Local Authority and Combined Authority Elections (Nomination of Candidates) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I repeat the interests that I stated in the discussion of the previous statutory instrument as a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I welcome the addition to the disqualification criteria of anyone who is on the sex offender register. I note what the Minister said, which is also in the document, that, although we are discussing the consent to nomination for mayoral candidates, this has been laid as a negative instrument to include councillors at all levels, including in London. I welcome this.

The Sexual Offences Act was passed in 2003 so why has it taken nigh on 20 years to get what would for everybody be an obvious disqualification criterion included on the consent of candidates form? What has it taken 20 years? I was lobbied by a sitting councillor in the north of England about a parish councillor who was put on the sex offender register. There was no way of disqualifying them. I remember sending Written Questions to the appropriate Minister at the time seeking some action on behalf of the Government to rectify this error because, whatever we think about the situation, people will not stand if they are on the sex offender register. If they have already been elected, they will not be disqualified if the criterion does not exist. That is what happened in this case. If you are elected to public office, you have authority and access to institutions that are not necessarily available to others. If you are on the sex offender register, that brings an additional risk to members of the public. Why has it taken 20 years when my little network of folk knows of an example where a disqualification should have occurred but could not occur because of this lack of action by the Government?

I have a second question, which I know the Minister will be happy to answer. We have this SI for council and mayoral elections, including for combined authority mayors, but what about Members of Parliament? Why is there not an SI that changes the consent to nomination candidates’ form for Members of Parliament? They have even greater status and access to institutions than a councillor or a mayor. Why is that not here? I gently reference the fact that, currently, a number of Members of Parliament are being investigated about complaints of sexual harassment or offences. That would seem to me to indicate that we—those of all parties and none—have got to be more aware of the folk that we ask to stand for public office. Here is a way, by including this criteria in a parliamentary candidates’ consent to nomination, to provide that bar and give protection to the public.

I clearly support what is here today but I have questions for the Minister. I think that he is now trying to find answers to them; I look forward to those.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I again refer your Lordships to my entry in the register, stipulating that I am a local councillor in Burnley Borough Council.

This instrument will update the candidate consent to nomination forms to reflect the very welcome changes introduced by the Local Government (Disqualification) Act 2022, to which the Minister referred. An overwhelming majority of local councillors, mayors and mayoral candidates serve their communities to the best of their ability in the spirit of public service and public duty. I have done so for 15 years as a local councillor. I know that the Minister served as a council leader, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.

However, when individuals fall short of the standards we expect from elected representatives we must ensure that action can be taken to remove them from office and, importantly, prevent them standing in the first place. Labour supported the associated Private Member’s Bill, with my honourable friend the shadow Minister, Jess Phillips MP, stating that

“it is important that this change is made in relation to all representatives, but with a special focus on those who act as corporate parents.”—[Official Report, Commons, Local Government (Disqualification) Bill Committee, 1/12/21; col. 4.]

It is great to have some cross-party agreement on what is quite a sensible thing to do. It is vital that we uphold the best standards in public life at all levels of government. I echo my noble friend Lord Jones’s comments. He spoke about the extra effort and hard work that has gone on behind the scenes to get this here.

I shall finish by asking the Minister a few questions, in the spirit of previous speakers. Are any further instruments necessary to implement provisions of the Local Government (Disqualification) Act 2022? Finally, can he confirm whether these measures will be in force for any upcoming local authority by-elections? I look forward to his response.

Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Government for bringing these regulations forward—they are absolutely crucial. As the Minister said, most—57%—of the exposure to carbon monoxide occurs in the home. We know that one in eight homes in London has levels of carbon monoxide that exceed the WHO limits, and we know that one in five has at least one faulty gas appliance. With financial stringencies, this will probably get worse because people will not have their appliances serviced. Some 54% of homes in England do not have a carbon monoxide alarm. With that background, and welcoming these regulations, I have a few questions for the Minister—I hope that he will be able to answer them satisfactorily.

First, why are gas cookers excluded? The issue here is the coroner’s report that followed 18 deaths that were linked to the Beko cooker scandal, where carbon monoxide was pouring into homes due to a fault with the cookers. The 2017 report Understanding Carbon Monoxide Risk in Households Vulnerable to Fuel Poverty found that, while 59% of homes had a gas cooker, only 25% had that cooker serviced annually. In homes in poverty in particular, the gas from the cooker is often incompletely burned. Some ethnic minority groups in our population cook by putting tin foil over the surface of the burners, which promotes incomplete burning.

One of the problems is that children’s heads are at the level of the cooker itself, so children standing near a mother who is cooking are probably inhaling higher levels of carbon monoxide than the mother. It may not be enough for them to fall on the floor unconscious, but they may be exposed to chronic low levels of carbon monoxide poisoning. As the Minister rightly said, sub-lethal doses cause pathologies including brain damage, sensory impairment, heart disease, Parkinsonism and low birth-weight babies, which becomes particularly important when the woman is pregnant. They also cause cognitive developmental delays in infants born to mothers exposed during pregnancy, as well as respiratory difficulties. That was my question on gas cookers.

Secondly, why are homeowners generally not protected by the regulations until a new appliance is installed? How will people become alert to the fact that an alarm is faulty? Whose responsibility will it be to chase this up, and what is the prosecution process for a landlord who is negligent in this?

Thirdly, why is the alarm type not mandated? This seems to be a lost opportunity, because rogue landlords will inevitably go for the cheapest alarm available. In Scotland, the type of alarm was determined and it was one that had sealed batteries in it. From experience over the years, we know that, in households where batteries can be removed from alarms, people remove them to use them in their television remote, or wherever. The alarm then fails because the batteries have been taken out and people are not aware of the problem.

Lastly, will the alarms be mandatory for bedrooms? There have been several cases where children have died because carbon monoxide has leaked through the brickwork into the bedroom where they were sleeping—their parents then found them dead from carbon monoxide poisoning. The problem is that, when you are asleep, carbon monoxide just makes you more sleepy, so you certainly would not be woken up by it. Of all the rooms in a house, it is bedrooms where people spend the most time all in one go; they do not go out and move around to get the air circulating. In modern housing, particularly in the winter, people sleep with the bedroom windows closed, so there is even less air circulation. So I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that bedrooms count as living accommodation and, therefore, that alarms must be also in the bedrooms.

Having said that, I hope the Government will have a good public education campaign to roll out the importance of acting when the alarm goes off, of understanding what the alarm does and what people should do if a tenant feels that their landlord is in breach of the regulations. Understanding the health implications of carbon monoxide poisoning is also important, because, unfortunately, across the healthcare sector generally, until fairly recently—and I think even now—some people are somewhat ignorant of the effects of carbon monoxide poisoning and how the non-specific symptoms can present, suggesting sub-lethal exposure in an ongoing way.

So, with those questions and caveats, I welcome these regulations and would not intend to take any action to stop this proceeding–but I do hope that I will have satisfactory answers that will be on the record to all my questions.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I will start by reminding everyone that I have a registered interest as a member of Kirklees council, which manages social housing that will be affected by these regulations. Much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has said is also in my notes—but there are one or two differences.

Broadly, this is an important step forward in making rental homes in both the private and social housing sector safer for tenants. It is a great surprise to me that social housing was omitted from the 2015 regulations, so I am pleased that these regulations are going to put that right. The Office for National Statistics, when I had a look this morning, records that over 100 lives are lost each year from carbon monoxide poisoning. It did not differentiate between domestic and non-domestic deaths; nevertheless, 100 lives are lost from a silent killer, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has explained. So, requiring the installation and, importantly, the maintenance of alarms will undoubtedly help to save lives.

It is also good to see that the regulations include a requirement for landlords in both rental sectors—private and social housing—to ensure maintenance and respond in a reasonably practicable time. I hate that phrase, because it means something and nothing. I wonder whether the Minister would be able to give us a broad definition of what “reasonably practicable” would look like. No doubt landlords who have a positive relationship with their tenant will respond promptly, but not all landlords are in that category.

Those are all positives, but I have some questions. The first one is about the type of smoke alarm. I am surprised that there is not more being said about the type of alarm that is going to fulfil the regulations. Nine-volt battery alarms, which are the cheapest and therefore most likely to be the ones that some landlords will use to fulfil their obligations, need a battery change every six months—I think it is the National Fire Protection Association that recommends that. There are lots of reasons why that will not happen.

Some homes will think that they are secure but are not. I find it surprising that that has not been more fully explored. The sealed lithium battery models last 10 years; that is a good length of time. I wonder whether there is anything the Minister can do to give us some comfort that the Government will be recommending or pushing for those to be used.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Unfortunately, that last bit is not accurate. If the landlord provides a nine-volt battery smoke alarm, that will last only six months. That is at the heart of what I am asking. Some landlords will not make lots of attempts to get in to make sure that the smoke alarms are there and will not see that they are properly fitted, so all this will unravel. If we are having regulations, and I am glad we are, surely there has to be something about a long-lasting solution.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

The noble Baroness is of course right that that would make sense—I should declare my interest as a private landlord, although these regulations affect social housing. It would make sense to put into guidance something that would enable the quality threshold to be met so that we would not have that eventuality of smoke alarms with a very short battery shelf life becoming the de facto norm when you could come up with solutions such as alarms that are either hardwired or have a long battery life. That point has now been made by several noble Baronesses and I will take it away for my officials who will be drafting these regulations to take on board.

With that, I have done my best to answer noble Lords’ questions—and if I have not, I will follow up in writing, as I have already undertaken to do.

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 26th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and to hear that he intends to keep a close eye on this, because that will clearly be needed well into the future.

I rise to offer Green support for Motions D1 and H1 and to make a single point about how I see these fitting together. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and others said that the leaseholders are the absolutely innocent parties here—but, more than that, it is important to say that they are the injured parties. They have been injured over years and years of stress and worry, both financial and about their physical safety, given where they are forced to live. Think about going to bed every night fearful about what is going to happen. They are the victims of the policies of successive Governments who have allowed the building industry to act as a cash cow rather than a provider of secure, affordable, decent homes.

There are still a lot of steps down the road, but if we pass Motions D1 and H1 we give those leaseholders and owners the clarity and certainty that they will be looked after, whether or not their building is under 11 metres, and that they will not be hit with a bill that they still cannot afford to pay, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said.

