Building Safety Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 26th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the constructive amendments that the Government have tabled at this stage and for listening to the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Blencathra, who have been very helpful during the passage of the Bill. However, there are still concerns outstanding, as has just been said, so I will speak now to my Motion H1 as an amendment to Motion H.

We on these Benches have consistently argued that all leaseholders should be protected from the cost of remediating historical cladding and non-cladding defects and the associated secondary costs, irrespective of circumstance. Although we fully acknowledge that the waterfall system set out in Schedule 8 provides leaseholders with a far greater deal of protection than was proposed when the Bill first came to us, when it was originally drafted, it does not protect all of them fully. Just as importantly, the Bill does not provide redress for the countless blameless leaseholders across the country who have already been hit with huge bills and have paid out significant sums as a result.

That is why I have tabled Motion H1 to reduce leaseholder contributions to a maximum of £250. I am aware that the Government have said that leaseholder contributions are fair in principle because they will apply in only a very limited number of cases. The Minister has said that leaseholders will pay up to the cap or a proportion of the cap in only a minority of circumstances. However, if it is only a very small number of cases that we are talking about, why are the Government so reluctant to provide proper and full support? For many people, £15,000, or £10,000 as the cap currently stands, is simply an impossible sum to find.

Leaseholders have refused to give up. They recognise more than anyone that the situation they face is simply not fair, and your Lordships’ House recognised that by supporting the amendment that I tabled on Report. I ask for noble Lords’ continued support in agreeing Motion H1 and, in so doing, to acknowledge the determination and persistence of the leaseholders and cladding groups that have been pressing for redress in this matter.

In sticking rigidly to the position that a minority of leaseholders will have to pay sums that, although capped, are still significant, in order to resolve a scandal that they played no part in causing, we believe that the Government are not acting equitably and will not ensure that the most vulnerable leaseholders will be protected. Our Motion H1 would provide such protection. If the Minister is unable to accept it, we will seek to divide the House, with a view to ensuring that all leaseholders are fully protected.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to the House for missing the first two minutes of my noble friend’s magnum opus; the last business went slightly faster than I had anticipated. I declare a personal interest as a leaseholder in a block of flats that may contain some non-cladding works that may require remedial treatment.

I have to praise my noble friend the Minister yet again for the tremendous changes that have been made to the Bill since it came from the other place. I also congratulate my right honourable friend Michael Gove on forcing all the big building companies to sign up, including bringing the Galliard Homes horse kicking and neighing to the water, although he will need to ensure that it and the other companies actually drink the water—they will throw millions at lawyers to weasel out of what they have signed up to.

I am told that the owner of Galliard Homes, Stephen Conway, has accused Michael Gove of acting like Al Capone and the mafia. My respect for young Gove increases by the minute. Conway had an estimated worth of £270 million in 2015; imagine what he is worth now. It seems to me that the owners of the big building companies have made their billions by being a bit more ruthless mafiosi than Michael Gove ever was. However, that is for another day.

Despite the excellent progress on the Bill, there are still some gaps. I regret that we do not have anything specific in the Bill protecting enfranchised leaseholders. All Governments have encouraged leaseholders to buy out the freehold. Those who have done so are still exactly the same as other leaseholders who have not, and they should get the same protection. I welcome the consultation but I hope it is speedy, and I hope that, if legislation is necessary or this can be done by regulation, that is brought in as quickly as possible.

I acknowledge that the Government have increased the number of properties qualified under buy to let, but in my opinion they have not gone far enough. As a small buy-to-let owner said to me, why does the Bill support with cost-capping a billionaire oligarch non-dom with two buy-to-let leasehold flats in Mayfair, valued at millions, yet leave completely exposed a pensioner buy-to-let leaseholder with a small portfolio of just four flats? These people are not big landlords. Although nothing can be done in this Bill now, I hope something can be done in future.

Nor am I happy that we are planning to reject buildings under 11 metres. They may not be as big a risk but they are unsellable. When an estate agent or lawyer tells prospective buyers that the flat they have looked at has some dangerous cladding—but not to worry because you will probably get out in time if it burns down—I do not think that they will find many buyers. These flats are simply unsellable.

Finally, I disagree with the removal of “zero”, and like the Opposition’s amendment of £250. I do not accept that the government caps set a proportionate balance, as was said in the other place by my right honourable friend Stuart Andrew MP, who was also an excellent Deputy Chief Whip in his time. As Michael Gove said, no leaseholders should pay a penny for any remediation works. We heard impeccable legal advice in this House from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and a former Supreme Court Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, saying that making leaseholders pay in order to avoid an ECHR challenge was misguided and wrong. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, the challenge will happen in any case, no matter what level the Government set the cap at, and those building companies will try it on.

If Motion H1 succeeds today, I do not want the Government in the other place to take on the role of the wonderful Ukrainian Snake Island defender, Roman Grybov, who offered sexual advice to the Russian warship. We are not the “Moscow”, and I hope that the Government will bring forward a compromise amendment, perhaps higher than £250 but much lower than the government caps.

With those quibbles, I wish to congratulate my noble friend yet again on the massive progress he has made with this measure. “One more heave”, as Jeremy Thorpe said in 1974—but hopefully with a bit more success.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 184A and 184B, do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 184C and 184D and do propose Amendment 184E as an amendment to Amendment 184 in lieu—

184E: In paragraph 6 of that Schedule, in sub-paragraph (2) leave out “zero” and insert “£250””

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 4th April 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

1: Schedule 8, page 232, line 16, leave out sub-paragraphs (4) to (6) and insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the determination of the value of a qualifying lease for the purposes of paragraph 4.”Member’s explanatory statement
This tidying-up amendment is consequential on Amendment 155 at Report Stage which set the “permitted maximum” to zero.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, through every stage of the proceedings I have supported the aims of the Bill, and I am sure the whole House will welcome any steps taken to make homes safer and more secure. While we may have differences of opinion on the most effective and fair way of achieving this, I do recognise the genuine desire of the Minister to address historic cladding and non-cladding defects. This Bill should represent a turning point for innocent home owners, and I hope that in the final stages of the Bill we can resolve the remaining issues of contention to ensure that the Bill properly gives leaseholders the protections in law that have long been promised by the Government.

I briefly draw to noble Lords’ attention the fact that I have tabled a short amendment. It has been tabled as a consequential to Amendment 155 on Report, following advice from the Public Bill Office. I hope that the Minister will accept that the amendment is purely technical.

