Fire Safety Bill
Baroness Pinnock ExcerptsTuesday 17th November 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 View all Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 132-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (12 Nov 2020)
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, although I certainly agree with the thrust of Amendment 5, it is Amendment 6, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that I really wish to address.
Many of my years in the property profession have been spent in survey inspections, with a spell in estate agency and mortgage valuations and brief periods in block management, and I have spent a good deal of time on the forensic identification of defects. Therefore, I feel reasonably well qualified to support the noble Baroness, and I thank her for raising this important issue, which affects the residential sector. Rightly, she referred to the indirect effect of the Grenfell tragedy. That is a matter on which I have been in constant contact with the Chartered Association of Building Engineers, of which I am a patron and which has been very helpful in identifying various matters in respect of the Bill.
As the noble Baroness said, the effect on the residential market for flats in particular, and over a very broad spectrum by age and type, is now apparent. This has affected security for mortgage lending, exacerbated by the prospect of large and, as the noble Baroness said, unquantified remediation bills. Some sort of game of pass the parcel seems to be in train as to who will end up picking up those bills. It affects buildings insurance cover and premiums, and interim measures such as “waking watch” are racking up huge costs. These and the likely shortfall, as I see it, in the provision for remediation made by the Government—welcome though that is, but nevertheless there is a shortfall as against the widening scope of the buildings that might ultimately be affected—have seriously affected the ability to sell flats. It is not clear that this is in any way confined to high rise, as I am increasingly aware, as one of my children attempts to sell a flat in a four-storey modern and, I believe, conventionally constructed block.
A few days ago, a lady emailed me to say that she is a resident of a sister block to the one in Worcester Park which burned down last year. She is completely stuck with a currently worthless asset and no apparent movement on remediation. The latest Sunday Times carried an article about this, graphically illustrating the issues and defects that have been found to be present in a number of remaining identical buildings that are still standing.
Before this gets yet more problematic and starts affecting potentially a far wider range of properties than at present, the Government need to use their powers and influence to get all the interested parties round a table—constructers, lenders, insurers—and point out, as the noble Baroness said, the reputational as well as economic and social damage that needs to be contained beyond the issue of direct liability and who shoulders that, and require their active co-operation to resolve this in a constructive manner and not leave vulnerable homeowners, to put it bluntly, hung out to dry.
I appreciate the criticism of the EWS1 form, but it came about because of a particular need to do with mortgage lending. It is now being required for a much wider range of purposes, for which it was never intended. Why? Because it was the only tool available. The Government could step into this obvious void and make sure that some other form of certification solution was provided. But they, or somebody else, would have to take responsibility for that, and I realise that that is an issue. Meanwhile, the potential liabilities make it ever less likely that those without specific accreditation to do the necessary inspections will be willing to undertake such work and, indeed, they may not be able to get professional indemnity insurance either.
The Government need to get ahead of the curve here. If these measures are rushed into effect with full force immediately and without additional steps, there will be more serious disruption and collateral damage to come. I suggest there be a phased and managed approach aimed at containing the ill effects, restoring trust and confidence, above all, in the measures being put in place and limiting financial loss while dealing, most importantly, with the most pressing issues where residents’ safety is at the greatest peril. None of this is without risk; nor is the normal “Not my responsibility, guvnor” liability-passing response appropriate in these abnormal times, given the number of national issues we face and the effect on the wider economy.
This means temporary but probably arbitrary cut-offs, probably in height terms—11 metres may be the right figure for blocks of flats—perhaps with certain other definitions, then dealing with those and drawing the net more widely later on and inevitably, as one will, picking up legacy issues from older regulatory sign-offs on the way. Some sort of lower-tier interim certification, which the noble Baroness referred to, perhaps by a non-specialist, would enable low-risk properties to escape the contagion that might otherwise engulf the sector. I wonder if this is what the Minister will propose in Amendment 7. I will listen with great interest to his response.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests, as recorded in the register, as a councillor in Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I turn first to Amendment 6, through which the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has raised concerns about the inclusion of all multi-occupied domestic premises within the scope of the Bill. The issues raised relate to leaseholders who find that they are, in effect, unable to move as their property is within the scope of the Bill and, therefore, that the fire risk exists but is not quantified. The later amendment in my name explores these issues in more detail.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, spoke on behalf of the Minister and confirmed that the Government intend that all multi-occupational buildings are within the scope of the Bill and the fire safety order 2005. He also argued in Committee that the height of a building is only one factor in assessing fire risk, and others have given recent examples of fires in such buildings that support that argument. The issue, then, is about prioritisation, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has so expertly explained, and what actions the Government are able to take to minimise the impact on properties deemed low priority and, therefore, presumably of lower risk. It is that issue that the Minister needs to clarify. Will the Government bring forward regulations or guidance to demonstrate the criteria to be used to fire assess properties? Can these be used by leaseholders to demonstrate low risk, and thus release their property from being frozen out of the housing market? I look forward to the Minister’s response to these concerns.
The other amendment in this group, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raises issues about consultation. It lists consultees, as a very similar amendment did in Committee. My colleagues and I are always in favour of the widest possible consultation on any issue. However, there is an inherent risk in a list that becomes exclusive while intending to be inclusive. The list of consultees is one which we would expect, however, to be involved in all relevant consultations. As my noble friend Lord Shipley said, the list is inherently sensible, so I hope the Minister will be able to accept such a list. Again, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for raising the issue of engagement to make sure the right groups and organisations are consulted on any changes or clarifications to the types of premises that fall within the scope of the fire safety order. The Government have given this matter further consideration since Committee stage. I support the noble Lord’s aim of ensuring that the widest range of groups are given an opportunity to comment. It is sensible to seek views from all groups impacted by any future changes, which is why Clause 2 of the Fire Safety Bill provides a requirement to consult anyone appropriate, which is likely to include all the parties highlighted in the amendment.
Robust policy-making can be achieved only by reaching out to all sections of the fire sector and other interested parties, such as responsible persons and residents, not by relying solely on the expertise of certain groups. To be clear, of course we will consult with the National Fire Chiefs Council but equally, we will consult with the Fire Brigades Union and with tenants’ and residents’ associations.
The Government are committed to considering the most appropriate means of conducting any future consultation before making any regulations—regulations which Parliament would have an opportunity to scrutinise, should it so wish. It remains the case that the specified list as presented identifies groups whose role, name or function may change over time, potentially creating the need for future primary legislative changes or making such provision ineffective. However, the Bill as drafted safeguards against this while ensuring that relevant groups are not excluded. I want to assure your Lordships’ House that we recognise the importance of consulting relevant stakeholders, but the wording of Clause 2 already allows us to do just that, without the need to be prescriptive in the way the noble Lord’s amendment suggests.
I turn now to the very important consumer issues raised by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. I had a meeting with my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Shinkwin, and I am very happy to commit to a further meeting before the introduction of the building safety Bill. These are huge consumer issues, and I praise my noble friend for being a champion of the consumer. We recognise that many leaseholders’ properties have been valued at zero, they are waiting for remediation of their properties and they are unable to remortgage or to move. They are effectively trapped, and the Government recognise that that is a considerable issue for them. We also recognise that the costs of historic building safety and fire safety remediation will be considerably more than the £1.6 billion already committed. It is important to address that in a way that is affordable to leaseholders, and there are only certain ways of doing that. We will make announcements on that in due course.
Equally, we recognise that the pace of remediation is important. I have talked to many people in the social housing sector about the fact that they have probably overspent on waking watch. I am very pleased that we provided guidance on waking watch, the cost of which is exorbitantly high; it can be replaced by a fire alarm system within six or seven weeks, which reduces some of the costs of interim measures. I draw the attention of those using waking watch for extended periods to the most recent guidance from the National Fire Chiefs Council and the work on waking watch costs. I am very happy to commit to a further meeting.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, has withdrawn from speaking to this group of amendments so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, these government amendments, as described, seek to clarify what evidence of culpability, in relation to compliance with the regulations, is required. The very fact that government amendments have been tabled to the Bill at this late stage shows the importance and value of the scrutiny work of this House.
As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has just said, a risk-based approach is essential to ensuring that high-risk buildings are prioritised and to calming financial sector fears. The timing of the publication of the guidance to which the Minister has referred is vital if the implementation of the changes in the Bill, and the guidance, are to take effect as soon as possible. These are important additions to the Bill, and we support them.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Stunell. There have been—and still are—legislative opportunities for the Government to act. When the Minister sums up, I hope that he will urgently clarify the Government’s plans.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, said in introducing this group, progress has been disappointingly slow. He went on to say that it is “beyond belief” that, three years after the Grenfell fire, action is so slow. He is absolutely right. The general public will become increasingly worried by the deeply disturbing revelations of the Grenfell inquiry.
This amendment seeks to implement recommendations made in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry phase 1 report. Surely that is the right thing to do as a matter of urgency. This new clause would clarify the duties of an owner or manager in relation to a building with two or more sets of accommodation to provide information on its construction to a local fire and rescue service. Secondly, it would introduce annual inspections of individual flat doors. This is an essential change, given recent experience and the growth of our knowledge about the state of so many entrance doors. This clause would also require monthly inspections, and for evacuation and fire safety instructions to be shared with the building’s residents. What on earth can be wrong with these proposals?
There is nothing in this amendment which should be surprising or problematic. Frankly, the general public would expect nothing else. If the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, decides to press this matter to a vote, I shall certainly support him.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, this amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is fundamental to the effective implementation of the principles of this Bill. The role of the responsible person is one of the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry phase 1 report which was published more than a year ago. I quote from the recommendations in the report:
“No plans of the internal layout of the building were available to”
the London Fire Brigade
“until the later stages of the fire … It should be a simple matter for the owners or managers of high-rise buildings to provide their local fire and rescue services with current versions of such plans. I therefore recommend that the owner and manager of every high-rise residential building”—[Inaudible.]
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am afraid that we are having a little trouble with the noble Baroness’s connection. If she turns off her camera, perhaps that will help with the audio feed.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
The report continued:
“I therefore recommend that the owner and manager of every high-rise residential building be required by law:
a. to provide their local fire and rescue services with up-to-date plans in both paper and electronic form of every floor of the building identifying the location of key fire safety systems;
b. to ensure that the building contains a premises information box, the contents of which must include a copy of the up-to-date floor plans and information about the nature of any lift intended for use by the fire and rescue services.”
So last year, the Grenfell inquiry report asked for the speedy introduction of these recommendations. A year later, we are waiting.
I know that the Government have stated a firm commitment to implementing the recommendations of the inquiry, and the amendment seeks to rectify this absence of government legislative action. As my noble friend Lord Stunell so wisely said, we all agree that this action needs to be taken and we are all impatient for it to be put in place.
The Government said that this was a high priority. However, even the building safety Bill is silent on the matter. How then can we be assured that it is a high priority for them? Here we have an opportunity to show intent, as a consequence of that tragic fire at Grenfell, to ensure that others do not endure what Grenfell residents endured. If the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, pushes this amendment to a vote, we on this side will vote in support of this vital change.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the Grenfell Tower fire was a tragedy of epic proportions. It was the largest loss of life in a residential fire since the Second World War. We have to recognise that a lot has happened and that a lot of actions have been taken by the Government since that event over three years ago.
The Government took early and decisive action to announce an independent Grenfell Tower inquiry. They took decisive action to start the Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety, led by Dame Judith Hackitt, and they took decisive action to establish the building safety programme. The Government took decisive action in setting up a comprehensive aluminium composite material—ACM—remediation programme. They took decisive action in setting up an independent expert panel to provide advice to government and building owners. They took decisive action in providing £600 million to help with the remediation of ACM high-rises. They took decisive action in providing a further £1 billion to remediate high-rises with other forms of flammable cladding. They took decisive action to ban combustible cladding on buildings within the scope of the ban. The Government took decisive action in introducing a protection board.
