Gypsy and Traveller Communities: Accommodation

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that comment. When I was a councillor, I had a Gypsy and Traveller site in my own ward. It is important that all council officers familiarise themselves with the cultural issues around Gypsies and Travellers. Of course, we must all strive, always, to avoid division in our communities; it is very important that communities move forward together. If we are to achieve the full potential of our country, that is exactly what we must do.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, following the withdrawal of the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessments guidance of 2007, there has been a policy vacuum for the assessment of need. This has allowed private companies, that provide most of the Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs assessments, to develop their own—and different—methodologies, leading to discrepancies in how those are undertaken. Will the Government develop guidance for local planning authorities on how to properly undertake Gypsy and Traveller accommodation assessments in consultation with Gypsy and Traveller civil society? Can such guidance issue a pitch target for social provision in the same way as bricks and mortar housing needs are assessed?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very important point. I will look at the National Policy Planning Framework when it comes out to see what guidance is provided. Other noble Lords have raised the issue of how this will be enacted. It is very important that local planning authorities demonstrate an up-to-date, five-year supply of deliverable sites. The planning policy for Traveller sites states that this should be a significant material consideration in any subsequent planning decision, so there will be enforcement powers to support the delivery of those sites as set out in planning guidance.

Social Care Strategy

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. I completely agree with him about the importance of technology and data, and will refer to it later in my contribution. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I very much enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley. She and I first got to know each other very well during the pandemic, because we were officers of the All-Party Group on Coronavirus, which had a busy time—we can probably leave the rest of it there. I also know about her passion for social care. She is a very welcome addition to your Lordships’ House.

I congratulate my noble friend Lady Tyler of Enfield on securing this important and timely debate. She rightly said that the debate must be reframed, and this has been reflected in the thoughtful contributions from so many Members of your Lordships’ House. I also thank the House of Lords Library and the many organisations that have sent us briefings.

Our Lib Dem leader, Sir Ed Davey, made social care a core policy for the Lib Dem manifesto in the recent election. His experience as a child carer when his mother was ill and dying, as well as his parental role as a carer to his lovely son John, means that he knows at first hand how vital social care is, especially the role of unpaid carers. It is good that a party leader has put forward such a comprehensive package of measures to increase support for the vital work that unpaid carers do. I think this is the first time in living memory that one party has had social care as its principal policy.

The Lib Dems also point out that the current structures of the health and social care systems, as well as the failures in the structural funding of social care, have brought the sector close to catastrophic failure. It is worth going back and reflecting briefly on the Dilnot report, commissioned by Labour and published in 2010, just as the general election happened. That led all three major parties to agree to work together to accept it; that acceptance happened by 2013. Legislation even went through, and the Queen signed the Bill. As Sir Andrew said in a podcast,

“in politics 101, you learn that once the Queen has signed the Bill, you’re over the line”,

but after the 2015 general election, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer postponed it until 2020. Five years later, there is still no change.

The Dilnot commission recommended a partnership model with a much more generous means test and a lifetime cap of between £25,000 and £50,000 on social care costs, to ensure that the state steps in when people face catastrophic costs that cannot be planned for. Sir Andrew said:

“It was a recommendation for social insurance, collective provision, with a relatively large excess”.


That is why I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, for his contribution on the need for nationally funded insurance in the future. We have heard him speak of this regularly during the passage of the Health and Care Act and on various other occasions. Will the Government now look at this?

The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, outlined the financial problems that local authorities have with the 20% drop in accessible money. This is compounded by the fact that, as a result of demographic changes, the number of those needing care is continuing to increase. We are nowhere near the peak yet.

One key point that has not really been covered so far today is that disabled people’s care is treated the same as elderly care. It is certainly completely inappropriate to use the same financial systems. When the Government come to look at whatever the new financial systems are, will they use a different frame for young adults with disabilities, who do not have years of working behind them to have their own home and other resources?

The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, spoke of the need for dementia training for all care workers, and she is right. The social care sector needs to learn from good practice, but dementia training should be compulsory.

Many noble Lords have already commented on the workforce issues. I will not cover those again, but I note that 25% of the workforce is not British and 27% of the workforce is aged 55 or over, compared with 31% of the workforce across the economy. This is particularly worrying, as our demography means the need for skilled care workers will increase. There will be a horrible hole in a very short period.

It was good to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, that the Rayne Foundation will provide grants for workforce improvement. I hope that demography among the workforce will be looked at.

As many noble Lords have said, we must professionalise the roles in care. We need regulation—my party favours a royal college of care—but also progression and career pathways, including apprenticeships and innovative schemes to make it attractive to young people. In the Netherlands, some care homes now offer free accommodation and 10 hours’ work per week to local students to live on-site. Not only does this help students see the reality of social care, but there have been two unexpected benefits that may surprise us. First, some of the students have changed their entire view about what they want to do after they graduate and are now working in social care. Secondly, the engagement of young people living in the home means that residents’ health is improving, including slowing down dementia.

I am reminded of a project I saw in Japan 20 years ago, where a group of 80 year-old war widows got together to do about five hours’ work a week, to give themselves some money to be able to communicate with families who lived off the island that they lived on. Their GP said their care needs went down 30%. Why do we not learn from that?

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, also talked about healthy living and social prescribing. Its substantial increase over the last four or five years is one thing that the last Government got really right.

My noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester spoke of the breadth of skills and the attitudes of excellent carers. We should celebrate them and their contribution to individuals, but we must remember that they also contribute to society as a whole.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, talked about the need for outcomes regulation, but that will not happen without the shift that he also discussed. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, talked about good practice in his local area, but I also argue, as my noble friend Lady Thomas did, for the need for lifetime home standards in new homes—M4(2)—which would transform the lives of elderly people and stop them having to move out of their own homes. This goes way beyond the area of social care, but it could transform it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, talked about early intervention for people, and she is right that that will certainly reduce the need for care. The increasing use of fracture clinics, not just to mend the bones but to invite physios and occupational therapists to work with people after their first fall, is reducing falls in later life once people are home.

The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, is right that there is no need for a commission—many noble Lords have said that—but we have to reframe a national care service on a par with the NHS. It should not be the whipping boy. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, is right that local services are vital in that. The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, was also right to speak about funding.

I thought that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford’s care covenant was interesting. The Church of England’s policy working group, with its excellent values-based dialogue, is really important—as is kindness, which perhaps the CQC ought to look at. If you go into a home and see kindness, you know that, if it is led from the top, it pervades everything that happens in that home.

