Fire Safety Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Lords Hansard
Wednesday 17th March 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

At end insert “and do propose Amendment 2B in lieu—

2B: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Legislative proposals relating to duties of owner or manager
(1) Within 90 days of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish draft legislation to require an owner or a manager of any building which contains two or more sets of domestic premises to—
(a) share information with their local Fire and Rescue Service in respect of each building for which an owner or manager is responsible about the design of its external walls and details of the materials of which those external walls are constructed,
(b) in respect of any building for which an owner or manager is responsible which contains separate flats, undertake annual inspections of individual flat entrance doors,
(c) in respect of any building for which an owner or manager is responsible which contains separate flats, undertake monthly inspections of lifts and report the results to their local Fire and Rescue Service if the results include a fault, and
(d) share evacuation and fire safety instructions with residents of the building.
(2) Within 90 days of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a statement on a proposed timetable for the passage of the draft legislation mentioned in subsection (1).
(3) Within 120 days of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a statement confirming whether the draft legislation mentioned in subsection (1) has progressed.””

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

My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, the chair of the Heart of Medway Housing Association and a non-executive director of MHS Homes Ltd. In moving Motion A1, I will address all the Motions before the House today.

It is disappointing that the Government have over- turned the amendment passed by this House. The intent of our amendment was to make progress in implementing the recommendations made in the first phase of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. Our frustration, along with the frustration felt by many, has been that since the recommendations made in the first phase were published, progress has been extremely and annoyingly slow. Being told by the Government that in most cases we do not need legislation to make progress is in some ways even more frustrating because nothing has happened, which is again very odd. This is the first piece of legislation we have seen that will bring anything into force. Frankly, the victims and their families deserve better. People living in properties that are unsafe or blighted deserve better than that.

This led me to propose Motion A1, which proposes to insert a new clause into the Bill. What my amendment seeks to do is accept the Government intention to take action but to add some rigour and rigidity to the proposals with clear timescales for action. As I have said previously, this has all been too slow with no clarity about what the timescales are for action through primary legislation and through secondary legislation and guidance.

This morning I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, which seeks to add some clarity to the timescales for action, and that is welcome. We also have the Government’s response to the consultation, which is helpful. It looks as if we are finally making some progress and I welcome that. It would be good to hear him, when he responds to the debate, set out the timescales for the actions the Government are proposing, and I look forward to that. That will be part of the official record of the House and the Government will be held accountable for the pledges that they make today.

In respect of Motion B, while I accept that the Commons can assert financial privilege and the need not to give any other reason, we must consider the subject of the amendment that was rejected and the circumstances that have led to this Bill, as well as the intention behind the amendment that the other place has rejected. We would have hoped to have got a little more than the assertion of financial privilege. This is about fire safety and reassurance for residents that the register is up to date, that it can be relied on and that it is publicly available and transparent so that sunlight on fire risk assessments will provide more reassurance. I hope that when the noble Lord responds to Motion A, he will provide a bit more clarity than just relying on financial privilege as expressed by the other place.

Motion C1, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, seeks to add to the Bill Amendments 4B, 4C, 4D and 4E. They would prohibit the owner of a building from passing on the costs of annual remedial works attributable to the requirements of the Act to leaseholders or tenants, except where the leaseholder is also the owner of the building. The amendments under the Motion tabled by the right reverend Prelate have my full support, and the Labour Benches will support him if he decides to divide the House. I hope very much that he will do so.

Leaseholders are victims and have done nothing wrong. They deserve to be treated much better than they have been by the Government. They have done everything right. They have bought their properties and are paying their mortgages. Now they are being penalised for the failure of others. Surely that cannot be right. The fact that their buildings have been covered in dangerous cladding has made their flats worthless. They cannot sell their properties, but they are still expected to pay their mortgages and other charges. They cannot get work done; they may be paying for a waking watch and in some cases the properties will have guarantees on them which need to be drawn down. There will be warranties for work done which need to be used. They have been paid for, otherwise they are literally not worth the paper they are written on.

We should all stand up to support leaseholders and tenants and get those who have done the work to accept their responsibility and put this right. The Government are failing leaseholders and tenants. Their actions are just not good enough and fall far short of what they promised.

I want to be clear. For the individual builder, contractor, company, warranty provider or insurance company, it cannot be right for people to wriggle out of their responsibilities. The Government need to take firm action. Supporting the Motions and amendments before the House today will be an opportunity to ask the Government to think again, and I hope we take it. I beg to move.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I speak to Motion C1 and Amendments 4B to 4E. I give notice of my intention to seek the opinion of the House when the time comes. I declare my interest in the register in that I, too, am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I first thank the honourable Members for Stevenage and for Southampton, Itchen, who originally prepared these amendments, as well as the signatories from all parties when they were tabled in the Commons. I also thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who joins me in supporting it, and pay tribute to one of our colleagues, the Bishop of Kensington, who has worked very closely on the ground with victims of Grenfell and leaseholders.

Grenfell was an unmitigated tragedy brought about, it would seem, by institutional failings on multiple levels. The recent revelation that the cladding provider knew that it could result in tragedy and death is nothing short of a disgrace. It has been a tragedy for many lives: ordinary families have been ripped apart by this terrible event.

The Bill will deal with the problem of dangerous cladding by creating a quick and easy mechanism to force freeholders to remove dangerous cladding and other fire safety defects. That is undoubtedly a good thing and will, hopefully, protect against future tragedies, but I share the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that Her Majesty’s Government have not sought to address the severe adverse financial consequences that the Bill will create for leaseholders. In the Bill’s current form, whenever the fire service serves notice to the freeholder requiring remedial work to be undertaken, the freeholder will be able to force leaseholders to reimburse all the costs incurred. These costs are staggering.

At this point, I say that our hearts go out—I am sure we all share this—to all the people who are struggling. I have been inundated with emails, tweets and people contacting me who are at their wit’s end looking at what is likely to unfold in the next few weeks. Far from the Government’s estimated remedial costs of around £9,000 per leaseholder, depending on the terms of the lease and the work involved, a leaseholder could very easily be handed a bill of £50,000, payable within weeks.

Inside Housing conducted its own private survey of 1,342 leaseholders. Its findings reveal a very different picture to that of Her Majesty’s Government. Among those surveyed, 63% of respondents faced a total bill above £30,000 for remedial costs and 15% faced a bill of more than £100,000. Of course, a few of these lease- holders may be well off, some will have disposable income, but most will not: 60% had a household income of less than £50,000, with only 8.7% reporting a household income of more than £100,000. In other words, this will primarily affect ordinary middle to working-class people.

In addition, 56.4% of those surveyed were first-time buyers. They have followed that life trajectory that many Conservative Governments have sought to promote by working hard, saving and purchasing a property. These are people with aspirations—something I totally support—yet nearly everything they have worked hard towards, over many years, could be taken away from them, as shown by the alarming 17.2% of respondents who say that they are already exploring bankruptcy options. I must remind the House that the costs mentioned above include only the remedial costs; they say nothing about the interim fire safety costs that leaseholders already incur.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I will not speak for long. I do not want to detain the House with a long debate. I thank everyone who has spoken. We have heard many very powerful speeches, and very important points were well made. I thank the Minister for his response to my Motion A1, for the time he has taken to speak to me outside the Chamber, and for the letter I received today in addition to the all-Peers letter. It sets out some clear commitments from the Government, a plan and, most importantly, a timetable for action. I welcome this very much.

I listened carefully to the contributions of all noble Lords and agreed with almost every one. I hear the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. He may be right, but it is our job to press the Government to do the right thing by the people of this country, as the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London said. I also thank my noble friend Lord Adonis for his support. He made some very valid general points about how we deal with matters from the other place, and points specific to this Bill. I also listened carefully to the Minister’s response to Motion B. I had said that all they rely on in the other place is privilege, and his response was very fair. I can see his point—it is a shame that the other place could not—and I had not thought of it beforehand, so I accept it. We are trying to ensure, in respect of that Motion particularly, that residents, tenants, the fire authorities and the fire brigade have transparency. That is what we want to shine the light on. Perhaps the Minister will not be able to address those issues; it is a shame that the other place did not.

Sometimes the Government say, “We have an ambitious programme” or “We are striving to make progress”, but they have been very slow on this and everyone is frustrated with them. As my noble friend Lord Adonis said, it is three years and nine months since the fire, and this is the first piece of legislation. It is frustratingly slow. Can the Minister talk to the Prime Minister? These issues will not go away, and we will keep raising them until we get some proper action. He has made some commitments today, which is good, but it is only a start. This House will hold him to account on them, because so far this has been frustratingly slow.

Having said that, I am pleased that we got so far today. I have enough to withdraw my Motion A1. I hope that the right reverend Prelate moves his Motion for debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion A1 withdrawn.

Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my interests in the register as a member of Kirklees Council and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I must say that I enjoyed the forensic probing that my noble friend Lord Greaves has undertaken. The words in the Bill that he is keen to clarify are ones that legislators frequently use. One wonders whether this is for the precise purpose of storing up business for lawyers when a challenge is made and the words then have to be to defined. My noble friend has done his research and quoted case law. The Minister’s response will be of interest to many of us because it will relate not only to this Bill but to others where charitable institutions are involved.

My noble friend also drew our attention to the difference in the use of “consists” and “used”. As he rightly pointed out, a “well used” facility may not get relief, whereas one that consists “wholly or mainly” may well do. Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain the reasoning behind the use of the words in the Bill that my noble friend is questioning. I look forward to what I am sure will be a most informative response.