Finally, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Khan of Burnley and me, I take this opportunity briefly to thank the Minister and the departmental team for their approach to the Bill. I look forward to working with them in future on any further legislation brought forward to address building safety. I beg to move.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Local Government (Disqualification) Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 1st April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, in moving that the Bill do now pass, I thank noble Peers across the House for their support for this small but, I believe, important piece of legislation. I am grateful to the Legislation Office and the Minister at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities for all the help and support I have received on the Bill’s journey. I also thank Sir Paul Beresford in the House of Commons, who took the Bill through there. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, we welcome this legislation. I pay tribute to Sir Paul Beresford for promoting it in the other place and to the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, for sponsoring it here. It is a small but important piece of legislation and we very much welcome it.

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

My Lords, I want to add the Government’s support. I once again thank my noble friend—and my political mentor in many ways in local government—for all his work in sponsoring this Private Member’s Bill. I pay tribute also to the Member for Mole Valley, Sir Paul Beresford, for taking the Bill through the ballot and for the diligent work he has done. Obviously, the Government fully support the Bill, which closes an important loophole.

Housebuilding: Target

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for all the sterling work she does on the Built Environment Committee. I recognise that there is a problem around local plans. Indeed, it is the planning lawyers who point out that we need more robust timetabling again, to ensure that local authorities undertake their duties to have a plan to shape their areas.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, local authorities are crucial to meeting the Government’s housebuilding targets, but, if they are properly to master-plan and create the new communities that we need, they need new powers. So will the Minister support the reform of our arcane land compensation laws?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I look at whatever it takes to support councils in being able to build and shape their areas. An increasing number of councils are doing precisely that. This Government have enabled councils to borrow more liberally against the housing revenue account, but we will look at whatever measures we can to encourage local authorities to take a leadership role.

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

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

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I must again thank those noble Lords who have participated in this interesting debate. It is a shame it has become a group of two halves, but I will address the points raised in turn.

Turning first to Amendment 15, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Pinnock, for raising this important matter, but as they have surmised, I am afraid the Government will not be able to accept this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, will know that local authorities are already the statutory provider of building control services to the public under the Building Act 1984. This includes the duty to enforce the Act in their jurisdiction and they retain ultimate responsibility with regard to enforcement action, except where the building safety regulator is the building control authority.

In response to the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I can say we are introducing a system of oversight, registration and regulation, driving up standards across both public and private sector building control. The Bill introduces a new professional framework for which individual registration will be based on competence, subject to a code of conduct and sanctions where standards fall short. Registered building control approvers and building control authorities will need to obtain and consider the advice of a registered building inspector before carrying out certain building control functions and use a registered building inspector to undertake certain activities. This greater scrutiny and accountability will provide greater incentive to ensure all buildings, including non-higher-risk buildings, are safe. Our approach is proportionate to risk.

The new regulatory regime set out in the Bill and draft secondary legislation is proportionate to the level of risk potentially found in high-rise residential and other in-scope buildings. The Government have chosen to set the scope of the new more stringent regime at 18 metres or seven storeys, as we are committed to following this risk-based approach. Evidence from Dame Judith Hackitt has shown that, in general, the risk from fire increases with height. Through the Bill, the Fire Safety Act and further fire reform, we are working to protect all residents in buildings, regardless of height. Given these points, I hope your Lordships will agree that this amendment is not required.

Turning to Amendment 254, on sale of goods online, I reassure noble Lords that the Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring product safety, not only in relation to fire risk but also for the wider prevention of harm. As I set out in Grand Committee, existing product safety legislation applies to all products, whether sold online or offline. However, the Government also recognise that the rapid growth of e-commerce, particularly of third-party sales via online marketplaces, presents a significant challenge.

While I sympathise with the intention of the amendment, it represents only a partial response to the wider issue of unsafe products sold online. This illustrates that the Bill is not the best means of addressing the issue. The ongoing product safety review, which is examining the full range of consumer products and the role of online sales, is the more appropriate vehicle for meeting the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Foster. He mentioned the letter I wrote after Committee to electrical safety firms. As I said, we are planning a consultation on proposals for reform, which will be published not later this year, as previously stated, but later this spring. Once it is published, I will be happy to update the noble Lord and this House to ensure that concerns raised in this debate are fully reflected. I hope I have reassured the noble Lord.

Turning to Amendment 261, again I thank the noble Lord for raising this important matter and recognise his concerns about poor-quality homes. However, I am afraid that the Government will not be able to accept this amendment, as it pre-empts and duplicates work already being undertaken across government. As the noble Lord reminded the House, in 2017, the Government committed in The Clean Growth Strategy to improve as many homes as possible to EPC band C by 2035. Where practical, affordable and cost-effective, we are seeking to bring as many private rental homes as possible in line with EPC band C by 2030. The Government have now consulted on raising the energy performance standard in the domestic private rented sector to EPC band C and will be publishing our response in due course. I hope the noble Lord will take some comfort from this.

In the energy White Paper, we announced our intention to seek primary powers to create a long-term regulatory framework to improve the energy performance of homes, alongside a package of incentives. We have consulted with a wide range of stakeholders and will undertake further consultation on specific policy design before making secondary legislation. In the social housing White Paper, we pledged to review the statutory decent homes standard by 2024, to consider how it can better support decarbonisation and improve the energy efficiency of social homes.

We shall publish a White Paper in the spring to reform the private rented sector. Some £800 million was committed through the 2021 spending review for a social housing decarbonisation fund and, as further evidence of our intent, we also committed in the levelling up White Paper to explore proposals for new minimum standards in the social and private rented sectors. In the Net Zero Strategy, we reiterated our commitment to consulting on phasing in higher minimum performance standards to ensure all homes meet EPC band C by 2035 where practical, cost-effective and affordable. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government will deliver on all our commitments in this space, but I ask that he does not press this amendment.

Turning to Amendment 262, on staircase regulations, I thank the noble Baronesses for raising this important matter and other noble Lords for contributing to this debate, but I am afraid that the Government will not be able to accept this amendment.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, mentioned, my noble friend the Minister convened a meeting of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee on 16 March to seek its advice on this matter. I have the response from its chairman here. The Building Regulations Advisory Committee has advised that the Government should carry out a review of the statutory guidance, approved document K, focusing on section K1, which covers staircases. It also advised that it was more appropriate to deal with this issue through the building regulations and associated statutory guidance than in primary legislation. In his letter, Hywel Davies says that BRAC agrees that it is more appropriate to seek to address this problem through building regulations and associated statutory guidance than in primary legislation and recommends a focused review of ADK section 1. Further detail on the potential scope of the review of ADK is set out in annexe 1 of the letter.

The Government have accepted the advice of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee and will now put in motion a review of approved document K, focusing primarily on section K1. This review will run in parallel with the review already under way of approved document M, which looks at accessibility. This review will consult on raising the safety of staircases to that achieved by meeting the British Standard on staircases, BS 5395-1. I reassure noble Lords that this will be done as expeditiously as possible and certainly within the year. I assure the noble Baroness that this review will fully address her intention to consult on improving standards of staircase safety in England. I thank her for raising this important matter and assure her that it is being addressed by government.

