Cladding Remediation
Baroness Brinton Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the very serious fire in a high-rise block of flats in Dagenham in August has resulted in the residents losing their homes and not even being able to access their belongings. They are also in real financial hardship. They are really grateful for the support from their local council, Barking and Dagenham, which has stopped them having to pay any council tax and provides weekly support meetings. Last Thursday, the owner of the building announced that it was to be demolished, without any discussion at all with the leaseholders and residents. The council cannot force the owner to the table, so I was very pleased to hear the Minister talk about enforcing remediation and working with people. Is there anything she can do to help these residents get the owner in front of them, so they can find out what is actually happening?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that issue, and to Barking and Dagenham Council, which acted very quickly to support the residents. A great deal of action is being taken on building owners who are not progressing remediation works, getting them to do so as quickly as possible. The enforcement action is strengthened by funding for local authorities, as I said earlier.
We all know that one of the great failings in the Grenfell situation was the failure to take residents’ voices seriously enough. We are clear that all projects should comply with the guidance in the code, and we will take action where needed if there is a failure to comply with the resident voice. The code is not currently legally binding; however, it does include references to legislation and has been developed in accordance with guidance and requirements. We will keep the status of that code under review, but there is redress for residents should they need to seek it.
Grenfell Tower Inquiry Report
Baroness Brinton Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice- chair of the All-Party Group on Fire Safety and Rescue and as a vice-president of the LGA. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who laid out many of the Hackitt reform proposals that are so essential.
I start by paying tribute to the victims and survivors, many of whom had complained about the lack of safety in their building for many years, and the wider community around Grenfell. They still face many problems every day. I am pleased that the fire services have recognised their own failures but, as the Minister said in his opening speech, that is just the start of the failures of so many bodies, public and private. At the heart of this inquiry report is the evidence of the poor treatment of people, especially those already marginalised in our society. Sir Martin said it was a
“marked lack of respect for human decency and dignity … many of those immediately affected feeling abandoned by authority and utterly helpless”.
This could also be written about the other inquiry reports, such as Windrush and infected blood. All of us, whether Ministers, politicians, officials, staff or members of the public, must constantly challenge our own thinking and behaviour to make sure that we change. The tenant management organisation failed badly. Never again should social housing tenants be regarded as not worthy of safe housing, or treated as Grenfell tenants were treated. Never again should the vulnerable, especially the elderly and disabled, be regarded as not worthy of safety systems to get people out of burning buildings. It seems extraordinary that in the 21st century, and after 40 years of serious fires, we have to fight for the changes needed to ensure that buildings are safe, mainly but not only from fire.
Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s final report of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry is blunt that building safety has failed for decades in central government, local government and the construction industry. He says that every death single was avoidable. Can the Minister confirm that, as with the Infected Blood Inquiry report, the Government will review these recommendations at pace? Specific criticism about the deregulation of safety legislation is important. The failures of the construction sector, whether regulators, manufacturing companies, builders, maintenance or management agencies, are also shocking. The 2018 Dame Judith Hackitt report’s 50 reforms for the sector were accepted by Sir Martin Moore-Bick and the last Government in 2019. Key was the golden thread of safety, running through the sector from manufacturing construction to regulation and training. After the Hackitt report was published, the last Government accepted that they should implement it urgently, but it appears that only more consultation happened. The steering group on competencies for building a safer future, a sub-group of the CIC Built Environment Professions Together, has noted that:
“The Hackitt review suggests that a year should be required for completing this work, with updates every quarter. On 5 October 2020, the Competence Steering Group released its final report, Setting the Bar, which includes recommendations designed to produce a new competence regime for construction safety. In December 2018, James Brokenshire launched Building a safer future: an implementation plan”.
On 2 April 2020, in response to the Building a Safer Future consultation, the new Housing Secretary, Robert Jenrick MP,
“announced steps to introduce mandatory sprinkler systems and consistent wayfinding signage in all new high-rise blocks of flats over 11 metres tall”.
