UK Government on their own, but now we have to get agreement from the other parties. I realise that these are questions that the Minister may not want to go into at the moment, but they must be asked.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clear explanation of the government amendments here. From what she said, it seems to me that there is a dual purpose to the amendments. One is contained in the section relating to national security, which I understand but I wonder why it has appeared in this Bill and not in other Bills related to national security, one of which went through this House not long ago.

The second group of amendments is about aiding the development of land where land ownership is not known. I would like the Minister to help here, because the ownership of a lot of land is not yet recorded by the Land Registry—it is recorded only following a change of hands, through a sale or transfer in some way. I would like to understand from the Minister quite how ownership of land is to be established without the Land Registry having already had that recorded. I understand the direction that the Government intend here, but it seems to me that there is a gap, unless I have misunderstood the purpose of some of those amendments.

Will she explain, first, why this national security element has appeared in a levelling-up Bill, unless it is to do with regeneration? Secondly, if she could help with establishing land ownership that has not yet been recorded by the Land Registry, I would be grateful.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 440A in my name. This amendment is intended to draw attention to a recommendation by the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, in its report on the Bill. Part 11, of which Clause 207 forms part, gives power to the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the provision of information on transactions and other dealings in land if the Secretary of State considers

“that the information would be useful”

to identify the owners of the land and those with the right

“to control or influence … the owner of a relevant interest in land”.

Clause 207(1) states that these regulations may also provide for

“the sharing of such information with persons exercising functions of a public nature, for use for the purposes of such functions”.

Clause 207(3), to which my amendment is directed, addresses the risk, which is understandable, that there may be an inaccuracy or omission in the information that is provided, arising from the sharing or publication of this information. It states:

“No civil liability is to arise from the sharing or publication of information under regulations under this section by reason of any inaccuracy or omission in the information as provided further to a requirement imposed under section 204 or 205”.


The question then is: who needs this protection? As the Constitution Committee understood it, the intention of this clause is to give that protection to the persons to whom that information has been provided by the Secretary of State. That is because they are the people who will be required by the regulations to share or publish that information. It is obviously desirable that they should have that protection against civil liability if the information that they have been required to share or publish by reason of these regulations is misleading or inaccurate.

It is on that understanding that the suggestion was made by the committee that Clause 207(3) should be more tightly defined in the interests of legal certainty. The suggestion is that it should make it clear that our understanding is correct. That would be achieved if the words

“as respects those persons to whom the information is provided”

were inserted into the clause. As the clause stands, it might be thought to extend the protection further down the line as the information is shared more widely by persons who are doing this not because they are required to do it by the regulations but for some other reason, which may be unrelated to the regulations themselves. However, if it is the intention that the protection should extend that far, the committee suggests that the wording of this provision should be looked at again to make this clear.

I hope this explanation for the amendment may be helpful. It is intended to assist the Government and make it absolutely plain how far the protection the subsection is intended to give should extend.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a couple of amendments in this group. We have heard that Part 11 sets out a framework for creating powers to require disclosure of certain relevant information relating to ownership and control of land in England and Wales, including transactional information. Of course, if this is implemented, it is another significant layer of disclosure around land ownership and control in England and Wales, supplementing the information that is currently held or is going to be held in a number of public registries. It appears that the Government’s ultimate goal here is to ensure transparency around land ownership and control in England and Wales. We would support this aim.

My Amendment 440 probes the retrospective application of this section. As drafted, the provisions could require the disclosure of information relating to events prior to the enactment of the Bill. Clause 206(4) says:

“Regulations under section 204 or 205 may relate to things done or arising before the coming into force of this Part”.


This amendment probes the benefits of doing this retrospective application and what the Government are aiming to achieve through this.

My second amendment, Amendment 439, probes how local communities can request land ownership information. It would be really helpful if the Minister could provide a bit more information for us to understand how communities are expected to access this information and how that fits in with the role of the Secretary of State.

I thank the Minister for her thorough introduction to the government amendments. Amendments 438A, 438B, 438C, 438D and so on insert clauses before Clause 204. They

“recast the powers in Part 11 so as to make them exercisable only for stated purposes”.

Do these provisions apply to government agencies, such as Homes England, as well? If conditions are attached, they can get in the way when regeneration schemes are being considered. It would be good to have some clarification on that point.