Turning to Amendment 264, laid by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, I thank noble Lords for raising this important matter. As I assured them in Grand Committee, their intentions have been met in the Bill. Clause 10 requires the building safety regulator to establish the industry competence committee, which will oversee and monitor industry’s development of competence frameworks and training, undertake analysis to understand areas for improvement, and work with industry to drive gap-filling. The committee will provide reports of its work to the regulator periodically. The Health and Safety Executive has established an interim industry competence committee, which is developing its plan for supporting industry’s work, including understanding the current competence landscape. Training and certification of competent individuals is not a function of government or the regulator under this Bill. The industry needs to lead the work to improve competence, identify skills and capacity gaps, and provide appropriate training for its members, and has already started this work. The Government continue to monitor industry’s progress and will provide support where necessary.

Clause 152 legislates for the appointment, at least once every five years, of an independent person to carry out a review of the system of regulation for building safety and standards and the system of regulation for construction products. Importantly, the reviewer is not limited and may choose to review connected matters, which could include the built environment industry workforce. When defining “independent”, we have excluded those with a clear conflict of interest, without overreaching and excluding everyone with relevant experience. Given this explanation, I trust that noble Lords will agree that Amendment 264 duplicates many of the existing provisions in the Bill. With those reassurances, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed response. I was very pleased to hear her response to the amendment on staircase safety from the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. It is good that the Government are going to review this. I am sure noble Lords will keep the pressure on to make sure that that is done expeditiously.

Coming to my Amendment 15, again, I thank the Minister for her response. I am still concerned about the potential for a two-tier system and potential conflicts of interest, so I ask the Minister whether she could encourage the Government to monitor these issues once this becomes law to ensure that we do not end up with a system that does not work for all people. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for a brief Committee-style intervention, given the novel nature of the group of amendments we are looking at. I have two points.

First, I am very grateful for the agreement earlier to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best. I thank my noble friend for that but, as he knows, I am concerned about the position of leaseholders who are also involved in the hard task of managing even a small development as an enfranchised leaseholder. I have a family member with an interest in that area. What happens if a cladding or other building safety issue arises? I know that such leaseholders may face big bills and responsibilities. Amendments 186 to 193 appear to make enfranchised leaseholders of this kind liable even if they have ceased to act or sold out and become previous landlords. Have I understood this correctly? If I have, then it undermines the case for enfranchisement that has been encouraged by successive Governments to get rid of excess service charges.

Secondly, a strong case has been made for the non-government amendments in this group. I too have received many worrying letters from leaseholders. Do we have a feel for the cost, especially the net cost, of these Back-Bench amendments we are debating? I feel this is a matter that will be of concern in the other place, given current fiscal pressures, and might therefore determine what is eventually agreed in this important and urgent Bill.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate so far. In the interests of time, I will just speak to the two amendments I have in this group, and then I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s response to the broader debate and issues that have been raised, that were clearly also debated in Committee.

Amendment 231 is about a registered social landlord not being able to

“use the income from rents or service charges to rectify defects relating to external wall systems or compartmentations where those defects result from the construction of the property or the installation of the external wall systems.”

The amendment would prevent local authorities using rental income or service charges to pay to remediate dangerous cladding or other fire safety defects. The aim is to give social housing tenants the same protection as leaseholders. While we support the Government’s efforts to protect leaseholders from the cost of remediation, the arrangements currently being considered by Ministers will mean that the cost of remediating social housing blocks falls on housing associations and council housing revenue accounts.

In the case of council housing, the main sources of income within the HRA are from tenants, in the form of rent and service charges. If the cost of fixing council housing falls on the HRA, then either rents, service charges, or potentially both, will need to increase, or maintenance improvement of social housing as well as new social housing delivery will need to be cut back. That is our concern. We clearly support the protection of leaseholders, but the protection of home owners who will eventually make a profit from the sale of their property, cannot and must not come at the expense of social housing tenants. Our proposal would prevent that outcome and instead require the Government to protect tenants such as leaseholders by requiring the industry to pay, with the taxpayer as a fallback provider of funds in recognition of any failings that created this crisis in the first place.

We discussed my Amendment 22 in Committee. It states:

“The regulations must exempt any relevant application made by or on behalf of a registered social landlord for the provision of social housing as defined under section 68 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.”


The purpose behind this is to make social housing providers exempt from the additional financial burden of the Government’s proposed levy in order to prevent council tenants effectively subsidising the failures of private developers. Clause 57 of the Building Safety Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to impose a new building safety levy in England. This will contribute to government costs for remediating historical building safety defects and will apply to developers making application to the building safety regulator for building control approval. This is the new gateway 2 system, which will be introduced in building regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, in practical terms, we have a £5.1 billion fund, of which we have committed the first stage of £1 billion. We have an additional £4.1 billion for buildings over 18 metres and an additional £4 billion for cladding remediation, yet we are asking industry to fix its own buildings. That gives us the ability to focus on the few buildings my noble friend is talking about, because we have got the developers that built these buildings to go on and fix them in a proportionate way and we do not have to use the core of money that we already have. Noble Lords can test the opinion of the House, but that is a practical way of dealing with the problems—focusing the current funds on those few buildings where that scenario applies.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Before the Minister sits down, I thank him very much for his response to my Amendment 22. Could he just clarify something, so that I am completely clear on it? Was he saying that the Government will exempt social housing from the levy and that an SI will be brought in? If I am correct in my understanding, I would be grateful for a meeting to discuss the detail of what he proposes will happen.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

22: Clause 57, page 80, line 10, at end insert—
“(4A) The regulations must exempt any relevant application made by or on behalf of a registered social landlord for the provision of social housing as defined under section 68 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am very happy to accept the Minister’s assurance on this if we can have a meeting to follow up.

Amendment 22 not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, there are many amendments in this group, and I have concerns about the open-ended financial implications while it remains unclear who is responsible for a perpetrator who cannot be found, or who is beyond the reach of the law—thus the importance of the review that the Minister has, I believe, agreed to bring forward much sooner than five years’ hence, although, without my amendment, he would need another Bill if we have to make changes, which seems inevitable.

There have been many powerful speeches, not least from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. I will not repeat what has been said. I have, however, given my support to Amendment 123, and I would like to take the opportunity to commend my noble friend Lord Naseby who in Committee highlighted the unfairness of excluding buy-to-let premises from the safeguards in the Bill for reasons we have heard. The Government have acknowledged that he was right.

However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham that it is difficult to limit this arbitrarily to the ownership of two extra UK properties. I would prefer his formula of four properties, or some other, fairer system. He and others have worked so hard to get the various provisions of the Bill right. For example, he said that we may not have capped the liability of enfranchised leaseholders—which he and I have worked on together—as we had been led to believe in Committee.

