Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development etc.) (England) (Amendment) Order 2021

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

That a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development etc.) (England) (Amendment) Order 2021, laid before the House on 31 March, be annulled because it introduces a significant policy change without being subject to sufficient parliamentary scrutiny; it affects the ability of communities to have a say in important changes to their local areas; and it does not present an effective or sustainable solution to the housing crisis (SI 2021/428).

Relevant document: 52nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2019-21 (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as a member of Kirklees Council and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I thank the Minister for taking part in this debate. I am sure he will give a clear explanation of what he believes this piece of secondary legislation will do. However, until today, none of these significant changes has been the subject of political debate either in this House or in the other place. As a negative instrument, this piece of secondary legislation would have sailed into law without any further ado. My colleagues and I between us have extensive experience of planning matters, particularly as they impact individuals and local communities. We believe that legislating for significant changes to planning law in this way, by stealth and without public scrutiny, is totally inappropriate in a democracy.

The report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee drew this conclusion:

“Given that the changes made by this Order are permanent and may have a considerable impact on high streets and the development of key infrastructure, such as schools, colleges, universities, prisons and ports, the instrument again raises the question whether it would have been more appropriate to make these changes in a Bill, enabling Parliament to scrutinise the changes and their potential impact more fully. This is particularly apposite as the instrument also puts the Government’s approach to protecting historic statues, including those which may be controversial, on a statutory footing.


This Order is drawn to the special attention of the House on the ground that it is politically or legally important and gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House.”


I concur completely.

Those are the reasons why I have tabled a fatal Motion against this statutory instrument. To be clear, I am not opposed to the process enabled by the general permitted development order, which permits some planning changes without a full planning application process. The process of permitted development has been successfully used for some time. The Government, though, have gradually increased the number of planning changes that can be made without full local consideration of the impact on communities. With this SI, there is a considerable extension of permitted development rights to include, for instance, major extensions to schools and prisons. Permitted development explicitly removes the right of the voice of local people, often those directly affected, to be heard and considered. People care deeply about the place they live in and want to be able to voice an opinion.

This instrument permanently extends permitted development rights in four further ways. There is an extension of the right to change shops, offices and commercial buildings to residential use. This has been enabled by the changes made by an SI last year that altered the planning use classes, whereby all shops except small local ones, offices, cafes, gyms and some commercial properties were moved to the same planning use class and thus more easily given permitted development rights to move to residential use.

Some minor caveats are proposed. Prior approval of the local planning authority has to be given in some instances. Those relate to noise and transport impact—but just those related to rights of access—and ensuring space standards and even adequate light. Who would have thought that that needed to be controlled? Of course, it is good to regenerate town centres by enabling more residential use. Some of us have been arguing that for several years but this order is not the way to go. Shop fronts could be changed to residential and the cohesive attraction of a high street completely lost. These changes are permanent and apply equally to conservation areas, which have special protection under planning law. A full planning application would enable such issues to be more readily and openly resolved.

In a further insult to leaseholders who are currently fighting the Government’s complete intransigence on safeguarding them from developers’ fire safety failings, the Government note that prior approval to consider fire safety issues will not be part of the instrument and will be added later. Fire safety as regards changes to residential use is seen as an afterthought. Yet, changing offices to residential use will have considerable implications for fire safety.

The instrument also enables schools, colleges, universities and prisons to expand by as much as 25%. That is a large extension for, say, an average high school of 1,000 pupils. Just think of the consequences in terms of traffic and, more importantly, school admission planning. Growth in one school is often at the expense of another, which is harmed as a consequence. The idea that this huge change can be made less bad by submitting a travel plan that is unenforceable, which it is hoped will be sufficient to quell the anger of local people at a significant rise in school traffic, cannot be and is not a serious proposition.

Port facilities can be built and extended just by saying so. There will be no consideration for local people and certainly no opportunity for them to have their say.

Meanwhile, in the fourth part of this statutory instrument, statues and monuments are being protected by the requirement for a full planning application and for the Secretary of State to be informed of any changes. Statues to the respected and the notorious are to be fully protected but the rights of people to have their say on major changes in their communities are to be removed by the flick of a pen.

In my experience, earlier extensions of permitted development are not going well for the Government. The right to erect 25-metre mobile phone masts without any ability for local people to amend the outcome caused outrage in one of the villages that I represent as a councillor, as did the right to build an extra storey on to a retirement bungalow in a street of retirement bungalows. People just want the right to influence what happens in their neighbourhood or wider community. It is what you expect in a democracy.

The Motion that I am proposing is definitely not to hinder change and halt development but is aimed at ensuring that individuals and communities are engaged and involved in planning decisions that affect their lives. Any argument that suggests that this is all about the speed of planning decisions ignores factual evidence that shows that planning decisions are currently made within reasonable timescales—set by the Government—and are of the same timescale as those that require prior planning approval. I urge Members to support my Motion for the sake of good governance and the democratic process. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

I thank the Minister for his response. I am grateful for the very well-informed and passionate debate that we have had in this hour or so this afternoon.

Many Members have drawn attention to the value of engagement and decisions that are taken with a wider range of views. Unfortunately, this instrument is a continuation of the erosion of the rights of local people just to have their say on changes that affect them and their communities. There is no need for the extension of permitted development to achieve the Government’s aims. For instance, the Minister has just talked about the need to enable the expansion of schools without going through a full planning application. A response to a full planning application can be achieved within eight weeks if the right information is provided to the planning authorities. That is a drop in the ocean compared to the time it takes to organise a development or extension of a school on that scale, and it is worth doing because it engages everybody in what is happening and what the consequences will be, for good and for ill.