The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, spoke of effective data. Thanks to Skills for Care, we have excellent workforce data, but he is right that we also need demand data.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, talked about an effective integrated service. She is right that it works. The problem is the funding structures; they are a real issue. For example, in my mother’s last days, my brother and I witnessed the argument between the NHS and the local authority about whether her nursing needs in the care home were as a result of dementia or the fact that her osteoporosis had cracked her vertebra. That was a ridiculous debate. She was an elderly lady who needed nursing care, and that problem should not have been going on.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, is also right that resources must be shifted from the NHS to social care. I do not want to hear another Minister say that delayed discharges are the problem. Every single NHS Minister says that, but they never actually tackle the problem, which is to change social care.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, for the warning about what is happening in Scotland. We should learn from those errors, too.

Many others have spoken about unpaid carers. Although I have already covered that with the work that our leader does, we absolutely know that we will fail our carers if we do not identify carers of all ages. We must commit to secure funding for care services, otherwise we will push them to the limits. That is particularly important for young carers because of the risk to them of losing their education and other support systems.

If we are the usual suspects on social care, it is time that Ministers started to listen. We have not discussed housing, transport or community activities—all those will also help. Labour’s response since the election has been disappointing, and I hope that the confidence of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that things will happen under this Government is true, because the time for action is now.

Housing: Modern Methods of Construction

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the LGA and vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Fire Safety and Rescue. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, via the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on securing this important debate and on his excellent speech. I note that MMC are already used successfully in student and hotel accommodation in this country.

I shall focus on two things, the first of which is fire safety. Yesterday, the Grenfell inquiry final report was published. From these Benches, our hearts go out to those who lost family members and friends and, of course, their homes and everything in them. Fire safety standards must be at the heart of modern building methods. As importantly, the recommendations of both the Grenfell inquiry and the Hackitt report should be implemented, so that maintaining and adapting all buildings is always done in the context of fire safety.

Secondly, all new homes from now on should be built to M4(2), or lifetime, standards. This is not just about disabled people, although we certainly need to be able to live in and visit homes, whether owned or rented, that meet our needs. Shockingly, well over 90% of homes do not. I am talking about the homes we need to have as we get older. Habinteg Housing Association’s research shows that M4(2) significantly reduces the cost of care assistance, because people can manage for much longer in their own homes with level access, grab rails, wet rooms et cetera. But there is a further benefit too: staying in your own home, which is what people really want to do, delays the need for expensive residential care. There are typical savings of over £20,000 for basic home care services in unadapted homes, and considerably more in residential care. Lifetime standards would save substantial public money in the NHS, and in welfare too. The extra cost for building is well under 10% yet the quality of life and lifetime savings to individuals and the state make it an obvious thing to do.

Housing: Accessibility Standards

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I am afraid I will have to disappoint the noble Lord, as I cannot give a specific timeframe for that further work. The building safety regulator is responsible for introducing updates to the building regulations and it is a new organisation with a busy programme of work. However, his points are well made. To reassure him, we are taking these considerations into account in a number of ways. For example, last December we published an updated NPPF which included a specific expectation that, when planning housing for older people, particular regard is given to retirement housing, housing with care and care homes. This reflects the Government’s understanding that we need to take into account accessibility and the changing needs of our population as we build new homes.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, Habinteg housing research shows that only 7% of our existing housing stock meets even the most basic accessibility standards. The Government’s report says that, on average, it would cost only an extra £1,400 to build a new three-bedroom semi-detached house to this standard—a tiny percentage of the cost of a new house. This would mean that thousands of elderly and disabled people could remain in their homes for life. The Government keep saying that they want to implement this standard. What is the delay?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, local planning authorities should already assess the housing needs of different groups, including accessibility needs for those with disabilities or older people, and reflect them in their policies and decisions. Guidance was introduced in June 2019 to help councils implement this policy and make use of the currently optional technical standards for accessible and adaptable housing, including M4(3) and M4(2)-compliant homes. As I have set out, we plan to take forward our commitment to move to mandatory for M4(2).

Holocaust Memorial Day

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Friday 2nd February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. This year’s theme, the fragility of freedom, is very poignant and relevant, and I join in with the thanks for the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust for their vital work in ensuring that we never forget the scourge and horror of the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews and other groups of people in the Second World War. I thank them and others, including the group Protection Approaches and the Lords Library, for their briefings. Along with other Peers, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. His voice and life are an example to us all.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, talked of the importance of recognising the 10 stages of genocide, both in the past but also in our modern-day world. I pay my respects to the 6 million Jews who were murdered by the Nazis because of who they were, what they believed, and the community they came from. Voices from the past, such as Anne Frank, can continue to tell their story to new young generations, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, reminded us. We, our children and our grandchildren, must never forget. The voices of survivors have been vital, and this year we heard of the death of Sir Ben Helfgott. He spoke both of his experiences as a child in Buchenwald and Terezin, but also of his life after he arrived in the UK, and how he recovered—but never forgot—and helped others. His life and achievements were extraordinary. May his memory be a blessing.

In my contribution this morning, I will look at three of the other groups who were destroyed by the Nazis in the Holocaust, and how their fragility of freedom continues to this day.

Over the night of 2 to 3 August 1944, 2,897 Roma and Sinti people, mostly women and children, were killed at Auschwitz; 2 August is the day that the Gyspy, Roma and Sinti people mark their memorial, but it is important that we remember them too today. It is estimated that up to 500,000 Roma and Sinti people were murdered or died as a result of starvation or disease during World War II. Many more were used as forced labour, or subject to sterilisation or medical experimentation.

Today, the Gypsy and Roma community faces a very fragile future across Europe. Last autumn, research by the EU Council found that members of the community were suffering shocking amounts of bullying in the education system, prejudiced reporting by the media and threats to their legal status and rights, including as a result of recent legislative changes. We too in the UK have had legislation that affects the legal status and rights of our Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community, and research also shows that GRT children are the most bullied community in our schools.

Hitler murdered 250,000 physically or intellectually disabled people in the T4 programme. People ask where God was in the Holocaust, but Pastor Martin Niemöller’s longer 1946 version of his famous confession, which starts

“First they came for the Communists”,


says:

“Then they did away with the sick, the so-called incurables”.


He wrote and spoke movingly about how his church initially supported the Nazis in euthanasia, then slowly realised it was wrong but remained silent for too long, after which he was imprisoned by Hitler. As a Christian, it is hard to hear. That is the truth of his famous confession, what he had to live with, and that is why, after the war he publicly called on the German people to understand the impact of their silence. He spent the rest of his life talking to people around the world about how dangerous bystander silence was, including visiting South Africa and then Rhodesia. He said we all have a duty to stand up for people being persecuted, even and especially when we disagree with their views. That is a hard thing to hear today, when our society is so divided.