I was tempted to say that your Lordships’ House should put one last heave behind the Building Safety Bill, but then I thought that was a slightly unfortunate metaphor in the context we are talking about. I will pick up what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said: the campaigners have done so much work and have fought so long and hard on this. Let us buttress that and put in the final supports they need to get the Bill we should have.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, it is good to recognise that the Bill has indeed been transformed during its passage through Parliament, but the major transformation point was initiated by the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, when he said that

“leaseholders are shouldering a desperately unfair burden. They are blameless, and it is morally wrong that they should be the ones asked to pay the price.”—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/22; col. 283.]

I agree, as many others across the House will. Unfortunately, however, the Bill currently does expect some leaseholders to pay. My colleagues and I are asking the Government today to think again.

The Government argue that Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights ensures a balance of rights between property owners and leaseholders, which in their view means that leaseholders have to pay towards the costs. That is the basis of the Government’s argument for the cap of £10,000 and £15,000. However, that view was comprehensively challenged by my noble friend Lord Marks, whose argument was endorsed fully by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, on Report. Senior legal minds in this House agree that it is possible within the ECHR for innocent leaseholders to pay nothing.

This legitimately opens up the opportunity, which must be grasped, for the Government to accept that leaseholders must not pay a penny whatever the height of the building, hence Motion D1 in my name to include buildings under 11 metres so that leaseholders in those buildings do not pay. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, rightly reminded us, a building under 11 metres has been destroyed by fire in under 11 minutes. We really need to think again about those buildings under 11 metres. However, I thank the Minister for the assurances he has given to those leaseholders in buildings under 11 metres at the Dispatch Box today and for urging them to get directly in contact with him if they get any invoices for remediation works. I am sure I will be holding him to account on that one, as will the leaseholders, and I am sure they will get in touch with us across the House to make sure that they do not pay. They must not.

What I do know is that the Government need to think again about the leaseholder cap. My Motion H2 reduces the cap back to zero, where it should be. I remind the House of the commitment by Secretary of State Michael Gove that leaseholders should not be paying the cost incurred as the result of the sometimes deliberate actions of others. The Minister himself has acknowledged tonight that some leaseholders will still pay, when we agreed in January at the very start of this great transformation that they are blameless and it is morally wrong that they should have to be the ones to pay the price. We have looked after many leaseholders but not all.

Obduracy in the face of moral right is a failure of political leadership. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches will support the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, in her Motion H1 to achieve a degree of improvement to the lot of leaseholders, who have shouldered the burden of anxiety and fear for too long and whose campaigning efforts have achieved so much.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I must thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I am not sure; maybe we are close to that point where we can say, “One more heave”. I want quickly to turn to Amendment 94 and Motion D1, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to the Government’s Motion D, where she disagrees with the Government. I explained in my opening speech the reasoning behind our Amendment 94A and I do not propose to repeat my arguments. I simply remind noble Lords that the approach the Government have proposed is sensible. Setting the threshold at 11 metres will help restore proportionality to the system, as also argued by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the Government have committed to consult on how best leaseholders in collectively enfranchised and commonhold buildings can be protected. On timescales, in response to my noble friend, I think we said “soon”. I shall strengthen that and say “as soon as possible”. That is a big concession.

I turn to Motion H1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, as an amendment to the Government’s Motion H. It would replace a zero cap in a previous amendment with £250 for leaseholder contributions, while Motion H2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, disagrees with the Government’s caps.

Motion H1 would make changes to the leaseholder contribution caps in Schedule 8 and reduce them to £250, up from the zero cap in her previous amendment. Motion H2 disagrees with the Government’s Motion and would return the caps to zero. As I said in my opening speech, the Government have been clear that setting the leaseholder contribution caps to zero or to a nominal level, such as £250 or £25 a year for 10 years, would not be a proportionate approach. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to protecting leaseholders. Indeed, it is hard to overstate how far-reaching our proposed protections are. They represent a hugely significant and robust improvement on the existing position for leaseholders.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Baroness Pinnock]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 184A and 184B and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 184C and 184D”

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this is a shattering defeat for those doughty and determined campaigners who have made the case for justice for all leaseholders. I say to them that we on these Benches are on their side. They have right on their side. Unfortunately, the headline from the Government that it was morally wrong for any leaseholder to pay for the wrongs of others in the building safety scandal was a headline only, and a cynical attempt to win over more than half of the campaigners so that the rest get left to pay the bills that will come their way. I am sure that many of them will feel betrayed by the Government acting in that way.

As was pointed out earlier, it was easy to say that no one should pay. If not many are going to pay, why not encompass them all? No one should pay. We on these and the Labour Benches, with the support of Cross-Benchers and others, have tried to force a change—a rethink. Unfortunately, that has been lost tonight, but it will not be the last we hear of this. I will continue to fight, but for now I shall not move the Motion.

Motion H2 not moved.

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 4th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, as one who has been involved in housing policy for over 50 years, I pay tribute to my noble friend for his time, care and effort, and his listening qualities, which have not always been a feature of those on either Front Bench. I offer sincere thanks to my noble friend.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the cladding and building safety campaigners who have been resolute and unremitting, since the Grenfell fire tragedy, in pursuing justice for leaseholders and tenants. Without them, this Bill would not be in the shape it is today. It has been transformed but not transformed enough, as we have heard from others. Across the House, people have worked together to make it a better Bill. I thank them for the way we have worked together to make improvements, but it is not yet enough.

I, too, urge the Government to accept the amendments that we accepted on Report. I, for one, am not giving way. I hope that the Government, at the other end, will say that the argument has been made for a nil cost to all leaseholders. That is where I shall firmly stand to the bitter end. Leaseholders are the innocent victims; they must not pay a penny.

I pass on my thanks to the Minister for being so free with his time, discussing the various amendments, and to the officials from various parts of the Government for explaining the detailed changes that had been proposed. Particularly, I thank Sarah Pughe in the Liberal Democrat Whips’ Office, and my noble friend Lord Stunell. Without their expertise, knowledge and experience, we would not have been able to do the job that, between us, we have done. I look forward to the Bill coming back, having been accepted by the Commons.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I beg the indulgence of noble Lords: as my noble friend Lord Young and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, asked pretty much the same question, I thought I would respond to that very briefly. They wanted to know what happens to orphan buildings, where there is no polluter to pay. I do not feel that this works in this setting, but I have this wonderful diagram that makes it pretty clear to me what happens. This is the so-called “non-cladding costs waterfall”, which I am going to try to have put on the Government’s website. Let us be very clear: we need to look at this in terms of cladding and non-cladding.

There is, of course, the £5.1 billion building safety fund for the remediation of cladding in high-rise residential buildings, which is open to orphan buildings. My department is seeking a further £4 billion voluntary contribution. In the first instance, it is a voluntary contribution from the developers for the remediation of unsafe cladding in medium-rise buildings, which is also open to orphan buildings. Then, we have this wonderful government waterfall for non-cladding costs: the developers must pay. In instances where the developer is not available to pay, the landlord must pay. The landlord or freeholders who pass the government test, which is a net worth of £2 million per building, become legally liable for all the costs. The landlords must comply with the law, as set out by Parliament. Freeholders or landlords must pursue those responsible, as well as any applicable grant schemes, before they can pass costs on.

Finally, as it says on this wonderful chart, which even I can read with my poor eyesight, costs are shared equitably between freeholders, lessees and leaseholders, subject to robust leaseholder protections detailed in the Bill—and sent back to the other place with some other parameters that perhaps the Government might not have wanted at this stage.

I want to make a final point about landlords. Sadly, some landlords are polluters. A number of large freeholders have appeared on the Government’s “name and shame” list for not remediating their buildings. Some freeholders or landlords have gone so far as to force leaseholders to take loans to remediate their buildings. As I said, we all agree that, in those instances, the polluter must pay.

Housebuilding: Target

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

That is an incredibly good point, because the wider public sector counts for about a third of the money that is spent in the construction industry in any given year. We need to encourage small and medium-sized builders who are more innovative and bring new things with them, rather than simply the large-volume builders.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister understands the difference between affordable housing and housing for social rent. In response to a previous question on social housing, the Minister’s answer was “Affordable”—which is not the same thing at all. So can the Minister help the House to understand, with construction costs soring and social housing dependent on government grants, whether the Government will increase the size of the grants so that more social housing can be built to meet the desperate need in this country?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, the House will be unsurprised to know that I do understand the difference between types and tenures of housing. What I said in response to a previous question was that we had pledged to build 32 socially rented homes, and that the amount in this current programme is double that of the previous programme. To be clear, I meant 32,000 and not 32—I must get my numbers right. There is a real commitment to build not only socially rented homes but the houses between that and outright home ownership.

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

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

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, again, I thank those who have participated in this interesting debate.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

Oh, I thought we had finished.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

No, we stopped before the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and I had had a chance to speak. That is what comes of stopping mid-flight, but here we go—if anybody can remember what we were doing an hour ago. Before I go on, I remind the House of my relevant interests, as a member of Kirklees Council and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

First, I speak to Amendment 15, which is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and to which I put my name. I raised a number of concerns at Second Reading and in Committee about the consequences of the part-privatisation of building control inspectors some 20-odd years ago, whereby developers can and do appoint their own building control inspectors. As noble Lords will know who have been here throughout all these stages, I have referred before to my favourite: “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” Who will call these folk to account? At the moment, nobody does, and the result is what we are trying to deal with today.

If we had a band of building control inspectors who were like terriers in pursuit of bad practice and cutting corners, we would not be here today trying to put things right. So this is absolutely key to what we are doing—and, of course, I support the creation of the building safety regulator, and all the other parts of the Bill that the Government have introduced, but I recognise that it affects only buildings of 18 metres and above. Dame Judith Hackitt brought to our attention in her report her grave concern about developers who can choose their own inspector. Two things need to be dealt with: they should no longer be able to do so, and we should not create a two-tier inspection system. This amendment tries to put those two things right, and I am sure that the Government will accept it. It is, dare I say it, common sense. Why would you have such a stringent regulatory system for 18 metres and above, which I totally support, and then say, “Oh well, for the others it’ll be okay.” It will not be okay, and it has not been, so let us put it right.

The amendment proposes that local authority building inspectors take on that role. I support that idea not because they are local authority, but because they are based in an area and are therefore attached to the council and know who the builders are in that area. They know the particular problems of building in the Pennines, for example, where there is not much ground before you hit solid stone, or of building in London clay, where the problems are different. If we have building control inspectors who recognise the different problems across the country, we are more likely to get regulations that are adhered to. This is an important amendment, and I hope that the Government will treat it in that light.