I accept that the pace of remediation has been slow, but I point to the progress that has been made this year in particular. This was a year when we had a global pandemic with two national lockdowns, and nevertheless we have seen a considerably greater number of on-site starts in those buildings—high-rises with the same cladding as Grenfell—and we are on track to see that around 90% of buildings will either have had the cladding removed or people will be on-site to complete that in a matter of months. That is real progress. This is cross-party; I thank Mayor Burnham, and Mayor Khan in London, but also the local authority leaders for their work to make sure that there has been real pace in the remediation this year. It is not easy to continue these construction programmes in that sort of environment.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for the amendment on the duties of an owner or manager. It is important that we discuss this amendment given the attention it has already received in the other place and in Committee in your Lordships’ House. I know that the noble Lord and other noble Lords have strong views on this issue and wish to see the Grenfell inquiry’s recommendations implemented as soon as possible. I share that intention. However, the Government do not consider that this amendment provides the most effective means of giving effect to the inquiry’s recommendations.
I hope to reassure the noble Lord that our shared objective can be achieved without the need for his amendments, which may in fact work against the swiftest possible implementation of the recommendations. I reiterate, as I said in my all-Peers letter and in Committee in your Lordships’ House, that the Government are, and always have been, committed to implementing and, where appropriate, legislating for the inquiry’s recommendations. This was a manifesto commitment and I am determined to ensure that we deliver on it.
I will set out our approach on this issue. It is right that we consulted before making regulations to deliver the Grenfell recommendations. As I set out in Committee, this was not solely because we have a statutory duty to do so—but we do, and this amendment is not in keeping with that duty. It also reflects Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s own view on the need to ensure broad support for recommendations and an understanding of the practical issues associated with implementing them. Our 12-week public consultation, which closed on 12 October, is allowing us to do just that. I am pleased to say that over 200 responses were received. It is important that we consider carefully those responses before finalising the precise policy detail to implement these new duties. Due consideration has to be given to the views of those who have submitted a response to the consultation.
I will highlight an example of that. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord prescribes a minimum set period for checks of both fire doors and lifts. As we consider our responses to the consultation, other approaches may be suggested that may provide more practical and proportionate options which are no less effective. The amendment may hinder our ability to deliver what may be a better solution for the safety of residents. I hope that is not the noble Lord’s intention, but I ask him to reflect on that fact. Understanding and acting on the consultation responses will ultimately help us to produce better, informed legislation, which we will deliver through regulations under the fire safety order as soon as possible after the Bill is commenced.
I reiterate that this amendment is not necessary and will not speed up the legislative process. It requires us to make regulations to amend the fire safety order to introduce new duties on the face of the order, but we consider that we already have the ability to implement such new duties through the power in Article 24 to make regulations, which we plan to use to implement a number of the Grenfell inquiry recommendations. Our intention is to introduce these regulations as soon as possible after the Bill is commenced.
I am also concerned about the impact of the misleading media coverage—even in recent media coverage written by Pippa Crerar that quotes the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark—after this amendment was voted on in the Commons on the Grenfell community’s faith in our commitment to deliver the Grenfell recommendations. I reassure the Grenfell community that the Government remain absolutely steadfast to their manifesto commitment to implement the inquiry’s recommendations.
I think that all noble Lords are seeking the same thing—the swift implementation of the Grenfell inquiry’s recommendations—and that is what the Government are committed to. While I understand the spirit of the amendment, it will not do that and may risk undermining our efforts. As such, I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, between them my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, have shown how complex this situation is and why we need much greater clarity to ensure that such premises as are referred to in this amendment are covered by the fire safety order and everything that flows from it.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I have considerable anxiety at the way in which the Airbnb model has mushroomed—Airbnb itself and other less identifiable organisations and individuals. Flats in both private and social housing have effectively become short-term let premises, with a continuous rotation of people moving in and out. I have, in other contexts, frequently in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who raises this frequently, been concerned for wider reasons, such as the effects on the housing market, environmental concerns. But in this context, there is also a safety concern.
The leaseholders, who are normally the owners of these flats, have quite frequently decided to make a business out of them. In terms of social housing, it has quite often been the people who have inherited what were once right-to-buy flats, or have bought them and turned them into a business. I have queried on previous occasions whether that is strictly legitimate, and quite what the role of the tax authorities is in this area, but in this context we are talking about safety. I am aware that in some of those flats, the leaseholders, sometimes in conjunction with the organisers of short-term lets, have changed the format of those flats—in effect dividing them up, increasing the number of bedrooms and, in some cases, knocking down walls and changing layouts, thereby compromising firewalls. More frequently, to allow for multi-occupancy, and in some cases for such things as disco equipment—because some of these flats are used not so much for tourist families but for parties and worse—the electrical systems are altered to cater for that clientele.
The requirements that would normally be on the owners to inform the occupants of the safety provisions and evacuation procedures, and to provide for detection instruments—smoke alarms, et cetera—are not observed in the often radical conversion to a different purpose than that of being a family home. If such premises can be seriously and dangerously subdivided, then there is a real risk here.
We have to be clear whose responsibility it is. In most cases, the responsibility is on the leaseholder, or it may be on whoever is supposed to inform the occupants of the safety provisions. Either way, if, for example, you are in a large block and a few of the flats in it are let by Airbnb or similar, you are a danger to the rest of the occupants. It is once again necessary, irrespective of the form of tenure, to ensure that all temporary as well as permanent inhabitants are made safe and do not impact on the safety of other families and occupants in neighbouring flats. It may be complex, but the outcome and intention are clear. We need clarity, consistency and to make sure that such premises are safe and covered by the legislation.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raised important concerns about the application of fire safety legislation to properties that are, in part or in whole, let as holiday lets. It was unfortunate that the Government were not able to return on Report with a comprehensive response in the form of a government amendment, which would have accepted that there is confusion about the applicability of the legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has rightly raised these concerns again. What must not happen is that the growing sector of short-term lets falls into a grey area of the legislation, and that the Government wait for a serious fire incident to accept that omissions need to be closed.
The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, has provided expert legal advice on this matter, which demonstrates that there is a gap in the legislation. It is complicated, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, explained. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, raised further concerns about potential subdivisions of dwellings. However, the amendment proposes a way forward to close a gap that all noble Lords agree exists in the fire safety extent of the current and proposed legislation. I will listen carefully to what the Minister says in reply and I hope that he seizes the opportunity to put this matter right. I look forward to his response.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Mendelsohn, for raising again this important issue—the treatment of short-term accommodation and holiday lettings under the fire safety order—just as they did in Committee. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Like them, I want to ensure that anybody staying in short-term or holiday accommodation is assured that their premises fall within the scope of fire safety legislation, and that there is a requirement on the owner to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that they are safe from the risk of fire during their stay.
The noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Mendelsohn, mentioned the Do You Have Paying Guests? guidance that the Government issued. That was published in 2008 and is being updated, not least—as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said—because of the growth of this type of short-term letting that we have seen since then. As part of that update, we have consulted many in the tourism sector, including Airbnb and similar platforms. It might reassure noble Lords to know that Airbnb has provided advice to its hosts in the past, including a leaflet that was drafted in partnership with the National Fire Chiefs Council, giving tips for those who use that platform on how to comply.
Turning to the law, the fire safety order applies to non-domestic premises. The responsible person for each premises is required to undertake a fire risk assessment and put in place adequate and appropriate precautions to manage the risk of fire to those lawfully on the premises. The question here is whether domestic premises, when let through peer-to-peer online platforms or similar means, continue to be domestic premises. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for sharing the legal advice that he cited in Committee and again today on this point.
Richard Matthews QC submits that, if they are let as holiday accommodation, domestic premises do not necessarily cease to be domestic premises. A fire safety order would therefore not apply. As I explained in Committee, we had a different interpretation of the definition of domestic premises in Article 2 of the fire safety order but, as we said we would, we have taken the points raised by noble Lords and Mr Matthews on board and carefully considered them. To that end, the Home Office sought further legal advice, which acknowledges the points made by Mr Matthews and noble Lords that this is a complex issue with some legal ambiguity. That we are having this debate makes that point forcefully.
I hope I reassure noble Lords by setting out that the ambiguity is not a matter of arguing that either all or none of the premises are within the scope of the fire safety order, but that they must be considered case by case. I agree that ambiguity on such an important issue as this is not helpful. We want to ensure that fire safety legislation is clear, robust and properly protects the public. It is clear that further consideration of the points that noble Lords have raised is needed to ensure that the fire safety order captures the various types of premises let through peer-to-peer or similar platforms in a workable, practical and fair way.
Given the complexity of that undertaking, we do not believe that this Bill is the right vehicle through which to resolve it. It will, quite rightly, require consultation with interested parties, in both the fire safety and the tourism sectors. Doing that would delay the passage of the Bill, but we agree with noble Lords that that work needs to be done and I am happy to commit to undertaking it. I hope that noble Lords who have spoken today will continue to work with us as we do that, and that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, feels able to withdraw his amendment as a result of that reassurance.
Baroness Pinnock
“Public register of fire risk assessments
(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision for a register of fire risk assessments made under article 9 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) (risk assessment). (2) Those regulations must provide that the register is—(a) publicly available, and(b) kept up-to-date.(3) Regulations under this section are—(a) to be made by statutory instrument; and(b) subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would enable prospective and current renters, leaseholders and owners to check the fire safety status of their home, by accessing a public register similar to the EPC register.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 10, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shipley, seeks to establish the provision, in law, of a public register of fire risk assessments. I will speak also to Amendment 11 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stunell, which seeks to establish a public register of fire risk assessors. Amendment 12 in this group, in the name of my noble friend Lord Stunell, is on permitted developments. My noble friend will be speaking about this in detail. I say at the outset that the Liberal Democrats support the Bill wholeheartedly but feel that there are opportunities for improvement, some of which are within the amendments in this group.
I thank the Minister very much for the opportunities that he has provided to discuss these and other amendments. They have been very useful, and we have been able to talk around some of the issues raised.
I turn to Amendment 10. Energy performance certificates are mandatory and open for potential home- owners to view. EPCs are now an accepted part of house buying and renting, and that requirement is having a significant impact on home energy improvements. Why, then, cannot the same process be used for an issue that can literally be one of life and death?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may recapitulate. We return to Amendment 10. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is now on the line and very much in presence. I call on her to make her remarks and to indicate whether she intends to press her amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
I thank noble Lords for that brief wait while technical glitches were sorted out, and I thank everyone who has contributed to our debate on these important issues of public transparency and accountability in terms of fire safety. I especially thank my noble friend Lord Stunell for his knowledgeable and powerful argument, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his expert input. I assure him that I totally accept the detailed points that he raised and, if we have an opportunity for this amendment regarding public registers for assessments, I am sure that they will be properly considered, and in detail.
I listened carefully to the Minister and I thank him for being so clear in his response to these amendments. I heard him accept the need for, and principle of, transparency in supporting fire safety. Unfortunately, he was unable to go on to say that the Government would accept a register of fire safety assessments so that people can see the issues relating to the properties they live in. He said that householders could ask for fire assessments, but they would have to be on request. I reflected that that would not work well for the residents of Grenfell, who repeatedly raised issues of fire safety and were unable to be heard. A public register would have given huge strength to the concerns that they raised.