We would support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, in what he is trying to achieve in Amendment 440A. If the Minister could either provide clarification to the noble and learned Lord or look at tightening up the wording, as he suggests, that would be extremely helpful.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

There is a specific issue about dwellings and, especially as I perceive it, the lack of planning compliance of works not always being identifiable on normal property searches. It may not be at all clear how long some feature has been in place. Amendment 276 attempts to address this. I mentioned the lack of consultation, and Amendment 278 seeks to address that. I think that there should be consultation, and an analysis of responses, before Clause 107 is put in place. What happens to a property with unconsented works carried out five years ago, where under the existing rules they would be immune, but under the new rules, introduced by this Bill, they would not? There is no provision in the Bill for transitional process. That needs clarifying, and Amendment 279 seeks to do just that.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

I shall speak to Amendment 281C. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for her introduction and support for that amendment. It is one of two amendments which I have tabled to give effect to recommendations by the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, seeking to promote the principle of legal certainty. The problem which concerned the committee in this case relates to the width of the power in the new Section 196E, introduced by Clause 113.

The Explanatory Notes say that the position at the moment about decisions

“to take enforcement action in response to breaches of planning control is at the discretion of the local planning authority”.

New Section 196E seeks to give power to the Secretary of State to provide relief from enforcement and planning conditions in a particular way, by providing that a local planning authority

“may not take … relevant enforcement measures”

or is subject to particular restrictions as to whether it should take that step.

The reason given in the Explanatory Notes is really a bit of history. In the difficult circumstances that arose as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, with a later acute shortage of heavy goods vehicles,

“local planning authorities have been encouraged to be flexible in terms of enforcement action of non-compliance with conditions imposed on grants of planning permission which govern construction working hours and delivery hours”.

Those are the kind of conditions put forward to protect the environment of local residents, and so on—and, obviously, when they are imposed, they are imposed for a very good reason. But the Covid-19 situation, with the acute shortage of heavy goods vehicles, made it desirable that these hours should be extended, instead of being restricted to hours that would not interfere with people’s sleep, or whatever else it would be. There was a good reason for being more flexible and allowing the hours to be extended.

That is the background to the step being taken here, but the Constitution Committee’s concern was about the width of the power being sought under new Section 196E. The section is carefully drafted, because it says that what the Secretary of State may do by regulations is to give direct attention to

“relevant enforcement measures in relation to any actual or apparent failure to comply with a relevant planning condition”.

Those expressions, “relevant enforcement measures” and “relevant planning condition”, are carefully defined in this new section and are wide in their scope. “Enforcement measures” includes all the powers that one might expect—the powers to apply for enforcement orders, injunctions and entry without a warrant, and so on, to see what is going on, and to deal with issues about planning contravention notices, temporary stop notices, enforcement notices, warning notices and so on.

The new section is very carefully drafted. What it does not do is contain any kind of limit on the extent to which the power might be used, which is why the Constitution Committee, in its report, said that it was concerned by the breadth of the power and recommended that the clause should be amended to ensure that the power was limited to

“emergency situations or other forms of serious disruption”,

following the example set out in the Explanatory Notes. My amendment provides simply that the power may be exercised only

“in the event of an emergency or other form of serious disruption which makes it necessary for the local planning authority to be provided with this relief”.

As I said, the background is that, in any case at the moment, the local authority has a discretion as to how far it should go in dealing with breaches of planning conditions, but the power is actually giving directions. Therefore it is necessary, in the interests of legal certainty, that the scope of the power should be limited along the lines that my amendment suggests.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, this is a really interesting group of amendments and clearly very technical and detailed. The Minister may be relieved that I shall keep my comments quite simple, to address certain principles.

Clause 107 represents a radical change. There is quite a difference between four years and 10 years, which will apply to all forms of unauthorised development. As has already been said by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the Explanatory Notes do not actually give any rationale for the actual number of years. Is it a proposal following consultation of some sort, or just a figure between four and 10—in which case, may I suggest six? I would be interested to know how it was arrived at.

I am also interested in the Minister’s response to the noble Earl’s Amendments 278 and 279 on transition and consultation, which both seem reasonable and sensible, given that this is a significant time change, with consequences following from the scale of the change.

I agree that there is definitely some sense in bringing about a single limitation period, beyond which all such development is lawful, to put an end to the fraught arguments and confusion of what applies to which and when and why. Such confusions, in my experience, come from all parties—council officers, definitely residents and even on occasion legal representatives. It is not straightforward. When is a garage not a garage? What is a garage? I remember that one vividly.