My noble friend has already introduced Amendment 264, which is also in my name. It is also fundamental to building safety, because unless you have a workforce imbued with the knowledge and experience of building in a safe way, we will have the current corrosive construction industry culture that we and the Minister have spoken about. This is one way, one route, one of the tools in the toolbox—another phrase he loves—to try and put that right. Both those amendments are key. I think the Minister will say: “Yeah, that was really good. Why did we not think of it?” But I am an optimist.

--- Later in debate ---

It is necessary for me to invite the Minister to explain why the Bill provides for the innocent to bear the responsibilities properly attributable to the developer and the construction sector, and more particularly, why putting that onus back onto the industry is unjust, unacceptable or wrong in policy terms.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, there are 70 amendments in this group, but, on a positive note, they are all seeking to protect leaseholders. We have been very fortunate in having such a clear exposition of the issues which remain from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who has demonstrated that there is still a gap in what the Government have set out. Who pays when there is literally no one left to pay? This relates to the orphan buildings, as the noble Lord has described them. That must be resolved. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has just shared his expertise on the matter. I admit that I have not quite understood every part of what he said, except that I know that it is based on knowledge and experience. I am very grateful to him for sharing it with the rest of the House and trying to find solutions to the problems which remain.

I have my name on four amendments. I will speak particularly to two of these which are, in a rather more straightforward way, seeking to achieve the same ends. Amendment 200, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stunell, presents another way by which leaseholders will be protected from any payment which results from the approach which the Government are taking—and which we will discuss in group 7—regarding who pays and how much leaseholders should be expected to pay. It also helps to solve the problem outlined particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, about what happens to these orphan buildings when the waterfall runs out of people to fall on. I have suggested in Amendment 200 that we establish a leaseholder protection fund. I do so because, as noble Lords across the House know, there is an absolute determination on the part of all noble Lords who have spoken so far that, whatever else happens, the leaseholders will not, and should not, be the ones who pick up the bill for the errors of others—errors which are sometimes deliberate.

Amendment 200 takes a slice of the building safety fund which the developers are providing, and it establishes a fund for leaseholders who are left carrying the can, either through the orphan building situation—as described by the two previous speakers—or if the cap which we will discuss in group 7 remains. In both cases, it achieves the same end: there is a fund to which leaseholders can apply for funding to offset the bills they are presented with for work for which they have no responsibility and should never be asked to pay. This is the aim of Amendment 200, and I hope that one of the other amendments deals with this because, as far as I am concerned, this is a backstop. I assume that one of the other amendments will get the majority support of your Lordships’ House, and I will therefore not press this particular amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I particularly like her slogan, “Get the work done.” Somehow it reminds me of a similar slogan we heard rather successfully a couple of years ago: Get Brexit done. I am glad that the Liberal Democrats are picking up some Conservative slogans.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I think it is the reverse.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I support Amendment 233, so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham in his usual erudite way; he had the detail but was still succinct. Because he set it out so well, I can be commendably brief, for a change.

I start from the position of my right honourable friend Michael Gove, and I totally support what he has said and done. I usually support what he says and does, except when he was Conservative Chief Whip and was a bit cuddly, caring and too kind. But apart from that, I liked it when he said that

“leaseholders are shouldering a desperately unfair burden. They are blameless, and it is morally wrong that they should be the ones asked to pay the price. I am clear about who should pay the price for remedying failures. It should be the industries that profited, as they caused the "problem, and those who have continued to profit, as they make it worse.”—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/22; col. 284.]

You cannot say better than that. So I am rather sympathetic to any amendments, including the one moved by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, trying to make sure that developers or perpetrators pay every penny. It should not be leaseholders and, ideally, it should not be the taxpayer.

However, this amendment creates a remediator of last resort and allows the Secretary of State to step in and undertake the works. In either case, it would allow the Secretary of State or the local authority to pursue the responsible developer with debt claims to recover the money laid out on remedial works. As my noble friend so ably said, that ensures that there is a failsafe mechanism in the law. The Government’s legislative proposals do not tell us what will happen if remedial works are simply not started or cannot be completed as a result of the effect of the caps imposed in the Bill and the restrictions on buy-to-let landlords.

The duty in this amendment would fill the gap. The Government’s proposals would require some sort of remediator of last resort. Because they are imposing caps on what can be collected toward non-cladding costs, the Government are creating a gap in funding, which will have to be plugged somehow. Ultimately, someone is going to have to pay; otherwise, as my noble friend said, buildings will never be fixed. This amendment allows building work to be started and buildings to be fixed, with the taxpayer providing a form of bridging finance—but they must get that money back from the building safety fund; this is not carte blanche to make the taxpayer pay for these things.

As I said, I am sympathetic to the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I just worry that if we adopted these four or five new clauses, we might be tearing the guts out of the Bill and would have to rewrite a lot of it. But I think his heart is in the right place in where he is aiming to go. I understand that my noble friend might be worried about the legal position under the ECHR. This is another area where the noble Earl’s amendments might technically fall foul of the ECHR. Some of us have seen legal advice circulated from Daniel Greenberg, who is well known to everyone in this House. He says:

“On the basis of this analysis, l am satisfied that the draft clauses are compatible with the Convention rights and that Ministers will be able to comply with Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (Acts of public authorities: duty not to act incompatibly with ECHR) when they come to perform the functions conferred by the draft clauses”—


referring to draft Clauses 234 to 237.

I am not capable of suggesting whether Daniel Greenberg QC is correct or not, but I would love to hear what the Minister has to say about that. If the amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, are not right, it would be helpful to hear from my noble friend how far they can go towards what the noble Earl is trying to achieve. If he is going to reject them, I would love to hear how far he can push to get as close as possible to the noble Earl’s position. With those words, I am content to support my noble friend’s Amendment 233, and I would love to hear explanations on the noble Earl’s amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I was a little slow in rising to introduce the government amendments. I was, perhaps, a little punch drunk after the length of the debate today.

It is only right, and I am sure we all agree, that building owners and landlords should share in the cost of fixing dangerous buildings. We have carefully engineered this Bill to ensure that those responsible, and otherwise those with the broadest shoulders, will be the first who are required to pay. Where there is no party that clearly should pay in full, and only in this scenario, our approach spreads the costs fairly and equitably and, above all, ensures that the most vulnerable leaseholders are protected. These measures are a robust and unprecedented legislative intervention, reversing the existing legal presumption that leaseholders must bear the costs of historical building safety defects.

The Government have listened to the comments raised by noble Lords, and we have tabled amendments which go even further in protecting leaseholders. Before I set out the detail of these further protections, I would like to be clear that the protections we are putting in place are extensive and, as noble Lords will be well aware, that these must remain in balance with the demands placed on landlords and building owners in ensuring that building safety defects are fixed and paid for where no wrongdoing on their part has taken place. There is an element of fairness here that we need to deliver. The Bill changes the private contract between the landlord and the leaseholder by stating that leaseholders will not pay any costs except in certain circumstances. Government can do this if it is in the general interest to do so, provided there is a fair balance between all the parties. Therefore, we need to make sure that the Bill is both proportionate and fair to all parties.

As I have said, leaseholders need to be protected, and we have brought in the most wide-ranging and expansive set of protections ever seen, allowing the courts to look through to associated companies to find both who is responsible and who has funds to remediate properties as there is no point in having money while properties remain unsafe. However, we are also aware that not all landlords were involved with the developer or have deep pockets, and we need to make sure that we consider the issue of building safety from all sides. We have therefore legislated on the side of the landlords by providing numerous robust routes for recovery of funds from those truly responsible: developers and the manufacturers of defective construction products.

To be clear, and bearing in mind my noble friends’ proposed amendments, let me put their minds at rest. The Bill makes it very clear that leaseholders will not pay anything in the majority of cases. These are where the landlord is the developer or is linked to the developer, where the landlord is wealthy and, finally, where the leaseholder’s property is valued at less than £325,000 inside London and £175,000 outside.

Where these absolute protections do not apply, the leaseholder’s contributions will be heavily capped. On leaseholder contribution caps, it is important to bear in mind that these caps are a maximum that leaseholders can be charged, not a target, and that, as above, they apply only where the landlord is not linked to the developer and cannot afford to pay in full. In addition, costs paid out in the past five years, including for interim costs such as waking watches, will count against the caps. Overall, we consider that in most cases leaseholders will not have to pay the full capped amount and many will pay nothing at all. Nevertheless, the Government agree it is critical that those leaseholders who are least likely to be able to afford to contribute towards historical remediation costs receive the greatest protection. That is why we have tabled amendments to provide that any qualifying lease with a value below £175,000, or £325,000 in Greater London, will be protected from all costs relating to non-cladding defects and interim measures. This is in addition to the protections for cladding remediation costs, which apply to all qualifying leases, and to all leases in buildings owned by or connected to developers.

Amendment 164 sets out that the value of a qualifying lease at the qualifying time is to be determined by the most recent sale price on the open market, prior to 14 February this year, uprated in accordance with the UK House Price Index published by the Office for National Statistics. Uprating values for this purpose will be set out in legislation.

Amendments 118 and 119 expand the definition of “enfranchised buildings” to ensure that all types of enfranchised buildings are covered.

We have listened very carefully to concerns about leaseholder affordability in the small number of cases where leaseholders are paying up to the caps. That is why we have tabled Amendment 166, to double the repayment period from five to 10 years. For leaseholders whose property is not below the threshold and whose building owner or landlord is not liable for the full remediation costs, Amendment 166 will mean that with regard to the capped costs the monthly repayments will be halved.

We have also listened carefully to those who were worried about buy-to-let investors who may be holding leasehold properties instead of a pension. As a result, we have amended Clause 121 to provide that people owning up to three UK properties qualify for the protections. As before, the principal home will always qualify, irrespective of how many additional properties are owned.

As well as going further to protect leaseholders, we have tabled a number of amendments which add key detail to the measures. We are clear that developers must fix the buildings they developed. That is why we have tabled Amendments 141 to 143 to Schedule 9, which clearly state that, where the landlord is or is linked to the developer, they will not be able to pass costs on to any leaseholder. This includes non-qualifying leaseholders such as commercial leaseholders and those with more than three UK properties. We have also tabled Amendment 145, which extends the definition of a developer to include persons who were in a joint venture with the developer. If you commissioned the work, you will also count as the developer.

We have also tabled Amendment 152, which will amend Schedule 9 to provide that where the landlord meets the contribution condition—defined as having a total net worth of more than £2 million per in-scope building as of 14 February 2022—they will not be able to pass any costs on to qualifying leaseholders. The calculation for net worth will be set out in regulations and will take into account parent and associated companies. This will ensure that those who have used complex corporate structures, such as special purpose vehicles, cannot evade liability where they can afford to meet the costs of remediation.