Given that the Minister has, unfortunately, been unable to give me an assurance that the Government will provide for a public register for fire safety assessments, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Pinnock
“Prohibition on passing remediation costs on to leaseholders and tenants
(1) The owner of a building may not pass the costs of any remedial work attributable to the provisions of this Act on to leaseholders or tenants of that building.(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a leaseholder who is also the owner or part owner of the freehold of the building.”Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this new Clause is to prevent freeholders passing on remediation costs to leaseholders and tenants, such as through demands for one-off payments or increases in service or other charges.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, many tenants and leaseholders in blocks with cladding that is now known to be a serious fire hazard find themselves in a very bleak place indeed. This amendment seeks to address that. Leaseholders have purchased flats in good faith with building surveys, mortgage insurance and building warranties in place. They have done the right thing. Now, through no fault of their own, they are being threatened with additional service charges of several hundred pounds each month to pay for the so-called waking watch, a 24/7 in-person lookout for potential fires. On top of that, they are being asked to fund the considerable costs of remediation work to remove the dangerous cladding and replace it with a safer system. Figures I have seen for some of this work run to tens of thousands of pounds. How are leaseholders, who already have a hefty mortgage, supposed to afford, say, an additional £40,000 bill for the remediation work?
During the debate on an earlier amendment, the Minister referred to leaseholders being asked to pay only affordable costs. I am very disappointed if that reflects the Government’s thinking. Leaseholders should not be asked to pay towards remediation of problems that are not of their making in any way. The question that then arises is: who was responsible for including these dangerous cladding panels in the first place? The construction companies surely have some responsibility. The warranties that were provided on the building should surely cover errors made during construction. The people who do not have any responsibility are those currently being asked to pay the bills. This is not just and not right, and we have an opportunity today to take the first step towards removing the anguish and anxiety faced by homeowners and tenants in this position.
I thank the Minister for making time available for a very useful discussion of this issue, and I accept that the scale of the problem is very large and that the cost of remediation works will run to tens of billions of pounds. I also accept that the Government have made some attempt to relieve the financial pressure on homeowners by providing a £1.6 billion fund towards the costs. However, I suspect that that is just a small portion of the total cost. Perhaps the Minister can indicate the scale of the problem.
I bring us back to the basic question: who should take responsibility? Just yesterday, during the Grenfell inquiry, evidence was given by one of the suppliers of the cladding system about the misinformation provided to win the contract. Evidence has been provided that the Building Research Establishment had already shown the high flammability of these cladding systems. The Grenfell inquiry phase 1 report stated that
“there was compelling evidence that the external walls … failed to comply with Requirement B4(1) of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010, in that they did not adequately resist the spread of the fire having regard to height, use and position of the building. On the contrary, they actively promoted it.”
Clear evidence, then, of culpability during construction or refurbishment at Grenfell. Of course, we do not know if this is the case elsewhere, but we have sufficient information to demonstrate that those who pay for this extensive remediation must not be the tenants and leaseholders.
We on these Benches feel very strongly that there is a just and moral case for leaseholders and tenants not to be required to contribute to any of the costs. I will listen carefully to what the Minister has to say but if the Government do not accept the amendment, I will feel it necessary to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I listened to the Secretary of State on the “Today” programme this morning, in which I heard him say that the cost of removal and remediation of dangerous cladding from residential buildings should be as affordable as possible for lease- holders. This afternoon is an opportunity for the Minister to make clear what this means. I understand that builders and freeholders may have responsibilities in meetings such costs, but where a leaseholder is not a freeholder, why should they have a responsibility to pay out?
The uncertainty for so many leaseholders who are stuck trying to sell their properties or are worried about their possible financial exposure needs swift resolution. The amendment would protect leaseholders who are not freeholders, and tenants, from extra costs, be they single or staggered lump sums, increases in service charges or increases in rents. The responsibility for making safe a building with a fire risk should not lie with the leaseholders or tenants. The amendment would make it clear that it is unreasonable to expect them to be responsible for those costs when they are the ones exposed to risk through no fault of their own. I hope the Minister will agree that this amendment, which would protect leaseholders and tenants, is justified.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for their Amendment 13 on remediation costs. I often think that we need to apply a Daily Mail test to discover whether the opinion of the House will be tested. We have had an article in the Mirror from Pippa Crerar indicating one Division, and an article on this amendment from a different Mirror journalist—the online political editor. So I am not surprised that there will be a test of the opinion of the House.
I want to make clear the sincerity of our view that we need to understand the scale of the problem. Removing the cladding is like unpeeling an orange. You then find greater defects: the internal compartmentation issues, the missing firebreaks, and the issues around fire doors and wooden balconies. These historic structural defects will involve a colossal sum of money. We do not know how much; there are estimates and there are guesstimates, but we accept that there is a significant job of work to be done to deal with the historic defects that have accrued over many, many years.
As the Minister with responsibility for building—as well as fire—safety, I am regularly in contact with leaseholders hit with high bills for remediation to help make their homes safer. I fully understand the anxiety and distress that these people are going through. These are people who have done the right thing, investing their hard-earned savings into a home for themselves and their families, yet now many of them are facing unaffordable bills. I fully understand the intention behind this amendment, and I want to assure noble Lords that we are working very hard in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to improve the situation that people find themselves in.
Finally, we have already committed £1.6 billion to fund the removal and replacement of unsafe cladding on high-rise residential buildings, and we have been putting pressure on building owners to step up to the plate, as well as using warranties and recovering costs from contractors for incorrect or poor work.
However, I can assure noble Lords that we want to go further to protect people from unaffordable costs. Noble Lords will be aware that we published the draft building safety Bill on 20 July 2020. This includes important public safety measures; the Government are committed to progressing the Bill as quickly as possible so that reforms can be implemented in a timely manner. The Bill will be introduced to Parliament once the Government have considered the scrutiny committee’s recommendations.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is committed to updating our position on remediation costs when the building safety Bill returns to Parliament. Michael Wade, senior adviser to MHCLG, is accelerating work with leaseholders and the financial sector to identify financing solutions that protect leaseholders from unaffordable costs while ensuring that the bill does not fall entirely on taxpayers. We have had regular meetings with leaseholder groups, on this and a range of other issues, since the draft Bill was published.
While I support the underlying intention to protect leaseholders and have gone on the record today saying so, this amendment falls down in three main areas, which might make the problem worse rather than better.
First, the safety of residents in their homes is of the highest priority. This is the intention behind today’s Bill and all the Government’s wider work on building safety. There is a range of options for meeting the costs of safety-critical remediation work, which will be appropriate in different circumstances. It would be irresponsible to close off one of the potential routes to funding these works. This amendment risks leaving a building with known fire risks in a position where the work is not taken forward.
Secondly, this new clause would stop all remediation costs from being passed on to leaseholders. For example, service and maintenance charges would at present meet the cost of safety work required as a result of routine wear and tear, such as worn fire door closers. These costs would now fall to building owners—who are, in many cases, also not responsible for original building defects, as they did not build the property—rather than being determined by the terms of the lease.
Thirdly, the fire safety order is not the appropriate legislative framework to resolve remediation costs. The primary focus of the fire safety order is to place duties on any person who has some level of control in a premises—the responsible person or the dutyholder—to ensure that they identify the fire safety risks for the buildings they are responsible for and, if necessary, put in place general fire precautions. As I have said, we are looking to the building safety Bill to address the issues raised in this amendment.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his comment about orphan liability. He underlined the point that we need to keep the options open. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, for his comment about construction warranties. Typically, the market leader is the NHBC. I met the council very recently and, effectively, that is only a 10-year protection: two years for defects, with eight years insurance-based. While we are looking at ways of increasing the compliance period to align with the 10 years, it would be possible through other legislative means to extend the period, because I do not see why someone who has put their life savings into a home has such minimal protection when they purchase a property. I buy a pair of tweezers to take the hair out of my ears and they have a lifetime guarantee. When someone puts their entire savings into a home, they deserve protection over time. That is something we as a Government need to look to do, and will do in due course. This is not the moment to resolve this particular issue, but it is well noted.
I ask that your Lordships’ House recognises the complexity of this policy area, which cannot be solved through this amendment, and considers the assurances I have given today. For the reasons set out in my response, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. This is about saving thousands of householders from crippling debts when none of the fault for this awful situation is of their making: none of it. I accept what the Minister has said; this is a problem that is hugely costly and complex. However, Governments regularly—daily, probably—have to find solutions to complex and costly issues, and this is one. I trust that the Minister can find a fair and just solution to it.
I again thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, in particular for sharing his expertise in this matter. He has rightly pointed out that this is a difficult, complicated and knotty problem, but the principle must be right: somewhere in government legislation we need the principle to be accepted that these leaseholders and tenants have, in good faith, bought a flat, or are tenants or residents of a flat, and that these problems have arisen through no fault of their own. They should not, as my noble friend Lord Stunell said, be held to ransom for these problems when it is not their issue. They have every right to expect, as my noble friend said, to have bought a home that is safe, when they have all the guarantees and insurances in place.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who spoke about flats that are worthless and residents who are being penalised through no fault of their own. I thank the Minister for his reply, and I know that this is difficult. What I want him to do is to accept that the principle we are putting forward is the fair and just one. It is no good, to my mind, saying that nobody is going to expect house owners to have to pay anything more than is affordable, whatever that means. Worse still came from the lips of the Minister when he said that what is happening is that, when they take off the cladding, they are revealing and exposing further terrible defects. Frankly, that makes matters worse and the principle of what the amendment proposes more just.
I fully understand the Government’s intention to try and find a fair way to pay for this. My view, and the view of my colleagues, is that the costs should not fall on those who in good faith have bought their home and, through no fault of their own, are in this terrible and difficult situation. Good intentions are okay but the path to hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions. In this regard, good intentions are not sufficient. We need the principle to be accepted that none of the costs of the remediation of poor building works or poor standards and fire hazards should fall on leaseholders or tenants. Given that I have not had a sufficient reassurance from the Minister, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Fire Safety Bill
Baroness Pinnock ExcerptsThursday 29th October 2020
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 View all Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 132-I Marshalled list for Committee - (26 Oct 2020)
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests, as recorded in the register, as a councillor in Kirklees and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for tabling these amendments to include provision for improving the safety of electrical appliances in the Bill. I thank my noble friend Lord Tope, who has campaigned on this issue for many years and, unfortunately, is unable to speak in this debate. Electrical Safety First has provided an excellent briefing, with important evidence on the need to include this issue in the Bill.
To those of us who are not familiar with all the facts, it came as something of a surprise that over half of all accidental fires are caused by faulty electrical appliances. As we now know, the tragic fire at Grenfell was caused by a faulty appliance. Of course, there are stringent requirements for manufacturers to build in safety features and for landlords in the private rented sector to do safety checks. However, many people are obliged to buy second-hand refurbished appliances, which may be safe at the time of purchase but have a greater probability of failing within the five years specified for checks.
My noble friend Lord Shipley, speaking on behalf of my noble friend Lord Tope, explained that checks on appliances will, logically, reduce the number of fires caused in this way. He used a good analogy: cars need MoTs to ensure the safety of their owners and other road users, and therefore so should white goods. The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, made a strong argument for putting the onus for the safety of electrical appliances on manufacturers, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, further pointed out the risks in manufacturers’ recall of faulty appliances. All this shows that this is a complicated matter, but complexity should not be used to prevent the problem being addressed. The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, would extend and clarify the existing safety check requirements. I urge the Government to consider accepting them.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am keen to ensure, as many noble Lords will be, that the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry can be implemented speedily. A key element of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, seeks to clarify whether the powers in Clause 2 can be used to introduce regulations via the affirmative procedure. This seems an eminently sensible proposal for a route to be used to act on some of the many recommendations from the Grenfell inquiry when it is published. I hope the Minister will be able to agree that this amendment as a way forward for the Grenfell inquiry is one that the Government are willing to use.
Although the Government have responded to some of the consequences of the Grenfell tragedy, there is much more to be done. Three years is a long time to wait for those directly affected and for those trying to live with the considerable financial and emotional consequences: for instance, those living in modern high-rise blocks in my part of the country in Leeds, who are paying considerable sums each month for a waking watch. I agree with my noble friend Lord Shipley that building height and number of storeys do not, on the face of it, affect fire risk. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify the difference in height or number of storeys when he responds to these questions.