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

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for tabling the amendment. We debated issues around similar words in Committee. I thank him for raising these important matters again because we have to be clear. I was very struck by the points he made towards the end of his remarks about how important it is to get legislation right and to have good legislation. If we are not clear what we mean and mean what we say we will have all sorts of problems.

This gives the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, the opportunity to be very clear about what the Government mean. We need to be clear when we have words such as “mainly” and whether it is “more” or “less”. If we do not get these things clear then we get confusion. That leads to bad law and might potentially involve the courts. It potentially involves wasting more time in this House clarifying what we should have clarified in the first place.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is very good at picking these things up. I remember the debate that we had on rogue landlords, when he tabled an amendment on what was meant by the word “rogue”. It is important that we get these things right because then we will not need to clarify them. I thank the noble Lord for that. I look forward to the Minister’s response on the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

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

My Lords, Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is a good amendment and I support it. I look forward to the Minister’s response. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to highlight these issues. An ageing population needs more facilities; parents need facilities for their children. The point the noble Baroness made about changing facilities for fathers and male guardians is very well made. We also need to ensure that proper facilities are provided for disabled people, so I very much agree with the noble Baroness on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, spoke to an amendment to the lead amendment. He was absolutely right in talking about people visiting town centres, beaches and so on. We are all looking forward to the lifting of lockdown over the next few months. The Government are going to say, “Get out there. Go out there and spend some money, visit some places and meet your family and friends”. I want to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

5: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Report on the number of public lavatories and changing place facilities
(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, and every 12 months thereafter, a Minister of the Crown must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament.(2) The report must consider whether the Act has led to an increase in the number of public lavatories and changing place facilities in England and Wales.(3) The report must be produced in consultation with relevant stakeholders independent from the Government.(4) The report must consider whether, for the purposes of subsection (2), rate relief should be extended to include—(a) local authority property, libraries and community centres that are free of charge to enter and contain a public lavatory that is free of charge for anyone to use,(b) premises that consist partly of public lavatories, or(c) premises that contain a changing place facility.(5) If the report makes any recommendations in relation to subsection (4), a Minister must lay a statement before both Houses of Parliament detailing the steps that will be taken by the Government as a result.”

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

My Lords, the amendment seeks to add a new clause. Its purpose is to require a report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament on the number of public lavatories and changing place facilities within 12 months of the passing of the Act, and every 12 months after that.

The report has to address a number of important points and consider whether the Act has increased the closure of public lavatories and, importantly, changing place facilities. We need to have proper conversations with the relevant stakeholders. Like the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I was sorry that I was unable to get to the meeting with the British Toilet Association because I was here, considering the Domestic Abuse Bill at the time. However, I welcome the offer from the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, to talk further on these issues, along with stakeholders such as the British Toilet Association, which does invaluable work for us.

Proposed subsection (4) of the amendment refers to whether the relief should be extended. That is very important. How does one extend rate relief? If the legislation is working, if the number of toilets is increasing and they are not being lost, we may well need to extend that rate relief. I make the point about changing place facilities because they are important. As I mentioned previously, there is now a changing place facility in the Tower of London. It is good enough for one of our historic royal palaces, so we should ensure that many other public buildings provide such a facility.

In the previous debate, I was reminded by my noble friend Lady Andrews of the importance of public health. I love the London Borough of Southwark—Southwark is in my title. The old town hall has a sign saying:

“The health of the people is the highest law”.


It was put there in Victorian times by the old St Mary Newington Vestry Hall. It is absolutely right. Think about what was being done in those times in terms of public health, sanitation and all the important things that had to be addressed. That motto is relevant today in terms of moving forward and ensuring that we address public health by having enough proper toilets available.

If the amendment is agreed, the Government will be asked to bring reports back to this House every 12 months. I suppose that the Minister is not going to accept the amendment. I may be wrong, but I hope that he can respond positively and genuinely because the Government need to arm themselves with that sort of information in order to get this matter right and ensure that the situation is improved for all our citizens.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment. I do not need to say any more about it. It concerns a slightly different aspect of what we have been talking about. Apart from that, I have made the points that I wanted to make. All that I will say is that I will keep on making them until the Government wake up and understand the role of town and parish councils. Having said that, I will sit down.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that detailed reply to my amendment, which I will withdraw. We have had a good debate this evening on various aspects of the Bill and the rate relief that has been offered. We need to keep it under review. I am very pleased the noble Lord said that the Government will do that as we all want to see public facilities maintained and hopefully improved and increased. We all want this rate relief to work, so I hope that, if we find evidence that things are not working well, the noble Lord, his department and other colleagues in government will look at those representations carefully to see whether we can improve or enhance what has been offered here. I thank him for his response and all speakers in this short debate for their contributions. At this stage, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

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

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 9th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

The Question is that this Bill do now pass. As many as are of that opinion shall say “content”.

I am sorry—I am being too quick this time. I call the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for his engagement on the Bill. As always, he was very generous with his time and I have enjoyed working with him. Also, through him, I thank all the officials in his department. Again, they were generous with their time and open in engaging with me.

This is a very small, one-clause Bill, but it raises very important issues and the debates we had were much wider than the one clause itself. We all love our high streets. We love the pubs, cafés and shops we go to and I hope the Minister will take away all the issues we raised in the discussion of the Bill and look at them because, yes, it is great that we can have online deliveries, but getting a box to your front door is not quite the same as going out on a Saturday morning to your favourite café and reading the paper, meeting your friends at the shops and so forth. We have to protect our high streets and all the shops that we all love.

I know that the noble Lord agrees with me on those matters, but we need to make sure that, in the period ahead, we are looking at ways to support our high streets. Yes, they have to evolve, but, equally, we have to make sure that they are still there, delivering for our communities. Our communities thrive only when we can meet each other, and being on a high street and visiting your favourite café or pub to meet your friends is the way it works. However, on that basis, I thank the noble Lord and his officials again for their engagement on the Bill.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

I call the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I am back on form now.

Northamptonshire (Structural Changes) (Supplementary Provision and Amendment) Order 2021

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 4th March 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am happy to support the order before the House. As we have heard, it makes a number of changes and provides for the smooth transition to the new unitary councils that are to replace the old two-tier system in Northamptonshire. It also confirms that, for ceremonial purposes, the county of Northamptonshire remains in place; it is just the governance arrangements that will be different.

I thank all the councillors from all parties and no party, and all the staff, from all the local authorities, who have worked hard for the benefit of residents in Northamptonshire. I join the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, in his tribute. In particular, I pay tribute to, and thank, Councillor Tom Beattie for his leadership of Corby Borough Council over many years.

I lived and worked in the East Midlands for a long time. It is a wonderful place. Northamptonshire is a wonderful county, which the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, served with distinction for many years as one of its MPs. I agree with the noble Lord about what a wonderful, dynamic place Northamptonshire is. There is beautiful countryside, great businesses, such as Dr Martens in Wellingborough, Weetabix in Burton Latimer and Carlsberg in Northampton, world-class rugby with Northampton Saints, motor racing at Silverstone and Corby’s steel heritage and connections with Scotland. One of my dear friends was Mr Bob Wood, a leading figure in the Corby and East Northamptonshire Labour Party. Bob often told me of travelling down from Aberdeen with his family to get a job in the steel works. He remained at the steel works until they closed in 1979. That historic connection between Scotland and Corby is still there today. I remember taking Donald Dewar to Corby many times. He would have a lovely time there because he met people and families he knew from Glasgow because they had moved down to Corby.

At the risk of being accused of being party-political again, I think it is worth putting on record that this reorganisation has come about not through the coming together of local authorities, nor through the realisation by local authorities that unitarisation is the best way forward—though I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that it is—but through the financial mismanagement and near collapse of Northamptonshire County Council. We discussed those matters before the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, was a Minister and before he was in the House. I have great respect for the noble Lord, but I think I need to run through some of those episodes.

Here is one illustration of the shambles we have had in Northamptonshire. On 12 October 2017, the £53 million, bright, shiny, brand new county HQ, One Angel Square, was opened by the right honourable Member for Bromsgrove, Mr Sajid Javid, who was the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. The Secretary of State told the assembled guests that it was a wonderful building, the headquarters of a bright, modern, forward-facing county council. The video of that opening is still online; I watched it again last night, and the Secretary of State praises the council and the work it does. I must say that I always liked the old county council building; I do not think there was anything wrong with that at all.

Jump forward six months to 27 March 2018, and Mr Sajid Javid stands up in the House of Commons and announces that he is minded to send in commissioners to run the county council, following the publication of Northampton County Council Best Value Inspection which said that the council had

“failed to comply with its duty … to provide best value in the delivery of its services”

and should be scrapped, and that commissioners should take control of the authority’s finances and governance from day one. On 10 May 2018, the new the Secretary of State, Mr James Brokenshire, announces they have decided to send in commissioners to run the county council.

It is not good. It is financial mismanagement at its worst. It is letting down those you are elected to serve. It is letting down those least able to defend themselves. It is not good enough. Taken with the serious failures of governance at Northampton Borough Council, resulting in the loss of £10 million of taxpayers’ money in the Northampton Town loan scandal, it is a complete and utter disgrace. Now, to be clear, where Labour councils or councillors have failed to uphold high standards, I expect action to be taken by my party. I believe nobody should stand for election to North Northamptonshire Council or West Northamptonshire Council if they have played a leading role in any of these scandals. The Government should think about that carefully because we have let residents and the council taxpayers down.

It was important to put that on the record. Having said that, I support the order. I wish the new councils and councillors well, but there have been serious problems they have to deal with. Something has gone seriously wrong in this county over many years.