It is a sad day for democracy and good governance when the Government believe that this approach is acceptable. It is such an assault on democratic decision-making at a local level. I do not take these matters lightly: I have never before in my time in your Lordships’ House proposed a fatal Motion and I have done so not necessarily on the content of the statutory instrument, but on its principle, which is the erosion of local democratic rights and good governance. We cannot allow this to continue—this steady drip, drip, drip of democratic rights disappearing. It is not right, and it has to be stopped. That is why I maintain that a fatal Motion is appropriate in this case and, as such, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Fire Safety: Leaseholder Bankruptcies

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Monday 24th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My noble friend is right. We believe that developers should contribute and make buildings safe without passing the costs on to leaseholders. There have been a variety of announcements by developers: Bellway has announced a cladding removal fund of £46.8 million, Persimmon one of £75 million and Taylor Wimpey has pledged £125 million. The Government have also announced a gateway levy on high-rises, as well as a developer tax that will raise £2 billion over 10 years.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant interests. Given the answer to the previous question, will the Minister provide any valid reasons at all for the Government expecting innocent leaseholders to pay the huge costs of remediating cladding and non-cladding fire safety defects, while those who created the problem—the developers he just mentioned—get off virtually scot free?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, we are very clear that we expect building owners to make buildings safe and not to pass on costs to leaseholders where possible. We have provided a substantial sum of money to ensure that the costs of cladding will be affordable for those in medium-rises and that those in high-rises will not have to contribute to the remediation of the most dangerous element of the building.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Monday 24th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my relevant interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a member of Kirklees Council.

The basic tenet of the Bill is to be welcomed. The excellent briefing by the House of Lords Library states very clearly the intention that

“freeholders or landlords will no longer be able to make financial demands for ground rent. It seeks to do this by establishing that new, long residential leases are only permitted to charge a peppercorn rent (which has zero financial value) … In addition, the bill would prohibit the charging of administration charges relating to peppercorn rents. The bill would also establish a civil penalty regime for those who charge a prohibited rent”.

The Bill sets out the 26 clauses needed to enact that intention.

The Bill is, therefore, both technical and detailed, and I am sure that other noble Lords will be able to use their expertise to probe and challenge different aspects of the Bill and whether it achieves its stated intention. In her excellent contribution, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, has already started to challenge and probe the meaning of the clauses in the Bill. I concur with all the questions she asked; they are both relevant and important.

As the Minister said in his opening speech, there are 4.5 million domestic properties with leasehold agreements, of which approximately 3 million are flats and 1.5 million houses. This is, therefore, not a niche issue but one which affects millions of people. My attention was first drawn to an impending scandal when it was reported in local Yorkshire media some three or four years ago that new-build houses had been bought with the new owners seemingly unaware that the developers had attached a spiralling ground rent charge to the property. As the Minister has stated, the Competition and Markets Authority became involved. The situation has been likened to the mis-selling of PPI. An individual case was highlighted in a report in the Independent this weekend. There, the annual ground rent for a one-bed flat in London, purchased for £170,000 in 2018, was to double every five years. In 20 years’ time, the ground rent will have risen from an affordable £1,050 per annum to a completely unaffordable £16,800. Such abuse is the scandal that the Bill seeks to prevent, by permitting only a peppercorn ground rent and banning administrative charges on ground rents, thus closing any further legal loophole through which leaseholders are at the mercy of unscrupulous freeholders. This is welcome news, but it does, of course, penalise those freeholders who have acted responsibly and not exploited the situation.

The additional huge gap in the Bill is its failure to address the situation of existing leaseholders faced with spiralling ground rent costs. This means that leaseholders—often, but not always, first-time buyers—could be left with costs spiralling to unmanageable levels and their property becoming unsellable. The failure of the Bill to deal with past abuses of ground rent and service charges will leave existing leaseholders in a worse position, because it will create a housing market where new-build properties, with zero ground rents, will be far more attractive than those with spiralling ground rents. Who in their right mind is going to purchase a property with those extortionate additional costs attached to it? Then there is what I define as a scam, which some freeholders are using: the so-called informal lease extension, which also includes clauses of doubling ground rents. Using this approach, freeholders agree to an extension, not of 90 years, which reduces ground rents to zero, but, say, of 125 years, which then has within it clauses which double ground rents every five or 10 years. That is an abuse by some freeholders that has to be prevented.

There is a theme in this Bill, which I have challenged before in relation to the Fire Safety Bill: existing leaseholders being left to hang out to dry or, more exactly, of the Government wringing their collective hands, offering empty promises and absolutely failing to take action to protect those who have been completely failed by existing legislation, by highly profitable developers and by freeholders who have lost all sense of integrity. The challenge for this Bill, as in debates on the Fire Safety Bill, is: what are the Government going to do for the innocent leaseholders? The scandal of flammable cladding and fire safety defects, which the Government have contrived to avoid, is happening on their watch. The scandal of spiralling ground rents hitting leaseholders is happening on their watch. This Bill could have been used to provide wider protection for leaseholders: both the innocent victims of the cladding scandal and construction crisis and, now, those who are victims of abuses and unscrupulous behaviour by some freeholders. Will the Minister outline to the House what effective action is being proposed by the Government to provide redress for those leaseholders who are innocent victims in both these scandals? I look forward to the Minister’s reply and to further stages of debate on the Bill.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as a member of Kirklees Council and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I listened to the gracious Speech with eager anticipation, then read the Government’s more detailed explanation of their intentions. I was to be disappointed. There was the slick headline of “Build Back Better” and a sub-heading of “Public Finances”. I looked in vain for any mention of local government finances.