Other amendments later today explore several of the issues in the noble Baroness’s amendments, which demonstrates to me that many of us consider that fire safety risks for existing buildings need to be fully debated. The Government need to come forward with a proposal. I look forward, with hope, to the government response to this interesting amendment.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the National Housing Federation, the representative body for housing associations in England. I thank the Minister for his briefing on the Bill, although, sadly, because of my technological ineptitude, I was able to access only a part of it, but it was very good of him to do that and it was very helpful.
The fire at Grenfell Tower has had a profound impact, certainly on our sector. Ensuring the safety of residents is the number one priority for housing associations. They are taking urgent and comprehensive action to inspect buildings with safety concerns and to remediate them as a priority in line with Dame Judith Hackitt’s recommendations. I therefore welcome the Bill and its aims of ensuring the safety of residents in multi-occupied buildings.
I will say a few words about points raised in other amendments, but I particularly support Amendment 4, in the name of my noble friend Lord Kennedy, because it seeks to ensure maximum consultation with all interested parties. Housing associations are committed to working with government and all other partners to achieve our shared aim of keeping residents safe and ensuring that a tragedy such as the fire at Grenfell Tower never happens again.
None the less, as others have said, there are challenges in implementing the Bill’s proposals. There is severely limited capacity to effectively inspect and remediate external wall systems, not just in our sector but in sectors such as inspection and construction, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, emphasised. The scale of this work cannot be overestimated.
It is important at this point to emphasise potential challenges in both capacity and resource if everyone is to work with government towards a risk-based approach in transitioning to the new requirements. In order to ensure a just and deliverable transition, would the Minister consider staggering implementation, using risk as the determining factor to prioritise when the buildings move to adopt the new regulations in the Fire Safety Bill and in the draft building safety Bill? Does the Minister accept that it is critical that the Government co-ordinate limited resources and capacity for remedial works to ensure that these are directed first at buildings that need them most? Does he accept that only the Government can fulfil this role?
Proposals in other amendments to update and strengthen the fire safety order would be welcome, as would proposals to clarify responsibilities, improve the competence of fire risk assessors and clearly define higher -risk workplaces. The new regulatory system must strengthen building safety standards for multi-occupied residential buildings covered by the FSO but outside the draft building safety Bill’s more stringent regulatory regime.
Finally, the Bill seeks to clarify duty-holders’ responsibilities for inspecting flat entrance doors. Right of access to uphold this duty is imperative. Unfortunately, in a small minority of instances, access is repeatedly denied and the duty-holder must seek a court injunction to gain the necessary access. The court process is lengthy and, as we know from recent reports, subject to ever-lengthening delays. There are then additional safety risks for everyone in the building as a result of how long it takes to gain access through the courts. Does the Minister agree that there needs to be a strengthened process to take account of the urgency of the safety inspections and works required under the regulatory changes that will come from the Bill?
The Bill needs support, but it also needs improvement. I hope that the Minister will address the need for inspection of all buildings to be based on a prioritisation of risk and that he will consider other amendments tabled by noble Lords; for example, on the need for fire risk assessors to be properly accredited and on the need to clarify the definition of a responsible person. It is clear that we on these Benches, and the Government, seek the same goal: to put right the flaws in the building and fire safety regimes and to give residents confidence that they live in a secure environment. I wish this Bill fair wind: it is needed urgently.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stunell has made a characteristically well argued and factually detailed contribution in moving Amendment 3. The basis is this: that the practical implementation of new legislation is as important as the legislation itself. Fine words butter no parsnips, as the saying goes.
The Grenfell tragedy taught us, I hope, that the concerns of tenants and residents must be listened to. At Grenfell, concerns were ignored, with horrific consequences. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in his amendment, seeks to list potential consultees. There is always a risk in this that some valuable contributions may not be heard because they were not included in the list. Constructors should be among those who are consulted, and I thank the British Woodworking Federation for its detailed briefing, as referenced by my noble friend when proposing the amendment. Hence I prefer the more general statement in our Amendment 3, which is much more open-ended.
Experts are invaluable, fire safety assessors never more so. In the debate in the House of Commons, the Minister stated:
“I share honourable Members’ alarm at the existence of unqualified fire risk assessors”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/6/20; col. 51.]
The fact that vital fire risk assessments are being carried out by people not qualified to do so is something that we should be taking very seriously. Later amendments seek to close any possibility of unqualified assessors by creating a public register of those certified to undertake the varying demands of the role. As my noble friend has pointed out, there is always a cost attached to improving safety regulation. The question then is: who will be required to meet that cost?
It is surprising that those who have constructed buildings in the last decade are not currently being required to meet the majority of the costs of putting right their errors. Perhaps the Minister can say whether the construction firms are seen as being a significant part of the solution to those leaseholders now facing potential costs in the tens of thousands to make their homes safe.
In response to the last group of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, stated that construction firms and insurance companies are expected to contribute towards these significant costs—which is good news. Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain how quickly this will occur and what actions the Government are taking to ensure that decisions will not be long drawn out, as, for many, three years with no light at the end with the tunnel is already far too long. How much can these leaseholders expect to be paid from the government funding?
I look forward to the Minister’s response to these important questions.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I very much support Amendment 3, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. My own amendment in this group is very specific. It is about ensuring that relevant organisations are properly consulted and that, after consultation, a report on the findings is laid before Parliament. I hope that the Minister will be specific about consultation on changes made by the Bill to the fire safety order, because we must go much further than the National Fire Chiefs Council. I am looking for commitments to consult local authorities, trade unions, including the FBU, and representatives of tenants and residents.
I noted the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in respect of my amendment, and refer her to (e), which adds
“any other bodies deemed relevant”.
The point of my amendment was to highlight that certain organisations must be consulted, along with any others that the Secretary of State is minded to.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is particularly appealing in respect of the requirements set out his proposed new subsection (5)(b) and (c). As the noble Lord set out, the potential implications of the amended fire order for individuals and organisations are huge.
We obviously support the intentions of this Bill very much, but one of our concerns is the question of who will be doing all this work. What will be the qualification requirements and levels? There is no quick fix to that. I am sure that I and other noble Lords do not wish to see a race to the bottom, with people who have very limited skills being authorised to undertake assessments and inspections, because that is a route to disaster and no lessons will have been learned. We need properly skilled, properly qualified people undertaking this work. There will be new obligations, and there must be a process, a route to achieving them, without cutting corners. Proposed subsection (5)(b) in the noble Lord’s amendment sets us off in the right direction.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
We can see the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, but unfortunately we cannot hear him. I am going to call one more time, then move on. Lord Bhatia? No. Clearly there are difficulties there. I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I look forward to the Minister’s response to these amendments, which all seek to add detail carefully so that the positive purpose of this Bill is not marred by the inadequacy of its implementation.
The biggest investment people make in their lives is in a home. All sorts of checks are currently required or advised prior to purchase and a mortgage offer. One of these is not readily available. It should, and will, be; the question is whether it will come via a legislative requirement or pressure from home buyers. As my noble friend Lord Stunell said, it is much better for the Government to demonstrate their commitment to fire safety by enabling a public register of the fire status of buildings for accuracy and ease of access.
When the Government’s own Minister in the Commons has decried the existence of unqualified fire risk assessors, why is there an apparent reluctance by the Government to address the issue face on? I do not understand why the issue that was acknowledged by the Government during the Commons debate has not been addressed. I hope that the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and myself will provide the Government with the way forward. I hope that the Minister will agree to a meeting prior to Report to discuss these important practical concerns about a Bill that has our wholehearted support.
The third of these amendments, regarding costs—I have signed it alongside my noble friend Lord Shipley—may not have been in the purview of the Bill when first constructed, but where, if not here, will the issue of who pays for fire risk remediation work be settled? Leaseholders in newly constructed blocks of high-rise flats in Leeds and across the country in despair. They currently pay significant sums of several hundred pounds each month toward the cost of a waking watch, while the costs of remediation—the removal of flammable cladding materials—will run into tens of thousands of pounds per householder. Meanwhile, their homes are worthless. They are not able to move and are in despair. This is through no fault of their own. Where the fault lies is for the Government and, no doubt, the courts to determine. However, the Government have some responsibility in seeking a fair and just remedy that will not bankrupt innocent leaseholders and will assess the responsibility of construction companies.
Lord Stunell (LD) [V]
I am here. I apologise for not joining the Committee earlier but we had some kind of IT glitch.
I want to look at another important aspect of who the responsible person can or should be. The problem that I want to guard against is the absentee responsible person: the anonymous set of initials from a remote managing agency with a non-responding website and no phone lines, or the international property holder registered in the Cayman Islands or Bermuda. I want to press the Minister to commit to ensuring that every responsible person is a real person, not a company or a corporate body, and that that person has a functioning terrestrial address and a phone number based in the UK—in short, that they can always be held accountable, can be assessed and if necessary trained to deliver their statutory obligations, and has the skill and intention of communicating effectively with residents in the properties for which they take responsibility. We do not want to add absentee responsible persons to all the existing problems of absentee landlords. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, the “responsible person” definition has a key duty in this legislation, which is why I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, which seeks to clarify it. I apologise to the Committee that a lack-of-sound issue has meant that I was not able to hear the contributions by the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley or Lord Whitty, or the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, so my remarks are going to be quite basic as a consequence.
I agree with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that it is not just or practical to expect a tenant or leaseholder, unless they are owners or part-owners of the freehold, to fulfil the responsibility of being the so-called responsible person. I agree completely that it is important to have no room for uncertainty as to who is indeed the responsible person.
My noble friend Lord Stunell has just raised the very important issue that the responsible person has to actually be a person, not an entity—someone with an address and a telephone contact within the UK. I cannot imagine how awful it would be if the responsible person were some distant corporation based in the Cayman Islands, a fire arose and there was no obvious route to seeking a practical or legislative remedy for that disaster.
I have heard a little about the importance of water sprinklers and water misting in high-rise blocks, and of course I know that in 2009, Wales introduced a requirement for that. I look forward to learning what others have said about this important issue when I read Hansard, because I understand that it has been a priority of the fire and rescue services for a long time. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for this amendment, which seeks to amend Article 3 of the fire safety order. It seeks to remove leaseholders from being a responsible person unless they are also owner or part-owner of the freehold for the premises in question. It is important to remember that the fire safety order places the onus on the responsible person to identify and mitigate fire risks. In multi-occupied residential buildings, the leaseholder of a flat is unlikely to be the responsible person for the non-domestic premises. The exceptions to that would be where they own or share ownership of the freehold, which is acknowledged in the amendment. However, a leaseholder can be a duty holder under Article 5 of the fire safety order, which provides that the responsible person can be determined by the circumstances in any particular case.
Depending on the terms of a lease or tenancy agreement, the responsibility for flat entrance doors could rest with the building owner, having retained ownership of the doors, or the tenant/leaseholder as a duty holder. The lease can also be silent. Accepting this amendment would undermine the principles of the order and could have the unintended consequence of leaving a vacuum in terms of responsibilities under it. That, in turn, could compromise fire safety.
We will look at the responses to our fire safety consultation, which contained specific proposals to support the identification of responsible persons, with a view to ensuring that they are not the entities described by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It also contained proposals to support greater co-operation and co-ordination between multiple responsible persons within a single premise. The Government are also committed to providing guidance on this issue. That, alongside our legislative proposals in the consultation, will support all those with responsibilities under the order in understanding and complying with their duties.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for tabling Amendment 18. Water-based systems can be an effective and appropriate fire-fighting tool in the event of a fire, and they command broad support across the fire and rescue service and the broader fire sector. However, a water-based system is just one of many measures that can be adopted to counter the spread of fire within a building.