We are also amending Clauses 120 and 122 on the definitions for relevant buildings, landlords and works. These amendments will extend provisions to include work undertaken to remedy a defect and will clarify that buildings that are leaseholder-owned are out of scope because, in such buildings, the leaseholders are effectively the freeholders as well. With Amendment 121, we set out how the height of an in-scope building and its number of storeys will be calculated.

Amendments to Clauses 122 and 136 cover further definitions, including clarifying that associated partnerships are included, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, raised in Committee. Amendment 169 to Schedule 9 inserts a new definition of cladding remediation, which now means the removal or replacement of any part of a cladding system that forms the outer wall of an external wall system and is unsafe.

Amendments 170 and 171 provide that the landlord cannot pass on costs to a qualifying leaseholder relating to professional services, in addition to legal costs. Amendment 177 provides that certain leases are taken to be qualifying leases without the tenant providing a certificate, unless steps are taken. It also provides that landlords are taken to have met the contribution condition unless they provide a certificate proving otherwise. This means that the legal burden will be on the landlord to prove that they are entitled to pass on capped remediation costs.

The amendments also make minor technical and consequential amendments to clauses to ensure the provisions work as intended, remove extraneous powers and commence the provisions two months after Royal Assent.

It is right that leaseholders be protected from extortionate costs of remediating historical building safety defects, in a manner that balances the demands placed on landlords and building owners, where no wrongdoing on their part has taken place. I ask your Lordships to welcome and support this significant and important set of amendments, which go further to protect leaseholders and provide that fair balance.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this is probably the most important group of amendments we are considering today, because it is absolutely at the heart of the building safety scandal that started nearly five years ago with the loss of 72 people in the Grenfell fire. I always think it is worth remembering that: 72 people died and the lives of many families were changed for ever, and that happened because of systemic and long-term failures in the construction industry.

It is also worth remembering that leaseholders since that time have found themselves under the enormous pressure of anxiety when they receive invoices, maybe for £100,000 or more. Some of them have not been able to cope with that level of anxiety, thinking that nothing would change, and have chosen bankruptcy as a consequence and therefore lost everything they had saved and worked for. For some whom I have heard about, sadly, this pressure may have contributed to something even worse: in the face of the bills and a long dark tunnel with no solution, they ended their lives. That is the backdrop. That is the tragic impact this has had on individuals across the country, and which has brought us to this place. This set of amendments is at the heart of those concerns.

I first raised my worries about leaseholders being liable for all the costs of cladding, removal and remediation of all the fire safety defects when the Fire Safety Bill was first debated in 2020. Unfortunately, I did not succeed in amending it at that stage, but what has happened since has been remarkable—the number of people on all sides of the House who have taken up the cudgels to argue the case, rightly, for justice for leaseholders. I give enormous credit to the cladding campaigners from all groups and different cities around the country who have got together and done the investigation, found the facts and put the case to the Government, who, to their credit, have listened and made the changes we have seen today. I think there are over 200 government amendments to the Bill today.

The question of justice for leaseholders is still at the heart of the Bill, and I contend that the Government still have not gone far enough in fulfilling what the Secretary of State and the Minister have said: that they should not pay a penny. They have done everything right and nothing wrong. They should not pay anything towards this remediation, because the flammable cladding, sometimes knowingly, was put on buildings, as was exposed in the Grenfell inquiry. Shoddy construction, sometimes deliberate, to cut corners and save costs, has also been exposed during the Grenfell inquiry.

I want to speak to Amendment 156 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stunell, but also to Amendment 155 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and to Amendments 158 and 159 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Blencathra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, to which I have added my name. They focus on trying to solve the problem of justice for leaseholders, who should not pay a penny.

Unfortunately, the Minister has said today that “the majority” will not pay. Well, if the majority will not pay, the minority will—and the minority should not, because none of this is of their making. My Amendment 156 seeks to establish that what the leaseholder should pay is a peppercorn—a grand, historical way of saying zero, zilch. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for his support for Amendment 155 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, which uses the word “zero”. I use “peppercorn”, but they get to the same place, and he has acknowledged the justice of this case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to speak after hearing from two such knowledgeable noble Lords. I am tempted to say: let us cut to the chase and go straight to the vote on Amendment 115 and get it over with.

In the meantime, I would like to speak on Amendment 115, which I strongly support, and Amendment 123. I would like to comment on Amendments 155, 156 and 157, and to my Amendments 158, 159 and 163. Before doing that, although I will not speak to them, I was privileged to support Amendment 117 on enfranchising leaseholders, Amendment 124, moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, on pensioners, and Amendment 153, moved by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham.

On Amendment 115, concerned with buildings under 11 metres, I strongly support what is proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I hope he presses it to a vote unless my noble friend is willing to accept it. I have heard my noble friend the Minister say repeatedly—and he is largely right—that a building of under 11 metres may be less dangerous than a building of 20 or 30 storeys. I accept that even I could get out of a building of three storeys a bit faster than I could get out of one of 13 or 30 storeys. The risk is lower, but there is still a risk—that is one of the main points: there is still a risk. When we saw Richmond House burn down in nine or 10 minutes, it was horrifying. I hope that, if I was in there and woke up in time, I would have got out, but there might be some disabled people who could not have done so.

There is also an issue of principle. If someone has built a building, whether it is 1 metre high or 11 metres high, and used flammable materials or the wrong materials, they should be made to fix it, no matter how wealthy they are—if it is Abramovich or anyone else. If the building has flawed materials, it should be repaired, irrespective of the height. I appreciate that my noble friend has gone a long way on this and that he has been very kind in telling us at countless meetings that there is a lower risk in those buildings, but there is still a risk. Of course, he also said that the numbers were very small: in that case, if the numbers are very small, it is a small problem to fix.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Let us do it.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Let us do it—that is a slogan for the next election for the noble Baroness. If the numbers are small, it is a small thing to fix.

Moving on to Amendment 123, again I support my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham in changing the definition of “qualifying lease” so that buy-to-let landlords with an interest in up to five properties, including their main home, benefit from the leaseholder cost protections in Schedule 9. As my noble friend said, this is important because there are many buildings where there are a lot of little flats owned by buy-to-let landlords. If those landlords cannot pay their share of the bill, it will mean that not all the money is available to do the work for the whole building. Similar issues may arise when landlords own flats in multiple different affected buildings that have received help from the building safety fund.

I appreciate that many of those landlords hold their buy-to-let properties as part of or, in some cases, all their pension provision. We have all had many emails from people in the past few days setting out some rather sad examples. I know my noble friend has increased the protection from two by-to-lets to four, but I do not think that goes far enough and we suggest that the overall figure should be five, but even then it omits many small landlords. I know it is not good law to quote hard cases, but I have an example of just one of dozens one has received in the past few weeks.

This person says, “I am 57 and have worked as an electrical contractor most of my life. I now have nine small rental apartments in Salford, valued at £80,000 to £100,000 each, a total of approximately £800,000 before they were valued at £0 since the cladding crisis. These properties were purchased in 2007-08 with years of savings and dropped 40% in value due to the financial crash of 2009 caused by the banks, which were bailed out, so my properties are still in negative equity. My nine apartments in the same building are all subject to safety issues, and my total service charges for 2022 are approximately £250,000 for the external wall system only, and this quote is from last year. The managing agents are in the process of getting updated quotes, which will be much higher. This does not include firebreaks, compartmentalisation, fire doors, et cetera, so my total costs are likely to be over £300,000 on property valued at £800,000. Having nine rental apartments seems to deem me to be a large-scale landlord not worthy of protecting from these costs, whereas someone with one or two rental properties in London worth a similar value to my nine little flats will be protected under the latest proposals.” He concludes, “The developer of the building has not replied to any letters from our managing agent or us leaseholders and has been trying to close the company for months, which we have objected to. The company has not traded for six years and there are zero funds in the accounts.”

That is a good example of why these amendments are necessary. It is not just the numbers, as the right reverend Prelate said, it has to be the overall value, and that is why I support my noble friend Lord Young’s amendment on having a percentage figure. If we cannot have zero or peppercorn, then 1% seems a fairer way of going about it.

On my Amendments 158, 159 and 163, the Government’s proposals require leaseholders in properties worth more than £175,000 and up to £1 million outside London to pay £10,000 towards non-cladding remedial works if money cannot be found from developers or landlords. In London leaseholders in properties worth more than £325,000 and up to £1 million may have to pay up to £15,000. Again, that is if money cannot be found from developers or landlords. Higher caps of £50,000 and £100,000 apply inside and outside London for properties worth more than £1 million or £2 million. The Government say that these caps are necessary, again because of legal advice which we have just heard rebutted and on which I shall comment in a moment. The claim is that in order to impose measures on developers and landlords it is necessary for leaseholders to contribute in some cases or we fall foul of the ECHR.

Amendment 158 in my name, also supported by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Pinnock, simply says

“leave out ‘£15,000’ and insert ‘£7,500’”,

halving the figure. For buildings in London, the amendment halves the contribution of leaseholders to non-cladding costs. Similarly, Amendment 159, for buildings outside London, reduces it from £10,000 to £5,000, halving the contribution of leaseholders on non-cladding costs; again, supported by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Pinnock. Finally, Amendment 163, again supported by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, says,

“leave out ‘£50,000’ and insert ‘£15,000’”.

That applies to the properties inside and outside London worth between £1 million and £2 million. The amendment would reduce the leaseholder contribution to non-cladding costs from £50,000 to £15,000.

All told, as we come to the end of this debate, the Government have been given four options by the various amendments. There is the zero option, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock; the peppercorn option, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock; the 1% option proposed by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham; or they can lower the cap, as in the amendments that I have just described. We have done all those amendments on lowering the cap in the hope that we could get around the Government’s view that the ECHR would put a block on this and that they would have to say that the Bill, or Act, was not compliant with the ECHR. But we have just heard from two eminent and learned noble Lords and an ex-Supreme Court judge that none of these amendments would be in breach of the ECHR. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, pointed out, even if we do not accept of these amendments and stick with the government ones, there will be some freeholders, landlords and developers who will still go to the ECHR and complain about anything to slow it down. So sticking with the Government’s level does not get us out of litigation in the European court.