Northampton Town Football Club

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by KPMG Northampton Borough Council: Report in the public interest regarding the Council’s loans to Northampton Town Football Club, published on 27 January; and what steps they are taking in response to any such assessment.

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

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so I declare my registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

We are aware of the public interest report concerning Northampton Borough Council. However, it is for the council to consider and respond to the issues raised in the report. On 22 February, the council set out its response to the report’s recommendation, and it will be for it and its successor council to implement.

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

My Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, agree that this is a terrible scandal—a failure of due diligence, of governance and of leadership which has let down the residents of Northampton and lost them over £10 million, and has let down the supporters of Northampton Town Football Club, who have a half-built stand? The club was formed in 1897 and was affectionately known as “The Cobblers” in recognition of the town’s historic connections to the boot and shoe industry. Northampton Borough Council is about to be abolished, so can the noble Lord tell me how those responsible for this scandal will be held to account and made to pay?

Rough Sleeping

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for bringing this Statement to the House this afternoon. I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

The Government promised to “bring everybody in” during the pandemic and, despite good work done in the first wave, today we sadly have many people sleeping rough again on our streets, many very close to this building. The people sleeping on the link bridge between Waterloo station and the street, who I have mentioned before, are still there: I saw them yesterday on my way to this House. According to the Government’s own figures, there were 2,688 people sleeping rough on a single night in autumn 2020. People who are homeless are three times more likely to experience a chronic health need, including respiratory conditions, putting them at higher risk of poor health outcomes, including from Covid-19.

It is tragic that in one of the richest countries in the world, in one of the richest cities in the world, we have people sleeping rough on the streets tonight. So, can the noble Lord tell the House why the response to the homelessness situation of people living on our streets was so much better and more effective in the first wave in comparison with the second wave? What happened in government that led to the response being so much worse this time around? What happened to the Everyone In policy? It created a safe space for people to access the support needed to move on from homelessness.

On the wider picture of homelessness, the situation is even worse, with people living with friends and sleeping on sofas, including up to 130,000 children in England. The Government have a manifesto commitment to end the blight of rough sleeping in England by 2024. The response by the Government to this pandemic must surely be part of the plan to deliver on that commitment, and not an obstacle that puts the policy pledge in jeopardy. What we need from the Government is a strategy in place to ensure that people experiencing homelessness can move on from homelessness or expensive temporary accommodation into secure, safe, warm, dry, long-term accommodation that enables them to start rebuilding their lives.

Local authorities should be congratulated on the work they have done, with limited funding and unclear guidance from the Government. Will the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, identify for the House the various sums of money that are mentioned? Which of those are new money and not just restatements of previous funding commitments?

Housing First is a recognised and accepted method of ending homelessness for people with multiple needs, including mental health issues and addictions. The scheme is in place in Scotland and is being piloted here in England, but the fact is that many people experiencing homelessness in England will need a Housing First offer to finally end their homelessness. There are three pilots in place, which provide around 2,000 places, but this is a long way short of the investment and commitment needed to deal with the issue finally. So when does the Minister expect a decision to be made on rolling out the scheme in England, as has already been done in Scotland, and when does he expect funding for the rough sleeping accommodation programme to ensure that a long-term housing solution is not just an aim but a reality, which is not the case today?

[Baroness Grender (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for bringing us the Statement. There is no doubt that Everyone In last spring was a significant achievement. Louise Casey, now the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, wrote in her email at the start of the pandemic, after her first week in MHCLG:

“I don’t care what’s happening; I don’t care what’s going on, you’ve got to get everybody in.”


Rough sleeping was treated as an urgent public health issue, resource was prioritised and brought forward, and central and local government worked in tandem with all the charities and the hotel sector and lined up safe accommodation. This was without question a success. But, as so many witnesses to the APPG for ending homelessness made clear, these numbers are never static. Homelessness, like a river, expands and grows. Substantial boulders are the only thing that stop it at source, and those boulders start with social and truly affordable housing.

Will the Minister explain why social housing build last year was only 5,716 homes, far below both Shelter’s annual target and the National Housing Federation’s goal of 145,000 social homes per year? Tomorrow in the Budget we are expecting to see a significant subsidy, not to social housing but to first-time buyers, who will be encouraged to borrow 20% of the purchase price. Will the Minister say where that money is likely to go? What is the possibility that it will end up in the profit margins of the large developers, many of which donate regularly to the Conservative Party? To prevent an increase in the number of people sleeping rough, rapid access to secure, long-term accommodation is vital. This period, following the achievement of Everyone In, is a unique opportunity to do just that and never return to the levels that were way too high just before this pandemic.

The target date of the manifesto commitment—as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy—is fast approaching, and policies need to be in place now. So surely—as the noble Lord also said—it is time to commit to a rollout of Housing First across England, instead of continuing with the pilots. The scale of current provision is 2,000 places, which falls far too short of the 16,450 places needed that were identified by the charities Crisis and Homeless Link. Can the Minister explain what is preventing the Government rolling out these successful pilots now?

It is welcome news that local authority guidance is encouraging registration of people sleeping rough with GPs, but why are the Government not following the success of some London boroughs, together with Liverpool and Oldham, which are using current JCVI guidance to vaccinate homeless people, in order to mitigate health inequalities? Some local authorities are unclear about this; will the Minister commit to clarifiying the issue? Even at the height of Everyone In some local authorities turned homeless people away. Can the Minister explain why? Does his department know why there were 2,600 people, or more, sleeping rough in October, and how many of them had no recourse to public funds?

The Statement rightly refers to research in the Lancet but not to the wider arguments used. It was clear that what was critical was the absolute refusal to resort to emergency shelters at all. So why are the Government considering using them? Large cities in the US continue to use emergency shelters, to huge detrimental effect. If social distancing is still advised next autumn, should emergency shelters not be ruled out? Can the Minister explain, in detail, in what circumstances they will be used?

The Statement refers to many of the underlying reasons for rough sleeping but fails to mention the precarious position of so many in the private rented sector. Why is that? While it is welcome that the pause on evictions has been extended, that has not stopped every stage of the process. Will the Minister acknowledge that, during the winter lockdown, 500 people were evicted from their homes and that last month 445 were either in arrears or served with eviction notices? Does the Minister agree that if the landlords’ associations and charities have united to ask for assistance, in the form of grants to tenants to keep roofs over their heads, this should be a priority to prevent homelessness?

As we continue to see the economic impact on people’s incomes, it is worrying that there is no longer-term strategy from the Government to ensure that people will be able to keep a roof over their heads. We are expecting unemployment to rise by this summer. The Government have frozen housing benefits once again. Can the Minister give reassurances that the Government are looking at ways to support people to prevent homelessness, including by helping them to avoid eviction due to arrears? Finally, is there any news on the long-awaited end to the use of Section 21, which has such an impact on vulnerable tenants?

There are many paths to homelessness. I sincerely hope that this period has been a pause and we can move forward from here. However, unless some of the problems in areas which give rise to homelessness—such as the private rented sector—are anticipated and stopped in their tracks, we will continue to see rises in homelessness.

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

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Report stage & Lords Hansard
Monday 1st March 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

1: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Annual Rates Revaluation Reporting
(1) Within three months of the passing of this Act, and every twelve months thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the timing of business rates revaluations and lay it before both Houses of Parliament.(2) Each report must contain an assessment of the impact of the timing of business rates revaluations on—(a) the prosperity of towns and high streets,(b) the prosperity of small businesses,(c) the ability of high street businesses to compete with online businesses,(d) local authority finances, and(e) business rates appeal waiting lists.(3) Each report must contain a statement detailing how the Valuation Office Agency and local authorities have been consulted in relation to the timing of business rates revaluations.(4) Each report must make a recommendation as to whether action from the Government needs to be taken to prevent adverse impacts arising from the timing of the rates revaluation.”

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, chair of the Heart of Medway Housing Association and as non-executive director of MHS Homes Ltd.

Amendment 1 seeks to place a new clause in the Bill whose purpose is to require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the timing of business rate revaluations and to lay that report before the House. The report must address the issues I have laid out in proposed new paragraphs (a) to (e) of my amendment. Each point needs careful attention.

Our high streets were in crisis before the pandemic, and the position has been made even worse over the last year. Hardly a week goes by when we do not hear of struggling high streets and well-known businesses leaving the high street for good, or questions being raised as to their future viability. Sir John Timpson, chairman of the wonderful Timpson Group, addressed this very point this morning on Radio 4, reflecting on the work he did looking at our high streets for the Government before the pandemic. The Bill does not address that fact, but merely moves the date of the revaluation so that it better reflects the effects of the pandemic. While that is welcome, it falls a long way short, and the Government have missed an opportunity here to do more to save our high streets.

I do not think one can disagree with the points set out in my amendment. If the noble Lord is going to resist the amendment, can he set out what he and his department are doing to support the prosperity of our towns and high streets? That must go much further than the towns fund, or other small schemes with limited funding. What must happen is fundamental help for all our towns and high streets. Small shops and small businesses on our high streets deserve support as they will be a crucial to our economic revival, including the much loved British pub, which is at the heart of local communities. I also draw the attention of the House to my being vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Beer Group. I very much support its work, and the part that pubs play in our community lives.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, rightly highlighted the support the Government have given, which is very welcome. I am very happy to acknowledge that. It has been vital to ensure that businesses have survived through this.