The amendment seeks to ensure that responsible persons for multi-occupied residential buildings consider the installation of sprinklers or water-mist systems as “appropriate fire-fighting equipment” options. On the retro-fitting of sprinklers or water-mist systems, it is up to the responsible person to decide whether those are appropriate mitigating measures.
Noble Lords may be aware that earlier this year the Government amended approved document B to require the provision of sprinkler systems in new blocks of flats over 11 metres in height. This amendment will come into effect next month to ensure that this is the new standard for buildings of that height in the future.
For existing buildings, the fire safety order requires the responsible person to maintain and keep in an efficient state and working order fire-fighting equipment, which may include water-based systems. In blocks of flats where these are not present, retro-fitting water-based systems may not always be a cost-effective solution, if they are desired at all by residents. Existing guidance suggests considering alternative fire safety measures, taking into account the absence of sprinklers.
The Government do not support using the fire safety order to promote one form of equipment over other measures which, depending on the building, might be more effective. The fire safety order rightly places the onus on the responsible person to have regard to the specific characteristics of their building in determining which fire-fighting equipment and mitigating measures are appropriate to ensure the safety of relevant persons.
It is important that the legislation leave open the range of options available to responsible persons, who, with the support of competent professionals and government guidance, which we are reviewing, are best placed to make those decisions based on local need. Some building owners may decide to install sprinklers as part of their overall fire strategy, while others might choose alternative measures, provided that they are effective. Nevertheless, the Government will review our fire safety order guidance for responsible persons, including references to fire-fighting equipment and other fire safety measures available to them.
I hope that I have provided sufficient reassurance and that the noble Lord is content to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, mindful of my interests as declared at the opening of Committee, I support Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, although an additional cost must not be imposed on local authorities as a consequence of the requirements of the Bill. It is well documented that many local authorities are already facing very challenging circumstances as a result of the costs of dealing with the local impact of the pandemic. This is on top of years of deep cuts in government funding.
The new burdens agreement between central and local government is supposed to ensure that the costs of new duties required by the Government are met by the equivalence of the costs. This amendment seeks to underline this commitment and to ensure that sufficient additional finances are made available. The consequence of failing to do so would undermine the purposes of the Bill, for which there is unanimous support.
There has already been an extensive debate on skills shortages and the definition of competences during consideration of other amendments. Many noble Lords have expressed their concerns. I wish to underline the importance of this issue, which has been expressed throughout Committee.
Amendment 10 seeks to ensure that the Scottish Government consider similar legislation. It highlights how Governments across the UK are slowly beginning to mirror a federal system. I find this fascinating. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 10 seeks to introduce a review of Scotland and Northern Ireland, to take place no later than 24 months after Royal Assent on the Fire Safety Bill, which would subsequently be laid before Parliament.
From the outset, I remind the Committee that the Fire Safety Bill applies only to England and Wales. Fire safety is a devolved matter. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, does not consider the vastly different fire safety regimes in place in Northern Ireland and Scotland. It is unlikely that the Scottish Parliament or Northern Ireland Assembly could make an equivalent legislative provision to reflect the fire safety legislation in England and Wales. In any event, the review proposed would not have any legal effect in either Scotland or Northern Ireland as the Bill extends and applies to England and Wales only. Such a review would be to no purpose.
I accept that noble Lords have an interest in fire safety in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. However, these matters are the responsibility of the respective devolved Governments, who are best placed to provide an update.
The fire safety regimes in Scotland and Northern Ireland are significantly different from that of England and Wales. There is no direct equivalent of the fire safety order in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Existing fire safety legislation does not have the same features as in England and Wales. This includes a review of the fire safety regime for high-rise domestic buildings in Scotland and delivery of the recommendations from that review. A single source of fire safety guidance for those responsible for these buildings is now available online and fire safety information has been delivered to residents in all high-rise buildings in Scotland. I have been in close dialogue with Kevin Stewart, my opposite number in the Scottish Parliament, about the issues we have been debating in Committee.
I am pleased to inform the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that the Scottish Government have today published a formal response to the Grenfell phase 1 report. I look forward to reading it. It is an important step in advancing fire safety in Scotland.
In Northern Ireland, a cross-body building safety programme group has been established and is sponsored by the Department of Finance. The group will consider what actions are necessary in Northern Ireland to improve and develop building safety and how best to incorporate relevant recommendations arising from the Grenfell public inquiry phase 1 report. The group is in the earliest stage of development, identifying relevant representative group nominations to centrally co-ordinate the Northern Ireland response from an operational, regulatory and legislative perspective.
I turn to Amendment 11 and thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for raising the issue of the Bill’s potential impact on local authorities. Obviously, we should mention not just local authorities but fire and rescue services. On a point of principle, we are very clear on the purpose of the Fire Safety Bill, which is to clarify that the structure, external walls and flat entrance doors in multi-occupied residential buildings are within scope of the fire safety order. However, this should not prevent local authorities from acting under their existing powers to address safety risks in multi-occupied residential buildings. They have a duty under the Housing Act 2004 to review areas of risk relating to social housing for which they are responsible, which we would expect to include issues relating to both fire and building safety. With regard to the private rented sector, local authorities also have a duty to take enforcement action if they consider that a serious category 1 hazard, including fire, exists on any residential premises.
We expect that the initial impact on local authorities and fire and rescue services under the Bill to be limited, with the focus being on responsible persons updating fire risk assessments on high-risk buildings, as considered under the risk operating model. I will address this in more detail when responding to amendments on commencement. The costs of the Bill have been set out in the published economic impact assessment. This shows that the costs are shared across all responsible persons for high-rise residential buildings, the majority of which are privately owned rather than social housing. We will keep the impact on local authorities under consideration in future spending reviews as work progresses on fire and building safety in their capacity as both landlords and enforcing authorities. I will also give an undertaking that we will consider the impact on local authorities of the Bill and consultation in line with the new-burdens principles. I should also inform noble Lords of the additional funding support being provided. We have invested £20 million in funding fire safety protection and a further £10 million for the fire risk review programme.
As regards the draft Building Safety Bill, we are planning measures to strengthen the fire safety order, and the impact of these on fire and rescue services and local authorities will be considered. I should warn noble Lords that the Bill will have about 140 clauses, whereas this Bill has three clauses, which we seem to have spent several hours debating in some detail.
Amendment 12 calls for a review of fire skills 12 months after the passing of the Bill. Significant work has been undertaken by the industry-led Competence Steering Group and its subgroup on fire risk assessors and fire engineers, to look at ways in which to increase competence and capacity in these professions. This includes proposing recommendations in relation to introducing a register of fire risk assessors, a competence framework and a system of third-party accreditation for fire risk assessors. The final report from the CSG was published on the Construction Industry Council’s website on 5 October and the MHCLG, the HSE and the Home Office are considering the recommendations of the report in detail.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will be aware that we recognise the concerns raised by the fire risk assessor sector on its capacity and competency to undertake and update fire risk assessments for the buildings in scope of this Bill. We want to ensure that we will take a proportionate approach to commencing the Bill that limits any potential impact on the fire risk assessor sector. The noble Lord has raised a very important issue with this amendment. The Government have been working with the fire risk assessor sector to develop a clear plan to increase its capacity and capability. The Home Office and the MHCLG are jointly funding the British Standards Institution to develop technical guidance to support professionals to assess the fire risk posed by external wall systems. This guidance will support industry to upskill more professionals to take on this work and will increase the quality and consistency of these assessments.
Although this amendment is in line with our plans to develop the capacity and capability of the sector, I do not think that this work needs to be enshrined in legislation. I also think that a slightly longer timeframe for such a review of 18 to 24 months would be more appropriate, as such a period would allow for more meaningful change, given the need to recruit against the background of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Finally, I emphasise that understanding the skills shortage and having a plan to address that, as raised by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Stunell, must be a driving mission of this Government. Therefore, I would be happy to meet with the noble Lords in relation to Amendment 12 before Report to discuss the ongoing work that I have outlined. In the meantime, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)[V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for proposing this amendment and for giving us an opportunity to raise a serious if unintended deficiency in what fire safety law covers through the 2005 fire safety order. Far too often, attention is drawn to these matters only when they have terrible consequences, when it is essentially too late. I give great credit to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for raising the issue in a timely fashion. To the best of my knowledge, it would be in time to save lives rather than deal with the consequences.
I am keen that the Minister should reflect very carefully on the excellent speech made by my noble friend Lord Kennedy, and that, if he cannot provide a comprehensive assurance from the Dispatch Box, he should tell the House that the matter will be taken back to the department and full consideration given to it. I hope that the Government will either accept this amendment or introduce their own amendment.
Identifying the cause of the absence of any agency doing any oversight investigation, regulation or consideration of online rental accommodation led to a clear view from the relevant agencies that they were not required to do so. In investigating why the amendment was so necessary, and why I am so keen to support it, the answer became evident in the compelling legal opinion written by the outstanding leading counsel Richard Matthews QC, who is rightly acknowledged in all independent legal guides as not just in the top band of legal silks on health and safety, but by some as the very best legal mind in the country on those matters. He has not just been counsel for the Health and Safety Executive but has acted for the Crown in many fire-related prosecutions.
I say this just to emphasise the strength and merits of the legal arguments that my noble friend Lord Kennedy presented, and the fact that the Minister needs to ensure that his legal talking points have the right level of force and expertise to provide assurance to the House.
Richard Matthews’ opinion is that the fire safety order does not apply to domestic premises except those specifically defined in the order. The crucial question with regard to short-let holiday, business or other accommodation available through a variety of online or digital accommodation services—commonly known as Airbnb-type accommodation —is whether it falls within scope or ceases to be a domestic premises.
Mr Matthews’ advice could not be clearer. He states:
“I am firmly of the opinion that a house or flat that is let on the specific terms of the licence through Airbnb or similar accommodation for a short period of time does not necessarily by operation of the law thereby cease to be a domestic premises occupied as a private dwelling. Furthermore, I am very firmly of the opinion that a room or space in a house or flat that is let on the specific terms of the licence through Airbnb for a short period of time, whether the remainder continues to be occupied by the host as a residence, does not thereby cease to be a domestic premises occupied as a private dwelling, nor that it thereby becomes premises used in common by the occupants of more than one such dwelling. In addition, I am further of the opinion that both the Government’s written parliamentary response and its Do you have paying guests? guide are both inaccurate in this regard, and an apparent assertion that whenever anyone pays to stay in a property other than to live there as a permanent home, then the property is not a domestic premises occupied by someone, not necessarily a paying guest, as a private dwelling, is wrong as a matter of law.
Nothing demonstrates that his interpretation of the law is incorrect, which explains the fact that there has been no enforcement.
There is a clear, though unintended, gap, and it should be plugged as soon as possible. The onus must be on Airbnb hosts, and similar types of host, to have made the assessment or, where necessary, sought professional advice, to protect their paying guests. In addition, fire authorities should have some knowledge of where these properties are, or at least consider whether there is a need for inspection if a particular block or premises is being used within these terms. I strongly support the correction of the anomaly in the Bill that the amendment provides, to clarify the roles and responsibilities of temporary landlords in respect of fire prevention measures in their properties.