The Conservative Government have a cunning plan, it seems. First, cut grant funding to local government by 60%—£16 billion in cash terms—forcing deep cuts to the fabric of local places. Then, accuse councils of closing these selfsame services. The trump card of levelling up is then played, where central government comes to the rescue by carefully selecting additional funding for a few cash-strapped areas. Meanwhile, more councils are on the verge of issuing Section 114 notices—the equivalent of bankruptcy. A positive change to local government funding is one major missing element.

Another is the absolute failure to reform social care funding. This matters to local government, as 57% of council tax income is spent on social care. Council tax—a regressive tax—is being forced to bear the burden of the Government’s failure to deal with the challenge of social care funding. Each year since 2016, the Government have added the adult social care precept to council tax, resulting in a 13% rise to council tax bills. As council tax rises, so potholes increase, to the extent that even the Conservative-led County Councils Network is complaining publicly about the £400 million cut to local roads maintenance even after the pothole fund has been taken into account.

The two major Bills outlined in the gracious Speech that affect local government are the planning Bill and the building safety Bill. It is, I suggest, disingenuous to state in the “Key facts” section on the planning Bill that

“only … 3 per cent of local people engage with planning applications”,

when the majority of applications are, of course, of a minor nature. People are concerned about the changing nature of the place they live in, whether it be the loss of green fields, pressure on local facilities, traffic congestion or air quality. Neighbourhood planning showed that people will engage positively when given the opportunity. Sadly, the principle behind this Bill is that local voices need to be excluded in the interests of development companies—the same development companies that have failed to build 1 million homes for which there is a current planning permission.

The building safety Bill is to be welcomed in that it is the major response to the Hackitt review and the Grenfell inquiry. It will, I hope, put right the decades of regulatory failings in the construction industry. Unfortunately, it will fail to respond to the cries of anguish from leaseholders who are trapped in tower blocks where flammable cladding has to be removed and where the costs of other fire safety defects are being passed to leaseholders. These costs amount to tens of thousands of pounds. It is a scandal of growing proportions, and the Government have an absolute duty to put it right. Are they committed to fulfilling their responsibility in this regard?

Councillors of all parties and none have at their heart a passion to improve their local place. They are the people who can truly help level up. They need the tools to do so. Starving councils of funding and essential powers will seriously hamper any hope of significantly growing and improving the opportunities and prosperity of both people and places. With that, I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morse.

Tower Blocks: Cladding

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I start by pointing out that on 95% of the buildings that were identified at the start of last year as having the same cladding as Grenfell Tower either the cladding has been removed or work has started to remove it. We have made great progress in the past year, with some 159 starts on site. The building safety fund is open and continues to approve a number of works that will ensure that other forms of unsafe cladding are removed.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

[Inaudible]—the management companies for their blocks are refusing to sign up to a grant from the building safety fund unless leaseholders also sign an agreement that commits them to pay for all other remediation works. As a consequence, essential and urgent fire safety work is not being done. Leaseholders cannot commit to pay when they have no means to do so. How do the Government intend to break this impasse in the interests of fire safety?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, we have to be clear that the agreement is with the building owner and not with individual leaseholders. No leaseholder will be required to fund additional works as a condition of government funding for cladding remediation. Of course, where building owners voluntarily decide to carry out works at the same time, we need assurances from them that this can be covered.

Fire Safety Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 28th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

If Motion A1 is agreed to, I cannot call Motion A2. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to speak to Motion A2.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a member of Kirklees Council.

Throughout the course of this Bill, I have said that I support its contents and purpose. I cannot support the unintended consequences that will have a devastating impact on individual leaseholders and a very damaging effect on the housing market. Those are the reasons for my asking again for the Government to take responsibility for the consequences of this Bill, which despite the Minister’s best efforts has been totally underwhelming so far. Promises have been made by the Government and not kept.

The Government’s response to date is to provide grant funding of £5 billion while knowing that the total cost is estimated at £16 billion. The grant includes only blocks over 18 metres and only removes the flammable cladding. For those in lower blocks, there is the prospect of paying up to £50 per month for years to come.

Conveniently, the Government fail to take into account the non-cladding issues that are a result of construction failure of immense proportions. These non-cladding issues are the ones that will finally push individuals over the edge. Meanwhile, those who have literally built this catastrophe walk away with their billions of profit. The Government have a duty to protect their citizens—it is their prime duty—yet here we are today with perhaps a million of our fellow citizens being thrown to the ravages of financial bankruptcy, and the Government wash their hands and look the other way.

The Government will argue that the Bill is a vital response to the Grenfell tragedy. It is so vital that it has taken four years to get to the statute book. The Bill’s purpose is to include external walls, doors and balconies in the fire safety order of 2005, so that action is taken to protect people from another Grenfell tragedy. However, a Bill is not now needed to force action to remove cladding; that is happening. It is not needed to get fire alarms put in; that is happening. Those who own the buildings, and those who are leaseholders and tenants, already know that action has to be taken to make their buildings safe. It is no longer urgently necessary to get legislation to force the issue and it is no longer possible to force construction firms to take the necessary action; there is not capacity to do so. If, though, the Bill does fall, this provides a breathing space for the Government to develop a package of further measures that will protect the interests of leaseholders and save them from penury.

The amendment in my name seeks to achieve that breathing space. It is based on the original one in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and has been adjusted to include the various very valid points that have been made during the passage of the Bill. We must all recognise that passing this Bill will not magic away the crisis that individual leaseholders are facing. It will not remedy the construction scandal. It will not provide stability for a foundering housing market. It will be the beginning of a scandal of individual bankruptcies, homelessness, intense stress and mental illness. It will become a public scandal and I for one will at least have on my conscience that I have done all in my power to prevent it. Leaseholders have done everything right and nothing wrong. Liberal Democrats will stand by them. I give notice that I wish to test the opinion of the House on the amendment in my name.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, as we seem to be in the last chance saloon, I will try not to repeat myself too much, but declare my interests as both a property professional and a vice-president of the LGA. As I said yesterday, the House seems to be presented by the Government with a choice. On the one hand is the evident desirability of implementing fire safety measures in pursuance of the valuable recommendations in the report by Dame Judith Hackitt into the Grenfell tragedy, plus a partial solution to some of the effects of cladding replacement on a limited class of taller buildings, as we have heard. On the other is what I am afraid I must describe as the effective hanging out to dry of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of other home owners. It should not be a question of either/or in dealing with a growing and pressing social and economic disaster. I too support improved fire safety, but not on the basis of creating further untold, and probably unquantified, problems.