This is not just history for disabled people. The fragility of freedom is close to us now. In the pandemic, “do not resuscitate” orders were placed on disabled patients’ files without their knowledge or their families’ consent. Thankfully, as soon as it was uncovered, the Government and the NHS issued clear instructions to stop. But be in no doubt—certain people, chosen by this grouping, died because they were discarded. Those with underlying conditions were also denied intensive care, and some were even told there was no point in taking them to hospital. Many disabled people, including me, heard from others arguing against lockdown that they were going to die soon anyway, so there was no point in trying to protect them.

LGBT people were also targeted by Hitler and the Nazis in the Holocaust. On 6 May 1933, the Nazi-run German Student Union and SA raided and looted the Institute for Sexual Science, renowned for world-leading research on LGBT people, which was run by Magnus Hirschfeld. It promoted acceptance for gay people and pioneered surgeries for transgender people. Some trans people worked there as staff, and some of those employees, most famously Dora Richter, disappear from the historical record after that raid and are assumed to have been murdered by the Nazis during or after the attack. Four days later, the archives and library of the institute were burned on the Opernplatz. Dr Hirschfeld, himself both gay and Jewish, was away on a speaking tour at the time, and lived in exile in France until his death in 1935. During the Holocaust, gay and transgender people were deported to concentration camps and murdered.

The freedom of LGBT people is increasingly fragile today. The level of murder and physical attacks grows year on year, and Uganda last year made being LGBT not just a criminal but a capital offence. That is the beginning of the ninth level of the stages of genocide.

All noble Lords who have spoken have said why this year’s theme is very pertinent. Genocide and crimes against humanity are never inevitable and can often be prevented. That is why we have to remember the 10 stages of genocide, reflect on them in our lives and society today, and never be bystanders again.

Higher-Risk Buildings (Key Building Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Grand Committee

These regulations are the key foundation for setting up the new regime for building safety. They are helping to bring about the systemic and lasting change that we know is needed to help people feel safe in their homes. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting them. I commend them to the Committee.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Fire Safety and Rescue Group. I also had a previous role for a decade, some years ago, as bursar of two Cambridge colleges. My questions for the Minister today are about the practical delivery of these regulations and how they will work.

The definitions in the regulations appear reassuring, but I want to ask how the systems between the accountable person, or AP, and the principal accountable person, or PAP, will work. What and where are the levels of signing off on buildings? This returns to an issue I raised three weeks ago, on 21 February, when we looked at the regulations setting out the definition of a high-rise building in Grand Committee. If there are 13,000 existing high-risk, high-rise buildings and the sections of the regulations are under prescribed key building information in two of these regulations, and are covered in Regulations 4 to 24, can the Minister confirm that the size of the directorate, and the level of qualified staff with the regulator, will be able to respond knowledgably to this deluge of information that the APs or PAPs will have to provide?

In the Commons, when asked about resource for the regulator, the Minister said:

“Of course we want to make sure that the regulator is properly resourced in order to fulfil its vital functions and, again, I will follow up with further information in writing.”—[Official Report, Commons, Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee, 22/2/23; col. 6.]


Given that that was three weeks ago and the deadline for starting to provide that information is moving pretty rapidly forwards for developers, leaseholders and commonholders, it is particularly important that the Secretary of State has set those deadlines. I do not disagree with them, by the way; it is vital that this is tackled. When will that information be available, because it is really important to make it work in practice?

Secondly, how does the key information in these regulations relate to the information that will still need to be sent to building control in local authorities to ensure that the building, remediation or adaptation processes are happening correctly? While there will be some overlap of information, it will not all be the same, and nor should it be. This is particularly relevant to Dame Judith’s wanting to ensure that running all the way through is that golden thread of key common information. I cannot see anywhere in these regulations what local authorities will get, either through building control or, at an earlier stage, planning applications. If an interested member of the public—perhaps not even a leaseholder but a tenant—were trying to find out if the work had been carried out appropriately, would they be able to do so? Would the information held by the regulator, supplied by the AP and PAP, also be replicated locally? Can the Minister confirm that that information will be held by local authorities, because it is vital?

Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum says,

“the Regulator can carry out an initial triage of the potential risk levels in the existing 13,000 higher-risk residential buildings. The Regulator will require building assessment certificate applications as a priority for the buildings where, based on the information provided and other sources of intelligence from other regulators, the Regulator assesses the building’s potential for a building safety risk materialising to be higher than others.”

My question to the Minister on this point goes back to the timescale to get that information from what amounts to a standing start.

I will not go on to what I will say later on the Statement that is coming before your Lordships’ House, but I think that we are coming to a real crunch time of deadlines, to which we are rightly committed, for individuals who may be an AP or a PAP but are not the individuals responsible for the remediation or adaptations required. If there is a delay by the people who are or should be doing or identifying that remediation, the AP would be the person responsible—including criminally—if things are not provided. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out how she saw some of that working; my concern is whether all the different parties understand that. Do tenants, leaseholders and management agents, who may or may not be APs, all understand where those boundaries lie? Will the regulator in particular have resources available for this urgent and essential triage to be carried out?

I am also grateful to the Minister for her reference to fire safety; as she knows, it is something in which I am particularly interested. If the detail is not available to commonhold owners and APs, how does holding that set of information work? Will building control have sight of it, or will it be under the fire safety order and therefore fire services will have it? I am not even going near PEEPs today, or whatever they will be called in future, but I am raising these issues because I am concerned that people who live in these high-risk, high- rise buildings are still extremely concerned.

These Benches think that these regulations are a step forward. We hope that that golden thread that Dame Judith asked for is evident to everybody who needs to take part in this process and that those who are not responsible for delivering the change, but may have some regulatory responsibilities, do not end up paying the price should developers not do the job that they are required to do.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, I note my membership of the LGA as a vice-president, which is noted in my details. I thank the Minister for her introduction to this statutory instrument.

We understand that these regulations have two key purposes. They specify what information must be provided to the Building Safety Regulator on higher-risk buildings and which parts of a building certain individuals are responsible for. We believe that this is part of the implementation of the Hackitt review of building safety, which recommended a new regulatory regime to improve accountability after the dangerous and destructive mistakes of the past, notwithstanding the tragedy at Grenfell which is still unresolved in so many areas after such a long time.

Labour welcomes these regulations and sees the instrument as uncontroversial, but we would like the Minister to offer greater clarity on the new building safety regime, especially for those with new responsibilities. I pose the following questions to the Minister; if an answer cannot be produced at this time, I would welcome a written response in due course. Given that the related consultation was in summer 2022, has the department engaged with relevant groups since then? Are the Government monitoring the new building safety requirements being introduced by the Mayor of London, such as for all planning applications for new buildings above 30 metres, which must now have second staircases before going to the Greater London Authority for final sign-off?