Amendment 276 in the name of the noble Earls seeks to retain the four-year rule where a breach—I am choosing my words very carefully—involves a place where people live. From my urban experience, I have seen too many “beds in sheds” where, at worst, people are living in conditions not fit for animals and at best, they are massively overcrowded with inadequate facilities. Nobody should get away with exploiting vulnerable people, who are living in those conditions because they are desperate, just because the breach was reported only after four years and one day.

On Amendments 275 and 277 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, I seek clarification from the Minister and I accept that I may have got this wrong. Given that I agree with many of the noble Baroness’s amendments and her way of thinking about the Bill, I am, in a sense, sense checking. As I read it, the Government’s intention in this clause is to give local planning authorities a considerably longer timeframe—some might say too long—to intervene in a breach of unlawful planning that has been brought to their attention. I would say that was a good thing from the point of view of the local authority, affected residents and communities. Therefore, would her two amendments, if passed, mean that despite the breach having

“a significant impact on the local environment”,

the noble Baroness is seeking to reduce the time that residents have to notice it and their council to respond? It is the time to enforce and not the time to comply with enforcement: that is my understanding. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that and put me right.

Amendments 281 and 281A in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Hayman, deal with council finances. The situation was described well, so I do not need to repeat that, but what I will say is that enforcement is a very important service. We all want and need more effective enforcement. Poor enforcement across a whole council can undermine all our efforts to improve the place we live in. Enforcement is a big signal to residents that their council cares about what goes on in their areas and will do something about it. Over the years, I found it was a trust issue with residents, about “Whose side are you on?” Helpless cries of, “Well, it’s outside the four-year period” cut no ice.

The harsh reality, particularly in district councils, is that, increasingly, councils are responding only to breaches that are brought to their attention, rather than proactively going out looking for them, which I think is something we all think they should do and which should cut across a wide range of council functions. The reality is that, due to the reduction of available funding and a decline in the number of skilled staff over many years, that is not happening. Capacity and capability is an issue here too. The real skill in enforcement work is to bring about compliance without the need to serve notices and go to court, with all the additional cost and time that that incurs, in order to perhaps get a paltry fine. In my experience, most council officers will seek not to do the sorts of things that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, mentioned; they actually work very hard to take proportionate and flexible actions with minor infringements.

On Amendment 281B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, about social housing, we all know that of all the current Section 106 obligations that developers try to wheedle out of, social housing is their number one target. Reducing the wriggle room and strengthening this obligation is surely a good thing. We have several ex-council leaders in the Chamber who will all have experienced occasions when a developer has found it more cost effective to breach the rules and pay the fine. Chopping down trees covered by tree preservation orders is a regular example that springs to mind. We are all battle scarred, hence our cynicism regarding some developers and the desire to recover full costs, as in our earlier debate.

Building Safety Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Tuesday 29th March 2022 Lords Chamber

Of course, we sympathise with the Government’s concern that if the burden of remediation costs falls largely or wholly upon them, freeholders may well challenge this legislation, directly or by resisting enforcement. Such challenges may cause delays. In commercial life there is little or nothing anyone can do to stop aggrieved parties litigating, so freeholders or developers may litigate in the UK or at the European Court of Human Rights. However, I am not at all clear that the amendments we are debating will make any difference at all to the decisions that freeholders and developers may make to challenge this legislation in the courts, domestically or internationally, or that their chances of success if they do would be affected. My clear expectation is that, ultimately, the Government would defeat such a challenge, whether or not these amendments succeed. I therefore support my noble friend Lady Pinnock, the noble Lord, Lord Young, and others, in pressing these amendments.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I have not spoken in these debates either. I hope, like the noble Lord, Lord Marks, I might be forgiven for intervening very briefly.

I took the opportunity of looking at Article 1 of Protocol 1 shortly before coming into the Chamber today, and at some of the background authorities to which the noble Lord has referred. I agree entirely with his carefully worded speech in every respect. There is, of course, a question of balance and a question of the margin of appreciation and the other technical phrases that he has used, with which I am very familiar, but I think his assessment of all these points is absolutely right. The prospects of a successful challenge really are very remote, and the Government would succeed. I agree with his assessment, and I hope this might be of some comfort to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in her amendment, and to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to speak after hearing from two such knowledgeable noble Lords. I am tempted to say: let us cut to the chase and go straight to the vote on Amendment 115 and get it over with.