I look forward to what my noble friend has to say on this. The legal arguments produced by the noble and learned Lords are very telling. I commend my amendments to the House, and also commend those from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

221: Clause 130, page 134, line 13, at end insert—
“(3A) Within the period of five years beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, the Secretary of State must by regulations prohibit any developer who has not completed all previously identified works in relation the remediation of fire safety risks from carrying out development of land in England.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to prevent developers who have not completed previously identified fire safety work within 5 years from carrying out any further development.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to move Amendment 221 formally and divide the House on it. We have already decided that leaseholders will not pay towards the cost of remediation, and now we have the chance to decide that it is done in a timely way. That is just as important, so I beg leave to seek the opinion of the House.

North Yorkshire (Structural Changes) Order 2022

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords, I was intrigued to listen to the noble Lord’s stories about Ripon in his speech. I was born in Ripon and have lived within 10 miles of it my entire life, so am familiar with many of the points that he raised. However, as I said in the previous debate about Cumbria, I have always been an enthusiast for the unitary arrangement and I say that in spite of being a former member of a rural district council at Thirsk.

I was lobbied some months back by Harrogate Borough Council, which asked me to support the east/west arrangement. I tried to look into it and make my own mind up. I came to the conclusion that the unitary body for the whole of North Yorkshire was the best way out, and that, in spite of the reservations of Harrogate and others, I would support what we are considering this evening.

It is a wide area—noble Lords only have to look at a map—but there is a difference between North Yorkshire and Cumbria. Largely it is with regard to the administrative centre. I have heard few, but not very many, complaints about the accessibility from Skipton to Northallerton, but that is in no way as difficult as the problems of travelling from Barrow-in-Furness to Carlisle, which is a much more serious problem of remoteness. Whereas I have heard a good many complaints about remoteness over my days in Cumbria, particularly by people who live on the Furness peninsula, I have heard few similar ones in North Yorkshire.

Now that this proposition has been made by the Government through the Minister, I am told that those early differences that I talked about have now largely been resolved and that all of North Yorkshire’s Members of Parliament support the scheme we are discussing. I am told that the preparations are going well. I have been talking to members of the county council about this, and have asked them particularly about how well it is going. I am told that it is going well, especially with regard to the staff who serve the various local authorities, some of whom are going and others of whom will be expanded.

I am particularly pleased that there will be area constituency committees based on parliamentary constituency boundaries. That seems a sensible and constructive idea. I hope this will remove accusations of remoteness and demonstrate that local concerns and problems are being heard and dealt with. I certainly welcome the way in which the various councils at the two levels are co-operating to create the new level. As I ended my remarks on the Cumbria discussion, I wish it well.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I am in the happy position of agreeing totally with my noble friend Lord Newby—that is a good start, is it not—particularly with reference to the absolute importance of having a two-tier approach to local governance in all rural areas, but particularly in North Yorkshire. That obviously means that I agree with many of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who put her cards on the table and said that she prefers a two-tier system.

I bring to the Committee’s attention my relevant interests as a member of Kirklees council and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

The noble Baroness says she is concerned about the unitary arrangements. We are returning to my ministerial days, when Ministers were served with advice from behind them. I have had some advice on my email from the leader of North Yorkshire County Council, Councillor Les, which may be some consolation to the noble Baroness. I will briefly read what he said: “We do intend to introduce devolution to parish and town councils, where they want it, and we will help them to do it. All is possible in time”. That seems to be a helpful contribution to this debate.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Somerset (Structural Changes) Order 2022

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I understood that we ought to be here at the outset of a debate. I do not want to cause an issue, but I would like clarification.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I was just sending a text. Although the noble Lord was nearly four minutes late, as the only representative from Somerset here, I ask that he be allowed to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I am very happy for the noble Lord speak. He has been here most of the evening waiting for this to come, but I was seeking clarification because we do not want to set a precedent for other issues.

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

The noble Baroness is of course right. I apologise to those present. The speed with which the Minister finished off North Yorkshire completely fooled me about when he was about to start on Somerset. I thank the Committee because as the only representative of Somerset here, and having represented a Somerset constituency in Parliament for 30 years, I would like to comment on the changes that are taking place without the Minister looking too worried that I am going to seek to overturn the proposals that he has made. He can relax on that.

In my earlier career, I was, among other long-forgotten things, Minister for Local Government for three and a half years and I was in the Department of the Environment, as it was then. My noble friend Lord Heseltine and I worked together in that field looking at the activities of local government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I start by adding an additional interest to the ones that I declared earlier, as I have a family member who is a councillor in Somerset, so I know a bit about what is going on. I am glad we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord King, because I agree with him about the danger of local government becoming remote from people, which is a comment I made earlier about North Yorkshire. It then loses the “local” out of the government. What you might gain in strategic oversight, you lose in terms of local voice and listening to local people. I think the Government would do well to listen to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord King. I think I will repeat some of the remarks I made earlier. It is a done deal. Everything is in train to create this unitary authority in Somerset. It is not necessarily something that I think is completely right—I agree with the comments that have been made.

One of the issues that arises with the Somerset local government reorganisation is that one of the three criteria that lead the Government to determine whether to have a one-or two-unitary council model is that it commands a good deal of local support. The Minister whizzed through what the Explanatory Memorandum says, but I will repeat some of the figures because they are important in this regard. The views of residents, where they have been asked, are very clear on this issue: 58% of those who live in the area support a two-council model. Some 67% of parish and town councils support a two-council model. The voluntary and community sector supported a two-council model by 53% to 20%. When the district councils set up the online poll, to which there was a huge response—100,000 people responded—65% supported the two-council model. Although there was the counterview from Somerset County Council, which stuck up for what it had already, the people wanted a two-council model. Unfortunately, that has been overridden by this decision.

This is the point at which I draw the Committee’s attention to the comments of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, to which I would like the Minister to respond. It said:

“Given the Government’s commitment to unitarisation”—


horrible word—

“being ‘locally-led’ … it is not clear whether or how the three criteria are prioritised.”

What weight is given to each of them? The people of Somerset clearly said no to having one council, and the Government said, “Hard luck, you’re going to have it.” The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee invited those of us debating this to ask the question. I am asking it, and I would like an answer.

I heard what the Minister said about credible geography being important in this case. Perhaps he can explain what that means, given that Taunton, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord King, is in the bottom left-hand corner, if I can put it like that, so it is nowhere near the middle. It is at the south-west edge of the county, which is very rural. A consequence is poor connectivity and access to services that are to be administered miles away from the northern part of the county. To get to Taunton from the north—from Frome or somewhere such as that; that is a new town for the Minister to know—would take an hour and a half. There is no public transport to get there, so unless you drive you cannot get there. It should be a matter of concern that the administrative centre of a new council is not easily accessible for people who live in one part of the county.

As I said, what has really upset me about these instruments is that there is no mention of people in them. I do not want any further instruments to come here without mentioning people, who are at the heart of local government. There is no mention of them at all, except in the consultation. Somerset has a population of 500,000. It is very rural. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord King, it is proposed that there will be 110 councillors for the initial interim council, but I have heard it suggested that 85 will be the maximum number once the local government boundary review is done.

Each councillor will represent 2,000 households in the interim council and probably 2,700 households when the Boundary Commission has spoken, which is a very significant cut in representation. It makes them quite large in terms of numbers of councillors per household. I take as a random choice the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, just as a comparator. It has a population of 180,000 in 80,000 households, and there are 46 councillors, so each represents a mere 1,700 households—a mere nothing. My colleagues and I represent 9,000 households between us, by the way. On top of that, in London there are also Assembly members providing additional local representation—and you have a compact borough, with excellent connectivity. So what is the problem with Somerset having equivalent levels of representation at a local level?

I applaud what the council is doing about the local community networks; that is something to agree with—it is trying to get something done. But there is no coherent plan for devolution to local communities at all, as there was in North Yorkshire, and no devolution plan for parish and town councils or, as they have in North Yorkshire, area constituency committees. There is much to be concerned about.

Of course, residents understand that some decisions, such as on highways, are best made at a county-wide level. But what is less acceptable, particularly in this case, is for decisions on planning or bus services to be made in Taunton by a Cabinet of 10 members out of 110 who will not understand the practicalities. Those who live near and around the Somerset Levels, for instance, or live in the north of Somerset, in Shepton Mallet, Frome or Street or any of those small towns in the north, do not want their planning decisions to be made in Taunton. Currently, the plan is for planning not to be devolved to area committees, which is a huge mistake. I hope that those with influence in Somerset, such as the noble Lord, Lord King, will do their best out of this to get some devolution at a local level, because that is the only way that these vast unitary authorities will work.

Noble Lords can see that I am not enamoured by this plan, because that is what it is—we do not have a choice today. The focus and purpose of the change is being driven by administrative and financial demands. Local democracy has been steamrollered out of the equation; it is entirely about process and not people.

These big unitary authorities may be more efficient because they can take a strategic view of what is needed across the area. I have served a community on the edge of a big metropolitan authority of 450,000 people for 30 years, and I can tell you how difficult it can be to make the voices of the villages I represent heard at the centre. It might be more efficient in administrative terms, but it will not be more effective at hearing the voices of local people. For me, local democracy is about local people, and their representatives listening to them and doing something about what they have said. There is not much point if they do not.

As noble Lords can hear, I am very concerned about what is happening in Somerset. It is going to happen, so I hope it is made to work. It will only work if there is proper devolution. I wonder whether the Minister will be able to put some pressure on his colleagues in Somerset to insist that that happens. With those few words, I look forward to what he has to say.

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Grand Committee

People need to know that the air where they live, or spend their day working, is safe. The cost of a carbon monoxide alarm ranges upwards from about £14, with a battery life of seven years, so it costs £2 a year for a carbon monoxide alarm to keep people safe. The cost is minimal, or negligible, but the cost associated with a life lost to carbon monoxide poisoning can run into hundreds of thousands of pounds when one looks at the problems for bereaved children in particular, when they have ongoing needs over the years ahead. On the economic argument alone, I suggest to the Government that a simple amendment requiring carbon monoxide alarms to be installed by whoever owns and runs the building would be more than cost effective.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, it was the safety failure of cladding on Grenfell Tower that resulted in 72 people tragically losing their lives. Subsequent investigations showed that construction products that failed flammability tests were used. Obviously, the safety of the construction products used is critical if we are to achieve a much improved building safety standard.

The safety of construction products in the Bill is dealt with only in Schedule 11. Ten pages of detail set out the regulatory regime around product safety. Amendment 112 in my name would add a new clause to the Bill to ensure that product safety is an integral and important part of the legislation.

The purpose of Schedule 11 is to enable the Secretary of State to make relevant regulations to control the safety of construction products. The key word used throughout is that the Government or the Secretary of State “may” by regulations do something. I suggest that the key word should be “must”. For example, Schedule 11 states that products “may” be prohibited if they are not safe. Can the Minister clarify the reasoning for not using prescriptive language?