Yesterday, the Minister endeavoured to persuade us by saying that this brief and simple Bill merely clarified the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. I am afraid to say that, on my own rereading of that, he is plainly mistaken. This Bill amends the scope of the fire safety order by inserting an exception to paragraph 1a, referring in turn to two newly inserted paragraphs, 1A and 1B, that substantially expand the scope of the order. The fact that anything was attached to the named elements means the Bill has far wider implications than might be supposed. So I am afraid to say that the Minister’s assertion really did it for me. I felt it was misleading and what my late father would have described as an exercise in intellectual sharp practice. My distinct impression is that I am being taken for some sort of fool. The indisputable fact that must be regarded as plain is that this Bill makes the changes that by direct chain of causation have created the issues and caused the results that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, seek to resolve.

Another issue appears to be one of definition. The Government are concerned that any scheme that might be put in place could be used to avoid regular maintenance and routine upgrades. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in particular, seeks to address that. In my experience there may be grey areas, but I do not have any difficulty in my work in distinguishing repairs and the like, or like-for-like replacements, from those items that are improvements. Nor do most leaseholders and property owners.

Let us be clear—and here I take a cue from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for a bit of historical background—that it was on the watch of a Conservative Government that the 1984 Building Act brought in the approved inspector regime and the effective privatisation of the regulatory oversight of construction quality, previously exercised by local authority building control. Despite indicators of shortcomings and shortcutting, this process continued, without adequate checks on who was doing the inspection of the works, or how good the oversight was in practice. It is on the basis of the subsequent 37 years of construction and its legacy of known and unknown deficiencies, scattered randomly about the nation’s housing stock, that modern housebuilding, construction warranties, lending and home ownership have been founded.

If the Government consider that they need to take steps to protect the valiant and much-abused postmasters from system failure, how can they, with it any cogency or conscience, make a distinction concerning a far greater number of home owners who are affected at least as severely? So, while I note that the Minister in the other place this afternoon sought to point the finger at the unelected Lords blocking the democratic decision of the Commons, I simply say that the exercise of raw political power vis-à-vis the party whip to procure a majority in the Lobby does not endow the Government with a moral superiority, or indeed the social advancement of justice and ethical treatment of citizens. I note the reasons for rejecting our amendments, which simply translate as “too difficult”. I suspect not half as difficult as picking up the bits after this has rolled itself out.

At one point I believed the Government had it hand to corral all the potential damage, but I believe they have not done so. It would not concern me if this Bill fell, so unreasonable do I believe its true effects to be, and so lacking is the willingness of the Government to deal with it. What it has proposed will roll out far too slowly: eight months to do the highest-risk buildings, and how much longer to deal with the far greater number in future stages? What about capacity in terms of manpower, training and so on?

I took note of the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, but I find that sitting on my hands, signifying my acceptance of the Government’s position here, does not sit comfortably with my conscience—knowing, as I do from professional experience, just what harm the Bill is likely to do, alongside its undoubted good.

I suspect that the Bill will ultimately pass into law, even if the Parliament Act has to be invoked—but I am afraid I cannot agree to it as it stands. I fear that Lobby fatigue may mean that this is the end of the matter for now. Either way, I shall return to this subject in the new Session—as, doubtless, will the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Meanwhile, I have absolutely no hesitation in supporting the thrust of the amendments—any one of them, whichever might gain approval. And I hope I will sleep with my conscience clear as a result.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

At end insert “but do propose Amendment 4N in lieu—

4N: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Prohibition on passing remediation costs on to leaseholders and tenants pending operation of a statutory scheme
(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) This section has effect only until a statutory scheme is in operation which ensures that leaseholders and tenants of dwellings are not required to pay more than £50 per month during the course of the lease in respect of remedial work attributable to the provisions of this Act.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a cost that—
(a) is permitted under a lease or tenancy agreement that was made before this Act is passed, and
(b) does not exceed £500, whether as a one-off cost, or in total across a 12-month period.
(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to a leaseholder who is also the owner or part owner of the freehold of the building.””

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

I thank all noble Lords for another excellent debate—the fourth in the series—and their contributions tonight.

Again, the tune from the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, the Minister, has not changed—it is the same old record: “This is not the right Bill”. Well, if it is not the right Bill, where is the Government’s Bill to address the horrendous problems that are going to be faced by leaseholders? Where is the Bill that will keep the Government’s pledge that leaseholders would not have to face the unaffordable consequences of fire safety defects? Where is it? Its absence tells us more than anything else about the Government’s commitment to help leaseholders.

To pledge, as the Minister has done, that the building safety Bill will pave the way, forgets the fact that bills are landing on doormats as we speak. Time is of the essence, and still the Government refuse to move. It is a thoroughly depressing moment when people can be thrown to the wolves in order to save the Treasury from paying what it ought to pay and extracting what it ought to extract from those who have caused the problem. The construction scandal—the cladding crisis—is the Government’s, and the Government’s alone.

I thank the Minister for his criticisms, once again, of the amendment I have proposed today. I just wish he would do something about it rather than saying that he cannot do this and cannot do that. What is he going to do?