However, it went out to consultation and we still wait for government action. Can the Minister say when there will be an update in Parliament on the implementation of the Hackitt recommendations and the publications of the very urgent guidance?
The Fire Safety and Rescue APPG has repeatedly written to Fire Ministers about fire safety in flats over the last two decades. We had real frustration in getting Ministers to answer our questions, whether in person or in writing, including after each of the many serious flat fires and coroners’ reports that predate the Grenfell Tower fire, including Lakanal House. Most Fire Ministers over the last 20 years did not engage, not least because fires of this type were a multi-departmental issue. Speaking as a disabled person, I say that one of the areas that most worried me was that 40% of the disabled residents in Grenfell Tower died. There has been much debate in your Lordships’ House, during the passage of the then Building Safety Bill and other legislation, about how important personal emergency evacuation plans are. The excellent fire safety briefing by Triple A Solutions for Equitable makes a clear distinction between the appropriateness of the provision of PEEPs versus person-centred fire assessments. It also explains, in the subsequent pages, why it is so necessary.
The Local Government Association wrote to Dame Diana Johnson, the current Fire Minister, saying:
“As you will know the report of the second phase of the Grenfell Inquiry is expected to be published this Autumn. It is disappointing that your new Department will still not have implemented the recommendations of the first phase inquiry in relation to personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) by this point, despite two years having elapsed since the closure of the second consultation on emergency evacuation. We are concerned that this failure may be at odds with the Home Office’s obligations under the Equalities Act and would welcome an opportunity to share our views with you in more detail”.
Dame Diana’s response concerned the recent announcement of the department’s plans to bring forward proposals and its recommendations. She said:
“More information on the detail of the proposals will be shared when we are able, including a formal response to the EEIS+ consultation, and we will engage with the LGA along with other partners in taking these forward”.
That is still very slow, with no firm date in sight.
I want to mention the duty of candour and the machinery of government. One of the most shocking threads through this report is that there has been no sense of responsibility and a lack of curiosity inside various government departments, by both civil servants and Ministers. That is why we have long supported the duty of candour and are pleased that the Government have committed in their manifesto to introduce it. When will legislation for duty of candour arrive? In the meantime, what changes have been made so that civil servants and public agencies always ensure that Ministers are told uncomfortable truths?
Changing the law alone is not enough. We know from when the duty of candour was introduced into the NHS that cultural change is also vital. Therefore, can the Minister outline the Government’s plans for culture change inside government? The Moore-Bick report also says that the machinery of government and its agencies failed the victims, principally through the interdepartmental working. Fragmentation and lack of curiosity resulted in action, delay and obfuscation, which cost lives. Ironically—or perhaps not ironically—this is also a criticism of the Infected Blood Inquiry report, the Hillsborough report and the Post Office Horizon reports. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that everyone across government knows which department is leading and how the current culture can be changed to ensure that no more tragedies like Grenfell can happen again? It is vital that the police and the CPS move at pace to review the report and investigate those individuals and organisations who Sir Martin said deliberately breached the law. Given the pressures on the police and the CPS, will the Government provide extra resources for this? Justice further delayed is justice denied.
Finally, how will the Government report back to Parliament on the progress of the recommendations? I ask this in light of the Dagenham fire in August. A resident of that block has been in touch, saying:
“The cladding on Spectrum Building had been mostly remediated. The cladding on the fifth and sixth floors had been replaced and held up quite well against the fire—the timber frame of the fifth and sixth floors is where the fire continued to spread … But the site clearly wasn’t safe. There was confusion over the alarms. Mandatory documents don’t seem to exist. And, most importantly, after the devastation, no one talks to residents. We have been treated terribly by the private companies who profit from the development. The local authority have done an excellent job in stepping in and helping us”.
I started by noting that we have a record of 40 years of fatalities. Eight years after Grenfell, there is still an urgent need for everyone involved—government, public services, the private construction sector, housing management agents, freeholders—to really dedicate themselves to making sure that Grenfell can never happen again.
Gypsy and Traveller Communities: Accommodation
Baroness Brinton Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(1 year, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(1 year, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.