On standards and technical assessments of products, the wording used is that construction products regulations “may” make provision for standards and technical assessments. Given the learning from the tragedy at Grenfell, I would expect product standards to meet safety standards clearly established by regulation. The schedule establishes the notion of creating a list of “safety-critical products” covered by safety-critical standards which “may”, or presumably may not, be detailed in a timely way. The regulations also make provision for enforcement—or, at least, they “may” make provision—of the safety and standards regime.

The Hackitt report, my favourite document on all this, has a whole chapter on construction product safety and some very clear recommendations, one of which states:

“A clearer, more transparent and more effective specification and testing regime of construction products must”—


I emphasise “must”—

“be developed. This should include products as they are put together as part of a system.”

That is one of the issues that I raised at Second Reading and on other amendments in Committee. It is important that a product is not only proven to be safe but proven to be safe in conjunction with other materials. That was part of the failure exposed by the Grenfell fire.

Dame Judith Hackitt states clearly in her report that that is essential. Her report recommends:

“Manufacturers must retest products that are critical to the safety of”


higher-risk buildings. The report also seeks to ban assessments in lieu of tests—that is, the desktop studies that were part of the failure at Grenfell—and allow them only in

“a very limited number of cases”.

The Government have set out to reflect in the Building Safety Bill all the recommendations in Dame Judith Hackitt’s report. Unfortunately, Schedule 11 does not do that. It certainly does not do it with the clarity of language or insistence on actions contained in that report.

Amendment 112 is an attempt to draw the attention of the Committee to the fundamental importance of ensuring the safety of, and safe use of, construction products. The amendment seeks to address the want of timeliness in the schedule by insisting on the early publication of regulations on testing and certification. Proposed new subsection (2) seeks to provide for all the recommendations in the Hackitt report to be included in the Bill. I hope that, in her response, the Minister will accept the importance of tightening the proposed regulations on construction products and, given that nearly five years have passed since the Grenfell fire, will accept that no further time should be lost in making buildings safe by ensuring that construction products are safe.

I just want to comment on the other amendments in this group. I give my full support to Amendment 111 in the name of my noble friend Lord Foster, who has made the case for the vital importance of the safety of electrical appliances and for continuing to check them. Too many fires—high-risk fires—have occurred because some electrical appliances are not safe or do not continue to be safe.

I also fully support Amendment 117 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I give the example of my own council—Kirklees Council—which provided free carbon monoxide monitors for every household. This followed the tragic death of a young child whose family was living in a terraced house where carbon monoxide leaked through from the adjacent house, which was not being properly maintained, if I may put it like that. Really sadly, the child died. As a consequence, the council—with the full support of everybody—produced free carbon monoxide monitors for every household. They are life-saving, and we will obviously fully support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness. With those comments, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to all the amendments in this group in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Finlay of Llandaff.

I turn first to Amendment 112 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. She presented the case very clearly and eloquently; the headline from her contribution was that the amendment seeks to satisfy the Grenfell review and the Hackitt review. Testing and certification are important for product safety. Ultimately, they will save lives and ensure safer homes.

Amendment 117 is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who made a very clear and economical argument on safety and why this amendment should be welcomed by the Government and all of us—was it £2 for the developers and owners of buildings to ensure the safety of their residents? The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned the very sad example of the young child in her constituency. We can save people’s lives by welcoming and adopting this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I am afraid I pushed my officials to give me a specific time. They have agreed that we may write with more details to give the noble Lord an indication of when this might be forthcoming.

On Amendment 112, I thank the noble Baroness for raising the important matter of the testing and certification of construction products. The Government are committed to reforming the regulatory framework for construction products and it is important that our approach to reform considers the system in the round and is based on engagement with stakeholders who make, distribute and use construction products.

We therefore do not believe that it is right to set a deadline of six months to introduce new measures, as this will constrain public debate. We intend to introduce a requirement for products to be corrected, withdrawn or recalled where they are not safe. This will deliver a greater practical benefit than publishing information about known safety concerns.

We recognise the importance of accurate, reliable performance information to support appropriate product choices. However, a product’s testing record is unlikely to provide useful information for this purpose. Instead, we will create a statutory list of “safety critical” products, where their failure would risk causing death or serious injury and require manufacturers to draw up a declaration of performance for these products. Dame Judith Hackitt’s review recommended that industry should develop a consistent labelling and traceability system for construction products. We agree that industry is best placed to develop an approach that will be effective in practice.

I could sense the frustration of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, with the language used in the Bill, specifically in Schedule 11. I am afraid that the “may versus must” argument recurs in many bits of legislation that I have taken through, and particularly here, when Dame Judith used “must” in her report. However, the whole reason we put “may” rather than “must” in legislation is that this approach is designed to allow the Secretary of State to review existing regulations, consult as needed and bring forward new regulations where needed. We clearly intend to use these powers and published draft regulations in October 2021. I recognise that that probably will not wholly satisfy the noble Baroness but it is as far as I may go.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Did the Minister say October 2021?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

Yes. We clearly intend to use these powers and we already published draft regulations in October 2021.

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

They are draft.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Are we allowed to see the draft regulations? It would be really useful.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

They are published.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

We will circulate them to the whole Committee.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

That is really helpful. I thank the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I will probably disappoint the noble Baroness a little, but I hope that I can also give a bit of explanation. I say that with particular feeling because she chairs the Built Environment Committee, on which I have the privilege to serve.

I understand the irritation that has been generated in some quarters by the EWS1 scheme. I ask the Committee to bear in mind that this was prepared as something of an emergency measure to deal with the logjam of unmortgageable, and therefore unsellable, properties. It was set up at the instigation of government and occurred following discussion with insurers, lenders and valuation professionals. It is a creature of common creation and not the RICS alone, although the RICS put it out. That is quite important.

The unfortunate thing is that, as it was the only form of certification around, it has been latched on to in certain quarters as providing some reassurance for things that it was never intended to achieve. In other words, it was seen as something with a wider fitness for purpose than was ever intended, and that is part of the problem.

When one produces something of this sort, it is produced in collaboration with others, but there will always be people across the spectrum; the insurance world is such that certain sectors of it will top-slice the risk. There will always be some that—a bit like some of what I might call the more adventurous motor insurers—will insure only certain clearly de-risked parts of the market in risk generally. I do not know whether that is a problem here.

This EWS1 was just reviewed in December. The RICS—again in consultation, and again, I believe, with support and collaboration from government but certainly with all the relevant bodies—decided that even though its application in terms of the problems that it created was reduced to a very small proportion, it should be kept because that was the view of valuers, mortgage lenders and insurers. The RICS as a professional body cannot ignore what these people are saying or the commercial pressures that are set before it in dealing with that. The RICS also published its justification in December, which is available on the web. I am all for de-risking things so that assessments of all sorts do not grow horns and a tail. However, I am not sure that having the Government take control and ownership of this particular matter would necessarily reassure lenders or professionals or, for that matter, benefit the market sentiment.

In its evidence to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, the RICS acting chief executive made it clear that there is already a process in hand to train up a cohort of fire risk assessors pursuant to the Bill’s objectives. EWS1 itself is probably destined to wither on the vine in a relatively short period of time. I therefore hope that I have given some sort of helpful explanation of why I am not sure that it is a good thing for the Government to take on this thing, even if they felt that they were willing to get their fingers involved in that particular pie, and why it is probably best that the matter continues on the critical path it is now and we see the outcome of this cohort of newly trained people. I am sure that other professional bodies will need to do training as well; we must try to make sure that it is rolled out as speedily as possible so that, hopefully, the problems will be put behind us.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for raising an important issue. There is confusion and concern around these EWS1 forms and assessments. There is confusion—which I will come on to, following on from what the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, just said—and there is certainly concern from leaseholders. Either they wait for ever for these external wall structural assessments, or those who do them err on the side of caution because of the way that they were brought in as an emergency measure following the awful Grenfell fire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for introducing these two amendments. When I read them, I thought, “You know, this isn’t possible. You cannot build on contaminated land.” Certainly, from all the planning committees on which I have sat over the years, I know that it is not possible. I live in an area where there is quite a lot of land contaminated by dyes from the woollen industry, which have cyanide in them. My experience of development on contaminated land, which is a bit different from the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has raised, is that such sites are raised by planning authorities as part of the National Planning Policy Framework, they have to be identified as part of strategic local plans, and the Environment Agency and the Environment Act all contribute towards ensuring that contaminated land is cleared—decontaminated, if you like—before it is developed.

That is a bit different from some of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, which were about building adjacent to such land. Again, I am surprised that the environment legislation which controls old landfill sites has enabled that to happen. It may be a failure of legislation, but I will wait to hear what the Minister has to say.

The only thing I would say is that the Government are very keen for development of brownfield sites, and there is a desperate need for those sites to be cleared and decontaminated before they can be redeveloped. Everybody wants the Government to continue providing grants to developers to do so. I have experience from my town, where a site has been left empty for at least 15 years. It has been allocated for housing, but no grants have been provided to decontaminate it from an old chemical works that was on the site. So former green-belt land has been developed first, because we are waiting for grants for decontamination of derelict sites.

My one plea to the Minister is to take that back to the department and to say that, if it is to be brownfield sites first, such sites nearly always have significant contamination. Sometimes it is asbestos in older buildings. Certainly, in the Midlands and the north where there have been industrial complexes, there can be quite serious chemical contamination, and decontamination is necessary before anybody can get near them. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall be brief, because there will probably be another vote soon in the House. We are very happy to support the two amendments tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her comprehensive introduction.

We know that local authorities, as we heard, are responsible for determining whether their land is contaminated. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about the grants that her authority has been waiting for to clean up land. It is really important that these grants are dealt with quickly, because it can be incredibly expensive to clean up contamination. If we are to use brownfield sites, local authorities need to be able to do so in a way that is cost effective for them. That was an important point.

We are also aware that availability of land is one of the biggest barriers to building at the moment. The government targets for housebuilding mean that, in particularly populated areas such as the south-east, any additional homes are more likely to be built on previously developed brownfield land. No one would want to build on contaminated land by choice, but “brownfield” does not necessarily mean that land is contaminated. We need to be clear about this.