I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s reply on the rationale and an answer to all the good points that have been raised, particularly on enfranchised leaseholders and how we do buy-to-let fairly.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an extremely important debate in which we have covered some of the critical issues still outstanding in the Bill. I thank the Minister for the introduction to the amendments. Many of them are good, but we believe there are still problems that need to be sorted out.

I will be brief. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his introduction to Amendment 115. If he decides to divide the House, he will have our support on that amendment.

I turn to my Amendment 155. It is really important that we take account of the principle that has been referred to by other noble Lords: there should be no cost to people who have done nothing wrong. It is not the fault of leaseholders that they have been left with these huge costs. We believe it is desperately unfair to force them to pay a penny, which is why my amendment has the word “zero” in it. As mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, we must not forget the strain on the mental health of leaseholders. They need clear and proper support, and they are relying on your Lordships to do the right thing by them. To me, this is a moral question. Should leaseholders pay costs that, for many, will still be huge despite the caps proposed by the Government? They are blameless; they should pay nothing.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for clearly laying out the legal position. It has been important for me to hear that from them, and the detail that they have provided, having had discussions with the Government on their concerns about the ECHR. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Blencathra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their support.

I confirm that I intend to divide the House on Amendment 155. If it fails to pass, I will be happy to support the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Young, on Amendment 158.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I spoke to the government amendments as I hoped it would assist the House to have the Government’s views. With the permission of the House, I will now speak again in reply to the points raised by noble Lords on the non-government amendments that they have tabled.

Amendments 155 to 160 and Amendments 162 to 163 deal with leaseholder contribution caps. I thank noble Lords for their contributions and constructive approach, but I am afraid that the Government will not be able to accept these amendments. It is important to bear in mind that leaseholder contributions apply only in certain circumstances, and even then, only when a series of other steps have been exhausted. The caps do not apply at all in relation to cladding defects, nor do they apply where the value of the flat is less than £175,000 outside Greater London and £325,000 inside.

The caps only apply where the building owner or landlord is not linked to the developer and cannot afford to pay in full, where the developer cannot be made to fix their own building, and where the building owners have exhausted all reasonable steps to recover costs from third parties. Leaseholder contributions will only apply where there is no clear developer or wealthy landlord to meet the costs in full, and the party responsible for defective work cannot be identified. The Government consider that this will occur only in a minority of circumstances.

Where there is no party that clearly should pay in full—and only then—our approach spreads the costs fairly and equitably across those with an interest in the building and ensures above all that the most vulnerable leaseholders are protected. The Government’s latest amendments go even further in protecting leaseholders. Where the freeholder or landlord is not at fault and cannot pay to meet the costs, we need to ensure a proportionate approach that takes into account the interests of all parties. That is why our approach spreads the costs equitably among all relevant parties with an interest in the building.

The amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Pinnock, and—

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

155: Schedule 9, page 227, line 14, leave out from “is” to end of line 17 and insert “zero”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would reduce the maximum amount leaseholders could be liable to pay for fire remediation work to zero.

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Tuesday 29th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, briefly, I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in his amendment on retention. I am not sure whether this is the right Bill for it but there is a problem that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. My only experience of it—I think it was a form of retention—was many years ago, in the early 1990s, when I had a derelict farmhouse and barns done up in Cumbria. About half way through the job, I said to the electrician, “You must be making a pretty penny out of this.” “Some hope”, he said, “it’ll be next year before I get paid and I’m fourth down the line.” I asked what he meant by that. He said, “The contractor said I’ll get paid for your job only when I have bid for three others and done them. Once I finish the third one, then they’ll pay me for yours.” I was appalled but he said, “Oh, that’s standard practice in the trade, guv, nothing we can do about it.”

I do not know whether that is standard practice in the trade, or whether it actually is retention, but it is a racket that ought not to continue. I hope that, at some time in the future—in some other legislation if not in this Bill—my noble friend the Minister will be able to crack down on that sort of racket. I know that there are views on both sides of this issue but it is not right at all because there are safety implications. The electrician was to get paid for the job he did for me only if he went in at a rock-bottom price to win three other jobs. That is a safety issue.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, turning first to Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, we agree that longer-term protections for residents’ safety are absolutely critical. His amendment also raises the importance of how we manage longer-term protections relating to fire safety.

Look at the government cuts to the fire service. Between 2010 and 2016, the Government cut central funding to fire and rescue services by 28% in real terms. In 2020, that was followed by a further cut of 15%. If the Government are really serious about tackling fire safety—there is a lot of good stuff in this Bill—they need to look at reversing those cuts to our fire safety organisations to make sure that they have the proper support they need to do the job that needs to be done.

Turning to Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, I assure him that, in principle, we support what he is trying to achieve. The issues that he raises are important. Health and well-being need to be considered in a lot of our legislation and we too often overlook it. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, introduced his Amendment 7 very ably, as he always does, and we certainly support in principle what he is trying to achieve with it. We have every sympathy with many of his practical suggestions for what could be done to improve things in this area.

Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, which he just clearly introduced, is particularly important given the areas that it includes and to which he referred. We had a long debate in Committee on the importance of the safety of staircases and making sure that the minimum standards are properly applied. We heard from many noble Lords about the RoSPA campaign and the number of people who die falling down staircases. This is an opportunity to do something about that.

We also had much debate in Committee on electrical certification and the importance of the safety of electricity systems. It is important that this also includes provision for disabilities. I am aware that the Government have introduced amendments on disabilities, but this is another opportunity to support that.

It is important that we have an amendment that looks at timely intervention—timely action—on safety issues. Grenfell was not the first time in recent years that a fire in a high-rise block of flats resulted in loss of life. In 2013, coroners wrote to Ministers about two separate fires: first, Lakanal House in Camberwell in 2009, in which six people died, and then Shirley Towers in Southampton in 2010, in which two firefighters died. The coroner’s letters included clear points of criticism and recommendations, which were not acted on. These also included retrofitting sprinklers into high-rise social housing blocks. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, includes the importance of sprinklers. The Lakanal House fire involved high-pressure laminate cladding, but that was not ordered to be removed from buildings until 2019—between 2009 and 2019 is 10 years.

It is important that when coroners, for example, or anyone who understands the safety of buildings writes to Ministers about genuine and serious concerns with actions that need to be taken, these are acted on in a timely way. That is why we strongly support Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell and, if he decides to divide the House on it, we will support him.