The fundamental question is the unfairness of the present system of business rates. If that is not sorted out, we are going to see the demise of the high street accelerate, and we have to address that at some point. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for his support. As he said, we must address the elephant in the room. As the noble Lord highlighted, it is the twin problem of taxing fairly online retailers—and I wish all online retailers success—to raise revenue from them and the amount of revenue raised from businesses on the high street so that they are taxed fairly as well. Getting that balance right is the issue and that can no longer be ignored.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for indicating that he would support me if I divided the House. I am often very happy to divide the House, but I have decided that, this time, it is probably not the best thing to do, so I shall not do so—I know the Minister will be very disappointed by that.

The Government must reflect on this. Although it is disappointing that these proposals will not be taken forward, I think that the Government are going to have to do every single thing in my amendment. If they do not do that, they cannot arm themselves with the information they need to take decisions in future Bills and policy, and the crisis will become a complete nightmare on our high streets.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, also highlighted the unfairness between online and the high street, and she is right. The risk is that when we return to anything like a normal situation it will not be normal because it will have gone too far and people will not return in numbers to our high streets. I have always supported local shops where I live. I am looking forward to 12 April. I am desperate for a haircut, so I am looking forward to the 12th very much. I am going to my barber straightaway to get it done. It is vital that we support our high streets.

I am very happy to acknowledge the support the Government have given; I mentioned that earlier. It was very welcome and has kept many businesses afloat. It is just a shame that we are not going to address these issues here. I have said before that all the points I have raised will have to be addressed by government because we are going to have to look at the bigger, wider points about what we want from our high streets and how we raise revenue from our high streets and from online so that we can pay for the services we all want. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I am very happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in his amendment. Both he and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made a very powerful case when we were in Committee and they have made an equally powerful case today. I am very happy to support them.

As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, we want to be healthier; we have to get people doing more physical activity, because it will have great effects on their health. That is a good thing as people will live longer and have fewer problems with disease, and that will have a knock-on effect on our health service. That is the most important thing behind all this—getting people to be more active and healthier. The Government are currently running a major campaign, quite rightly, which you see on television, at bus stops and everywhere. I fully support that.

It is also important to ensure that local amateur clubs doing a variety of activities in their communities actually get people doing things. Where I live in south London, there is the Francis Drake Bowls Club—I often go past and see lots of people playing on the bowls green. There is also Lewisham Borough Football Club, an amateur club, and the athletics club that takes part on the track in Ladywell Fields. Those are the things that local people can do to become more active and physical, and if we can support them through the rating system, we should.

As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, all the amendment is asking for is a biennial report. The amendment is much more generous than I would have been as I wanted one every 12 months. If the Government accept this amendment, they will have to do everything that is in it anyway because they need to have good policy, and good policy needs facts and proper information.

I hope that the noble Lord will tear up his speaking notes to resist this and say, “I agree”. I look forward to hearing his response.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, in my rush to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, on the first amendment, I forgot to declare my relevant commercial and residential property interests as set out in the register, so I do so now.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan for their suggestion that I tear up my speaking notes and do what the amendment says. I will seek to reassure them that we have a real commitment to community and grass-roots sports. In that spirit I will refer to a number of things that the Government are doing. My family, friends and I all benefit from community sports and it is right that we do all we can to support community and grass-roots sport, as Members have highlighted.

As I explained in my response to the previous amendment, we will not know the effect of the revaluation on ratepayers for some time and certainly not within six months of the passing of this Bill. The same points apply to this amendment. However, I appreciate that the noble Lord and others want to understand how the revaluation will affect amateur sports clubs. It may therefore assist the noble Lord if I explain how these clubs are valued for business rates—I will try to make the incomprehensible comprehensible.



First, the Valuation Office Agency must, by law, value a property having regard to its current use. This means, for example, that when valuing the site of an amateur cricket club the valuation officer must have regard to its value to the cricket club and not its value to a developer. As you would expect, this important principle means that the rateable value of sports grounds is generally quite low.

The VOA publishes statistics on the rateable value of different categories of properties. The average rateable value in England of sports grounds is £12,000 but the value of many is much less than this and the median rateable value of sports grounds is only £6,000. That equates to a full annual rates bill of about £3,000, which for many will be reduced by the 80% mandatory rate relief. Under those circumstances, many sports clubs will find themselves with a rates bill of as little as £600 per year or £50 per month.

Of course, I appreciate that some clubs will find themselves paying more than this. Business rates reflect the specific circumstances of the property so some clubs, for example with more facilities than others, may find themselves paying more. We also heard in Committee that some clubs may be not eligible for the 80% mandatory relief for community amateur sports clubs. That is a matter specific to the individual clubs but I can understand that some will still have a particular interest in understanding whether their rates bill may change at the 2023 revaluation.

As I have said, we will not know the answer to that until much later in 2022, at the point when all clubs will be able to see their new rateable values. These valuations will be prepared over the next 18 months and, as with all properties, the VOA will first search for evidence of rents paid on sports grounds as a guide to value. As I have explained, to be good evidence these rents will have to reflect the value to the sports club. These rents should not reflect matters such as the development value where, for example, the club happens to be in a prosperous area. To the extent that the rental evidence, where available, shows that values have risen or fallen over the last six years, this will be reflected in rateable values at the 2023 revaluation.

The VOA expects to use rental evidence for most clubs but, whatever the valuation approach adopted for the property, the VOA is clear in its guidance that for non-commercial clubs valuers can also have regard to ability to pay before setting rateable values. The valuer should ask themselves if the rateable value represents the rent that clubs or organisations of the kind which occupy the type of sports ground concerned could reasonably be expected to pay. The VOA’s guidance specifically recognises that where income is generated from the occupation of these grounds, the costs of occupation will be barely covered despite voluntary assistance. Although I am unable to tell the noble Lord how amateur sports clubs will be impacted by the 2023 revaluation, I hope that this background to how they are valued is helpful.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, has established to the House the vital importance of our community sports clubs. While the value of the 80% mandatory business rates relief to eligible community amateur sports clubs cannot be understated, I recognise the need for the Government to provide support beyond this, particularly throughout the duration of this pandemic. This Government’s commitment to sport is evidenced by the £220 million provided by Sport England to support community sports clubs and exercise centres since March 2020. In addition, the Government have put in place a £300 million sports winter survival package, which has been used to protect the immediate future of major spectator sports over the winter period, and a £100 million support fund for local authority leisure centres. In total, the Treasury estimates that around £1.5 billion of public money has gone into sports in the last year. I hope the House will agree that this constitutes a significant package of support that this Government have made available to sports clubs and exercise facilities of all sizes.

I hope that I have given the House some assurances about both the financial support that the Government are providing to our grass-roots sports sector, and the process and approach which will be taken over the coming months as amateur sports clubs are revalued by the VOA. We will continue to keep in mind the points on how we can support community sports at the grass-roots level. I appreciate the passion from both the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan, but, reluctantly, I cannot tear up my speaking notes. Therefore, I hope that with these reassurances the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after “day,” insert “the hereditament is a publicly-owned library or community centre or a local authority property that is free of charge to enter and contains a public lavatory that is free of charge for anyone to use, or”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would extend the rate relief to publicly-owned libraries and community centres, and local authority properties, which are free to enter and which contain public lavatories that are free to use.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as this is my first contribution today, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Amendment 1 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to amend Clause 1(3) of the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to bring into the scope of the Bill those toilet facilities that are in community centres, libraries and other local authority buildings and are free of charge for use by members of the public.

There are clear and undeniable public health benefits to having toilets that are available for the public to use. This amendment seeks to increase that provision. I recognise that in some cases, libraries and other public buildings already make their toilet facilities available to the public. This amendment supports them for doing that, but goes further, as it provides a welcome encouragement for those facilities that do not have the same access provision to be made available to the public. There has been a noticeable decline in public facilities over recent years, and this amendment seeks to reverse that trend by providing rate relief as an encouragement either to continue with the access presently provided or to extend access to the public to take advantage of this rate relief.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has tabled Amendment 9, which I am very happy to support, and the noble Lord will explain the effect of his amendment when he speaks shortly. I beg to move.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his support for my Amendment 9 in this group. I will speak to both my amendment and Amendment 1, which the noble Lord has just moved. I declare my interest as a member of Pendle Borough Council, which no longer has public lavatories but is the rating authority for those that exist. I thank the Government for scheduling this Committee fairly quickly after Second Reading so that we can progress this Bill; it gives us real hope that the Bill will manage to pass in this Session.

The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would follow up amendments moved in the Commons and comments made quite widely by people at Second Reading in your Lordships’ House. They pointed out that very many lavatories that people consider to be public lavatories and that operate as public lavatories are ancillary to other facilities provided by local authorities and other voluntary bodies, and so on. The problem is that, from a rating point of view, they are part of the same hereditament as the facility to which they are basically ancillary and therefore would not come under the provisions of this Bill as it stands. The Minister has kindly written to interested Members of the House putting forward the view that the Government put forward in the Commons that, to exempt these genuine public lavatories from business rates would be onerous—particularly on the Valuation Office Agency, which is responsible for doing all this— and that it would therefore not be practical to go ahead with it.

My Amendment 9 tackles some of the affected lavatories, which would probably not be a very large number. I believe that this could be done without any onerous burden being placed upon the VOA or anybody else. It reads that, for the purposes of subsection 4(I), which is what this is all about,

“a self-contained public lavatories facility which forms part of a larger hereditament and which may be accessed independently from outside that hereditament forms a separate hereditament.”

It is possible that it would have to be done technically in some other way: it might be that it could be done via secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has amendments later on, to which I am not going to speak, but at this stage I will just say that I strongly support them; they provide an opportunity for the Government to tackle the technical details, and there are huge technical details in all this, because it is about rating. They would allow the Government to pick up a lot of the points that we are making in these probing amendments at this stage.