Finally, there is one other significant matter, which Mr Matthews’ extensive legal research and experience also uncovered, that should be addressed. It is that the 2015 smoke and carbon monoxide alarm regulations, which were brought into force at a time when the service provided by Airbnb and other such companies was well established and well known, for Airbnb premises to be within the ambit of the smoke and carbon monoxide regulations by reason solely of a licence obtained by Airbnb, such a licence would have to amount to a tenancy granting the right to occupy the premises as the guest’s only or main residence. An Airbnb will not have the effect of putting premises outside the ambit of the smoke and carbon monoxide regulations within that protection. I would be grateful for the Minister’s assurance that this too—which is surely another unintended lacuna—will be remedied, as well as the one addressed by the main amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, the phrase “unintended consequences” comes to mind in Amendment 13. This short amendment seeks to ensure that there is clarity in connection with short holiday lets that use either part or the whole of a building, and it is one that we support. I am no legal expert, but the issues just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, must be considered and a definitive answer provided by the Government.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for seeing that there is an omission in the Bill and a possible unintended consequence, and for tabling the amendment so that we can have this discussion. I hope the Minister is able to respond positively.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for raising the important issue of the treatment of short-term accommodation and holiday lettings under the fire safety order, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this brief but important debate. The noble Lord is absolutely right to draw attention to the constantly changing models and companies through which people might rent out their accommodation, particularly in this year of staycations when, I am sure, people have been staying in many more domestic properties in the UK.
As the noble Lord noted, domestic premises are expressly excluded from falling within the fire safety order. Article 2 of the order provides a definition of domestic premises which states that, to be considered as such, it must be occupied as a private dwelling. That is the key bit: the fire safety order applies at any time when the property is being leased or rented because it is not being occupied as a private dwelling. In effect, the property becomes a non-domestic premise when rented out and falls within the scope of the safety order. That is the Government’s view of the legal position. Under the fire safety order, owners of these types of premises have a duty as the responsible persons to undertake a fire risk assessment and put in place fire precautions that are adequate and appropriate to manage the risk of fire, and the fire and rescue services are the enforcing authorities for the order in such accommodation.
Anyone who provides accommodation for paying guests can also find helpful information on the GOV.UK website, which the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Mendelsohn, mentioned. The noble Lord mentioned by name the Do You Have Paying Guests? guidance, which is for people who are responsible for small and short-term accommodation. I can tell noble Lords that the guidance has recently been updated and that the new version will be called Making Your Sleeping Premises Safe from Fire, which will be a short guide for sleeping premises, small businesses and small blocks of flats. That is the part of the tranche 2 FSO guidance review, which will be published alongside the laying of secondary legislation. I hope that when the noble Lord sees that, it will assuage some of his concerns.
We do not agree with the legal position of Mr Matthews that the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, read out; if a property is rented out through Airbnb and so on then it falls within the scope of the fire safety order. I hope that reassures the noble Lord that the fire safety order already applies in the scenario that he outlines in his amendment, and that he will therefore be content to withdraw it. We will certainly be happy to continue discussing this point as we approach Report.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group and I acknowledge the sterling work done by the noble Lord, Lord Porter, over the past three and a half years to improve building safety following the Grenfell fire. The central aim of the amendments is to ensure that resources are used to best effect in reviewing the fire risk assessments required by the Bill. The criteria for prioritisation must be based on anticipated levels of risk, so the process and the code of practice outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Porter, seem appropriate to meet this objective. That said, I hope the Minister has understood the concern of many speaking today that improving fire safety needs faster outcomes, and that nothing in this group should mean longer delays for assessments that are felt to be less urgent.
Finally, Amendment 22 is obviously key to the delivery of the intentions behind this group, because it requires sufficient fire safety inspectors to be available, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has emphasised. It is a clear duty of government to ensure that enough qualified inspectors are available, and I very much hope the Minister will shortly confirm that this is indeed the Government’s intention.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Porter, is not able to move his amendment today, as his is a good idea. A fire safety code of practice would draw together many of the issues raised elsewhere in the debate into one place. I am confident that there will be, of course, prioritisation of buildings at risk, but this amendment would ensure that this is set out and therefore legitimised. Sharing the costs of fire risk assessments according to assessed risks is another important element of fairness that has to be acknowledged, and putting it in the Bill, as this amendment does, is wholly positive.
Throughout today’s debate, it is clear that there is full support for the Bill and its purposes. All the amendments seek to do is to improve it for the benefit both of fire safety and for residents’ peace of mind. I look forward, therefore, to the Minister’s response.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Porter for his sterling efforts regarding building and fire safety, and for his leadership over many years in local government and as a former chairman of the Local Government Association. I thank him for tabling amendments on a proposed improved code of practice to support the commencement of the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for stepping up in his stead, and for his amendment, which would ensure that the Bill is not commenced until the Government have completed a full review of the capacity of fire safety inspectors to undertake the duties set out in the Bill.
I will respond to the amendments relating to commencement guidance. As noble Lords are aware, the Home Office established a task and finish group, chaired jointly by the National Fire Chiefs Council and the Fire Sector Federation, whose role was to recommend the optimal way to commence the Bill. Members of the group were drawn from local authorities, housing associations, private sector developers, the fire sector and selected fire and rescue services. My noble friend is aware that the Local Government Association was represented—as I said, he served as chairman until July last year.
The Home Office received the group’s recommendations on 28 September. It advised that the Bill should be commenced at once for all buildings in scope on a single date, subject to prior conditions being met: first, that responsible persons should use a risk-based tool to develop an effective strategy to prioritise their buildings for an updated fire risk assessment—a tool is currently being developed by a sub-group of the task and finish group; and, secondly, that the Government issue statutory guidance to ensure that this tool is used by responsible persons.
I thank the task and finish group for providing its expert views to the Home Office. I understand the intention behind this amendment: that guidance—whether or not it is defined as a code of practice—needs to have the appropriate legal status to ensure effective use of the risk-based tool by responsible persons. I am aware my noble friend also has concerns that fire engineers and competent professionals might increase their fees, making it difficult for social sector landlords to get expert advice on buildings that may be high-risk.
This Government want to ensure that the resources of fire engineers and other competent professionals are targeted to buildings based on risk. Equally, this Government want to ensure that there are no delays to commencing the Bill. I am sure this is a view we all share. The Government are concerned that this amendment will delay the commencement of the Bill; for example, it would place a statutory duty on the Government to undertake a public consultation on a draft code of practice and to lay the final code before Parliament before the Bill and the code come into effect by order. This process will delay the Bill’s commencement until at least summer 2021.
I do not consider that guidance alone will resolve my noble friend’s concerns about how fire engineers and other competent professionals prioritise their resources. The right building blocks need to be put in place to create system change. That is why we are working with the fire risk assessor sector to develop a clear plan to increase its capacity and capability. The Home Office and MHCLG are jointly funding the British Standards Institution to develop technical guidance to support professionals to assess the fire risk posed by external wall systems. This guidance will support industry to upskill more professionals to take on this work and increase the quality and consistency of these assessments.
We continue to work closely with the joint chairs of the task and finish group, as well as the LGA, to ensure that the Government provide a proportionate response to their advice.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, aims to ensure that the Bill is not commenced until the Government have completed a full review of the capacity of fire safety inspectors to undertake the duties set out by the Bill. The Bill clarifies the role of fire and rescue services in enforcement against responsible persons who have not adequately assessed the fire safety risks of a building’s structure, external walls or flat entrance doors in multi- occupied residential buildings and, where appropriate, put in place general fire precautions. The amendment aims to ensure that before the Bill is commenced the Government undertake a review of the fire and rescue services’ capacity to carry out inspections and, where appropriate, take enforcement action in line with the clarification the Bill provides.
Fire and rescue services have the resources they need to do their important work. Decisions on how resources are best deployed to meet their core functions are a matter for each fire and rescue authority. This includes deciding on the number of fire safety officers needed to deliver their fire safety enforcement duties under the fire safety order.
The amendment is unnecessary as the Government issued an impact assessment for the Bill, which considered the impact on fire and rescue services. The impact assessment sets out that additional work for fire safety inspectors arising from the Bill will cover reading and reviewing of relevant parts of the updated fire risk assessment and, where appropriate, undertake a visual inspection of the external walls and flat entrance doors. Our central estimate of the additional cost to fire and rescue services is £5.9 million over the 10-year period assessed.
Overall, fire and rescue authorities will receive around £2.3 billion in 2020-21. Stand-alone fire and rescue authorities will see an increase in core spending power of 3.2% in cash terms in 2020-21 compared with 2019-20. The Government have invested a further £30 million of funding in fire and rescue services and the National Fire Chiefs Council this year. This includes: £10 million allocated to fire and rescue authorities to improve protection capability and undertake more audits of high-risk premises; £7 million to allow fire and rescue authorities to respond effectively to the findings of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry; £3 million to bolster the NFCC’s Grenfell improvement capacity and capability and to drive strategic change from the centre; and £10 million to deliver the Government’s building risk review programme and to form a central protection hub within the NFCC.
The National Fire Chiefs Council published a revised competence framework document earlier this year for business fire safety regulators to assist fire and rescue services in assuring the competence of their fire safety staff. This work will support common competence standards across fire and rescue services’ protection staff.
Housing Delivery Test
Baroness Pinnock Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
Getting developers to build out is a problem. Having been a local authority leader, the noble Baroness will know that you can tell those developers who are intending to build and those who are intending to hold, but planning permissions do not last for ever, and that is the main sanction that we have at the moment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my relevant interests as set out in the register. In my council of Kirklees, the government-agreed plan is for 1,750 new homes each year. The latest figures show that there are 7,518 with live planning permissions that have not been built. Does the Minister agree that the failure to build in this typical example lies with developers and that this factor should be included in the housing delivery test?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, another fellow former council leader raises a very important point. It is reliant on the market and developers to step forward and build the homes that this country needs, and that is taken on board by this Government.
Housing: Rent and Covid-19
Baroness Pinnock Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we recognise that this is a terribly difficult pandemic, and a number of renters have had to move back home on losing their jobs. That is the kind of mobility you see in a seismic pandemic such as this, but the Government have increased the benefit cap, which has cost £9 billion in total. We will take further measures if necessary.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
Noting my register of interests, I ask the Minister this: more than 1 million households are registered on council waiting lists; the number is rising, due to the Covid crisis. Meanwhile, the number of homes for social rent has plummeted. Can he explain how the housing needs of desperate families are to be met now?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the statistics do not bear that out. We have seen a slight drop in social housing, down from 20% in 1999 to 17% in 2018, but there has been a seismic collapse in the levels of home ownership. Of course, we need social homes, but we also need those intermediate homes that enable people to get on in life.
Fire Safety Bill
Baroness Pinnock ExcerptsThursday 1st October 2020
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 View all Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 7 September 2020 - (7 Sep 2020)
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as recorded in the register: I am a councillor in Kirklees and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I thank the Minister for our meeting earlier today to discuss the Bill, which is an important step forward in righting the cavalier practices of some of those involved with the construction industry. It is a step in the direction of putting people’s safety first and foremost. We on these Benches welcome it. We welcome the fact that some of the bitter lessons of the Grenfell tragedy, as exposed in the estimable Hackitt report and phase 1 of the Grenfell inquiry, are being learned and acted on, albeit that it has taken far too long to get this far.
It is a pity that the Bill is not as detailed in its response as I would have hoped. I appreciate that further secondary legislation is expected, but people who live in potentially high-risk buildings need action now, as many noble Lords have said. As my noble friend Lord Stunnell so rightly said, residents need to be at the heart of these changes. While the construction industry builds and moves on, it is the residents who are left carrying the can—and the significant costs of the errors, as my noble friend Lord Shipley pointed out. That is not right and must be put right.
As we have heard, this short Bill seeks to extend the powers of the fire safety order 2005 to include outside walls, including cladding, windows and balconies. This therefore gives a clear duty to responsible persons to assess and manage the fire risk. It provides for powers of enforcement to be given to the fire and rescue authorities. All that is positive. However, as my noble friend Lord Stunell explained, this lack of detail leaves many questions unanswered.
Who will do the fire risk assessments, given that there are so few trained personnel currently? The Fire Brigades Union estimates there are fewer than 1,000 fire safety officers. How will standards be regulated? Will there be a register of fully trained and certified fire assessors? Third-party accreditation of assessors is a vital part of this new regime, and the rapid development of skills courses in colleges and universities is urgently needed to fill the gaps. What do the Government intend to do about that? As many noble Lords across the House have pointed out, this is a deficiency in the Bill. Lives literally depend on accurate and informed fire assessments. I am sure that the Minister will want to demonstrate how this requirement is to be met.