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

My Lords, I thought that it would be helpful to reflect on why the Bill is before us today. It is entirely driven by the Grenfell fire tragedy, which took place on 14 June 2017 and resulted in the largest loss of life in a residential fire since the Second World War. It was also the deadliest structural fire in the United Kingdom since Piper Alpha in 1988. As the Minister who has taken on responsibility for both building safety and fire, as Building Safety Minister in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Fire Minister in the Home Office, I have reflected on the factors that drove that outcome of such a loss of life. One of those was the corrosive construction industry culture that uses the sort of Spanish practices mentioned by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. I have had similar experiences in construction—we all have, to a greater or lesser extent. Anyone who has undertaken any kind of construction project knows that the margins are squeezed and the people you value, the tradesmen who are on the job, are often simply not paid. It is shocking.

But there are also two other reasons why that tragedy happened. The first was a regulatory system that is essentially broken, which is why we have the Bill to establish the new building safety regulator, which will then take on responsibility for building regulations. Secondly, there was an inadequate response on the night by fire and rescue services. The Home Secretary will shortly launch, and I will support her, a White Paper on fundamental reform of fire and rescue services.

A considerable amount of money has been invested in fire and rescue services in the past three years while I have been Fire Minister, particularly on fire protection. There had been a loss of skills in those people who were very capable of assessing the built environment in fire and rescue services, so we introduced a £30 million uplift to try to repair that. It is not just about numbers and investment; it is about ensuring that we have the right skilled people in our fire and rescue services. We will continue with further investments on fire protection because we recognise that we have to prevent fires from happening in the first place, but we also have to ensure that we build in a way that is safe both from a fire perspective and in every other sense of the word.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, first, we very much welcome the way the Government have moved on this. We appreciate that the Minister has aimed to build consensus for the changes and amendments that he has now brought forward. Several points have been made by noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lady Brinton, about gaps that remain and uncertainties about implementation. We look forward to hearing how the Government feel they can respond to those, if not by accepting specific amendments then at least by setting out a clear way of engaging with those who have legitimate concerns to find out how they can be best resolved.

On my own behalf, I thank the Government for government Amendments 10 and 11, which safeguard the building safety regulator’s committees from interference by the Secretary of State unless a request is made by the regulator to change the internal structures of the body. That is a necessary and very welcome change. Our overall view is that these government amendments earn our support—we certainly support their rapid implementation—but the loose ends that have been discussed by noble Lords and drawn to the Minister’s attention need attention. We very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to them.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for his introduction to a large number of government amendments. Like other noble Lords, I think it is really important that the Government listened to a lot of our debate in Committee and have brought forward these amendments, as well as others that we will discuss later, in response. It is good that we are making such excellent progress in some areas. I also thank the officials in the department, who have been incredibly supportive and helpful in spending time with me to help me understand the huge number of amendments we had to consider at quite short notice; I very much appreciate that work.

However, as the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said, there are still a few areas where people feel there is a bit more to be done; they are addressed by the amendments we have been looking at. I start with the three amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I was pleased to add my name to them, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. There was a lot of discussion in Committee about the need for disabled people to be more supported. I am pleased that the Government brought in amendments to strengthen the voice of disabled residents; that is extremely important.

Starting with Amendment 13, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned that 41% of the disabled people at Grenfell Tower were killed in the disaster, which is an appalling figure. Anything that can be done to ensure that something like that does not happen again in a fire is terribly important.

The noble Baroness also talked about the Equality Act on her Amendment 20. It is really important that we consider how building safety can affect different groups listed with protected characteristics under that Act. This could also include pregnant people, who may need more support in getting out of a building. As a protected characteristic, it is important that that is taken into account, as someone who is very elderly and vulnerable should be.

I am pleased that the Minister has offered the noble Baroness a meeting on her Amendment 35, on personal emergency evacuation plans, because this is really important. I was quite concerned that none of the Grenfell Tower residents had been offered a personal emergency evacuation plan. Again, we need to ensure that in future these things are better managed, so I thank the noble Lord for his time on that.

I turn to the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for introducing these amendments and look forward to his first sermon in the not-too-distant future, we hope. Again, these two important amendments draw attention to areas that need to be looked at further. Government Amendments 37, 38 and 41 to 45 look specifically at tenants’ associations and principal accountable persons. This was also much discussed in Committee, where it needed further work. I would like to talk a bit about the resident tenants’ associations because, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, they need to be more widely promoted. This is a really important part of managing safety going forward.

Recognised tenants’ associations give owners of leasehold flats important rights. To become recognised, an association must have agreement from more than 50% of qualifying leaseholders. They then have the right to request information from the freeholder of their block, such as about the service charge account, which again was discussed a great deal in Committee. It is really important that resident tenants’ associations are properly recognised and more widely promoted. Again, when looking at consultation, they are a vital part of understanding better what residents’ needs and concerns are.

I turn briefly to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. Her Amendment 36 raises the important issue that leaseholders need value for money. On her other amendments regarding entering buildings, it is important that tenants are properly protected in this way. Only when something essential is happening safety-wise can flats be entered, and it is really important to say that. I also welcome the fact that the government amendments remove the building safety manager. As the noble Baroness said, it was important that the Government listened to her clearly laid out concerns in Committee.

Along with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, we very much welcome the amendments to the building safety charge, and the fact that the Government have accepted the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, which will make a very sensible and practical change going forward, as he said. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I start with Amendments 13, 20 and 35, which relate to disability discrimination. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for tabling these amendments, but I am afraid the Government will not be able to accept them. However, we were all struck by the statistic that more than 40% of the disabled residents of Grenfell Tower died in that tragedy, and the Government are committed to supporting the fire safety of the vulnerable. We are particularly aware of the need to improve the safety of those with mobility concerns. As the noble Baroness mentioned, I have committed to meet with her and I have met with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on a number of occasions.

As noble Lords are aware, we ran a consultation on personal emergency evacuation plans last year. This highlighted the substantial difficulties in mandating PEEPs in high-rise residential buildings, especially around practicality, proportionality and safety. I shared some of our thinking, admittedly quite late before this debate, with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, because it is important to recognise that this thorny policy issue requires a considerable amount of work and collaboration with the fire and rescue service.

We will publish the Government’s response as soon as possible and explain these concerns in more detail. Our response will include a commitment to undertake a new consultation on this proposal for emergency evacuation and information-sharing—an EEIS. One of the things we learned about from the Grenfell Tower tragedy is the ability to locate people who are vulnerable and have mobility concerns, so that we can provide them with the support they need to safely evacuate those buildings where the “stay put” policy has been suspended. It is clear that information is critical. As are visits from the fire and rescue service to help advise them on how to make their properties that much safer. This is fundamental to ensure that we can provide the support that disabled residents require, so this EEIS proposal will give the fire and rescue service the information it needs on where people are located within higher-risk buildings that have a simultaneous evacuation strategy in place.