These fire safety measures have been brought in with immediate effect in London. This follows the Government’s launch of a consultation in December last year on requiring developers to include second staircases in blocks above 30 metres, which I believe is around 10 storeys high. This move has long been called for by the RIBA despite not being a recommendation in the Hackitt review, so is this monitoring taking place and will the Government extend these measures elsewhere? Furthermore, will the Minister update the Committee on the implementation of the Higher-Risk Buildings (Descriptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2023, laid in Parliament on 19 December 2022, which define higher-risk buildings?

My final question is about timescales and the mandatory information that duty holders will be required to provide to the new regulator, which must be submitted within 28 days of an application to register. The Government have announced that the registration of existing buildings is expected to begin next month. What will they do if there is non-compliance? Is there a plan in the department to tackle these organisations and companies? We need to know what the penalties will be and how these regulations will be enforced by the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

On information about local authority building control, a local authority should have all that information about any planning applications and permissions that have been granted. They should have that online; most, indeed all, local authorities do, so I would expect it to be there. If it is not, I will find out the rules for putting all that information online.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I thank the noble Baroness. I was asking for something slightly different. I am sorry; it is complex and I was not clear. It is really important that the information that the regulator has to hold is the same information, even if there is more information at building control and fire service level. I should have said, and probably did not, that it could be something like Companies House, where details of accounts and so on are available, including to the public; that is why I asked about the public. That is the golden thread; that is the core information, although there may be other information. Is that how it is envisaged?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am not aware that that is how it is envisaged. I have not had any conversations about how the regulator will work with local authorities, but it is an interesting concept. I will take it back and find out for the noble Baroness how that golden thread is being joined up.

There was a query about paragraph 7.3 on the timescale of information. I do not have 7.3 here with me so I do not have the answer to that; I will have to write. On communications, of course communications are important, particularly to the almost silent people—the residents, agents and people who will talk to residents. For me, it is important that the department does some of that communicating about how the new regime will work. I am sure that we will because we have done an awful lot on the ombudsman service and such things. The new regulator has various roles and responsibilities and I would hope that the department will do this. I will probably get told off for saying that but, as a Minister, I think it very important that the people most affected—the residents—understand how that is going to work. I do not have anything else here but I will look again to make sure that there is nothing further.

I move on to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and thank her for her support. Indeed, I thank both noble Baronesses for their support for these regulations; they are important. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, wanted to know how the regime is being phased in. The Building Safety Regulator was established in shadow form within the Health and Safety Executive in January 2020. The statutory functions of the Building Safety Regulator are being phased in and are planned to be fully established by April 2024.

The Building Safety Regulator is already working and engaging with residents, building owners, the industry and professionals about how the regime will operate, so by the time we get to next April everybody should understand—this comes back to the communications issue—how the system works, and it should be up and running very quickly.

There was a question on how these regulations relate to information required as part of building control under local authorities. We have answered that, I think, but I will write on it because I do not think even the officials know. We will work on that one.

Regulations will be laid around October that will make clear what information will be in that golden thread during building control and later held by accountable persons in occupation. There will be further regulations this autumn that I think will probably answer some of the questions, if not all of them, but I will make sure that we answer the questions and let the Committee know what those regulations will include. They are a bit further along the line. We talked about the timeline for the scheme and I think it is important.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, asked what happens if someone does not register their building. The regulator will undertake further investigations and cross-check against information held by government to identify any high-risk buildings that have not been registered. Where a resident has concerns that their building does not appear to be on the public register, there will be mechanisms for that resident to report that directly to the regulator, so it can investigate. So there will be two ways: there will be cross-checking by the regulator and also it is important that anybody who checks up and sees that their building is not on the register can get in touch with the regulator as soon as possible.

Building Safety Update

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, along with other noble Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. It is a positive step forward, but only a partial step. The Minister referred to my noble friend Lady Pinnock and her concerns about buildings under 11 metres. I also want to highlight those that are the responsibility of non-major housebuilders. Earlier today, in Grand Committee, we talked about the 13,000 high-risk high-rise buildings, yet this Statement talks only about

“fixing at least 1,100 buildings.”

I am not expecting answers, but I am concerned about how many smaller builders there are—they may still be big builders by many business standards, but they are not the major developers. Will they also have to sign a contract as part of next steps?

I think that both my noble friend Lady Pinnock and I completely understand that the death rate in fires at lower levels is, thankfully, lower, but homes are still destroyed, and the same poor products have been used. What are the Government going to do about those?

The other point that I know the residents of those buildings will talk about is the excessive insurance charges they are being forced to pay at the moment. Are the Government planning to talk to the insurance companies in the same way they have been working with the major housebuilders? Again, it is not the fault of the tenants and residents of these high-rise blocks that they should be faced with those bills, and I wonder whether perhaps there could be some help there.

Finally, the Secretary of State said in the Statement that these would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis—but there are thousands of buildings. Do the Government have any idea how long it is going to take to respond to this? Are we going to have quarterly Statements in the future? It will be enormously helpful if we are, but I am worried that it is easy to think that because we are dealing with big companies, everything is resolved. It absolutely is not.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I can assure the noble Baroness that some of these companies in the list that we have seen today are not the large companies. That, obviously, is causing some of the smaller companies to need a little more support, because it is more difficult financially for them to sign up to the financial costs of this. We are working with them on ways they might be able to pay back. We are not giving them any money for the future, but the Government have already paid for some of the payback of remediation work; we are helping them with payment schemes if that helps.

There will always be other companies, and that is why we are always saying that this is not the end of the system. This is the beginning, and the department will keep going until we make sure that no leaseholder is in the position that they have been in over these years.

As for the signing of the contracts, there are 4,000 buildings owned by those companies, of which about 1,000 have life-critical fire safety defects. We have to be careful with the figures, because they may be responsible for many more properties than actually have any problems. That is an important issue.

As far as insurance is concerned, yes, the department has been working with the FCA and the insurance companies over a number of months, if not years, because we are well aware of this issue, and we will continue to work with them. Particularly now that we are getting a solution to it, there is absolutely no need for these insurance issues at the moment.

Was there anything else? There was nothing on PEEPs tonight.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I thank the Minister. She answered my question, and I look forward to hearing from her on PEEPs in the future.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I have three interrelated questions, and I am going to relate them to the 1,100 buildings mentioned in the Statement, not the rather breathtaking figure from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, of 13,000 buildings. The Statement rightly says that leaseholders will want work to start without delay on all 1,100 buildings, which are, by definition, significant buildings. Are the Government confident that there are sufficient skills and ability, as well as the sheer workforce, to deliver this in any meaningful kind of timeframe?