I have taken heart from the impassioned speech by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. He is an expert in the housing field and has frequently shared his expertise in this House. The fact that he too cannot in all conscience vote for the Fire Safety Bill as it stands, unamended, gives me heart that we have got this in the right place from the point of view of those of us who want to protect people from exorbitant costs of putting right fire safety defects.

I will say one last word. Let us remind ourselves that leaseholders are those that have done everything right. They have saved up for their house, put down the deposit and budgeted for the expenses they anticipate. They have done everything right and nothing wrong, yet the Government—and, it seems, others in this House—are willing to make them pay the price. That is not acceptable, and the Liberal Democrat Benches will not stand by and let it happen if we can help it. It is a depressing moment, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has indicated that he is not prepared to vote for the amendment to try to get safeguards for leaseholders. He has thrown in the towel, and I find that disappointing and utterly depressing.

However, with those words, I am prepared to have one more go to try to protect leaseholders and, indeed, tenants from the awful, if unintended, consequences of this Fire Safety Bill. I wish to seek the opinion of the House and I beg to move.

Fire Safety Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 27th April 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I join noble Lord in paying tribute to the fire and rescue services, and the bravery they have shown recently and every day. But these heroes—they are heroes—are FBU members. They have not always been shown the respect they deserve from many people, particularly the Prime Minister when he was Mayor of London. He did not always show the FBU members the respect they deserved, and these are the same people. I make that one point.

I draw the House’s attention to my relevant interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, a non-executive director of MHS Homes Ltd and chair of the Heart of Medway Housing Association. It is most disappointing that we are back here again, and I accept that it is very unusual for us to push this again, but I will test the opinion of the House.

My amendment is based on the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, and it would ensure that no costs are passed on to the leaseholders or tenants. That the subsection would remain in force until such time that we get the Government’s statutory scheme. Further, it would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to come back within 90 days to publish draft legislation to ensure that leaseholders and tenants do not have to pay, and to publish a timetable for the implementation of that legislation. Finally, we would also require a progress report from the Secretary of State within 120 days of the passing of this amendment.

Now, why are we back here again? It is because the Government have been quick to promise and slow to act. We are here because they are not listening to the innocent victims of the cladding scandal, who should be at the forefront of the levelling-up agenda, if it is anything but a slogan that the Government have no intention of delivering. These people are families whose homes are blighted. They need their Government to come to their aid but, instead, the Government made promises that they have spectacularly failed to deliver. That is no way for a Government to behave. As I said, I intend to divide the House when the time comes.

“We will do whatever it takes” is a statement that the Government regularly put about, whether from the Chancellor announcing new measures or the Culture Secretary regarding the European Super League. Sadly, it is never said by the Government when it comes to dealing with the innocent victims of the cladding scandal. Perhaps, in replying to the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, the Minister for Fire Safety, can explain that failure to the House, because we have never heard from the Government what the plan is, which is part of the problem. If we are informed of a clear, well thought-out pathway and route map to help the victims we could make progress, but for some reason the Government will not do that. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell the House about this road map when he responds to the debate.

I want to see this Bill on the statute book, but I do not accept for one minute that this puts it at risk. We still have days before the end of the Session. I do not want to hold the Bill up. It is good in what it does, which is to implement the first recommendation of the Grenfell Tower inquiry—the first bit of legislation since the fire, now nearly four years ago. No one can accuse the Government of acting in haste. On a separate matter, we still have six families in temporary accommodation following the fire at Grenfell Tower.

It is vital that our dwellings are safe and that people can sleep safely at night, without fear. The Government have committed £5 billion—I accept that that is a significant amount of money—but the situation is far from satisfactory and it is in the Government’s gift to do something about it. Only the Government can do something about it, but they are not willing to at present. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans told us when we last debated this—I pay tribute to him for his leadership and for seeking a solution to this scandal—the result can be bankruptcies, enormous mental health strains and possibly worse. Part of the problem is that there have been no assurances to prevent the remediation costs being passed on to leaseholders until the Government’s scheme is operational. This is what my amendment seeks: to prevent the costs of this scandal being passed on to tenants and leaseholders, the innocent victims.

We have all seen in the media the heartbreaking reports of the crippling costs that leaseholders are having to bear, such as interim fire safety costs and high insurance premiums. Surely the developers that built these defective flats, the insurance companies that provided the guarantees but no longer want to honour their commitments and the professionals who signed off the buildings as safe should be paying through their professional indemnity insurance. Instead, innocent victims are left bearing the costs of this scandal, despite the promises made to them.

This leaves them with a dilemma: sell their lease and take on the debt resulting from negative equity, or stay in their leases and face huge debts in the form of remediation bills. They might possibly declare bankruptcy. Surely that is wrong. The leaseholders are playing by the rules and paying their taxes. They are buying a home and doing the right thing, but are not being supported. They had no indication that this was coming. This is a dreadful tragedy. In the absence of an adequate plan and scheme to deal with these issues properly and fairly, there is no other way forward. I hope that the House will support me. We need to find a solution to pay these costs. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I start by drawing the attention of the House to my interests, as recorded in the register, as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a member of Kirklees Council.

On three separate occasions, this House has confirmed its view that the Government should urgently address the plight of leaseholders and tenants who will be significantly and adversely affected by the consequences of the Fire Safety Bill. The provisions in the Bill are not the issue; they are a welcome small step to address the failings exposed by the dreadful Grenfell tragedy. The Government and, no doubt, the Minister will state how important it is that this Bill is passed, as we heard the Minister say a few moments ago. Both omit to say that the Government have been tardy in regard to the passage of the Bill; the Report stage in this House took place in November 2019. If the Government had made the Bill a priority, we would not be here, in the final throes of this Session, seeking to find a just solution for those directly impacted by it.

Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 20th April 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for his engagement in this small but important Bill. I am pleased that it is finally now going to pass; this is the second time I have worked on this Bill—because it was lost before the general election—so it is something I am very well aware of. I thank the noble Lord; he has been very helpful, as always. I join him in thanking all the organisations he mentioned—the LGA, the National Association of Local Councils, the British Toilet Association and others—for their helpful advice, guidance and support. I also thank Ben Wood from the Labour group office for his help and support on the Bill.

I thank all noble Lords who engaged in the Bill, particularly Lord Greaves, whose last speech in this House was on this Bill, as noble Lords may remember, some weeks ago, before he sadly passed away. Although Tony was in a different party from me, he was well respected in the House and was a very good man. He worked as a local councillor and as a Member of this House and he will be missed by us all. I am delighted that the Bill is going to pass.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I point to my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a member of Kirklees Council. Liberal Democrats support the measures in this Bill, and during the debate we have sought to improve accessibility and to extend the reach of the Bill to include other public buildings. I thank the Minister for his positive responses during the passage of the Bill, and for the meetings he held to enable an exchange of ideas. I also extend my thanks to those associations that have helped in the progress of the Bill, so that we all understood exactly what we were trying to achieve.

The Bill was the last time my noble friend Lord Greaves spoke in the House before his sudden and untimely death. It was typical Tony: promoting the value of parish and town councils, making a strong case for the very basic and essential public services provided for communities by local government, and exploring the meaning of the word “mainly”, used throughout the Bill. Tony will be greatly missed on these Benches for his humanity and commitment to communities. I rest my case there and thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for his help in getting this Bill passed.

Fire Safety Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 20th April 2021 Lords Chamber

However, the Bill, having raised the bar, now needs to be accompanied by safety nets, back-stops and proportionality in what follows. They must be put in place forthwith or parliamentarians will be faced with questions as to how the danger from fire has become a factor that puts families at serious peril, if not actually out of their homes. These are hard decisions that cannot be avoided, and they are ones that any Government must address.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a member of Kirklees Council.

This has so far been a very good debate, with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, using his expertise to detail the problems and suggest solutions to them since, as he says, they have yet to be resolved and need to be resolved, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans with his passionate exposé of the real difficulties facing individuals in this position.

We know that a property purchase is the largest single financial commitment that the majority of us ever make, yet the guarantees, the warranties and even buildings insurance for leaseholders fail to provide anything approaching adequate provision for those who find themselves living in a home where building regulations have been openly and plainly breached. Those living through this construction crisis and cladding scandal exposed by the awful tragedy of Grenfell are left with nowhere to find redress for the inexcusable failings of the construction companies.

That is in stark contrast to manufacturers of, for example, cars and white goods; where faults are discovered, even where the goods are out of warranty, the manufacturers call them in and make the repairs at their expense. What a difference with the construction industry, where only some of those involved have made any provision for remediation works—the bare minimum that they feel they can get away with. The total estimated cost of remediation so far is £16 billion. The Government are expecting construction companies to pay £200 million a year towards the remediation costs. With the government-funded scheme, that leaves a full £9 billion to fall on those who, throughout, are the innocent victims.

The purpose of the amendments in my name and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans is to extend the principle already agreed by the Government: that this serious problem can be successfully fixed only with up-front funding from the Government that can then be recouped from developers, construction firms and manufacturers.

Throughout this debate I have sought to draw the attention of the House to the real and serious consequences for the individual leaseholders and tenants. Take Alison, who has recently had a bill for £28,000. That is just her share of the costs of putting right the construction errors in her block. It is not for cladding removal; the other construction failings are not covered by the scheme that the Government have introduced, but they still have to be remedied. How is that bill to be paid? She carefully budgeted for the costs of her mortgage and the service charges but has no means of raising the finance needed. Where on earth can she turn to save her home?

Another flat owner has written to me, as they apparently have to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, about the further consequences of the scandal. They told me about their buildings insurance premium, and it is so shocking that it is worth sharing again. The insurance premium for their block was just £11,963 last year but that has rocketed to £242,400. How on earth can people living in that block of flats have budgeted for that sort of exponential rise in their insurance premiums? Further, how on earth can they have budgeted or indeed find any finance to pay the bill, which they expect within a week, of £6,000 for each and every one of them without the Government doing what Governments can and should do, which is to protect individuals from situations where they are the innocent victims?

As a consequence of the complete lack of effective government action, bankruptcy has been the only route out of this scandal for many already, while others are on the brink of choosing that as the only option left. Yet these are the very people who have done everything right and nothing wrong. Some are even those who have been supported by the Government through the Help to Buy offer. What are the options after bankruptcy, when everything that you have worked for has been taken away? For those without dependants, the situation is very difficult. They become homeless through no fault of their own. It cannot be right that the Government are allowing this to happen.

I do not envy the Minister his task today as he seeks to defend the indefensible. I feel sure that he will point to the building safety Bill as the cure-all for the failings of the construction sector, but that Bill has yet to start its deliberations so its potential remedies will come far too late for those caught up in this crisis.

The Minister has argued that the Fire Safety Bill will fall if agreement is not reached. He argues for the need to act, but he fails to say at what cost and indeed at whose cost. I thank him for reminding me of my words at Second Reading but he has been a bit selective. I have always said throughout the passage of the Bill that leaseholders must not be asked to pay. Yes, across the House we support the Bill, but equally its consequences need to be thought through as well. The Government constantly state that they are helping leaseholders; indeed the Minister has repeated that today, but he failed then to say that that is unfortunately at a minimal level and the extent of the help is not adequate.