I completely agree—there is absolute unanimity on this—that accountable people must take all the appropriate steps to ensure that they comply with the law, not least in respect to protected characteristics. However, it is not clear what this amendment will achieve beyond the requirements that already appear in the Equality Act, which I will describe shortly.

Furthermore, an accountable person’s duty to manage building safety risks under the Bill extends to limiting their impact, should an incident involving the relevant building safety risks occur. This means accountable persons are already required by the Bill to consider how people might evacuate safely, if relevant to the building safety risk in question.

Amendment 13 would require the building safety regulator, in its statements of its engagement with residents, to outline the extent to which accountable persons have engaged with residents in relation to a duty to avoid disability discrimination by virtue of Amendment 35.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that disabled residents must be listened to and have their needs met. That is why we have tabled Amendments 3, 9 and 12, which require the building safety regulator to pay particular attention to the safety of disabled people in high-rise residential buildings. This includes seeking out disabled representation on its residents’ panel and publicly reporting on its engagement with the disabled residents of high-rise residential buildings. In relation to principal accountable persons’ proper engagement with disabled residents, it is clear that their responsibility to measure and review the effectiveness of their residents’ engagement strategy will apply to all residents, including those with disabilities.

On Amendment 20, activities relating to the exercise of a public function in the provision or management of public housing in relation to building safety will, depending on their nature and context, already be covered by specific parts of the Equality Act 2010. They may be within Part 3, “Services and public functions”, or Part 4, “Premises”. In other words, protection from discrimination, harassment and victimisation already exists for the users and residents of premises, irrespective of whether they are in public or private sectors, and subject to certain exceptions. A reasonable adjustments duty also arises in this field of activity.

Which part of the 2010 Act provides this protection will be case specific. The preliminary text of Part 3 provides that, if an act of discrimination, harassment or victimisation is made unlawful by other parts of the Act, including Part 4, which relates to premises, those provisions rather than those covering services and public functions apply. The depth or reach of protection between these two parts is broadly equivalent. Therefore, our conclusion is that Amendment 20 is unnecessary.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

15: After Clause 31, insert the following new Clause—
“Building safety and local authorities
The Secretary of State may amend the Building Act 1984 so that the duties imposed on the regulator by virtue of section 31 in respect of higher-risk buildings are imposed on local authorities that exercise building control functions in the area in which the building is located, in respect of buildings which are—(a) under 18 metres in height, and(b) comprise more than one dwelling.”

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 15 is about building regulations and safety measures. It would insert a new clause that states:

“The Secretary of State may amend the Building Act 1984 so that the duties imposed on the regulator by virtue of section 31 in respect of higher-risk buildings are imposed on local authorities that exercise building control functions in the area in which the building is located, in respect of buildings which are …under 18 metres in height, and … comprise more than one dwelling.”


I will give an overview of the amendment; we discussed this issue in detail in Committee so I will be fairly brief.

These two points will ensure that the more stringent building safety framework applies not just to buildings over 18 metres but to buildings under 18 metres where they are multi-occupancy dwellings. We believe that the Bill, in its original draft and as amended in Committee, fails to confirm robustly whether the gateway system will apply to buildings under 18 metres where they are multi-occupancy dwellings. The purpose of this amendment is to get that covered. If it is already covered, I would appreciate clarification from the Minister because we do not want to see a two-tier system where buildings under 18 metres have less rigorous safety regulations than those over 18 metres.

If the Government accepted this amendment then, to avoid issues with capacity that could arise for the building safety regulator—the Minister has discussed his concerns about this in previous debates—it would make the local authority the building control authority, not the building safety regulator. Local authority building control would then cover the operation of the gateway system at all heights below 18 metres.

The amendment also, importantly, removes developers’ ability to pick their own regulator for multi-occupancy buildings under 18 metres, because the local authority building control will then be the sole regulator, again preventing a two-tier system developing. It would also remove concerns raised by local authorities and others that the Government may fail, or take a long time, to expand the high-risk regime to include more buildings.

To sum up, the Hackitt report identified the ability of duty-holders to choose their building control body as a major weakness of the current regulatory regime. The Bill restricts the building control duties to the regulator for buildings within scope. The Local Government Association supports this amendment, which would address these issues. Prohibiting duty-holders of any residential building choosing their building control body would help to ensure a consistent standard, right across the board, and prevent conflicts of interest and a two-tier system. I urge the Minister seriously to consider the proposals in this amendment. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely, I invite her to speak.

Somerset (Structural Changes) Order 2022

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, this is the third and last of the SIs on structural changes we have been debating. I will be brief, as we seem to have been here for some time. I thank the Minister for his introduction and the noble Lord, Lord King, for giving the perspective of someone from Somerset. As always, it was helpful and useful to hear that. My credentials are that my husband is a Somerset boy—well, not such a boy anymore, but he is from Somerset.

I understand from the consultation that

“The Secretary of State has concluded … that the proposal for a single unitary council meets all three criteria and that the proposal for two unitary councils meets only the criterion on local support”,


not those on improving local government and being a credible geography. From looking at the consultation, it seems the people of Somerset supported a proposal for two councils. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the Minister mentioned the poll that was run by the four district councils, with a good number of people taking part—more than 100,000—of which 65.3% voted for the district council’s “Stronger Somerset” proposal, which would have created two councils, western Somerset and eastern Somerset.

As referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, Somerset County Council did not like that proposal. My understanding is that it described the poll as “deeply flawed” and “biased”, but the Member of Parliament for Bridgwater and West Somerset, Ian Liddell-Grainger, said that the Secretary of State “cannot afford” to ignore the poll. Could the Minister explain why the then Secretary of State ignored that poll? Did he agree with the county council that it was deeply flawed and biased? Will the Minister and the department assure the people of Somerset that their views in the consultation will not be ignored, and will be heard loud and clear in the transition phase to the new unitary authority? The people of Somerset need to be fully involved in the process at every stage. I hope the Minister can give specific assurances on this.

Noble Lords have said it is important for local people’s voices to be heard. Local decision-making must be part of any future structures. If the Minister could give reassurances on these matters, I would be grateful.

North Yorkshire (Structural Changes) Order 2022

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, because, as we heard from my noble friend, it will be very important for there to be devolution to parish and town councils—if they have the capacity to do so, which is one of the key challenges of this arrangement.

What concerns me about this statutory instrument, the previous one and the next one is that they are all about creating a convenient administrative unit. There is no mention in the instrument of the extent of the area covered, its population, its representation, nor a word about people, and we are talking about local government. People are at the heart of any local government: people who can have their voice heard, engage in influencing decisions, know their elected representative and can readily contact them. That is what local government is about, and there is no mention of it in the instrument.