Although most of the focus since the awful tragedy of Grenfell has been on external wall systems, there are also huge and quite complicated problems that have been discovered with fire-stopping systems, particularly breaches of compartmentalisation in the way buildings have either been designed or built. Fixing that is not going to be a simple matter of taking some cladding off and putting some cladding on; it is going to require a very high level of skills to make sure that you are genuinely fixing the problem and not, goodness forbid, making it worse.

In that context, the Health and Safety Executive recommended the golden thread principle, which I think probably applies here, of ensuring that there is a responsible person who is in control, really understands what is happening and has all the necessary documents and understanding.

I also note that this week the consultation closes on what is known as approved document B, which is the new and improved iterative process of fire safety standards. That is only going to apply to new buildings and will not affect existing buildings. Are the Government really committed to ensuring that we get the best possible standards in these buildings? People have now been living in fear for years, and they need the confidence to know their buildings are as safe as possible.

Higher-Risk Buildings (Descriptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2023

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations will complete the definition of a higher-risk building, setting which buildings will be subject to the legal requirements of the new regime for building safety created by the Building Safety Act 2022. They are a fundamental part of our ongoing reforms to ensure that all residents’ homes are a place of safety.

The Act is based on Dame Judith Hackitt’s recommendations and establishes a new regime that creates stronger oversight of, clearer accountability for, and stronger legal duties on those responsible for the safety of higher-risk buildings throughout their lifecycle. There are two parts of the new regime. The first covers the design and construction of new higher-risk buildings and building work to existing higher-risk buildings. I will refer to this as the design and construction part. The second establishes a new regulatory framework when higher-risk buildings are occupied. I will refer to this as the occupation part.

The definition of higher-risk building is set, in part, by the Act. The Act sets the height threshold for higher-risk buildings at 18 metres or seven storeys. It also states that buildings meeting this threshold which have two residential units are in scope of the occupation part of the new regime. These regulations build on the provisions set out in the Act. They complete the definition of a higher-risk building and set out exactly which buildings will be subject to the legal requirements of the new regime that will be directly overseen by the building safety regulator.

These regulations can be considered in several parts. First, the regulations specify that hospitals, care homes and buildings containing at least two residential units will fall within the scope of the design and construction part of the new regime where they meet the 18 metres or seven storey height threshold set in the Act. They also specify that certain types of buildings are excluded from the new regime. Hotels, secure residential institutions, for example prisons, and military premises, such as barracks, are excluded from both parts of the new regime. In addition, the regulations specify that hospitals and care homes are excluded from the occupation part of the new regime. All other buildings with at least two residential units that meet the height threshold set in the Act will fall within the new regime. We have set this as the scope as we want to ensure that proportionate rigour is applied to buildings where the risk of fire spread or structural collapse is higher.

Dame Judith Hackitt recommended focusing on residential buildings, and we agree that occupied non-residential buildings are already adequately and proportionately regulated through other legislation. These building types are therefore not included in the new regime overseen directly by the building safety regulator. We have responded to concerns of stakeholders around the design and construction of care homes and hospitals by including them in the design and construction part of the new regime. This ensures that high-rise buildings which may be occupied by those who are unable to evacuate quickly or without assistance are designed and constructed under the new regime. We are being ambitious while maintaining the focus on tall residential buildings for which Dame Judith Hackitt advocated.

These regulations also provide an overall technical definition of a building for higher-risk buildings. Some of the buildings under the new regime will be large, complex structures with multiple parts. The building definition therefore allows a building to be defined depending on the design and structure of the building. We have adopted a broad definition of “building” when a new higher-risk building is constructed, so that the building safety regulator can consider the overall structure while it is built.

For work in existing buildings and the occupation part of the new regime, “building” is defined more narrowly in certain circumstances: for example, when multiple structures are joined and there is no access between them. This is because it would be disproportionate to apply the duties and responsibilities of the new occupation regime across an entire set of structures, especially when some of the structures taken in isolation may not meet the criteria to be higher-risk buildings. This definition will ensure that the requirements of the new regime are applied proportionately and only to buildings that represent the highest risk. We will produce detailed guidance allowing those constructing and managing buildings under the new regime in the future to understand clearly whether they are in scope of the new requirements.

The regulations also set out how to measure height and storeys for higher-risk buildings. The regulations specify that height should be measured from ground level to the top of the floor surface of the top storey of the building. Similarly, storeys should be counted from ground level to the top storey of the building. In both cases, any storeys below ground level, for example an underground car park and any area containing only rooftop machinery, should be ignored. We have chosen these methods as they are well understood, are existing ways of measuring in the building sector and mirror a method already taken in building regulations.

Our two-pronged test for measuring buildings will also help prevent gaming of the system and make sure that the right buildings are captured. The method will be clear to those constructing and managing buildings under the new regime and support our aim of creating proportionate and effective building safety systems. These regulations are key to setting up a new regime for building safety and bringing about the systematic, lasting change that we know is needed to help people be and feel safe in their homes. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I commend them to the Committee.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction, which is very helpful, and the Government for going slightly further than Dame Judith Hackitt suggested when she talked about 10 storeys. I have a couple of questions and comments. The Minister will not be surprised to know that in my noble friend Lady Pinnock’s absence I might mention 11 metres, on which I entirely support her. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Fire Safety and Rescue.

I am pleased that the Minister referred not just to fire safety but to building collapse. Following the horrendous earthquake in Turkey and Syria, with repeated earthquakes since, we have seen how structures absolutely have to be got right.

The Explanatory Memorandum was extremely helpfully written and very clear, and for that I thank the Minister and her officials. One of the points that Dame Judith Hackitt made at the very start of her report, about a high-rise building being a system, is vital for this. I know that much of her report was about the building process, the updating process and the system thinking that goes with them, but for this statutory instrument it is really helpful to think of all these buildings as systems. I will speak briefly about those three strands that she referred to: new high-risk buildings, the work needed for existing high-risk buildings, and that needed for those that are currently occupied.

Paragraph 7.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to

“hospitals, care homes and buildings containing at least two residential units”.

I wonder how many care homes are over seven storeys, because that does not tend to be the case. Is this planning for the future rather than for existing care homes? That would be helpful. I appreciate that many large new hospitals are being built and that there are some already. Addenbrooke’s Hospital, which I know well, is well over six storeys.

This is something that Dame Judith Hackitt referred to quite a lot in her report. When she talked about 10 storeys, the point was that that was the starting point of the most urgent work that needed to be carried out, but she specifically talked about hotels, secure residential institutions, hospitals and care homes, where the Government might choose to look at considerably lowering the number of storeys. In paragraph 1.5 of that report, she says:

“However it will also be important to ensure that government can respond quickly in the future, where necessary, to broaden this definition in light of either critical new information emerging … or experience of operating the new regime.”