I have asked the cladding groups whether they would suffer if the Bill fell. Their view was unanimous. They concluded that they would be no worse off if it fell and they say that if it does not pass, to some extent it provides them with precious time to get the issue properly addressed.

Yesterday, the Government announced that they would change the law to refund investors in the London Capital & Finance mini-bond scheme. The Government have accepted that the FCA failed to regulate the firm properly. The similarities with this construction scandal are many. Innocent victims are set to lose out due to the failure of regulatory control. However, in the case of the cladding scandal, innocent victims are set to lose everything they own and have worked hard for. That is not right.

The amendment in my name seeks to put right this awful wrong and to establish the rollcall of statistics of bankruptcy, homelessness, mental ill-health and worse, of relationships broken and careers lost. Hundreds of thousands of individuals and families are watching and waiting for the decision of this House. They are willing us on to help find a fair and just solution to a problem that is not in any way of their making. Yet they are the ones who are being asked to pay the price.

If the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans wishes to divide the House, the Liberal Democrat Benches will fully support him. If, however, he chooses not to do so, then I will wish to test the opinion of the House.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, the following Members in the Chamber have indicated that they wish to speak: the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, and the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Cormack. I will call them in that order. First, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.

Levelling Up

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

The levelling-up fund is a UK-wide £4.8 billion fund announced at the spending review, with a view to investing in local infrastructure that has a visible impact on people and their communities. It should drive regeneration in places in need: those facing particular challenges, and areas that have received less government investment in recent years. Some £600 million will be available this year for projects that have the support of their local community, and up to £4.8 billion will be available by May 2024.

All local authorities across Britain can bid for the fund, but they were placed in three categories of need, with the first more likely to get funding, including help to construct their bids. Areas were selected through a deeply flawed methodology that ignores most measures of deprivation, including the Government’s own index of multiple deprivation, which takes into account income, levels of crime and health, and instead favours areas with low productivity and where people have long commutes to work—typical characteristics of rural areas.

Covid-19 has had a catastrophic effect on the finances of local government. The LGA estimates that because of the pandemic up to a further £2.6 billion of support will be needed to cover the cost pressures and non-tax income losses of 2020-21 in full. The Government’s long-term neglect of the UK’s high streets and local businesses, with footfall down 10% since 2012, had left around one in 10 high street shops standing empty even before the coronavirus hit. Councils in England have seen their core funding from central government reduce by £15 billion in the last decade, and 773 libraries, 750 youth centres, 1,300 children’s centres and 835 public toilets in England have closed.

Not a single one of the 200,000 starter homes that the Conservatives promised in 2015 has been built, despite nearly £200 million being spent. The Government have now been forced to concede that they will not keep their promise to deliver nationwide gigabit broadband rollout by 2025, and now look highly likely to miss even their reduced target of 85% coverage. Unlike the Welsh Government’s highly successful 21st-century schools building programme, the UK Government have refurbished less than half of the schools that they had promised by this year; the programme has been delayed by four years and is running £300 million over budget.

A list of local authority areas grouped and prioritised according to economic need has been published, but with no real detail as to how that was calculated. In November the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee published its report into the towns fund, announced by MHCLG in the summer of 2019, and which invited 101 English towns—out of 541 assessed—to apply for money from the fund. The committee found that the process by which towns were selected was “not impartial” and that the department

“has a weak and unconvincing justification for not publishing any information on the process it followed.”

The Government’s treatment of the levelling-up fund is symbolic of their divide-and-rule approach: Richmondshire is in the top level, while Sheffield and Barnsley, both of which have notably higher deprivation levels, are in tier 2. The funding metric must be published. The list as it currently appears is proof that this Government’s actions are levelling areas down, pushing regions and nations and some of the poorest places in the UK to the back of the queue for investment. It appears to be about this Government using the money to level up the Conservative Party’s electoral prospects rather than the economic realities of left-behind communities. I call again on the Government to publish the methodology behind the allocation and then revise how Whitehall makes these spending decisions.

Out of 45 areas allocated money from a pre-existing £3.6 billion towns fund by the Chancellor, 40 have Conservative MPs, and five of them are Cabinet Ministers. Can the Minister explain why the Government’s bizarre formula for determining priority areas appears to use car-journey distance over levels of poverty? The Chancellor has said that the metric was based on an index of economic need that is transparently published, but the fund’s official prospectus says that the information is coming “shortly”. Again I ask: when will this metric be published? Last year the National Audit Office said that the choices in 2019 of which towns could access the towns fund were based on “sweeping assumptions” and may have been politically motivated, as a number were marginal constituencies.

The actual amount of money being distributed by the levelling-up fund is just a drop in the ocean compared with what the Conservatives have taken away from the public realm over the last 10 years. I am afraid it looks weighted towards the interests of the Conservative Party rather than the interests of the British people, who have suffered over a decade of austerity. The past year has shown us how woefully unprepared public services in the UK were to deal with the onslaught of the pandemic. If you keep taking and not putting back, eventually the edifice will crumble. This time last year, when Covid hit us with such force, it found a weakened UK in every corner of its public services.

So what would Labour do in order to bring about fairness in distributing public funding? We support funding for every region and nation, but it is crucial that it is done transparently, fairly and with a say for local communities. This fund fails on all those counts. All regions and nations should get their fair share of investment. This fund pits regions and nations against each other for crucial funding, and hands money to wealthy areas held by Cabinet Ministers ahead of those in greater need. We need to be pushing power down to spread prosperity, but the fund puts control in the hands of Ministers in Whitehall instead of local communities.

This piecemeal funding does not make up for failure over the past decade, which has seen services decimated as £15 billion of cuts have been made to local government. Under the fund our regions will be getting less than they did before the crisis and, unlike before, they will have to fight against each other for every penny of investment. We should have transparent funding metrics in place and leave every part of this country a good place to grow up and grow old in.