For me, this is about creating efficient local government —whether it will be is a different matter. Whether it will be effective is a moot point. I know from long experience in local government that there is always pressure to make decisions at the expense of listening to the local voice, because that takes time and commitment, and can be difficult. That will be a challenge for North Yorkshire.

I understand that North Yorkshire and the local districts have considered the importance of devolving some decisions to the town councils, and to the area constituency committees being set up. That has been really good, compared with other reorganisations, and they are also setting up local networks to engage local businesses and other partners who deliver public services. That part of what is being done is positive, and I am pleased that where there are no town councils—Harrogate and Scarborough—we will have the chartered trustees referred to in the instrument.

I shall just mention Councillor Les. I worked with him years ago on Yorkshire matters, so he and I know each other, but I totally disagree with him about having a mayor for North Yorkshire. I do not think that will work, and the Government must think of a different way to devolve funding for strategic priorities to the unitary authorities they create such as this one.

The local government map is being reshaped in England bit by bit. There is a strategy somewhere that somebody in the department knows, because it is being eaten away gradually: getting rid of the district councils and replacing them with unitaries, whether they like it or not. The local is gradually being extinguished from local government in the name of getting an efficient—convenient, maybe—local administrative unit. In this case, I think a lot of thought has gone into how North Yorkshire might work, which I applaud. It will face huge challenges. I am not convinced that it will make for local government that listens to local voices and provides an effective response to what local people want for their area, but I hope it works, for the sake of the people who live in North Yorkshire.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister again for his introduction to this draft statutory instrument and other noble Lords for giving me so much in-depth information about North Yorkshire. It has been very interesting to listen to the debate.

I shall be brief and shall not repeat the questions that I asked earlier. As with the previously instrument, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee marked this one as being of interest, particularly around the concerns about the implementation of criteria in decision-making. The Minister went into that in his previous answer about Cumbria, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has talked about it, so I shall not go into any more detail.

One thing that has been particularly interesting in the debate, which is important in Cumbria as well, is the issue around identity. People talked about Ripon, Scarborough and Harrogate, and how different parts of North Yorkshire are distinct areas. The thing that I am interested in is how we ensure that they continue to have a distinct ownership of place and locality, as well as services. How can they have a genuine say in what is happening going forward, to ensure that, as we move from one council set-up to the new unitary, there is no democratic deficit? The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, talked about constituency committees, but I imagine that those are quite large groups. Of course, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, drew our attention to the fact that there were 159 district wards. That is a lot—and I imagine that there are probably more parish councils within that. It is important that powers are not just devolved up to the new body but that there is strong interplay between local communities and the new council being set up. That is something that has come across very strongly to me in the debate—that this is important to local people. I am sure that the Minister will have taken it on board.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, also talked about the importance of resources, which will obviously be critical, but I would also be interested to know whether there are any investments that need to be transferred or budget surpluses or debt that need to be consolidated. We know that local government has had serious cuts over the past decade, so there may well be debts that need to be resolved. I would be interested to hear about that from the Minister, and whether it is likely to cause any difficulties.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, also raised concerns about what could happen if there was a metro mayor for the area, and her concerns around the pressures put on local authorities and people that this is the route that they have to go down to get the sufficient resources and funding that everyone has been talking about. Having lived in rural Cumbria, I totally appreciate that having a metro mayor for a large rural area is not the same as having one for an urban area, and that really needs to be taken into account. I would be very interested in the Minister’s reply on that as well.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, seemed to imply that North Yorkshire was bigger than Cumbria in every way. I would just like to say that we have some rather large mountains. I am sure that, if we took all the area of the mountains into account, we would probably have more than North Yorkshire.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, this debate has shown a humongous knowledge of North Yorkshire. I remember a school visit to Scarborough and many conferences in Harrogate, but I have a fleeting knowledge of some of the places mentioned by noble Lords. I thank my noble friend Lord Jopling. In these debates, I have never had covering fire as effective as that provided by him, and I wish that he turned up to every statutory instrument that I had to deliver. I would ask him to please be here more often, with his forensic knowledge of every single part and corner of this country, from Cumbria to North Yorkshire. It is stupendous in every respect.

Noble Lords very helpfully said that there was unanimity of support from MPs representing constituencies in North Yorkshire for this proposal, and it is tremendously helpful to know that. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, it actually preserves the service delivery over a county-wide area and has an established local identity which is easily understood by residence. It maintains the brand of North Yorkshire. That is important as well, and I think it is recognised by the MPs who have been elected in constituencies within North Yorkshire. It also aligns with arrangements in existing public sector partnerships and will allow existing relationships and partnership working to be maintained without disruption.

Responding to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, when we hear a number such as 4,300, those are not individuals. Very often they are small, medium and large-scale organisations responding to the consultation. Of course we can always make consultations more effective, but we need to see individual responses from groups, not just the individual citizens of North Yorkshire.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for reminding me on the criterion of size that I was leader for only 16 years of my life in a terribly small London borough. She is always tremendously helpful in pointing these things out. We have a population approaching the size of Bern in Switzerland, and it has its challenges, but none the less, I agree with her that it is far smaller than North Yorkshire. The whole of Yorkshire, in aggregate, seems to envelope the vast majority of the north of England. All I will say is that Lancashire has definitely lost the Wars of the Roses when it comes to geography and scale.

However, the criterion is not simply around numbers. The criterion makes a specific point that a credible geography can be outside the 300,000 to 600,000 range if its population is a figure which, having regard to the circumstances of the authority, including local identity and geography, could be considered substantial. I am happy to set that out in writing if the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, wants to understand the issues, but there is a tolerance around the 300,000 to 600,000 figure, in essence. I do not need to write that out.

I enjoyed most the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, which pointed out the horrendous antagonism between Ripon and Harrogate. It is true. My father grew up in Derbyshire and pointed out that there is sometimes antagonism between Long Eaton and Ilkeston. That is just the reality of where we are. You can see it in any part of continental Europe as well; villages that abut each other are often big rivals. Dare I say that it was ever thus?

I thank again my noble friend Lord Jopling for his covering fire. He invoked the name of Councillor Carl Les, who I had not heard of, but I now know is leader of North Yorkshire County Council and is clearly known by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. His assurance that there is an intention to have that strategic authority but to devolve power and responsibility to town councils is incredibly helpful because the unitary will send that funding flow down to the town. Not every leader should be held at the centre. He has strong decentralising and devolutionary instincts, and it is tremendously helpful to have that assurance.

My noble friend Lady Pickering let me know that she would ask about the mayoralty. This order, in and of itself, allows a mayoralty to happen but does not impose it. I assure her that the introduction of a mayoral combined authority and devolved powers requires local support, but it is understood that any such move would require a full public consultation run by the area. A summary would then be submitted to the Secretary of State, who must be satisfied that there has been adequate consultation, so there is that proviso.