She talks about

“in due course … a wider set of residential buildings below 10 storeys”—

she does not say that 10 storeys is the limit—and specifically those

“where people sleep (such as hospitals or care homes)”.

So why are they, and hotels and secure residential units, being excluded? I see in the Explanatory Memorandum that the Government believe they are covered. Dame Judith Hackitt is saying that actually the Government need to reconsider that, perhaps with a slightly longer timescale. Has it been reconsidered and this is the new view or, given the amount of work that has been done on the very urgent part, is that still to come?

Finally, we would not be discussing high buildings if I did not mention PEEPs. In mid-December, a High Court hearing brought by Claddag—the Leaseholder Disability Action Group—revealed correspondence that showed that a decision had been made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, in 2021-22 not to go for PEEPs while saying that consultations were still going on. I know that the Government have said that that is not the case, but this court case had the emails that showed it to be the case. I will spare the Grand Committee’s time by not quoting from them, but they are very much in the public domain.

Building Safety

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I know it is late, but I crave just one minute before I speak to the Statement specifically, given its topic. It was 18 years ago today that, in the only tower block fire we have ever had in Stevenage, two wonderful firefighters—Michael Miller and Jeff Wornham—were killed. I just wanted to remember them and send my thoughts and prayers to the families, friends and colleagues of those two heroes. I thank noble Lords for allowing me to do that.

I am sure that, across your Lordships’ House, we recognise that this Statement is a welcome, if belated, step in the right direction towards tackling the shocking failures in building safety standards that have led to the most appalling scandal, which has now dragged on for over five years. I pay tribute to the bravery and tenacity of the campaigning Grenfell survivors and the building safety campaign groups and individuals across the country that have worked tirelessly to bring the seriousness of the issues involved here to the attention of government and the public. I also pay tribute to Members of both Houses who have been their champions.

While it was refreshing, certainly in the light of current events, to hear the Secretary of State say categorically in the other place that

“I do believe this Government should have acted earlier to learn the lessons of the past”—[Official Report, Commons, 30/1/23; col. 52.]

even I can agree with him on that—the delays cannot have been helped by the revolving door which has seen no less than seven Secretaries of State responsible for local government in five years. He has even had two goes at it himself. The fact is that in five years we have seen people left in the most dreadful limbo on this issue. The stress, fear and harm that they have lived with on a daily basis is incalculable: not able to sleep for fear that their buildings are not safe; living in fear of the exorbitant costs of mediation measures; and not able to sell their properties or move away. For some, this has impacted on their physical and mental health. In the most serious cases, leaseholders have faced bankruptcy, their dreams of owning their home transformed into the stuff of nightmares.

When this Statement was given in the other place, it was notable just how many of those who spoke referred to specific examples in their own constituencies: so many stories of distress and despair, like that of Sophie in my home town. Sophie, having bought what was described as a luxury flat for £230,000, soon discovered that the remediation costs for her failing building were to cost her £210,000. This development, a refurbishment carried out under the permitted development regime, and after the deregulation and privatisation of the building control regime, did not meet basic fire safety standards. A waking watch had to be employed, at huge cost to Sophie and the other leaseholders.

Sophie set up a group called Herts Cladiators to campaign on this issue, and indeed presented her very clear evidence to the Select Committee in February last year. Her campaign has consumed years of her life; she powerfully describes the financial impact on those affected. She says that every penny they earn is spent on pre-mediation such as insurance premiums, waking watches and intrusive surveys. Sophie asked the Select Committee how the proposed measures would help in cases such as hers, where the developer has transferred assets and is now dissolved, parent companies have no assets and the building contractor has ceased trading. She was advised that litigation on the building control company would likely be unsuccessful, the structural warranty provider has gone bust and there is no way of tracing the manufacturer of insulation used because the developer ceased trading and the freehold has changed hands several times. Perhaps the Minister can answer Sophie’s questions, because it is difficult to see anything in the Statement which addresses them.

I am sure that so many of us will have heard stories like Sophie’s. I hope that the Statement that we are receiving today will give some comfort that she and other campaigners are at least being listened to. While it is a step in the right direction, it leaves so many more questions still to be answered. Perhaps the Minister can help.

There are questions of timing and accountability. If developers are to sign up for remediation costs, how quickly will the work be carried out? In spite of so many promises over the last five years, millions of people are still living in buildings with dangerous cladding, and only 7% of flats at risk of fire have been fixed. Will a date be set by which remediation works must be completed?

Is the contract with builders and developers sufficiently robust to ensure that it covers all the work necessary, and how do we ensure that it does not restrict the liability of housebuilders? How will the manufacturers of faulty products that have led to so many of these safety issues be held to account? When and how will the insurance sector be required to take its fair share of responsibility? Are those who knowingly built in ways that would endanger safety to be brought to justice? If the Secretary of State is recognising that permitted development and the deregulation of the building control regime played their part in this scandal, will a full and thorough review of those aspects be carried out?

The Statement refers to support for private leaseholders. Will the Secretary of State give consideration to social housing providers who have been affected by similar issues? This whole issue serves to highlight once again the absolute chaos in our housing market that has been caused by poor practice and dodgy dealing in the leasehold market—the subject of a long and powerful campaign by my noble friends Lady Kennedy of Cradley and Lord Kennedy of Southwark. I note that the Secretary of State pledged in the other place to remove this anachronistic form of tenure once and for all in the King’s Speech. If the Minister has further information on how and when this will be done, we would certainly welcome that on our side of the Chamber. Surely, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill could be used to get some reform of this sector on the statute book now, rather than waiting until the next King’s Speech. After all, there can be no levelling up with the housing market in the crisis it currently endures.

We are five and a half years on from the tragedy of Grenfell. That the resolution of these issues has taken so long and left so many trapped in dangerous buildings is an absolute scandal. It is time for the warm words to stop and the action to start.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, rightly reminded us of the 18th anniversary of the Stevenage tower block fire and the tragic deaths of two firefighters. From these Benches we too send our condolences to their families and co-workers. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the All-Party Group on Fire Safety and Rescue.

There is much to be positive about and to welcome in this Statement, but it has taken far too long. It is nearly six years since the terrible tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire that cost 72 lives, among whom 40% of the disabled residents lost their lives. In that time, many thousands of leaseholders in high-rise blocks have had their lives completely on hold. Their insurance and service charges are skyrocketing, they are not able to move or sell and they are for ever living in fear of fire. So we welcome the elements of the Statement that are a step forward, in forcing the costs of remediation on to developers and building companies, with serious penalties for failure to do so—by removing the right to build. However, there are still big gaps in ensuring that all those blameless leaseholders and tenants are protected from the undue risk of fire and being penalised by freeholders and property agents.