It seems to me that, when a lavatory is part of a council-owned building in the middle of a small town or village—it might be a library, market hall or any other council-owned building—and has an outside door so that, even if there is also an inside door that could be locked when the main building is not open, people would be able to access that from outside, sorting out the separate valuation for a limited number of instances like this would not be a great burden, and it could, and should, be done. In practice, the VOA will have done it anyway when it assesses the rates on the whole building, because here is a separate use from the main building and it will have a look at it and say, “What is the amount that that contributes?” Somewhere in the depths of its records, it probably has the information anyway. Even if it does not have it, however, it is not an onerous task for it to do. The number is relatively small compared with the great majority of lavatories in libraries and so on. I hope the Government will accept the principle of this—I do not expect them to accept my amendment as it is today—and go away and have a look at it. I invite the Minister to say that he will do that.

--- Later in debate ---

It is right that the measure should remain a targeted relief, focused on providing support for public facilities in specific circumstances. On this basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will agree to withdraw his amendment.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. Both amendments in this group—from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock and me, and from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—attempt to probe how the Bill could increase the number of public lavatories and prevent further closures.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about toilet facilities at stations. I regard these as public lavatories. It would be good to extend the provisions of the Bill to cover them. In recent years, charges have been removed at virtually all mainline stations in London—with the possible exception of Marylebone. This is good news.

Amendment 9 from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, provides for those public toilets with a separate entrance to be brought into the scope of the Bill. The noble Lord is right; there are probably not that many facilities which would come into this category, but it would be a welcome move.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that it would not be onerous to identify the different facilities which would come into the scope of the Bill. I do not accept the Minister’s comments about onerous costs on local authorities. In effect, the facilities would self-identify. I do not believe there is a huge amount of work involved. I do not accept the argument that the cost would outweigh the benefit to the local authority going forward. I am also grateful for the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.

We all support the aims of the Bill. It is good as far as it goes. If we want to stop the decline in the number of public lavatories—and the public health benefits that go with them—we will have to go a bit further than this welcome Bill. This is the point of our amendments. I am sure we shall bring them back on Report. I hope that the Minister will reflect on whether, if we all want the same outcome, we should go further. I do not accept that the costs outweigh the benefits. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I have nothing really to add: the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has set out very clearly and carefully what he seeks to get from his amendment. As we have heard, it is a very good probing amendment that gives the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, the opportunity to set out carefully for the Committee what is meant by “or mainly”. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, this is a good House of Lords way of getting into the detail of the Bill, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. Amendment 7 seeks, of course, to provide a welcome definition of what “mainly” could be construed or interpreted as, giving weight to public use of public lavatories. I will leave it there, and I look forward to the Minister’s explanation.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am beginning to learn how the House works, and I appreciate the education; I am sure I will get used to this way of drawing out important information. These amendments probe the current definition of a public lavatory that would qualify for this relief, and seek to amend this definition to capture some of the facilities that the Bill does not currently cover.

The Government have carefully drafted the scope of the Bill, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to set out for the House the rationale behind this decision. Subject to Royal Assent, the relief within this Bill will apply to all hereditaments that

“consist wholly or mainly of public lavatories”.

Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, probes the meaning of “mainly” in this provision. The phrase “wholly or mainly” can be found across government legislation and, in particular, exists within that legislation which provides for an 80% business rate discount to properties used

“wholly or mainly for charitable purposes”,

as the noble Lord mentioned. Local authorities are responsible for deciding which properties are eligible for business rate relief, and the use of “mainly” provides for some discretion on their part.

However, I will directly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on how this would work in practice. Councils should reflect on all relevant matters, including any relevant case law and guidance, when making these decisions. The use of “mainly” means that an authority may, for example, look at the floor area of a building and see that less than 50% is being used directly as a public lavatory, but it may still feel that it meets the criteria for this relief because the remaining area is used as storage or for other matters of little consequence. That is very similar to the example that the noble Lord gave. The Government consider it right that the Bill provides local authorities with this level of discretion because these are decisions best taken on the ground and on the basis of local knowledge.

The second amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, follows on from the first and would act to define “mainly” within the Bill in reference to the extent to which a property is used as a public lavatory, rather than for other purposes. I appreciate that the intention of this amendment is to provide for the relief to be available to buildings that do not constitute separately assessed public toilets but that serve that purpose to a large extent. As I set out earlier, an expansion of the relief beyond those toilets that are separately assessed and have already been identified and separately rated would bring with it significant administrative burdens and costs.

In the case of this amendment, local authorities would be required to not just identify qualifying facilities but assess the extent to which the public are using them for different functions. The public use test would be particularly cumbersome because it would go beyond an assessment of a property’s physical elements and would require an analysis of the extent to which these elements are used by the public. The results of such a test could change relatively frequently, and local authorities may need to make the required assessment on a regular basis.

As currently designed, the measure in the Bill does not carry implementation costs disproportionate to the benefits to ratepayers, nor any significant implementation difficulties for local government. As such, we are not in favour of any amendment to this relief which would increase the complexity of its implementation, create unnecessary burdens for local authorities, or indeed create administrative costs disproportionate to the total benefit to ratepayers. However, I would be keen to engage with noble Lords on some of the technical reasons for not expanding the scope of the Bill.

I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his amendments, which probe the design of the relief before the Committee. However, for the reasons that I have set out, I do not consider that the potential benefits of the amendments would outweigh their substantial costs and I hope that the noble Lord will not press them.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

3: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, after “lavatories” insert “which are free of charge for anyone to use”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would confine the rate relief to public lavatories that are free of charge to use.

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

My Lords, Amendment 3 in my name seeks to add the words

“which are free of charge for anyone to use”

to Clause 1(3). The Bill provides a financial benefit and the effect of my amendment would be to restrict that benefit to public lavatories that are free to use—a very reasonable aspiration and objective. I do not see why those public lavatories that you must pay to use should be a beneficiary of this relief. The purpose of the Bill is to provide encouragement in this area, and I think that this amendment strengthens the Bill in this regard and provides a clear focus on the free use of public lavatories.

Amendment 10 from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is very sensible and I fully support it. Why should we provide financial benefit when the lavatory is not open for extended parts of the day? But I will let the noble Lord explain his amendment to the Committee.

On a more general point, in resisting amendments in previous groups, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, has relied on the argument that the Government do not want to place additional burdens on local authorities and that any savings would be outweighed by the cost of identifying these lavatories. When he replies to the debate, it would be useful if the Minister could evidence that. I have heard nothing from any local authority—the National Association of Local Councils, the District Councils’ Network, London Councils or the Local Government Association—to suggest that the argument that the Minister is relying on has any basis in fact. So it would be useful if he could explain that to the Committee. Or is it just the assertion of the department? I look forward to his response to the debate.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 10 in my name and Amendment 3, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, which is fairly basic. I am old enough to remember one of the great hue and cry campaigns by women; it would be called a gender campaign nowadays. Not only did they have to spend an old penny—one of those great big things which people under 40 or 50 have never seen—but they had to go through a turnstile, which caused problems for pregnant women. That was a huge hue and cry at the time and was, I think, sorted out—but there are still plenty of supposedly public lavatories where you have to pay. The most disgraceful ones in my view were at mainline railway stations, which started charging considerably more than a penny, but that seems to be being changed now.

Amendment 10 would prevent bodies benefiting from free rates when the lavatories are not open for a reasonable amount of time and at reasonable times. I am always told by lawyers and Governments that the word “reasonable” should never be put in legislation because all legislation has to be reasonable before you start. Nevertheless, this seems to me to be a reasonable thing to discuss in this Committee.

There may well be some public lavatories in tourist areas which are not needed, or not in such quantity, at some times of the year. There may be ones which are needed at some times of the week and not others. It may be perfectly reasonable to lock public lavatories overnight to prevent them being used for undesirable purposes. That was certainly done in my part of the world. There may, indeed, be public lavatories which are open only on special occasions because of where they are and what takes place there. We used to have one which was opened at various times of the year, particularly on Remembrance Day, because it was next to the cenotaph. What is reasonable ought to be up to local decision-making by the owners of the lavatories, but they ought to be stopped from keeping them shut when they ought to be open. That decision ought to be made by the rating authority.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who referred earlier to some confusion in the Bill about what a public lavatory is, in terms of ownership. Does this Bill apply only to facilities owned by councils or by other public bodies, or to other voluntary bodies and charities as well? Does it apply to commercial enterprises that might provide a public lavatory at the entrance of their commercial facility—there might be a park, or whatever—which is open all the time for public use? Could the Minister clarify that? Is it use as a public lavatory, under the Minister’s terms, that matters, or, is it who owns it that matters? That would be a helpful clarification.

My amendment is about how the Government are going to stop people freeloading and getting rate relief when they are not providing the facility they ought to be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, wanted to know the evidence that this would cause a burden disproportionate to the level of relief provided. The reality is that, under these proposals, we are not asking local authorities or the Valuation Office Agency to do anything in addition to what they already do. But where we are widening the scope, we are asking local authorities to do something they do not currently do, so by definition that will increase burdens on them and, in some cases, on the Valuation Office Agency.

The effect of the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Greaves, would be to apply a set of conditions that would need to be satisfied before the relief could be granted. I will expand on the reasons why I do not believe these are helpful in the operation of the relief. As a principle, I do not agree we should be moving away from the clear and simple aims of the policy by limiting this much-needed support.