In the meantime, I would like to speak on Amendment 115, which I strongly support, and Amendment 123. I would like to comment on Amendments 155, 156 and 157, and to my Amendments 158, 159 and 163. Before doing that, although I will not speak to them, I was privileged to support Amendment 117 on enfranchising leaseholders, Amendment 124, moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, on pensioners, and Amendment 153, moved by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham.

On Amendment 115, concerned with buildings under 11 metres, I strongly support what is proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I hope he presses it to a vote unless my noble friend is willing to accept it. I have heard my noble friend the Minister say repeatedly—and he is largely right—that a building of under 11 metres may be less dangerous than a building of 20 or 30 storeys. I accept that even I could get out of a building of three storeys a bit faster than I could get out of one of 13 or 30 storeys. The risk is lower, but there is still a risk—that is one of the main points: there is still a risk. When we saw Richmond House burn down in nine or 10 minutes, it was horrifying. I hope that, if I was in there and woke up in time, I would have got out, but there might be some disabled people who could not have done so.

There is also an issue of principle. If someone has built a building, whether it is 1 metre high or 11 metres high, and used flammable materials or the wrong materials, they should be made to fix it, no matter how wealthy they are—if it is Abramovich or anyone else. If the building has flawed materials, it should be repaired, irrespective of the height. I appreciate that my noble friend has gone a long way on this and that he has been very kind in telling us at countless meetings that there is a lower risk in those buildings, but there is still a risk. Of course, he also said that the numbers were very small: in that case, if the numbers are very small, it is a small problem to fix.

Building a Co-operative Union (Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee Report)

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Wednesday 13th October 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I begin by paying my own very warm tribute to our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, whose charm and good will has made membership of this committee so very enjoyable. I join her in thanking all our clerks and policy advisers for their contribution to our work, which has been invaluable.

People sometimes ask, “What’s in a name?” The answer I usually give is, “Quite a lot, actually”. That is certainly so in the case of the common frameworks. It was not the most stimulating of names to give this project—indeed, it is rather dull, as has been suggested. The words themselves are accurate and meaningful enough to those who know what common frameworks actually are, but those who know what they mean are few and far between, and there is not much about them to excite interest among those in government who ought to know and do not. The contrast between them and the internal market Act 2020 could not be more striking. The words “internal market” were well chosen. They have an instant appeal and require no explanation. We have done our best at the start of the summary of our report to provide as succinct explanation of what is meant by common frameworks as can be devised. But our explanation occupies two sentences, some 40 words, and most other attempts that I have seen are a good deal longer.

The approach to the consequences of our departure from the EU that the internal market Act takes is so very different from that of common frameworks, and that is a source of real concern. One of the core strengths of the union to which all four nations in these islands belong is the respect that we give to our separate identities. Consultation, discussion and agreement wherever possible are the guiding principles. All four nations are involved in this process, and where divergence is acceptable to all, the common frameworks will allow for this, too. That point needs to be widely understood and respected.

The internal market Act, on the other hand, was designed by and for the centre. Its purpose was to ensure that there were no harmful barriers to trade between the different parts of the UK. But by elevating that principle above everything else, as the Act appeared to do, it appeared to ignore everything that the common frameworks were designed to achieve. Only at the last moment, by amendments to what are now Sections 10 and 18, was any recognition given to what the common frameworks are seeking to achieve. That was an unfortunate start for a vital step forward before the Bill was eventually enacted. As several of our witnesses made clear, the imbalance of power between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government which that Act creates is very obvious. Those sections give a discretion to the Secretary of State to exempt an agreed divergence from the internal market principles, but it is only a discretion, which may or may not be exercised.

That brings me to paragraph 102 of our report, where we recommend that

“the UK Government should work closely with the devolved administrations to develop a consistent and transparent process”

for the use of those discretionary powers. Their approach so far to the issue of divergence has tended to be fragmented, with different Ministers in different departments taking decisions on these cross-cutting issues without full consultation with all the interested parties or the full and frank sharing of information that needs to be shared. Paragraph 12 of the Government’s response tells us that the process that they aim to set up is still unclear, and it is certainly not clear how far that process has gone.