Blocks that are under 11 metres tall are specifically excluded in the Building Safety Act. It was wrong to do so then, and it is wrong to do so now. The argument that the risk is smaller as the blocks are lower is valid except when you factor in the speed at which combustible cladding fires spread. I urge the Minister to continue talking to such leaseholders, to listen to their stories and then to help them. There is a further problem with blocks under 11 metres if there is only one staircase for people to escape down. That is a significant problem and will always impact on safe egress.

It is good to see some action being taken on skyrocketing service charges and insurance. More transparency on invoices is positive, but that fails to stop the charges being excessive. What do the Government plan to do about other egregious behaviour by letting agents? I know of one case in my area in which a tenant who has been without a shower for a year has been told that if she pushes it any further, she will receive an eviction notice. That behaviour is also absolutely unacceptable —it is from the letting agent and she cannot get hold of her landlord, even though she is entitled to under the law.

Some blocks are still paying for waking watch services, when there is a very high charge for a very limited and ineffective service. In fact, there was a fire before Christmas in a block of flats where there was a waking watch, but of course the waking watch was in the wrong place when the fire was discovered. There has been inadequate public funding to support social housing providers unwillingly caught up in this disaster whose ability to spend capital moneys is very curtailed. Where is the funding to help pay for the remediation that is needed?

My final issue relates to disabled residents. During the debate on the Statement in the other place on Monday, two MPs, Florence Eshalomi and Mike Amesbury, asked about PEEPs. I declare my interest as a disabled person. I have been caught in a hotel above floor 5 when a fire alarm went off. It is pretty scary if you are not quite sure what the arrangements are. Even if there is a PEEP, will people turn up? The Secretary of State said in reply to Florence Eshalomi:

“Critically, one recommendation from the inquiry—the need for personal emergency evacuation plans—is one that the Government have not yet met. I have been working with my colleagues in the Home Office to make sure that we do”.


In reply to Mike Amesbury, he said that the Home Office was

“working hard and I hope to update the House shortly”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/1/23; cols. 56-57.]

On Wednesday, the All-Party Parliamentary Fire Safety and Rescue Group heard from Lee Rowley, who explained that the Government are thinking of giving the Home Office the lead on this. The APPG is very clear that these issues and those about fire safety in education are cross-department. At the moment, it feels to us in the all-party group that every time there is an issue it is passed from one department to the other and then to the other. We urge the Government to have one Minister in overall charge of fire safety, who will undertake to work with any other Ministers who also have responsibility for fire safety.

I know that the Home Office is currently consulting on PEEPs, but the consultation is on an extremely watered-down version presented after we had finished on the Building Safety Bill. That means that it has not been as well discussed, and it was certainly not discussed with me and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. We had both tabled amendments for a stronger version of PEEPs to be introduced. Can the Minister say whether only the watered-down version is being considered, or will the responses from disabled groups about the dangers of a watered-down version be listened to?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, I add my condolences to those expressed to the families and friends of the firefighters from Hertfordshire. I had not realised that it was 18 years, but our thoughts are with them.

Following the tragedy of Grenfell Tower, we are determined as a Government to learn the lessons of the past. It is the past not just of this Government but of many Governments before us who did not look at and take as much note of building regulations as we should have done—all of us. This Government will learn lessons, but they are lessons not just for them. We must also make sure that this tragedy never happens again.

I want to start with Sophie, because it is important, and I have heard of many people like her from my own personal contacts. People talk about time and, yes, it has taken a long time for us to get here, but it was a very complex issue and I can assure the House that we have been working really hard. The Government are aware of the case of Sophie. They are taking action and working with her and others who are in the same position. That is important to say.

Ninety-five per cent of all high-rise buildings with unsafe, Grenfell-style ACM cladding have been remediated or have the remedial work very much under way. Importantly, 100% of buildings in the social rented sector that were affected have been remediated. We now have remediation funding routes for all affected buildings over 11 metres in England. However, we are not complacent, and we recognise that there is a lot more still to do.

Building owners have a legal responsibility to make sure that their buildings are safe. Where remediation work is required, they must take appropriate action without delay; that is what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was saying in his Statement. It is unacceptable that, today, some are still deliberately holding up remediation works by refusing to sign legal agreements that would allow government funding—even government funding—to be used to make their building safe. That is why we have provided £8 million more of funding to local authorities to pursue building owners who are refusing progress remediation. We are also working closely with the regulators to make sure that building owners are held to account for their actions; where appropriate, we will take enforcement action.

We are confident that the developer remediation contract we published this week is entirely consistent with the letter and the spirit of the pledge that many of the major housebuilders signed last year. We work with potential signatories to make sure that the contract we are now asking them to sign is clear and is what the developers expected. However, it also codifies the pledge commitments to which the developers signed up earlier. We are making sure that developers are true to their word and sign that contract by 13 March. Leaseholders and residents in hundreds of buildings across the country expect no less than that. The contract makes it crystal clear that we expect developers to remediate their buildings as soon as possible. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, asked whether this is going to be done. We expect them to carry that out as soon as possible. In fact, some developers are already assessing and remediating buildings in advance of the contract being finalised, which is very welcome.

When the work has been carried out, the residents in those buildings also need to know that it has been completed to a required standard. We cannot have shoddy remediation. The contract therefore also requires the developer to obtain a qualifying assessment from an independent fire safety expert when the work is done. If that assessment shows that the work has been shoddy and the building remains dangerous in any way, the developer will have to fix it under the contract; the department will have powers to audit those assessments and act if the building has not been property remediated. Developers will remain on that hook for two years after the works have been completed, which means that any shoddy work can be spotted straight away and we will make them put it right. Developers may also be held to account to make sure that they are completing work properly and at pace. They will be required to report quarterly to the department on their progress. I think noble Lords can see that we are keeping an eye on this—we are not letting developers get away with anything.

As I said, we expect every developer who has these buildings to sign the contract by 13 March. Anybody who refuses to sign will face significant consequences. That is the important thing. You have to have a bit of carrot to begin with and then you have to have the stick. In the spring, we will bring forward legislation for a responsible actors scheme, which will require eligible developers to sign and comply with the contract. Any developer who does not sign the contract and comply with the terms will not be permitted to join and remain in the scheme. If that happens, the developer will be prohibited from commencing developments for which they have planning permission and from receiving building control sign-off on construction that is already under way. In other words, those developers will not be allowed to build houses in this country until they deal with the issues and fix the problems of the past.

To do that, and to make sure that it is happening, we have set up a Recovery Strategy Unit, which will make it very clear to all those developers that we expect them, as the people who have contributed and profited from these affected buildings, to take responsibility and fix them. The unit is already set up and spearheading this work. It will pursue companies and individuals who fail to do the right thing and, if necessary, take them through the courts.