Cumbria (Structural Changes) Order 2022

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument, which is the first of three instruments on structural changes that we will discuss today. I have a particular interest in this instrument as it is about changes to the council structure in Cumbria, which is where I live. In fact, I live in the west, so I can vouch for its complete inaccessibility, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. It is another issue that we should return to another day. I was a member of Cumbria County Council alongside my noble friend Lord Liddle.

I am sure that the Minister is aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee marked this and the two other draft statutory instruments we are going to discuss as instruments of interest, because some questions remain on the criteria for the approval of unitarisation. The Explanatory Memoranda set out the feedback received during consultation on the different proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, noted that according to the Government this should be locally led and command a good deal of local support. The Explanatory Memoranda show that not all chosen proposals received majority support from local residents during consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, mentioned his concerns about the consultation on these proposals. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are properly applying the criteria when making decisions on new unitary authorities?

The area where concern has been expressed is about local support for the proposals. I am not particularly convinced that there has been genuine public enthusiasm for the proposals in Cumbria. My noble friend Lord Liddle eloquently expressed, in great detail, the concerns about splitting the county in two and the impact it will have on critical services such as education, social care, children’s services and highways, all of which are in need of greatly improved resources and support.

In his introduction, the Minister reminded noble Lords that the Government were presented with four proposals and eventually went with the east/west proposal we have been discussing, which creates two unitary authorities, one in the east and one in the west of the county. He also said that the east/west proposal received “some support”. But it did not receive support from the majority of respondents to the local consultation; only the proposal for the Bay did that. We have heard what that would do so I will not go into the details.

Basically, the residents did not believe that the east/west proposal offered a reasonable geography, which is one of the criteria for the creation of a unitary authority set out by the Government. The Government’s criteria also state that successful proposals need to deliver good public services and improve local governance, yet the residents who were consulted did not all believe that this was the right proposal for Cumbria in that regard. My noble friend Lord Liddle talked about the concerns around delivering public services well in Cumbria, after dividing the county into two unitaries.

The parish and town councils were also more in favour of the proposal for the Bay than others, with 28% saying that it would improve services. Even among local businesses that proposal was more highly favoured than the east/west proposal, because it was felt that it had the most credibility when it came to geography— another criterion that the Secretary of State looked at. So I ask the Minister: why was an option chosen that received less support and was not felt by a majority of local people to fulfil the Government’s criteria?

My noble friend Lord Liddle mentioned the fire service. This is particularly important when it comes to Cumbria because, unlike in most areas, fire and rescue services are still delivered by the county council. The Fire Brigades Union is particularly concerned about how this will affect the responsibilities of the fire and rescue service, and about funding pressures and the potential cuts the service might face due to restructuring, as it might have to be divided between the two new unitary authorities.

I know that DLUHC has said that further secondary legislation will be brought forward once a decision has been made on this. The Government have said that they intend to maintain the fire service on a county-wide basis, subject to local consultation. It would be really helpful if the Minister could expand on this and provide an update. If he does not have that now, it would be good if we could all be kept in touch with that as those proposals go forward. As noble Lords have said, there is not a lot of time. We are on a fairly tight timescale.

Before I talk briefly about the issue I discussed with the Minister earlier today, I say that I am particularly interested to hear his response to the different concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Liddle.

Finally, I discussed with the Minister earlier—and I thank him for his time and attention in this matter—the concerns that there is a significant omission in the order, in that it would mean that Carlisle would lose its city status. A similar order has been laid that abolishes the district and county councils in North Yorkshire and establishes the North Yorkshire unitary authority. My concern is that these have been set up differently. The former MP for Carlisle, Eric Martlew, drew this to our attention, and I thank him for that.

Carlisle has a rich history and has enjoyed the title of city since 1133. Its original charter was lost in 1292, when much of the city was destroyed by fire, but a new royal charter was granted in 1352 by Edward III. I am sure noble Lords can appreciate Carlisle’s rich history but, because it is an unparished area, there is no parish or town council for Carlisle’s charter to pass to when this legislation comes into force. So the options open to Carlisle are to either form a town council or create charter trustees, so that the city charter can pass to them and it does not lose that status.

I thank the Minister for confirming that charter trustees will be appointed and that Carlisle will not lose its city status. My concern with this, which I raised with the Minister earlier, is that where this issue arose with regard to the change order for North Yorkshire, and the rights and privileges held by Harrogate and Scarborough, to ensure that their charters remained, the structural changes order for North Yorkshire, which we will debate next, makes specific provision for charter trustees in the unparished areas of Harrogate and Scarborough, thereby ensuring that

“any historic rights and privileges associated with those local government areas which will be abolished can be maintained and vest in the Charter Trustees for the relevant area where there is no parish or town council.”

Again, I thank the Minister for his attention. Is the reason why they are different just an admin error? I am interested to know why they have been set up differently. I planned to ask for this statutory instrument to be withdrawn until this was corrected, but I am happy to take the Minister’s assurances at the Dispatch Box that Carlisle will not lose city status, which were extremely helpful. Can he also confirm that a confirmation order will be laid to set up the charter trustees, as he explained to me earlier? It is important that the historic rights and privileges of the city of Carlisle are maintained when the city council is abolished.

Local Government (Disqualification) Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 4th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall be brief and begin by confirming that the Labour Party fully endorses this proposed legislation. I also pay tribute to Sir Paul Beresford for promoting this important Bill in the other place and to the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, for sponsoring it in your Lordships’ House. As my noble friend Lady Goudie just said, it is also supported by the Local Government Association.

As we have heard, as it currently stands, sex offenders who avoid a custodial sentence are not disqualified from running for local government positions in England and Wales. We know that people often seek out elected representatives when they are at their most vulnerable and in deepest crisis. Those of us who have held such office, whether at council level or here, know that we see more vulnerable people than we would really like to and, importantly, we can vouch for being that support and backdrop for thousands of people, day in and day out.

As legislation, the Bill is very specific and small but, if passed, will have a huge impact because it will close the loophole that allows sex offenders to hold respected positions where they will have contact with these vulnerable people. I am particularly concerned about children in care, whom councillors are expected to protect. The noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, rightly said that, if this goes through, it will strengthen our democracy.

I also pick up the important point made by my noble friend Lady Goudie and the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, about needing consistency across all elections when we are choosing our representatives. It is only right that the representatives elected to carry out these important roles are fit and proper people. As the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, said, they should embody the values of public life. It is unacceptable that a small loophole in existing legislation means that people who should be looking out for the most vulnerable are in a position where we might still doubt that that is the case. It is important that the change to disqualification criteria is made in relation to all representations, with a particular focus on those who act as corporate parents, as councillors often do. Labour fully supports the Bill and is pleased that the Government are taking it forward.