Then there is the question of the building materials used and construction techniques employed. The Hackitt report exposed the lamentable standards that applied prior to Grenfell. How can residents in flats be assured that materials do not breach combustible standards and are thoroughly and completely tested before being deemed fire safe for use? Who will make sure that gaps in ill-fitting window replacements are not filled with inflammable filler? Who is going to make sure that doors opening on to communal areas are fitted properly and not altered?
This Bill gives us the answer as to who will be responsible and accountable but it does not give us the answer as to how this will be achieved, with so few fire assessors and with fire and rescue authorities that have faced budget cuts of 28% in the past 10 years. There is a cost to fire safety. Grenfell brutally and tragically exposed the consequences of cutting safety corners. Can the Minister give us a categorical assurance that the costs of fire safety enforcement will be fully covered?
My noble friend Lord Tope and other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, raised concerns about electrical safety, which surely must be considered closely and could have been included in this Bill. Why have the Government failed to respond to the cause of the Grenfell tragedy at the same time as responding to its building failures? I say this to the Minister: if not now, when?
There is a huge task facing fire assessors. Many millions of buildings need to be reassessed. The question then has to be: what guidance will the Government provide to help with prioritisation? Official government guidance will surely be of help to those residents who are trapped in buildings with cladding that does not meet fire standards. Their fear is that they will be unable to sell until they are able to produce a fire safety certificate. I suspect that mortgage providers will similarly be reluctant to provide a loan until the essential work is done.
The building safety Bill, currently in draft form only, refers to buildings over 18 metres high. This Fire Safety Bill includes all dwellings. This is a recipe for confusion when clarity must be at the heart of all safety legislation. Will the Minister ask his colleagues to consider reducing this confusion before that Bill is considered?
I hope the Minister is able to provide answers to satisfy those of us who think that this may well be a lost opportunity to deal with the implications of improving fire safety requirements in all buildings. There is consensus across this House that the Bill will be supported. Unfortunately, there is also consensus that there are omissions and that there is a lack of detail.
The direction of travel is supported, but the route being taken is too slow. Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and my noble friend Lord Stunell, raised the importance of accelerating change to show that lessons have been learned, and implemented, from the tragedy of Grenfell. Let us put Grenfell residents at the heart of our thoughts as first steps towards greater safety are taken.
Housing: Cladding
Baroness Pinnock Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we recognise that there are a number of enforcement approaches, both through the Housing Act but also through the fire safety order, which is being updated and will be debated in this House next week. We continue to use a joint inspection team to look at the best way of enforcing against those building owners that are not moving to remediate unsafe cladding.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Government stated in January that they were considering extending cladding risks to buildings of between four and seven stories. There are around 100,000 such buildings in England, some with dangerous forms of cladding. What investigations have been undertaken to determine the extent of this fire risk, which affects upwards of half a million people, and what remedies are the Government considering?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, at this stage we have not made a decision to move the high-risk regime beyond those buildings above 18 metres. As Dame Judith has said, it is those high-rise buildings that have the greatest risk, and we are attempting to stop the multiple fatalities that we saw at Grenfell. That is where we will focus our efforts.
Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020
Baroness Pinnock Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register, as a councillor in Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I thank both my noble friend Lord German and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for raising these issues today, and for making such powerful cases for this permitted development right to be withdrawn—though I am not holding my breath. They were not alone; their view has been supported by several noble Lords and this matter is the subject of a judicial review.
As a councillor, I know that issues about changes to the built environment are very much a concern of local residents. The current, locally based planning system enables residents and councillors to voice the immediate impacts and consequences of alterations to buildings. Of course, small additions or alterations that comply with current standards do not have to be considered publicly. The issue, and the subject of this debate, is where to draw that line.
I contend that extending permitted development rights permanently, via this back-door process, to allow two further storeys on blocks of flats that are already of three storeys or more, breaks that balance of development rights and resident and neighbourhood rights. This is what is at stake, with the gradual erosion, by this Government, of the rights of local people to have their voice heard.
One of the drivers for the original Town and Country Planning Act was to provide a process whereby standards for individual buildings and design that benefited whole neighbourhoods could be agreed and set. One of the purposes was to ensure decent, habitable standards in new houses following slum clearances. What is absolutely shocking to read in this SI are the regulations to ensure that new properties have
“adequate natural light in all habitable rooms”.
That should have been a given, and this demonstrates the need for planning oversight of new builds and conversions.
Many significant criticisms have been raised today. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, made a strong case against what he called “PDR mark 1”, for constructing very poor-quality flats from office conversions, and hoped that PDR 2 would not replicate the failings. We need answers from the Minister: how are existing residents to be protected during construction? There is also the crucial challenge of learning lessons from the Grenfell tragedy—of the need to provide safe exits in case of fire or other major incidents. How will the recommendations from phase 1 of the inquiry be put into practice so that safety really does come first?
The impact assessment published with the SI states that the Government aim to make better use of land by building upwards—this is not an issue in itself. The only reason given for this permitted development right is that planning permission
“includes costs and can take time.”
Actually, so it should. Raising a block of flats by two storeys may have a very significant impact on residents and communities; they should be subject to proper, transparent and public decision-making. Unfortunately, some noble Lords believe that bypassing the planning process ensures more housebuilding. This is simply not the case. The LGA estimates that nearly 1 million homes have planning consent but have not been built.
As my noble friend Lord Greaves rightly said, this is an example of the Government trying to micromanage planning while ignoring local people—and all this to achieve perhaps 800 new properties a year. My noble friend Lady Thornhill pointed out that this PDR now looks just like a planning application, with the exception that space standards can be ignored, to the detriment of the residents. As the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, has said, there are major issues to consider about freehold and leasehold that have not been addressed.
An early review has been proposed, and I hope the Minister will agree to this: none of us wants to be associated with creating new slum dwellings. What this all points to is the Government making lucrative gestures to their developer friends, and not to the needs of those in desperate need of housing. That is no way to build better.
Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
Baroness Pinnock Excerpts(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my relevant interests in the register as a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
This statutory instrument is one of a series that gives effect to the Government’s desire, in their words, to:
“Speed up the planning system.”
Of course, there is no body of evidence to support the contention that local planning decisions are unduly delayed. The way in which the Government have chosen to speed up the planning system is not the obvious one, which would be to provide additional funding to the local planning authorities to employ more planners. Rather, they have taken a libertarian approach of allowing development to take place without much in the way of restrictions by the expansion of permitted development rights. This will enable two further storeys to be added to small blocks of flats, redevelopment for residential use of a currently disused commercial site and changing the use classes.
The consequence of this approach is that residents’ rights have been tossed aside. The careful balance that the planning process enables, between development and the existing built and natural environment, is being ditched for these developments. My noble friend Lord Greaves has already pointed to some of the downsides of this approach. These planning changes may even encourage businesses to create empty properties and thus further damage town centres.
As my noble friends Lady Bakewell and Lady Randerson have explained from their own experience, local people care about their area and want to be able to influence what happens to it. As a local councillor, one of my biggest case loads concerns planning applications. Existing residents are understandably concerned about a new development on their doorstep. The issues they raise often concern increased traffic volumes, pressure on already oversubscribed school places, air quality and loss of green space and natural environments. These are the issues that can be raised directly at the planning committee or via me and other local councillors. Residents want the power to have their say and want their voices to be heard, and adjustments are often made in the application as a result. That is how good planning proceeds.
That process is being tossed aside. It will not bode well when these changes come into effect. Of course, the Minister told us in response to a question yesterday that residents can make comments about a plan under these permitted development rights proposals, but these comments can have no effect. Naturally, it makes matters worse for people if that is the case.
I turn to some of the specifics in this SI. It proposes a fee structure for residential developments. The maximum fee cannot exceed £300,000. Perhaps the Minister can let us know whether this means a site for more than 600 properties can be developed without a full planning process that allows for detailed scrutiny of the proposal. It also means, of course, that developers’ contributions through the community infrastructure levy will be avoided—as will, for instance, consideration of pressures on school places.
The extension of permitted development rights is yet another example of Conservative ideology triumphing over expert advice. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government published its own report on an assessment of the earlier extension of PDRs. It was damning. How is it possible that a Government are deliberately enabling the creation of homes that, in some cases, lack bedroom windows? I appreciate that the Government prevented that particular atrocity in this SI but they fail to understand that space standards, for example, may be bypassed and other such loopholes will be found to cut corners and costs for developers while leaving homes that will rapidly become the slums of the future.
We on these Benches know that good development for our built and natural environment depends absolutely on detailed scrutiny by planning experts, those directly affected and their local democratic representatives to achieve a considered and acceptable outcome for all concerned. Sustainable economic development is best done with people, not against them. Running roughshod over local people, as this SI and others do, is simply not acceptable.
Planning Rules
Baroness Pinnock Excerpts(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh
My noble friend knows that open space, sports and recreation facilities are taken into account in the National Planning Policy Framework, and there is no suggestion made by the Government that that will not continue to be the case.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am a councillor. Under these changes, a local business could be demolished and replaced with flats. The existing residents would be badly affected. Such residents would contact councillors like me as they want to have their say on this development. I would have to tell them that they will have no say—their rights have been removed by this Conservative Government. Does the Minister accept that this is a fair response, and if not, what would he say?
Lord Greenhalgh
My Lords, as someone who was a local councillor for 16 years and the leader of a council for six years, I point out that simply because you have prior approval does not mean that local communities are unable to comment. They can comment on individual applications for prior approval under the consultation requirements set out in the general permitted development order of 2015. There are ways to make your voice heard, even if there is a presumption that things will go ahead in the ways outlined in the PD rights.
Business and Planning Bill
Baroness Pinnock ExcerptsTuesday 14th July 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Business and Planning Act 2020 View all Business and Planning Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 119-I Marshalled list for Committee - (8 Jul 2020)
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pity that the debate on these important amendments has not been taken as a whole. I am responding to the introduction to the debate on this group, which began late last night.
Throughout the debate on the Bill, we have heard how important it is that businesses are given a temporary helping hand to make them viable in the longer term. My noble friend Lady Doocey has provided three detailed changes to legislation that will make a substantial difference to tourism businesses, as well as to those regions of our country whose local economies depend absolutely on holidaymakers. I hope, and anticipate, that the Government will be able to respond constructively and positively to these immensely helpful amendments.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, raise the matter of caravan sites, campsites and holiday accommodation operating during the winter months, as well as the related issue of combined holiday offers. The tourism industry has been hit more than most during recent months and the Government must explore all options to support it during these turbulent times.
I am pleased to inform the Committee that my noble friend Lady Morgan of Ely has this responsibility as part of her ministerial portfolio in the Welsh Government. She is doing all she can to help support the reopening of the tourism industry, which is of course a vital component of the Welsh economy. The impact on the wider industry has enormous ramifications for local economies and wider supply chains. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government will support all involved.
The noble Baroness’s exact proposal for winter openings has merits, but we should also consider the unintended consequences. Perhaps the best means to do so, as with so much of this legislation, is through consultation with local authorities.
While on holiday parks and accommodation, it is important that we briefly recognise the consumer rights issues that have unfortunately arisen during this crisis. For example, the Minister may be aware that there have been disputes with Parkdean Resorts, which initially insisted on pitch fees during the months in which holidaymakers were unable to visit. On that issue, I would welcome an update from the Minister on whether the Government have taken any steps to support dispute resolution efforts between operators and accommodation owners.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
The noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, has withdrawn from the list of speakers, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.