The Government’s failure to invest for the past decade has meant that the UK has had the worst crisis of any major economy. The Government now need to secure our jobs, support our high streets and strengthen our communities through investment that truly delivers the aspirations of people in every region. If the Government care about levelling up, why have they not come forward with a plan to fix social care, which in some areas of the country is close to collapse?

Does the Chancellor’s approach to prioritising funding for the levelling-up fund not show that, if you vote Conservative, your money will go to wealthy areas? How can this Government claim to fix regional imbalances when the fund pits regions and nations against each other? What assessment have they made of reports that Cornwall Council will take the Government to court over the decision not to prioritise its area? Does the Minister expect further court cases?

What about the positions in the nations? The fund bypasses the devolution settlement by directly allocating funding for regional and local development in Wales, directly counter to the expressed position of the Senedd and directly contrary to what was announced at the 25 November spending review, when the Chancellor said the £4 billion commitment in England

“will attract up to £0.8 billion”

in funding

“for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the usual way.”

This is the UK Government taking funding that would previously have been allocated to Wales to spend in line with the priorities that the Senedd—elected by the people of Wales—has identified. Decisions are to be made by Whitehall departments with no history of delivering projects in Wales, no record of working with communities in Wales and no understanding of the priorities of those communities. In practice, this means that the UK Government will be taking decisions on devolved matters in Wales without being answerable to the Senedd.

The Governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland now face the prospect of a centralised, Whitehall-led approach instead of a regional and nation-focused approach. The UK Government are going out of their way to take money away from the nations and pick a needless constitutional battle to weaken devolved powers in the middle of a global pandemic. Their fixation with undermining democratic devolution is driving a cynical attempt at rebranding existing spending as new and rolling back progress on a model of national and regional development by democratically elected Governments and councils across the United Kingdom. They are indeed levelling down.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a member of Kirklees Council. I read the Statement on levelling up with great interest. My own area of West Yorkshire includes towns and cities that, by any fair measure, will qualify for focused help to support their residents. I am therefore particularly keen to understand what it is all about.

“Levelling up” is a rather nebulous phrase. I want to understand precisely what it means and, more importantly, what is hoped to be achieved by it. Perhaps the Minister can help, as I have not been able to find anywhere either a definition or an explanation of how improvements will be measured. Can the Minister please provide a definition of levelling up and the metrics that will be used to determine whether the funding allocated has been a success? I appreciate that sharing metrics data orally is not easy, so will the Minister provide that information and make it available to all colleagues through the House of Lords Library?

The tools that the Government are proposing and which are outlined in this Statement are resonant of previous attempts to improve the lives of parts of our country that do not enjoy the same level of well-being as the more affluent one. Previous Governments have used similar funding packages. There was City Challenge, the Single Regeneration Budget and then SRB2. This was followed by investments through the regional development agencies. The common feature was infra-structure investment, although some aspects of SRB had elements of support for jobs and skills. Will the Minister provide the data that demonstrates that the areas that benefited from the funding packages I just listed have prospered as a result—or, better still, data that explains the reasons why some of the same places are still suffering from multiple deprivations? I can name them if the Minister is not sure which places they are. I ask these questions because the Government are in danger of repeating some of the less successful aspects of past attempts at regeneration. They need to explain whether providing shiny new roads and revamped town centres is the way to improve lives and level up.

The Covid pandemic has shone a bright light on the areas of our country that suffer from considerable deprivation. There is a strong link between deaths from Covid and living in deprived parts of our country. Can the Minister explain why some of these areas will not benefit from any of the funding packages outlined in the Statement? Are these places just going to be ignored? What plans do the Government have for providing support for them? Does the Minister agree that reviving local government by enabling local authorities to provide self-help may well be the best way forward? Of course, that depends on adequately funding local government and devolving to councils the right to bring in local knowledge and talent to take responsibility for making the towns that they represent proud places once again. Does the Minister agree?

What we do know is that people who live in areas of multiple deprivation have lives that are literally limited. They die younger; they live in poor-quality housing; their access to healthcare, training and well-paid jobs is limited. Does the Minister, with his wealth of local government experience, agree with this? If he does, can he also explain the reason for these measures not being the main ones used to determine which places will benefit from the funding packages outlined in the Statement?

This brings me to the selection of the places that are due to benefit from those funding packages. Of course, metrics can be carefully selected to ensure that the towns that the Government wish to benefit from additional funding come out top of the pile. That is clearly what has happened in these instances. Using the metric of distance to travel to work will target those places that are of a more rural nature. If that is the aim, the Government should be honest about it and focus on improving public transport in rural areas. If the heart of so-called levelling up is providing focused support to places suffering from multiple deprivations, the Government should use the metrics that enable that to happen. If they do not, they are being hypocritical and make those of us looking on regard what they are doing with some cynicism.

Much of the content of this Statement is of packages that are being announced as new yet again. The miserable levels of funding to mayoral combined authorities of £30 million or so a year in areas that serve, say, 2 million people, is just another example of re-announcing old packages of funding. The support for the well-to-do areas that can raise £250,000 as matched funding to buy and run a community asset has been re-announced. These packages are not new and not aimed at poorer parts of our country.

I want those post-industrial towns that have experienced considerable decline—economically and socially—to benefit from long-term and sustained support that will revive their communities, improve the health and well-being of their residents, enable training and skills that lead to well-paid jobs, and bring hope for the future. Unfortunately, the package of funding announced does none of that. I look forward to answers to my questions when the Minister replies.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, the Front-Bench speakers have taken most of the 20 minutes allowable, but I can confirm that the Minister has plenty of time to reply and that the Bank-Benchers will still get their 20 minutes.