In June of this year, the Institute for Government recommended that a central unit in the Cabinet Office should be set up to oversee the UK internal market, track divergence between the different parts of the union and consider its implications for trade, devolution and the preservation of the union. It is disturbing to read in paragraph 36 of the Government’s response that the role of the Cabinet Office is to be reduced over time. Our point, which I bring to the Minister’s attention, is that it is far too early for that to happen. There is still too much uncertainty about how this process will be carried out. Guidance from the centre remains crucial to its success, and it is likely to be so for a considerable time to come. I should be grateful if the Minister could say whether this point about the importance of guidance from the centre is really understood and appreciated.

Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 20th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, it is my pleasant task, on behalf of these Benches, to thank the Minister for the gracious way in which he has conducted this Bill. We have had no Divisions. The Bill has survived unamended, but it has certainly not been without interest, and the Minister has been faced with some powerful contributions during our debates that he has had to answer. We are grateful to him and the Bill team for the care that has been taken in examining the various points that have been raised.

It will not have escaped the Minister’s attention that two of us participating from these Benches had a professional interest in the subject. One was a valuer, with an interest in the valuation aspects, and I am a lawyer, interested in the legal aspects. For both of us, the question was how one could accommodate the undoubted need for public lavatories, in the places where people need them, within the valuation and ratings system. Standalone premises, which this Bill is about, present no problems of that kind, but increasingly, the provision of publicly accessible lavatories within other premises, such as public libraries, is a different matter. The two of us were very much in sympathy with others who were asking the Minister to be more imaginative and generous in searching for a solution to the problem, but we found it as hard as he did to see how this could be done within the boundaries of the existing law and practice of how buildings are valued for rating purposes. In short, the narrow focus of the Bill has been the problem.

Everyone recognises that this is a significant public health issue and an environmental issue. Everyone—young and old, healthy or infirm—needs access to decent lavatory accommodations. There is genuine regret on these Benches and throughout the House that the Bill was unable to go further than it has in finding other ways to meet this need. I hope that the Government will take away from these debates a better understanding of ways in which this could be done by the ideas that have been put forward by various amendments from all around the House. If so, the time that we have spent developing these ideas in debate will have been time well spent. I hope and expect that we have not heard the last word on the subject of public lavatories.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, we have seen the very best of this House. I really appreciated the professional expertise on the Cross Benches, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. It was incredibly helpful. This is a very complicated area of public policy and it is great to have that expertise to hand.

I add my personal tribute to Lord Greaves. I did not know him particularly well, but he welcomed me as a fellow traveller from local government, where our political paths were very similar. He was almost schooling me on the nature of a probing amendment. I do not think that I have ever had such a lengthy discussion about the word “mainly”. He will be sadly missed.

Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con) [V]]

My Lords, as I said at Second Reading, I welcome the Bill. That the Government have chosen to encourage the provision of public lavatories is a great public good, because adequate lavatory provision is a liberation for many millions of people, for whom the thought of not finding one when they go out is a significant restriction on their participation in society as a whole. There are said to be some 14 million people in this country with bowel or bladder problems. That is a very large proportion of the population who are worried about being able to access a public lavatory when they go out.

I really encourage the Government, perhaps not immediately but during the progress of the legislation, to look at opportunities to extend its reach. An obvious example is lavatories in stations, which everyone regards as public lavatories. Victoria station is very well used. It is only in a very peripheral way a part of any other hereditament. The same applies to lavatories in other public buildings, and to push in the direction which is being opened by Amendment 1 is thoroughly worth while.

There is no obvious need for a public lavatory to be a separate building. It seems, given the attractiveness of public lavatories, that having them in a building encourages other uses of that building too, and that their integration into public buildings should be encouraged. If we can find a way round it over the next few years, we should not be privileging just those public lavatories which are free standing.

As has been said, I really hope that the Government look on this as an opportunity, over time, to encourage facilities that are needed for the general public enjoyment of public facilities by extending the rather narrow rating release in the Bill to the many other deserving facilities that are provided at public expense and otherwise, and without which we will find ourselves rather too often caught short.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for what the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, Lord Greaves and Lord Lucas, have said in support of these amendments. For some people, venturing into parts of our urban communities where they cannot be sure of access to a public lavatory is a risk that they dare not take. The physical conditions that create this problem can affect all ages. One thinks especially of the elderly, but there are also visitors to the area and others who depend on the uncertainties of public transport to get home. Whoever they are, they need to be provided for.