A number of questions outside this area were asked. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, asked about decent homes in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. They are in the Bill, and we have announced that we will be exploring proposals for new minimum standards in the social rented sector. We have also set an ambition for non-decent homes in all rental sectors to be reduced by 50% by 2030. We will target the biggest improvements in the lowest-performing areas, which I think is important. We talked a lot about pace, and noble Lords can see through the contract that pace will be part of what we will be ensuring that developers deliver on.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about buildings insurance. This is another thing that has come up over and again. We are committed to acting on commissions and other payments and will be discussing this with those who represent land stewards, managing agents and freeholders and asking them to reconsider their charging mechanisms as a matter of priority. In the Statement, the Secretary of State said that he does not believe there should be any commissions on any of these insurances from the freeholder to the leaseholder. We will be taking that forward and looking at it in detail. The Financial Conduct Authority is currently undertaking its own review of high broker commissions, to be published in March this year. I have requested an update on any actions that will be undertaken following that review, and I will make sure that the House is updated on that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also brought up the important issue of PEEPs. The Government have accepted in principle all the recommendations in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 1 Report. We recognise the importance of listening to the concerns of disabled residents and the community in order to come to the right outcomes as quickly as possible. This is across two departments. We are working very closely with the Home Office, which is the responsible department in this area, and we recognise the need to move quickly to ensure that disabled people are safe. I feel strongly about this. Disabled people deserve to feel safe in their homes, and so we are listening and working very closely with the Home Office. I hope that we can bring forward changes as soon as possible. I will keep the noble Baroness informed about how we go with that.

Another thing I feel strongly about is single staircases. Every building has to meet the safety and performance requirements in the building regulations and the Government have reiterated to building control bodies, local authorities and the industry that robust evidence must be presented on the appropriateness of the means of escape from a tall residential building to demonstrate how it meets the building regulations. However, we have now published a public consultation outlining our clear ambition to make provision for a second staircase in all new blocks of flats above 30 metres. We very much welcome views on this important topic to inform future changes to approved document B in the building regulations, so I say to the noble Baroness, with her contacts, that it is important that we hear more about how important those second staircases are, particularly to disabled people.

I am sorry that I have gone a little bit over in that, but I had a lot of questions to answer and I note that there are not a lot of other noble Lords here to ask questions. Oh! My noble friend is behind me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for reminding me that I have not spoken about buildings under 11 metres. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would never forgive me if I did not answer that question. I will start, though, with enfranchised leaseholders, which I do remember in the context of the Bill. The Government have published a call for evidence on leaseholders in buildings over 11 metres or five storeys, which closed on 14 November last year. We are analysing those responses and considering the feedback prior to finalising the policy. However, enfranchised leaseholders living in buildings covered by the developer remediation contract will be protected from the cost of remedying life-critical fire safety defects arising from buildings’ design and/or construction. Furthermore, leaseholders in buildings over 11 metres are protected from the costs of remediating unsafe cladding, even where the developer has not signed the contract, which is important. Costs may be met through the building safety fund or the new medium-rise fund. I think we are doing what my noble friend wants, although it might be a bit slower than he would have preferred.

On buildings under 11 metres, which I know have been a concern for many noble Lords in these debates, the Government are committed to understanding the full scale and nature of historical building safety issues facing leaseholders in these buildings. As such, we welcome further information. The department set up a dedicated inbox for leaseholders and managing agents of these buildings to contact the department about their specific buildings. We will work with them on that. We stress that the responsibility for the costs of fixing historical building safety defects should still rest with the building owners. They should not pass these costs on to the leaseholders but seek to recover costs from those responsible for building the unsafe buildings in the first place.

I would like to emphasise that the risk to life from historical fire safety defects is much lower in buildings under 11 metres. That is no excuse, but it is rare for these buildings to require building safety-related remediation works. The Government’s assessment therefore remains that extending the protection to buildings under 11 metres is probably neither needed nor proportionate, but we will work with leaseholders and agents of these buildings if they have specific issues.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister referred to local government, I just need to declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

International Holocaust Memorial Day

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a patron of the Traveller movement. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, for securing this important debate today and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, the Library and many others for their excellent and helpful briefings. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kestenbaum, who described the moving experience of his own family.

This year’s theme of ordinary people who let genocide happen is extremely important for all of us at a time when we hear and see rises in anti-Semitism and other discrimination. In the brief time available, I want to make some links with things that are happening today but started in the early 1930s.

Pastor Martin Niemöller’s famous comment about remaining silent even in the face of evidence begins:

“First they came for the Communists

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a Communist …

Then they came for the Jews

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a Jew”,

and ends:

“Then they came for me

And there was no one left

To speak out”.

Most people do not understand that he spoke from his own experience: he was a pro-Nazi supporter in the very early 1930s. He did not support the Jewish community at all, and he recognised that in his later life.

For me, what happened to the Roma and Gypsy community in the 1930s was appalling. The Porajmos, or the Devouring, started in 1933 with prejudice and discrimination. Tens of thousands of Romani men, women and children across Germany and occupied Europe were first badly treated, and then killed. The human rights commissioner for the Council of Europe has reported this year on compelling testimony she heard about discrimination, a lack of publicly provided sites for our Traveller community and the barriers that people in the GRT community face in developing sites. In particular, she commented on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, and how it is much harder for our Traveller community to live their way of life.

In that same visit in the middle of 2022, she also commented on addressing the increasingly toxic discourse against trans people. That, too, is how genocide started against the LGBT—particularly the “T”—community in May 1933, when the Nazis raided and looted the Institute for Sexual Science. Some employees just disappeared and were assumed to have been murdered; their archives and research were burned. During the Holocaust, transgender people were deported to concentration camps, and many did not survive.

Much more recently, in this last year there has been a chilling echo of what happened to Polish children in the 1930s after Germany invaded Poland, where they were sent to German families and to SS home schools if they were thought to be of previous Germanic descent. This year, in the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, we have seen Ukrainian children being removed and sent to Russia and “adopted” by Russian families. That is appalling.

If Martin Niemöller were alive today, he would be asking us to look at and think carefully about all we see and do. It is not just about the horrific end of lives; it is about the slow and gradual movement towards othering particular communities and feeling that they are not part of us and that this is acceptable. He said:

“We preferred to keep silent. We are … not without guilt/fault, and I ask myself again and again, what would have happened, if in … 1933 or 1934 … 14,000 Protestant pastors”


had intervened? He believed that millions of lives would have been saved. We all need to heed that challenge and speak up.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

Can I say at this point that this is a time-limited debate? If people exceed the limit consistently, there will be very little time for the Minister to respond. This is a very difficult debate for me to intervene on, but I just make that reminder.