Baroness Pinnock [V]
I remind noble Lords of my interests as set out in the register as a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. We on these Benches understand and support the Government’s purpose in bringing forward the changes to hours of construction in the Bill. It will enable a phased start at the beginning and end of the day for construction workers to ensure social distancing and provide an opportunity for developments to catch up on the last three months. But rather than be prescriptive about hours of working—although I have sympathy with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—Amendment 55 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem would ensure that the extension of hours took into account the impact that these had on residents, the wider community and the environment.
Planning conditions set out as part of planning consent invariably include limits on hours of working. As a rule, these are 7 am to 6 or 7 pm. They are there to minimise any impact on neighbours. Extension of these hours must therefore include mitigations for those affected. That could be, for example, to restrict hours when deliveries can be made, as construction traffic is often one of the main local concerns. Extension into the evening or a much earlier start will mean lighting up the site, with the inevitable impact that brings with it. Amendment 55 would balance out these issues, and that is the purpose of the further Amendment 57, again in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Campbell. Considerations about hours of working inevitably include not just planning officers but highways and environmental officers, hence we propose that, by agreement, developers and the council can extend the time for consultation beyond the 14 days. Some construction companies understand that working with local communities rather than bulldozing their way through to get what they want, regardless, has many benefits.
Amendment 54 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shipley would ensure that the planning authority was recompensed for the work done to extend hours. The minimum fee is £195 for planning applications and seems appropriate in this case. The Government must ensure recompense for work done. Planning consultants working for the developer will undoubtedly be paid handsomely for making the application to extend hours. It is only right that those making the decision be recompensed as well, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to that proposal.
The cross-party Amendment 73 is clearly about an administrative oversight and I am pleased that the Minister has given notice that the Government will seek to put the matter right. The three-month review proposed in Amendment 58 by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is one that the Government should consider carefully. A change of construction hours appears straightforward on paper but has many ramifications in reality, and time set aside to reflect is always a good idea. With those comments, I trust that the Minister will accept that our amendments are constructive in purpose and are in the interests of achieving a fair balance between construction, communities and the environment, and that the Government will be prepared to accept them.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport [V]
My Lords, Amendment 58 in my name would explore how the changes to construction hours might impact on those employed in the industry. The changes are welcomed by Unite the Union, which represents construction workers in the UK, but I understand that there are concerns that any extension of hours does not simply lead to workers working extended hours. A better situation would result in staggered shifts, allowing more construction workers to be employed on the site while maintaining social distance. I am sure that it is not the Government’s intention that longer operating hours will adversely impact those on site, but I would be grateful for assurances on how that will be guaranteed.
On the broader planning amendments, as the former leader of Newport City Council and leader of the Welsh Local Government Association, I speak from personal experience on these issues. I am all too familiar with the need to be cautious of the adverse effects on the environment, wildlife and of course of the need to take into account the views of local residents. My noble friend Lord Hain spoke eloquently about the scandal of land banking when over 400,000 homes are waiting to be built across the UK. Indeed, it was and still is a constant source of tension in local authority planning departments as developers await a rise in land and home values and just sit on their given permissions. My noble friend’s idea of a forfeit of planning consent is an excellent one. It would gain much support in local government. Most importantly, it would allow for homes to be built again to try and assuage the great need that we have for homes across the UK.
I hope that the Minister will offer assurances that he will engage with local authorities to stress the importance of these factors. Furthermore, I am glad to support the comments of my noble friend Lord Kennedy in welcoming the changes announced by the Government to Amendment 73 ensuring that the mayoral development corporations, TfL and the London Legacy Development Corporation can hold virtual meetings, as they are also planning authorities.
Lord Balfe [V]
I have a very short intervention to make. I looked at this set of amendments in conjunction with the previous set. This is a sensible extension of the time limits, in my view, and I hope that those who will benefit from it—the developers—will have realised that this is adequate quid pro quo for the keeping-up of standards, which was the subject of most of the previous set of amendments. If we are to have a level playing field, this is what is wanted in return for what we want from them.
Baroness Pinnock [V]
I have a short comment to make on the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. He makes a strong argument in his request for a time extension to planning permissions and environmental approvals. I look forward to what the Minister has to say in this regard, because it seems to me that the case has been made.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport [V]
My Lords, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, highlight questions in the Bill relating to the duration of planning provisions. Amendments 59, 62, 66 and 68 beg the question of what the consequences will be should the Bill be delayed. The other amendments in this group demonstrate the lost time and capacity available for development during 2020.
The United Kingdom is suffering from a lack of affordable housing. We must build to a scale which has not been seen in recent decades. The pausing of developments in recent months would make this even more difficult. We should also be alert to the knock-on effects on housing stock should developers be forced to cease construction altogether. As I noted in the previous debate in relation to the comments of my noble friend Lord Hain regarding land banking, we must allow houses again to be built without delay to provide homes for the people of this country. I hope the Minister can offer assurances regarding these issues.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
We do not seem to have the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.
Baroness Pinnock [V]
I too support this amendment, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. The issues were raised at Second Reading. There will be unexpected impacts as a consequence of the ramifications of this Bill on both licensing and planning legislation. There must be a means of addressing them in a timely way. So far, we have not heard from the Government how that will be done. The noble Lord has brought forward a reasonable proposal for how any issues that arise from the Bill could be addressed, but as yet the Government do not appear ready to accept it. I look forward to what the Minister has to say in response.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his amendment.
First, I recognise that this legislation is passing through Parliament at considerable speed. Your Lordships rightly stress the importance of scrutiny. However, any review of the kind proposed by the noble Lord should be proportionate to the issue in question. The measures in this Bill respond to the specific conditions created by the Covid-19 pandemic. We have already ensured that the vast majority of those measures are explicitly temporary or relate to temporary schemes.
Amendment 76 would create a potential cut-off to the Bill’s provisions every quarter. The Government believe that that would be very unhelpful and undermine the purpose of the Bill. Surely we need to give the economy and businesses stability and reassurance. Bringing these measures back to Parliament every three months for positive reapproval would create the very thing that businesses want to see the back of—uncertainty—and would severely dilute the benefits intended in the Bill. We cannot expect businesses and local authorities to operate not knowing whether these measures will be turned on or off every quarter. Construction work may be delayed or cancelled, vital freight vehicles may lie dormant, and businesses may find it difficult to operate.
Indeed, different sectors will need their provisions for different amounts of time. The different end dates of the temporary provisions in the Bill reflect the different effects of Covid-19 according to sector. For example, the challenges facing restaurants, bars and pubs are not the same as those facing HGV drivers, developers or construction firms.
I am not dismissing the case for scrutiny. Parliament will still be able to monitor and scrutinise the Government’s actions in all the usual ways. Let us bear in mind that, as the noble Lord reminded us, the powers to extend the duration of the temporary measures are subject to the affirmative procedure to provide opportunity for thorough scrutiny of the use of these provisions. As my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh outlined yesterday, we will also accept the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s recommendation in relation to the powers to extend measures in this Bill, to ensure that the effects of coronavirus are part of that consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked how we as a Parliament will monitor mistakes and how those mistakes will be corrected. The answer is that built into these provisions are flexibilities that lie largely in the hands of local authorities, which can, taking pavement licences as an example, amend conditions or remove the licence altogether. In so far as we have devolved powers to local authorities, they have the ability to correct mistakes, if one can put it that way.
My final point, which I invite the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, to reflect on, is that a rolling review would mean that we could not implement the two permanent measures in the Bill. We would not be able to reform the Planning Inspectorate appeals system, as was recommended by the Rosewell review and has already been implemented in Wales, and we would not be able to future-proof rules for temporary exemptions from heavy vehicle testing. The existing rules allow for exemptions to be issued on a blanket basis during exceptional circumstances. The measures in this Bill will allow the Government to issue exemptions on the basis of road safety risk, while still being constrained through regulations to issue these exemptions in relation to exceptional circumstances. This corrects a deficiency in existing emergency powers.
For these reasons, I cannot accept this amendment and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Kramer [V]
My Lords, as employers bring back employees, even observing all the government guidelines scrupulously only reduces the risk of Covid—it does not eliminate it. That brings me to the issue of employers’ liability insurance and Covid, which I raised at Second Reading. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his letter to me, in which he addressed the questions that I raised, but it seems that the problem remains. He wrote:
“Every employer carrying out business in Britain must maintain compulsory employers’ liability insurance, which insures them in relation to bodily injury or disease sustained by employees arising out of and in the course of their employment in that business. There are strict limits on the conditions and exclusions which such policies can contain.”
However, both employers and employees were very taken aback to find that business interruption insurance, which they thought covered them in an instance such as the pandemic, in most cases has not been applicable. Many will look at the terms of employers’ liability insurance and feel very uncertain that, in a case where an employee acquires Covid at the work site, they will be protected by that insurance, and of course employers share that same concern. There is a real worry that insurance companies will find some way out of being responsible for paying compensation or that they will ask the employers to add to and expand their insurance, at some extraordinarily exorbitant price.
I was interested in Amendment 77 because I am being realistic in recognising that the Government will not intervene at the moment to try to make sure that this insurance is adequate—and at the moment, insurers are not feeling a lot of pressure. But the coming together of employees and employers, which in a sense is outlined in Amendment 77, seems to provide a venue to create pressure and to place attention on this issue. I fear that, particularly if we have a second spike, it will become a very significant issue, and I do not want the pressure to try to deal with this matter to go away.
Baroness Pinnock [V]
My Lords, Amendment 77 on employee and employer considerations, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, is a timely reminder that all the elements of the Bill have a consequence on working lives and employer responsibilities, and provide opportunities to develop better working practices and relationships. Liberal Democrats have long proposed employee involvement in businesses as a means for improvements to be gained, both by the employer and those employed. This debate is important, we support the sentiments, and I look forward to the response from the Minister.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 77, in the name of my noble friends Lord Hain, Lord Monks and Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, introduces the issue of employer-employee relations and highlights the role of trade unions and other organisations that represent employees in determining the success of these changes.
The Government will want to engage constructively with the relevant trade unions, and it would help the House if the noble Earl could set out how he has consulted them during the drafting of the Bill and sought their views on the issues contained in it, which have a direct consequence for the people they represent.
The Bill seeks to support economic growth, but if workers, their views and the views of their representatives are not taken account of and their safety is ignored, that is irresponsible—and I am sure the Government would not want to do that. The worst thing of course would be if we did not take their views properly into account and that failure contributed to a second wave of the pandemic, which would be—health-wise and economically—an utter disaster for the United Kingdom.
I agree very much with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, about how we should look to Germany and the work it does there with its works councils. I was over in Berlin a couple of years ago and saw the great work Rolls-Royce was doing at its factory just outside Berlin.
My noble friend Lord Hain mentioned the Communication Workers Union, and I fully endorse his comments. I also pay tribute to USDAW, the shop workers’ union. I was a member of USDAW for many years. Its members, the shop workers, are the people who have kept our shelves filled, and not without abuse and assaults from people. There have been some disgusting stories of offensive behaviour that shop workers have had to endure from people coming into shops. We should pay tribute to them. During the passage of the Bill concerns have been raised with me by the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, which of course has many members employed in pubs, about their safety as we move forward.
I also endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Hain that managers and trade unions working together can make a huge difference for businesses, local authorities and the rest of the public sector, particularly the NHS. We should not forget that when we clap NHS workers, pay tribute to shop workers, rightly praise local government staff and call firefighters heroes, they are members of unions such as Unison, Unite, the GMB, USDAW and the FBU. They are the same people—there are not two groups of people, one of heroes and great workers and the other of trade union people. There is something that has always frustrated me, and I raised it many times when the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, was Local Government Minister. When we discussed the tragedy of Grenfell Tower, the frankly totally unfair attacks on the FBU by the Prime Minister always irritated me. I repeatedly raised that, because it was totally unfair. Those heroes are members of that trade union. I will leave my comments there, and I look forward to the reply of the noble Earl to the amendment.