My interest in this subject, as I have mentioned before, is a professional one. I am interested in whether the amendments to test alternative solutions to those which the Government are suggesting are capable of being put into effect. The valuation of buildings for rating was one of my specialist subjects when I was in practice at the Scottish Bar. The valuation process itself was not for me; that was the job of chartered surveyors. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is a distinguished member of that profession, with years of experience in the practice of that art, and I am very sorry that for other reasons he is unable to take part in this debate.

However, valuation for rating is not just about facts and figures. There are some legal rules too, and that is where I come in. The non-domestic rating system is the product of a listing process. Every non-domestic hereditament that is capable of separate occupation must be entered in the valuation list and given a value. A single building may contain within it a number of properties that are in separate occupation. If so, one would expect each of them to be the subject of a separate entry and a separate value, but where one finds a building in a single occupation, the consequence is that the entire building is treated as a separate hereditament and valued accordingly.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, Amendment 5 in my name provides for a relief where there is a public toilet in part of a premises by enabling it to be calculated and charged separately and benefit from the zero rating. It would provide welcome support for public lavatories, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, will embrace it.

Amendment 6, also in my name, seeks to provide rate relief to a premises with a Changing Places facility. We need to do much more to support Changing Places facilities; providing this relief would be a very positive way to do so. Changing Places facilities provide the necessary space and equipment for people with disabilities —more than a standard accessible toilet can cater for. I mentioned at Second Reading that the Tower of London, a Historic Royal Palace, has a Changing Places facility installed. Noble Lords will know that that building’s construction dates from 1066, after the Norman conquest. The facility is in the New Armouries building, which was built in 1663. It has installed a Changing Places facility; we should follow its example and do the same elsewhere.

When lockdown ends, we want people to be able to get out, meet family and friends and do all the things we have all longed to do for so long. However, for disabled people wanting to enjoy those things that we often take for granted, we need to ensure more adequate, better and more suitable provision. It is not a lot to ask for. It is about dignity and letting people have the freedom to enjoy themselves. Supporting Changing Places facilities is a very welcome thing that we should all do. My Amendment 6 is a small step to encourage the provision of more Changing Places facilities. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, can provide a positive response. I beg to move.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]]

My Lords, the formula proposed by this group of amendments raises an interesting practical question. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said on Amendment 6 about the desire to provide for Changing Places facilities where required, but my interest is in a more practical question: whether what is proposed here works with the normal principles of rating and valuation law.

I understand that it is proposed to extend the relief to the more usual situation where there is a public lavatory, or perhaps more than one, within a larger building which is not accessible from outside—the situation contemplated by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in Amendment 9, which we considered earlier. This being so, these amendments correctly assume that a value has been given to the building as a whole; they seek to extract from that value the amount attributable to the public lavatory or lavatories by asking for it or them to be valued separately and the value given to the building as a whole reduced accordingly. As I said earlier, I am not and never was a valuer, but I fear that the exercise that the amendment contemplates is not nearly as simple as it might seem. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, touched on this earlier.

The problem is one that a valuer would readily identify. First, it is not normal for individual elements in a building, such as public lavatories, to be given values in the course of making up the value for the hereditament as a whole, so a valuation exercise would have to be undertaken which is not normally—indeed, probably never has been—undertaken in the course of the valuations we have today. There is also a consequence for the other part of the building that does not consist of these lavatories—the effect of extracting the value and whether the value attributable to the remainder can be properly sustained without some kind of examination. I suspect that this approach runs into quite difficult valuation problems which a valuer would need to explore with the Minister to see whether they could be resolved.

There may be an alternative solution. I mentioned earlier the example of charitable relief; this time I will take another. Rather than engaging in the rather difficult exercise I have hinted at, it might be worth considering applying a derating formula across the board to all hereditaments comprising public lavatories. There is precedent for that approach in a statute introduced in the 1920s to provide relief for industrial hereditaments. These were hereditaments that were shown to be occupied and used as a mine, factory or workshop. The details are to be found in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act 1928. Hereditaments which met the tests for being treated as subjects of that kind were entitled to a reduction of half their annual value. The aim was to deal with the acute problems of unemployment and to stimulate the economy by encouraging the development of subjects for industrial use. Of course, an enormous problem was being addressed there that was shared across the economy as a whole, and one can well understand the measure and the extent of the relief that derating provided. I should mention that that statute was repealed some years ago so does not apply today.