The effect of Amendment 3 would be to exclude those who own and run facilities where a small fee is charged from receiving this relief. The Government’s policy aim and purpose in Clause 1 is to target the relief to best support the provision of public lavatories. In particular, we want to support facilities that exist where there are unlikely to be any other publicly available toilets, where removing the additional costs of business rates could make a real difference to the ability of councils or others to keep the facilities open. I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, about free-to-use public toilets. Nevertheless, the purpose of this Bill is to provide targeted support to separately assessed public lavatories, recognising the particular circumstances they face, not to draw a distinction between those that charge and those that do not. Such a distinction would add complexity, uncertainty and an unnecessary administrative burden for local authorities and would increase the pressure on those facilities that are not able to access this support. I do not agree that those ratepayers that operate a public lavatory and charge a minimal fee for the first service should be excluded from this vital support.

I understand the practice of charging a fee is reducing, but those that charge do so on the basis of a commercial decision. In some cases, that fee may be charged to meet the ongoing costs of maintenance and cleaning, which is entirely reasonable. Nevertheless, I recognise the importance of knowing which facilities charge and what services they provide, so I welcome the work of the British Toilet Association, which provides an online service called the Great British Public Toilet Map, which has been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. This provides visitors with critical information about toilets in a specific area, including whether they are free to use, whether they are accessible and whether they have baby-changing facilities. Users can then make a decision in good knowledge and plan appropriately. I also commend the community toilet scheme, which was first devised by the London borough of Richmond upon Thames and is now used by local authorities across the country. This enables local businesses to work with councils to widen lavatory access so the public can use their facilities without making a purchase.

Amendment 10, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would limit the relief on the condition that the facilities should be open at set times and days as reasonably necessary. As I have outlined, our aim is to increase the support for the provision of public toilets, not to reduce the level of assistance for facilities that are most in need of support. I would not support the creation of a further burden on authorities to assess and police the opening and closing times of a toilet before awarding relief. The establishment of such a regime would be disproportionate to the value of the relief and would not represent good value for money to the taxpayer. As I have set out, the relief applies only to occupied facilities and is awarded only in these circumstances. While I understand the intention of the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Greaves, in practice, they may, at best, be unhelpful and, at worst, unnecessarily increase pressure on toilets to close.

I hope that I have helped clarify the Government’s intention about how the measure would apply. With these assurances, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, can agree to withdraw this amendment.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. We are identifying issues the Government should reflect on before this Bill comes back on Report.

The noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, has not sought to challenge my general point from my earlier remarks, that the position of the Government, in resisting any amendment here today, is that we are creating burdens on local authorities that far outweigh the benefits. Yet, as I have said, I have looked and cannot find any organisation from local government—the LGA, the Welsh LGA, the District Councils’ Network, London Councils, the National Association of Local Councils—or, in fact, any local council or local authority in England or Wales that would support the Government’s position. If they actually asked them, I suspect there would be a lot of support from local authorities for increasing the benefits of support for their network of public toilets. I will leave that point there, and at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, Amendments 4 and 12 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, enable us to debate important issues. He seeks to ensure that lavatories that operate in accordance with national standards benefit from this relief.

The trade union Unison has campaigned on the issue of disability and the barriers that disabled people face when using a standard toilet. Many disabilities are hidden. The sign that we often see indicating disabled facilities is a person in a wheelchair, but fewer than 10% of people who meet the Equality Act definition of disability use a wheelchair. Signs that say “Some disabilities are invisible” have become more prevalent given the requirements of the pandemic restrictions. Crohn’s disease and colitis are two examples of conditions that may mean that a person has to use a disabled toilet facility while having no outward signs of disability.

As we move forward we need a greater understanding and respect for difference, and we must ensure that people are protected. These are not easy issues; if they were we would not be debating them today. What we also need is many more Changing Places toilets, which are a very important to cater for. We will get on to this later.

The comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, reminded me that all the toilets by the reception at Southwark Council are gender-neutral, individual toilets. They are there for public use. So things are certainly changing, but we must at all times have respect for difference and for people. As we move forward on these issues we must ensure we keep those thoughts to the forefront and provide the facilities that people need.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his amendments, which would provide the Government with the power to limit this relief to only those toilets that meet prescribed criteria of their choosing. The underpinning nature of the amendments is the desire to see toilets for all, and I am very supportive of the need to have toilets for those who need disabled access, gender-neutral toilets and gender-specific toilets. As I set out to the House earlier, the Government do not intend to limit the measure within the Bill to only those toilets that meet certain criteria. Subject to Royal Assent, the Bill will support the provision of separately assessed toilets across the country. I therefore do not agree that it would be right to make any amendments which could limit the benefits of this measure.

Furthermore, limiting the relief to only those public lavatories that fit a prescribed description would place a significant burden on local authorities, which will be responsible for administering the relief. Well-intentioned though the amendment is, it would weaken the effectiveness of the legislation were we to require its provisions to be subject to a new, locally administered system of controls.

While I appreciate the arguments that my noble friend Lord Lucas made in support of the Government having the power to make this relief more specific, any benefits must be weighed against the consequential impact on local authorities of using such a power. Although I do not think that the Bill would be improved by these amendments, I appreciate the points that my noble friend makes about the standards of our public toilets.

The Government are interested not just in the total number of public toilets in this country but in ensuring that everyone in our communities feels confident and comfortable using them. This means maintaining hygiene standards and ensuring fair provision of accessible and gender-neutral toilets.

Noble Lords may therefore wish to note that the technical review of toilets launched by the Government will consider the ratio of female toilets needed versus the number for men and take into account the needs of all members of the community, to ensure fair provision of accessible and gender-neutral toilets. The call for evidence, which closes on Friday, has received over 15,000 responses; a government response will be published in due course. As part of this review, the merits of any best practice guidance on the provision of gender-neutral toilets will be considered, alongside any guidance on the necessary provision of access to disabled toilets. These considerations also include provisions for older people and parents with very young children who need changing facilities.

I hope this reassures my noble friend that the Government are supportive of not just the total number of public toilets but the vital importance of ensuring that appropriate facilities are available to all. On this basis—and the basis that the potential administrative burden resulting from these amendments would outweigh the benefits—I hope that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

5: Clause 1, page 1, line 8, after “zero”, insert “; and where, on a chargeable day, the hereditament consists partly of public lavatories, the chargeable amount for the chargeable day of the public lavatories shall be separately calculated and the chargeable amount for the chargeable day of the hereditament shall be reduced by the amount calculated in respect of those public lavatories.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would give rate relief to premises that consist partly of public lavatories according to the proportion of the premises occupied by those lavatories.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I appreciate the backing that the Committee has given to the measures in the Bill and recognise the arguments made in support of extending the relief further still. The first amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would provide for relief to be given to properties which contain public toilets that are not separately assessed, and for that relief to be determined according to the proportion of that property occupied by the public toilet. The second would have the same effect, but separately for properties which contain Changing Places facilities.

In designing the scope of the Bill, the Government have given due consideration to the benefits to our communities of extending the relief to those toilets that are not currently separately assessed. However, these benefits must be weighed against the significant practical and financial implications of implementing such a relief. I hope that my colleagues present today have received a copy of the letter of 2 February setting out these implications in detail—actually, I think most noble Lords today have referred to it. For the benefit of the Committee, I will set them out again now.

The Government have taken the deliberate approach of targeting the measure within the Bill at supporting those toilets that appear separately on business rates lists. This means that this support will be available to those facilities for which the cost of business rates has the largest bearing on their ability to remain open. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would require the separate assessment of the rateable value of public toilets that sit within larger properties, and for the awarding of a business rates discount relative to the proportion of the property that the toilet occupies.

A valuation exercise to provide an apportioned relief would be extensive and require the Valuation Office Agency to first identify where the facilities are, and then to assess the specific rateable value of each toilet relative to the property of which it forms a part. This exercise would carry significant financial and temporal costs, as pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. It would require business rates valuers to carry out assessments and, where needed, to make site visits up and down the country. As such, it would divert critical VOA resources from the priority of delivering the 2023 revaluation and could potentially delay the implementation of the core measure of the Bill before the Committee today.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, mentioned a formula-based approach to derating. This would also result in considerable burdens, for example by requiring the VOA to identify the location of the public toilets. Obviously, the scale of the intervention is different from that for mines in the 1928 Act, but I am happy to discuss that technical approach with my officials between now and Report.

I am proud to be here today championing a measure that will be of great value to our communities. While I recognise the importance of all publicly accessible toilets, the cost of extending this relief according to the amendment would be significant—far greater than the financial benefit to operators of such facilities. I hope that the Committee will agree that a relief with implementation costs disproportionate to its financial benefits would not represent good value for money for taxpayers.

Although extending relief to toilets that form part of larger properties would undoubtedly bring about significant and disproportionate costs and practical difficulties, I appreciate that the second amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, concerns Changing Places toilets in particular. I therefore hope that the Committee will allow me to set out the steps that the Government have already taken to support these vital facilities.

I am proud to belong to a Government who are delivering on their commitment to provide more Changing Places toilets. At the last Budget, the Chancellor announced a £30 million fund to further extend the provision of these vital facilities and my department will shortly set out the allocation of this funding. I would be happy to provide my colleagues in the House with further details on this funding once they are available.

The funding comes on top of the £2 million announced by the Department for Transport to provide Changing Places toilets at motorway services and the £2 million made available by the Department of Health and Social Care to install these facilities in NHS hospitals across England. I hope that that reassures the Committee that where a Changing Places toilet is separately assessed, the measures in the Bill, subject to Royal Assent, act to reduce the business rates liability of these facilities to nil. While there are significant practical reasons why the Bill does not cover toilets—Changing Places or otherwise—within larger buildings, the Government are delivering on their commitment to supporting Changing Places toilets directly through grant funding.