However, there is a need to ensure that houses constructed on sites affected by contamination are built to the appropriate standards, including those next to an area of contamination. We need to know where the contaminated land is so that we can do these checks properly. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, things such as flooding can bring contamination across a very wide area, with, as we have heard, sadly catastrophic consequences. As she said, on the surface of it, Zane’s law seems pretty simple and straightforward to implement. If we can identify the size and scale in every part of the country where contamination is, that would be a very logical starting point to prevent future risk to life and support local authorities in tackling the whole issue of contamination so that we understand it better as we move forward with more development and housing. I hope the Minister will listen to this, because it seems to me that Zane’s law ought to be supported.

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 28th February 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I support the noble Lord in his Amendment 45. He has described the issue very well—and given his huge contribution to the House, I shall look up his maiden speech.

I worry that unless we can find a way out for leaseholders who are also owners, no leaseholder in their right mind would contribute to the management of a building jointly owned by leaseholders. This has been a direction of travel in recent years, which I support. I believe it to be particularly valuable for smaller housing developments, of which we need more. As my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said in Committee on 24 February, successive Governments have encouraged leaseholders to buy their freeholds. Indeed, he himself played an important part in that process. As I understand it, the leaseholders who have enfranchised and bought their freeholds are excluded from support under the Bill. That seems very unfair.

I know from direct experience in my own family that it is already very difficult to secure volunteers to run leaseholder-owned buildings, given the onerous duties involved and the time requirement. The Bill, with its additional duties and tensions, will, I fear, make it impossible. Here we have yet another perverse effect. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Best, that a solution must be found by Report, either by accepting his amendment or, if need be, in some other way. This is an unintended consequence that nobody wants.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this is such an eminently sensible amendment, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that I think that the Minister will struggle to counter the arguments that have been made. What we are asking in this amendment is to avoid a situation involving resident management groups, or leaseholder-controlled companies, where the stringent expectations required to fulfil the duties under the Bill are put on the volunteers.

I already have concerns about the accountable person and how that role will fit in with those of the managing agent and building safety manager. We are beginning to create a fairly bureaucratic approach to safeguarding leaseholders and tenants, which has the risk of not fulfilling the simplicity and clarity that the Hackitt report required of new building safety measures.

I just think that the arguments cannot be countered. I look forward to what the Minister has to say, but this is such an eminently sensible proposal that I hope that the Government will find ways of bringing forward their own amendment on Report to fulfil the aims of this amendment.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to Amendment 45, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and well supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I reiterate that this amendment is about looking at leaseholder-owned or leaseholder-controlled companies appointing an external professional to discharge the functions of the accountable person or principal accountable person. The amendment also talks about costs and maybe looking at service charges.

I want to ask this of the Minister. On these Benches we have a big concern about the actual level of service charges at the moment. These charges are already quite high and they are passed on to leaseholders and tenants. Have the Government looked at the aspect of service-charge pricing and whether leaseholders will be able to bear the cost of having this expertise, as detailed in the amendment? We absolutely recognise the importance of the amendment and we are supportive of it. We are equally concerned about using service charges in order to fund these kinds of important, necessary steps. The impact on leaseholders and tenants is a big concern.

On what was discussed previously in Committee, I will add something in relation to professional expertise and skills, and having the opportunity to pass on these responsibilities to somebody who can take care of this important role, focusing on the function of the accountable person or principal accountable person. I will not talk about this at length, but it calls for a debate about the current situation and whether the Government are fulfilling the needs of leaseholders and tenants. I will finish by saying that there is a big concern about service charges overall, about pricing and about how this will have an impact subsequently on leaseholders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

I support the very interesting comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—most interestingly, it is immensely refreshing to listen to an amendment that is driven not only by cost savings for leaseholders but by common sense. In many cases, the sub-contracting of services on multi-let buildings is appointed through external managing agents, who apply a levy; they will charge, let us say, 10% on the fee for the work being done. In the £60,000 example, another £6,000 goes on to the tenants’ bills at the end of the year.

I simply support this proposal. It will be a difficult one for the Minister, but common sense is short in the Bill because of the layers of bureaucracy. This will save money for tenants.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for raising this issue about the necessity for a building safety manager in every block—this is of course in relation only to higher-risk buildings. However, residents in higher-risk blocks will have a managing agent, to whom they pay a fee—a service charge—who appoints an accountable person, for whom there will be an additional cost, and possibly a principal accountable person, if that is necessary. On top of that, each block will have to have a building safety manager. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, pointed out, adding on those roles considerably adds to the costs for each of the leaseholders; their service charge will rise considerably as a consequence.

I too have had discussions with some of the cladding campaign groups about the potential £60,000 role and the costs which will pass inevitably to them. They are very anxious that their lease will suddenly become unaffordable due to the piling on of costs from these roles.

The further issue in my mind is, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, that there is a duplication of roles. Equally, when there is a confusion about roles—each block might have three people who potentially have conflicting roles—building safety risks will fall between the three. I can find nothing in the Bill that says how each will be accountable. In the end, we come back to this: quis custodiet ipsos custodes—to whom are they accountable?

The Explanatory Notes gives us this as an example:

“The Building Safety Manager may be carrying out day to day functions, as set out in the agreement with the Principal Accountable Person, to assist the Accountable Persons in discharging their statutory obligations. However, the Building Safety Manager could choose to resign of its own volition, and conversely the Principal Accountable Person may find that the service provided by the Building Safety Manager is below standard and choose to dismiss that person. In both circumstances the Principal Accountable Person would need to replace the Building Safety Manager as soon as reasonably practicable.”


I hope everybody understood that. That is my argument: it becomes confused.

One of the issues with building safety and fire safety is that it needs clarity and simplicity. This is not clear and simple. I believe I raised at Second Reading the issue of too many rules causing confusion. When nobody really knows who will do what, it is always a recipe for a potential disaster.

Those are the two points: costs and duplication leading to confusion. The question is this: to whom are they finally accountable—the accountable person or the managing agent? It is not very clear.

The other point is about the competencies—a horrible word—of potential building safety managers. I could not find anywhere in any of the clauses which set out what those should be. The Bill talks about standards but it does not say what they will be. What should be expected of these folk?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I start by going back to where the Bill came from, the tragedy of Grenfell Tower. The point of the Bill is to ensure the safety of residents, particularly, in this case, in high-risk buildings, and the building safety manager is the day-to-day eyes and ears. I do not know whether people realise, but I did two or three years’ work after the tragedy in Kensington and Chelsea. Before I did that, I spent a lot of time in high-rise buildings, not in London but elsewhere in the country, and it was quite interesting, on a day-to-day basis, when I went round with fire brigades and dealt with issues such as safety doors. People took them off and put B&Q doors on. Those things cannot be done every five years, or every year; they need somebody going in and out of that building, checking up.

There will be stairwells with stuff stuck in them that is stopping people going up and down. There will be holes between the sealed containment of flat against flat. All those sorts of things need somebody who is not at arm’s-length but is working day to day. Yes, they will need new competences, but those competences are out there, I would argue, within the community already, and we will have to work on those competences. As for cost, obviously, that depends on the building. Some of these managers will be able to do multiple buildings if it is felt, by their accountable person, that they will be able to do a good job on that. One building is not the same size or requires the same amount of work as another building.

I shall now go through the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and I thank noble Lords for their contributions. The crux of Clause 80 is the duty to appoint a building safety manager. The creation of the building safety manager role was recommended made by Dame Judith Hackitt in the independent review to ensure, I say again, that the day-to-day management of buildings is undertaken by suitably competent people. That is what she said and that is what we are delivering in the Bill. Clause 80 establishes the role and creates a duty for principal accountable persons to appoint a building safety manager and provide them with support and assistance to manage building safety risks, except where they have the capability to meet the duties without needing such support. So there will be times when principal accountable persons have the time and the competences to do it without appointing somebody else. The skills, knowledge and experience offered by building safety managers will help drive up safety standards and, we believe, deliver positive outcomes for residents.

While the building safety manager will hold responsibility for certain tasks, to be agreed in their contract, accountability for meeting the duties set out by the Bill cannot be transferred by accountable persons to the building safety manager or anybody else. I think that answers the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about who is ultimately responsible. Whether the building safety manager is an organisation or an individual, they must possess the necessary competence to deliver the role. If an organisation is appointed, it must have a nominated individual named and in place to oversee delivery, providing reassurance to residents that their safety is being maintained. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, brought up the competence issue. Work is ongoing with the British Standards Institute to establish a competency framework for the role, which will be supported by further guidance.

Moving on, Clause 81 deals with the appointment of the building safety manager where there is more than one accountable person for the building. Despite the often complex ownership structures of many high-rise residential buildings, we are committed to delivering a system that ensures a whole-building approach. This was a central tenet of the findings and recommendations of the independent review.

Where there are multiple accountable persons, the principal accountable person will be responsible for appointing the building safety manager. The building safety manager should play a key role in delivering a whole-building approach, drawing on the duty placed on all accountable persons to co-ordinate and co-operate with each other.

Before the appointment is made, the principal accountable person must consult on the proposed terms and costs with their fellow accountable persons. We expect agreements to be reached so that the scope of the building safety manager’s functions and the method of delivery of the whole-building approach are agreed by all. If an agreement cannot be reached, we are providing a process for resolution through applications to the First-tier Tribunal. This approach protects the rights of accountable persons and holds them to account for ensuring residents’ safety.

Clause 82 ensures that building safety managers hold their position through the contractual arrangements agreed with the principal accountable person. If either party wishes to end the contract, they may do so by giving notice to the other party in writing. When the contract ends, a new building safety manager must be appointed by the principal accountable person as soon as is reasonably possible. If a building is not being managed appropriately and is placed into special measures, which is the last resort for taking control of buildings with significant failings, the building safety manager’s contract will end.

I mentioned earlier that there is an exception to the principal accountable person’s duty to appoint a building safety manager. Dame Judith’s review was right to point out that many building owners already operate and successfully manage their buildings through competent in-house teams. Where the principal accountable person’s existing management arrangements deliver safe outcomes for residents and this can be demonstrated to the building safety regulator, their mode of delivery will not need to change. The competency requirements for qualifying for this exception are of course the same as those expected of any other building safety manager.

This approach is likely to be favoured by organisations such as housing associations or local authorities, which potentially have many buildings that fall under the scope of the new regime. Residents of these buildings will rightly expect to be able to identify individuals who play an important role in maintaining their safety, and the clause requires the identification of the individual responsible for overseeing delivery. This person will not be expected to carry out every task alone, but they will be required to provide oversight such that a holistic and systemic approach to managing safety is achieved.