A 50% reduction would be out of all proportion to what we are talking about when considering the public lavatories element in the overall hereditament, but that does not affect the principle on which the relief was given in these cases: that it is possible, without getting embroiled in detailed valuation exercises, simply to introduce a form of derating for a desirable purpose to encourage whatever one seeks to encourage. If the Minister is not willing to accept these amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, might find it worth considering a 1% or 2% deduction from the overall figure, perhaps adjustable by statutory instrument in the light of experience, as an alternative to the rather complicated valuation exercises that this group of amendments contemplates.

[Lord Lucas (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am attracted to the idea that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has just advanced. After Second Reading, I had a very long and entertaining conversation with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on the technical subject of valuation. Some of it may have stuck in my brain, but the overall impression that this was not a simple matter certainly stuck there—in particular, the idea that the uplift in rateable value that comes from having a toilet can be quite substantial. It makes, for instance, the upper floors of a department store much more attractive than one might think. So there are considerable complications underlying the process, and if a toilet was subtracted from the whole, the question of how that whole would be valued fairly—when a toilet is available but it is not being rated—becomes quite complicated. At least, that is the strong impression that I was left with after my conversation.

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

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

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

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester. My interest is in the second of the two Bills before us about the exemption from rates for public lavatories. I too am glad to see it back again, following its having been dropped at the end of the last Parliament. I was one of a very small number of speakers at Second Reading on the previous occasion. It is remarkable and very encouraging that, for whatever reason, so much more interest has been shown in the Bill this time round.

I join with others in welcoming the measure; it addresses a very real problem, which is not much talked about in public but is nevertheless very real. This is not just a matter of convenience, as these places are increasingly difficult to find; it is also a serious health issue, particularly for people with special lavatory requirements or other health problems, who need to be able to easily find such places and have them within easy reach. There are some who dare not go to places where they are not assured of such support; there are others who find taking the risk very worrying and uncomfortable. The cost of providing and maintaining such places is not inconsiderable, so something needs to be done. The help that this Bill offers, however small, is overdue and much to be commended.

The other point that interests me about it and has led me to contribute to this debate relates to my past. I spent some time, during an earlier stage in my career as an advocate, in cases about valuation for rating. I was also the joint editor of the leading textbook on this subject in Scotland. To me, it is of interest to find that public lavatories appear as separate entries in the valuation list. I did not encounter them at any time in my practice, and they are not mentioned in the list of unusual subjects to which the book refers, such as advertising hoardings and radio masts. However, there is no doubt that they should be in the list wherever they exist as separate subjects, with the consequence that, according to the ordinary rules, they will be chargeable to non-domestic rates.

This is the result of two basic rules. The first is that every hereditament or structure that is capable of separate occupation should be the subject of its own entry on the list. The other is that the annual value that must be attached to it for rating purposes is, in theory, the rent at which the hereditament might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year, assuming that the tenant undertakes to pay all the rates and to bear the cost of repairs and other expenses necessary to maintain the structure in a state to command that rent. That may seem rather fanciful in the case of public lavatories, but it is what the rule requires. Nowadays, in practice, that figure is obtained, in cases such as this, by applying a prescribed formula which probably does not bear much relationship to actual rents but is intended to maintain some kind of balance across the entire valuation list.

In this case, we are concerned only with self-standing public lavatories that are in separate occupation, such as one might hope to find in a town centre or a public park or in or near a children’s playground. The Bill is designed to deal with that situation only, as is the method that it applies to ensure that rates do not have to be paid by those who occupy them, by which I mean those who are in rateable occupation as their owners or tenants, not the people who find it convenient to use them. However well disposed their owners or tenants may be to the public need for such facilities in these places, it is unlikely that they would be able to claim relief on the ground that they are charities. The subjects cannot be taken out of the list altogether, as that would be contrary to one of the basic principles. So, the solution is to provide by statute that they are to be entered in the list at zero value, which is what this Bill seeks to do.

Like other noble Lords, I would like to see something done to encourage the more frequent provision of public lavatories in public places such shopping malls, public libraries and bus stations. However, the problem is that facilities of that kind have to be included in the value of the larger hereditament of which they form part. They cannot be extracted from it to form a separate entry, as in the case of the subjects dealt with in the Bill. That is not to say that this is not a very important issue, but the fact is that it is not easy to provide a simple solution for them such as we have in this case. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister can assure the House that minds are not closed on that issue and that something may be done, perhaps by adjusting the relevant formula, to address it.

I support the Bill and would like it to pass into law as soon as possible.