I hope that with those assurances, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will withdraw the amendment.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I was particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for his explanation of what would appear to be a far simpler method of achieving what I am seeking to do. I might have a look at that before Report as it seems to be a simpler method.

I thank the Minister for his response. Obviously, I am pleased to learn of the additional government expenditure on Changing Places facilities. It is good to hear but we need to do more and go further. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Greaves’ Amendment 8 rightly explores the possibility of closed public toilets being eligible for the relief under the Bill. As those toilets provide no relief for the public, it is quite proper that no relief is provided for the authority paying the rates. It is clearly an issue that we need to explore, and be certain that the legislation ensures that authorities do not benefit from closing public toilets. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raises an important point and I hope that the Minister will able to provide some clarity on it. The amendment, on the face of it, highlights what would be an incentive to keep a public lavatory open. I look forward to the Minister’s response because, from what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, it would be perverse if, by closing a public lavatory, one would be eligible for rate relief. I am sure that that is not the Bill’s intention but it is important to get clarity from the Government on the issue that the noble Lord rightly raised.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

11: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Assessment of the impact of Act on provision of public lavatories
The Secretary of State must within one year of the passing of this Act conduct and publish an assessment of the impact of this Act on the provision of public lavatories.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Government to publish a report on the impact of the Act on provision of public lavatories.

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

My Lords, the amendment in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, seeks to insert a new clause that would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the impact of the Act. The Bill, though small, provides for significant rate relief for public toilets as they become zero-rated. In those circumstances, the Government would surely want to see what the effect of the policy has been. The proposed new clause would bring that into effect.

I am happy to support Amendment 13 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, which goes well with my amendment, by giving us information, year on year, about the effect that the policy is having, given that it will be costing the public purse revenue of which it would otherwise be in receipt. If we found that public toilets were still closing, that would be useful information to help us consider how we keep them open and whether something else needs to be done.

Amendment 14 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Thomas of Winchester, is on a similar theme to Amendments 11 and 13, but has an important emphasis on the review to look at the effectiveness of the Act in increasing accessible toilets and, in particular, Changing Places facilities, which we have talked about in earlier groups. I can see how beneficial it would be for the Government to have this information to hand. It would enable them to see that the Act was working effectively or highlight that more work needed to be done.

Amendment 15 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Pinnock, is in a similar place. It picks up on the point and gives power to make a recommendation whether other measures in this area need to be introduced.

I like all the amendments in this group. Perhaps all those who tabled them should get together before Report to table one amendment that takes all these points on board.

[Lord Lucas (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, asked me to speak to Amendment 13 in her name. We very much share the sentiments just expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. We all support this Bill and want to see it succeed. We want it as a foundation on which a renaissance in publicly available toilet facilities can proceed down the next decade or so. To know that we are succeeding or to know where any problems or challenges lie, we need good data. We therefore hope that the Government will accept an obligation to publish that information so that we can cheer them for their successes and encourage them to do better where that appears to be needed. It took around 50 years to persuade Victorian authorities to install public lavatories, let alone to agree funding and rates for them. With luck, because of this legislation, we will see increased provision at a much quicker rate. This amendment would let us keep track of progress and would be an essential expression of Parliament’s support for this measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments would require the Government to carry out an assessment of the impact of the relief on the provision of public toilets. The first, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would require an assessment to be made within a year of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, while the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, would require an assessment of the impact to be published on a recurring, annual basis. The amendment tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thomas and Lady Pinnock, would require an assessment to be made with particular reference to accessible toilets and Changing Places facilities. The fourth amendment, which has been tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Pinnock, would require such an assessment to review the impact of the relief on the cleanliness and maintenance of public toilets and the provision of baby changing facilities, in addition to the impact on the overall provision of public lavatories.

I appreciate the interest that noble Lords have in the efficacy of the measure within the Bill and assure the House that the Government keep all business rate reliefs under review. I also want to meet with interested noble Lords and the British Toilet Association before Report to see how we can review implementation of this relief. That is an important step and, I hope, will be an opportunity to discuss some of the issues that have been raised.

Before I turn to the detail of the amendments, I will respond to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that I failed to answer earlier. I can confirm that the relief for all separately assessed toilets applies irrespective of ownership. I want to be clear on that point.

On the provision of public lavatories, the Committee may be interested in the data that is already published annually, to which I have already referred. There are some 3,990 separately assessed public toilets in England and Wales, and this figure is constantly updated and monitored. We do not want to see reductions, and it is clear that by significantly reducing the operating costs of these facilities, the measures in the Bill will help to keep public toilets open up and down the country.

While these measures constitute a significant element of support for these facilities, a number of other factors determine whether a toilet is able to remain open. Ultimately, the decisions on whether to maintain or close a facility must be made by the operator of the facility, often the local council. These decisions will usually be based on wider funding pressures, as well as the number of toilets elsewhere in the local area.

The Government strongly support the continued operation of our public toilets. As I set out earlier, we are providing £30 million of grant funding to directly support the provision of Changing Places toilets in particular. I also set out at Second Reading some of the good work that councils have undertaken through community toilet schemes to maintain and increase provision in their local areas. However, it is clear that there are a number of factors that determine whether a toilet is able to stay open, and it would not be possible to attribute any future changes in the overall provision of public lavatories, or facilities of any specific type, solely to the measures in this Bill. Equally, I do not envisage any direct link between business rates relief and the maintenance and cleanliness of existing public toilets. For this reason, and because the number of separately assessed public toilets is already published on an annual basis, I hope that noble Lords will agree that any assessment of the kind proposed would be unnecessary and an ineffective use of government resources.

However, I welcome the fact that the Bill has shone a light on the interest from across the Committee in our public toilets, and I recognise the passion with which my colleagues have spoken of the need for adequate provision of accessible toilets in particular. I hope that the Committee will therefore allow me to conclude by reiterating the support of the Government for these vital facilities.

A number of noble Lords spoke about the importance of accessible toilets. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, again raised the issue of Changing Places toilets and the disbursement of the £30 million of funds. I am happy to give further details on the progress of that, I hope before Report. It is important to many people in the country that we ensure that the absence of accessible toilets is reduced, because lack of accessible toilets reduces the ability of people with a disability to make use of our public spaces with confidence.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, raised the important question of design and doors opening inwards, thereby reducing space. That is a good point, and everyone here nodded in agreement with that sentiment. So I am pleased to let the Committee know that a technical review is looking at the ergonomics and features of toilets and will I hope take some of these points on board. We hope to see an improvement in design in the future.

While the Bill is important, the provision of public toilets is rooted in a number of factors, and in the particular case of accessible toilets, the Government are providing direct grant funding. On this basis, and as the number of separately assessed public toilets is already published on an annual basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will agree to withdraw his amendment.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I agree with the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Greaves, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thomas of Winchester and Lady Randerson, and my noble friend Lady Andrews. The decline in the provision of public lavatories is a matter of great concern. The adequate provision of toilets is a public health matter, as my noble friend Lady Andrews said in this debate.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that many accessible toilets are poorly designed, despite considerable sums of money having been spent on them. I also agree with her that the need to provide more toilets for women and for men, and more gender-neutral toilets, as well as accessible and Changing Places toilets, is of paramount importance. As I have said, it is about understanding needs, the lack of provision of toilets for women, and ensuring respect for difference, along with the provision of facilities that are clean, safe and secure, and which people feel are safe to use.

The Bill does not address these issues because of its narrow scope, but I am sure we all agree that those are important matters. They are relevant issues that need to be addressed. I was very pleased by the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, to meet interested Peers between now and Report, along with representatives of the British Toilet Association, and I look forward to taking part. However, at this stage I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 11 withdrawn.

Non-Domestic Rating (Designated Area) Regulations 2021

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. This has been an interesting debate, much wider than the regulations before us. As for the regulations, this is a government scheme that allows local authorities to retain some of the income from non-domestic rates that they collect. The regulations before the House today designate the Tees Valley Combined Authority and Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council to be recipients of the rates raised in their areas.

I have a few questions for the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, and some comments to make on the contributions made by a number of noble Lords. When he responds, will the Minister explain the process for selecting this particular area to come forward at this time? What is the process for adding further areas? I think he said that over 200 areas have now been allowed to retain a large element of their rates. I remember the Government confirming—I think it was as far back as November last year—that other authorities, in Manchester, Liverpool, London and elsewhere, would retain an increased proportion of their business rates. If he can, will the Minister update the House on the progress of this? Does the Government have some sort of priority list?

My noble friend Lord Hain raised the decline of our town centres, an important issue that was contained in many speeches this afternoon. As my noble friend said, the decline has been accelerated at a pace by the Covid-19 pandemic. I agree that we need urgent action by the Government to deal with the unfair competition that many high streets now have from out-of-town shopping and online operations that are accelerating their destruction. Over the last year we have all seen reports of many well-known and loved chains disappearing. They have closed down and will not reopen, leaving boarded-up shops in their place. If we want to have anything like the high street we know and love, we have to do something to save it. I hope that the Minister can update the House on the work his department is doing on that issue. If he cannot do so today, will he write to the House and send a copy of his letter to Members who have taken part in this debate?

The noble Lord, Lord German, made a fair point when he highlighted that business rates are a disincentive to setting up new operations. I agree that our business rates and council tax systems are not fit for purpose. We need urgently to address how we are going to fund local activities; we need to get this right. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, made reference to the commitment in the Conservative Party manifesto to reform the business rates. I look forward to some proposals from the Government, as early as possible in this Parliament, on how they are going to do that. I think we should all agree on getting more money into the hands of local authorities to equip them better to spend money locally.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, for his work in the area of regeneration over more than 40 years. He is rightly recognised for the excellent work that he has done. The noble Baroness also raised the Portas review. I remember that; it took place soon after the coalition Government came to office. It is now well over 10 years since it reported and it would be good, at some point, to hear what has actually happened on the back of that review. I think the noble Baroness is right that very little came from it. There were a number of interesting proposals which the Government should perhaps look at again. The problem now, of course, is that we are 10 years further on and the problems are more difficult to deal with—but we do need to look at that. I also join the noble Baroness in supporting the call for the extension of the business rates holiday. I hope that the Chancellor will address that when he delivers his Budget.

The noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, rightly highlighted the importance of giving local authorities the flexibility to support local businesses. Local authorities do know their businesses and communities, and having the flexibility to make a difference locally is really important. I am sure that the Minister supports that. Equally, I support the noble Lord’s call for support for faith-based organisations and recognition of the important part they play in our local communities.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, asked about the length of retention periods for money raised by local authorities. She gave examples of how they are quite different in Croydon, Brent Cross, Birmingham town centre and Liverpool. There may be very good reasons for this, but I am not aware of what they are. If the noble Lord cannot respond now, could he highlight what those reasons are in a letter to the House?

The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, raised the important point of supporting public and private partnerships and businesses through such schemes, as illustrated by these regulations—I fully agree with that.

Today’s debate has been much wider than the very narrow issue about the business rates retention scheme in the Tees Valley, and I suppose it was always going to be. We have raised really important issues about our high streets, which we all love—we want them back, prospering and working well. However, to do that, we have to support them and shop local to ensure that they are there. If we do not make sure that we support them, they will not be there in the future, which would be a detriment to us all. This has been an excellent debate, and I am sure the noble Lord will respond to what he can today and that, if not, he will come back to us in a letter.

Building Safety

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I declare my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, chair of Heart of Medway Housing Association and a non-executive director of MHS Homes Ltd.

Three and a half years on from the Grenfell tragedy, in which 72 people lost their lives, decisions made by the Government have left thousands of people trapped in unsafe homes and many more unable to move. The Government’s announcement has come far too late for many and is, sadly, a repeat of undelivered promises. It backtracks on a key promise that no leaseholders should have to pay for the cost of this scandal, which is not of their making. On 11 March 2020, nearly a year ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that

“all unsafe combustible cladding will be removed from every private and social residential building above 18 metres high.”—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/20; col. 291.]

But that has not happened.

The funds set up have been dogged with problems. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell the House how much of the money available has been spent so far. I believe there has been a major underestimation of this scandal—this problem—by the Government. Can the Minister tell the House how many buildings are unsafe, where they are and what danger they pose? Until the Government have credible answers to these basic questions, there will continue to be mistakes and the offering of piecemeal solutions that must be updated when they do not deliver. Can the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, update the House and guarantee that the funding provided will cover all buildings over 18 metres high?

Will the Government set up an independent task force to prioritise buildings according to risk, with powers to get the funds out of the door and the ability to go after building owners when they fail to get the work done? That has been a consistent problem that we have raised again and again. Ministers have now promised 17 times—yes, 17 times—that leaseholders will not bear the cost of fixing a problem they did not cause; these were the promises made to the innocent victims of this scandal. But the Government have betrayed their promise that leaseholders will not pay for the building safety crisis. Three and a half years on from the Grenfell Tower disaster, hundreds of thousands of people cannot sleep at night because their homes are unsafe. On top of that, the Government have decided to pile financial misery on them. This is wrong; it is an injustice, and it is unacceptable.

Can the Minister tell the House why this arbitrary 18-metre height limit means the difference between a safe home and, potentially, financial ruin? What are the terms of the loan? What will the interest be? Will leaseholders be required to pay the interest as well as the main costs? On the point that the leaseholder will not pay more than £50 a month, if they sell the property, does the loan have to be paid at that point? Does it go with the former owner, or does it stay with the current owner? We need to know where we stand. How long will the scheme run for? Will it go up by the rate of inflation each year? What will the Government do if these homes remain unsaleable? How will they ensure that freeholders take up the loans? How will the Government speed up remediation, given that the current stalemate cannot continue?

Other properties do not have dangerous cladding, but these people have been charged thousands of pounds per flat to fix other safety issues. The Government should focus on securing our economy and rebuilding after Covid, not saddling homeowners with further debt. The Government should pursue those responsible for payment and prevent leaseholders and taxpayers carrying the can. The Government have announced a levy and a tax, which I welcome, but those responsible should bear the cost. How much do the Government anticipate the levy will raise? Will they pursue others, such as the cladding manufacturers, responsible for putting the dangerous cladding on in the first place? The Government have missed every target for removing ACM cladding and 50,000 people are still living in flats wrapped in it. This is the same cladding that was found on Grenfell Tower, and thousands more have other dangerous cladding on their buildings. When will this all be removed?

What about the skyrocketing insurance costs that innocent victims are being forced to pay? Can the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, tell the House what he expects, on average, a leaseholder to pay? People cannot continue to live in unsafe, unsellable homes. Homeowners should not be faced with financial ruin—bankruptcy, even—to fix a problem they did not cause. Unfortunately, these proposals, instead of providing justice, will still leave too many people struggling and facing loans. This is a very poor Statement from the Government—they will have to come back to the table and do what they promised in the first place: ensure that no victim of this scandal will have to bear the cost of fixing a problem they were not responsible for.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the repeat of this important Statement on the Government’s response to the cladding crisis. I remind the House of my interests, recorded in the register, as a member of Kirklees Council and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I was pleased when I read the heading of the Statement, “Building Safety”, and the opening paragraph, which refers to the mission of the Secretary of State being that of “safety and fairness”. Unfortunately, the Statement then fails to live up to those laudable words. The first issue I have with it is that throughout, there is reference only to “unsafe cladding”. In fact, what has become clear, as the vast scale of the problem that the Grenfell tragedy exposed, is that the building safety failings go far beyond “unsafe cladding”. As flammable cladding is removed, in some buildings further significant construction failings are revealed: flammable insulation has been used; firebreaks have not been built into the structure as a way of slowing the spread of a fire; balconies are not made of fire-retardant material; and spandrel panels are also seen as a potential safety concern.

How do I know this? In January 2020 the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government issued guidance note 23, relating to the seven building components under review, requiring building owners and managers to take urgent action on these. The question for the Minister, therefore, is: will the additional government funding pay for all the defects revealed when the unsafe cladding is removed? If, for instance, it becomes evident that there is an absence of firebreaks, will the funding cover the costs of installing them? If not, the leaseholders will still be faced with large bills to pay for failings in the construction.

The next fundamental question that I hope the Minister can answer is: why has 18 metres been chosen as the bar above which cladding removal is funded by the Government and below which the leaseholders and tenants are required to pay? Is the 18-metre figure an historic one that needs to be reassessed? Serious fires can occur in blocks of varying heights: for instance, the fire in a block called The Cube, in Bolton, was very serious—although fortunately, there was no loss of life—but the building was lower than 18 metres.

That leads me to the question of fairness. As noble Lords will recall, this is the mission of the department in respect of building safety. Can the Minister explain how it is fair for leaseholders in blocks below 18 metres high to have to pay for remediation? I recognise that low-interest loans are available and that the currently anticipated maximum payment is £50 per month. This will, no doubt, be added to the service charge and will be one of the costs that potential buyers will consider. It will make these flats less attractive to buyers and they will almost certainly command a lower value. How is it fair to require leaseholders to pay for building remediation which is not in any way of their making?

One of the roles of government is to ensure that safety regulations are appropriate to the task and that there is an inspection regime. The Government have failed to do this, so they are partly culpable, must bear the cost and recoup it from those who share culpability.

Then there is the question of building regulations. It is alleged that some of the buildings affected by this scandal failed to comply with building regulations at the time of construction. Can the Minister confirm this and provide some estimate of the numbers involved? Where breaches of regulation are involved, will the Government require full remediation costs to be met by the developer? This is what happens with the manufacturers of cars and white goods, for example. Surely it should also apply in these instances. Does the Minister agree?

Next, I turn to the total funding package. The additional funding provided by the Government is a start, but this £5 billion needs to be put into context. During the debate on the Fire Safety Bill, the Minister confirmed that the total cost of remediation was likely to be in the region of £16 billion. Does that imply that £10 billion or more will be paid for by leaseholders through the loan scheme? Perhaps the Minister will let us know whether this is what the Government have calculated.

It is proposed to recoup some of these costs from developers by raising £200 million per annum via a tax on the sector. The cost of the minority of the remediation to be recouped from developers is pathetically small. During the last four years, the five largest developers made profits of around £16 billion, which rather puts the proposed figure into context. Will the Government reconsider the level of this tax to make it fairer?

Finally, I hope that the Government do not need to be reminded of the terrible, personal cost of the cladding scandal. For instance, Laurel and Jonathan in Manchester are seriously considering bankruptcy as the only way out of their predicament. Hayley in Leeds has already been forced into bankruptcy. In an Inside Housing survey last year, 23% of respondents said that they had considered suicide. Such is the stress of living in an unsafe home and being forced to pay huge increases in insurance and service charges. For leaseholders and tenants, this building safety crisis is not in any way of their making, yet they are expected to pay the price while those who created it are not being similarly expected to pay in any significant way. Can the Minister explain how this adheres to the department’s mission of fairness? Will he press for a review of the current proposals as more information comes to light?