The exception to the duty to appoint a building safety manager also applies where there are two or more accountable persons for the building. The competency requirements remain consistent. As in the case where they would appoint a building safety manager, the principal accountable person must, as I said, consult their fellow accountable persons and seek to reach agreement on the proposed arrangements. We expect the consultation process to follow the same route as already explained for appointing a building safety manager where there are two or more accountable persons.

Safety has to be our main priority and the building safety manager plays an important role in delivering this. The Government will reflect further on all the points raised today. However, at this point we maintain that Clauses 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister for responding. I wonder whether she could explain something. I am still confused about what appear to be the conflicting roles of the accountable person and the building safety manager. I am looking at page 106 of the Explanatory Notes, where the accountable person is defined. It states:

“The Independent Review”—


the Hackitt report—

“identified that there should be a clear dutyholder during occupation who will have statutory obligations”—

this is the definition of “accountable person”—

“to maintain the fire and structural safety of the building.”

So we already have somebody who is being appointed to have those responsibilities. That is why I cannot see why there has to be a further role to undertake those duties. The duties are very important, but why should there be two people?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is a great expert on landlord/tenant matters. I agree with him that changes to the leasehold system are not for this Bill; indeed, I do not think that my noble friend Lord Young was suggesting that they should be in it. We have quite enough to do in this Bill. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his description of the new clauses and his willingness to listen, as I think that the new clauses may need some more work.

Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, I am passionate about consultation, as my record elsewhere shows. Obviously, I am very concerned about bad practice. However, we cannot have a system where an unco-operative resident or two could prevent appropriate safety arrangements being agreed—that is a concern of mine—or encourage the use of too many expensive lawyers, with the cost ending up with the leaseholder.

We also need to think about the enforced requirements for a residents association, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Young in one of the amendments. It may be worth considering in high-risk cases, but it could complicate matters needlessly in some areas.

I shall speak to my Amendment 147 in this group. It would delay the commencement—that is, the coming into force—of the new provisions on the remediation of certain defects and building liability orders until an impact assessment has been published. Noble Lords will know of my passion for impact assessments; I thank my noble friend the Minister for the original assessment on the Bill. I emphasise, with my experience as a civil servant, a business executive and a Minister, that this is not simply a bureaucratic exercise. The discipline of drafting forces the executive authorities to reflect more deeply on the consequences, including the second, third and even fourth-order effects. It encourages good administration and identifies perverse effects and problems. All this matters more—not less—when the measures are ones of great complexity, especially if they are being rushed through.

I have reflected on this further in the light of our important debate on Amendment 24 in Committee last Thursday, 24 February. I have reread it carefully in Hansard, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for mentioning that an impact assessment, as well as an Explanatory Memorandum, before Report would be helpful to our debate. As she said,

“blocking developers, even when they have planning consent … is a really radical proposal”,—[Official Report, 24/2/22; col. GC 184.]

and we need to know how it might work and have an impact assessment. We need to understand all those who would or could be affected, including cladding suppliers and manufacturers, architects and surveyors—and, indeed, the planning and building control authorities, which may need to change their practices.

I was struck by the complexity of what is proposed, and the certainty that there will be hidden and unnoticed effects. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, in an excellent speech, was right to point out that any levy paid would inevitably be passed on to consumers and tenants in large part. He was also right to remind us of the chronic shortage of supply of homes in the UK. Indeed, in our report Meeting Housing Demand, the Built Environment Committee found a shortage of homes of all tenures, including social housing. We need to ensure that that does not go backwards, and that the whole building industry, already short of skills and resources, is not needlessly diverted—while, of course, doing the right thing on safety. A decent home is so important to all and we now need to cater for yet more arrivals as a result of the desperate situation in Ukraine.

I was therefore disappointed by the approach of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who until recently chaired—very well, if I may say so—the Delegated Powers Committee. I believe it is irresponsible to give yet wider powers for bringing in and punishing, or penalising—effectively fining—new groups, when we have not thought through how they might be involved during our scrutiny of the Bill. I am afraid I have the same hesitation about engagement with residents, which is the subject of today’s group of amendments, which include a widening of powers. I regret to say that I think those amendments go too far.

More importantly, all this discussion has reinforced my view of the need for my amendment. I hope the Government will consider it carefully, as it might go some way to assuaging the fears that there may be about the proposals before us, and any decision by the House to widen their application. Wide powers are being taken in the Bill, which will set a precedent for the future. I would like to support the Government in finding a way through, but I would also like to understand the impact.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this group covers three big issues—residents’ engagement strategy, access to properties, and the third part, relating to government amendments, some of which have not been moved today, on construction products and liabilities. My noble friend Lord Stunell will wind up this debate, using his expert knowledge of many of these issues, so I shall restrict my comments to the amendments about residents’ engagement, access and a little bit about construction products.

I completely agree that there has to be a residents’ engagement strategy. One of the learning points from the terrible Grenfell Tower fire was that residents wanted a voice and tried to make their voice heard, but it was not listened to. Their voice may have been heard, but it was certainly not listened to—and it was certainly not acted on.

As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has pointed out, there is a big part of the Hackitt report which references the importance of the residents’ voice, and of listening to and acting on what they say. They are the folk who live there. They are the people who daily see what goes on. Their voice must be heard so, whatever else we do, I hope that we will strengthen those clauses about resident engagement. Picking up on the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, we need residents’ associations to do that. We cannot force them to exist, but we can put the onus on the freeholder or the accountable person to ensure that there is some method for the residents’ voice to be heard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, with some trepidation after that, I rise to speak to my Amendment 94ZA, as advertised by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. I welcome the Government’s clear commitment that no leaseholder in a medium or high-rise building will have to pay to remove dangerous cladding, so I therefore support the significant legislative changes being introduced in this Bill. I am also pleased to see that legislation is coming forward to identify the beneficial owners of freehold and leasehold properties, because without that I am not sure how this Bill would work in its entirety. We need to know who owns property in the UK.

However, there is a small group of leaseholders who have fallen through the Government’s net of protections. They are leaseholders who have already paid for the removal of ACM Grenfell-type cladding from their buildings through an exceptional service charge imposed by their landlords, but whose landlords have unilaterally decided not to pursue available government remediation funding because they have no incentive to do so, given that the leaseholders have already borne all the costs. No encouragement by or pressure from their leaseholders or the Government has resulted in any change in their position, particularly in one specific case of which the Minister is aware.

This was not the intent of the well-meaning government cladding remediation scheme, as it assumed that landlords would behave appropriately. The scheme required applications to be made by landlords. Leaseholders had no right to do so directly, nor could they force landlords to seek funding. As a result, these leaseholders remain without reimbursement for the considerable sums that, in some instances, they have expended on removing dangerous cladding to live safely.

This behaviour has been described in the other place as outrageous; my noble friend the Minister described it as unacceptable in his Written Answer to me on 26 January. However, the Government’s proposed legislation does not expressly address this inequitable situation. My O-level Latin was even worse than that of most Members of the Committee, so to provide some balance I will quote from my coat of arms the Hebrew “Im low achshav aymarthie”, which, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who is not in his place, would explain, means “If not now, when?”

Paragraph 8 of new Schedule 9 prohibits a service charge being payable under a qualifying lease in respect of cladding remediation if the tenant was resident at the qualifying time, as we have heard. This does not help resident tenants who have already paid up by way of service charge before the Bill becomes law. My proposed amendment extends paragraph 8 of Schedule 9 to include situations where resident tenants have paid for cladding remediation at any time during the five years before the commencement of the Bill. This will leave the landlord with the choice of applying for available qualifying remediation funding or having to reimburse relevant resident tenants out of their own funds.

I appreciate that this will be relevant in only a small number of situations but that is not a reason not to have legislation. There is a glaring hole in the legislation, and we have the opportunity here to correct it. I can see that some might argue that this is retrospective, but it is not because the amendment covers only situations where the lessees have paid and the freeholders will not act as they should. It is up to the Minister, inspired by the call to arms, to widen this amendment—on Report if not here—to cover future situations where lessees pay for recladding as they are fed up with waiting for landlords, knowing that, if this amendment passes, the freeholders will be forced to apply for reimbursement.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 93 and 94. I thank the Minister for explaining the many amendments relating to the costs of remediating cladding and other fire safety and building defects, including who will pay and how.

However, my amendments are to his Amendment 92 and are about my favourite issue, which is that leaseholders should not pay a penny. It is not their fault. The Government and everybody else accept that, and therefore, they should not pay anything. The easiest way of ensuring this is to amend the government amendment to change the maximum amount—that is, the cap—to £15,000 or £10,000, be it in London or outside London, to a peppercorn; in other words, to zero, zilch, nothing. This would achieve the aim I started with two years ago.

There are reasons for this. The Minister may not want to do it, but I certainly do. He said, “Of course”, so I assume he will now accept my amendment. However, if it helps the Minister, I am willing to exclude paragraphs 6(4) and 6(5) of the new schedule proposed by Amendment 92. They relate to properties with a value of £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 or more.

I appreciate that the Minister and others in the Government have laboured long and hard to reach a more just outcome for leaseholders. However, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, the letter we received said that the Secretary of State had stated on behalf of the Government that leaseholders must not be required to pay anything. That is what my amendment would achieve. The building failures were not theirs. As we have all agreed, those who made the failures, who put up flammable cladding and failed to put in firebreaks, are the ones who have to pay.

In his introduction to his amendments, the Minister said that cap will be offset by costs already being paid for waking watch, fire alarms and other such things, which will reduce the final liability. In that case, why on earth are we pursuing it? Let us say that the amount liable is £7,000. If it is paid over a period of five years, that is less than £1,500 a year. What bureaucracy will be set up to collect that? The cost of collecting it will almost certainly outweigh the benefits. So there is a practical reason as well as a reason of justice, and I guess that the Minister will therefore accept my amendment. We will have a whole new bureaucracy for nothing very much. It is not a practical proposal at all, and it is not a just one.

The amendment is straightforward, but there are one or two things I want to ask the Minister to explain and to give some very straightforward answers to some very easy questions. Some things are not clear from all this. There are good intentions in all these clauses to try to solve who pays for remediation, but what happens if nobody pays up? Who takes on the liability? Secondly, if they all go to litigation—which is my guess about what is going to happen, and we heard earlier that there are already moves in that direction—that could take a long time. So what happens then when buildings are not safe? Who will pay for the removal of the cladding and putting right the fire safety defects? Are we expecting leaseholders, shareholders and tenants to remain in those unsafe buildings for all that period of time? So who will pay, and what about the timing? If we do not get the cash, what happens and, with that timing, what happens—peppercorn rents excepted? My noble friend Lord Stunell will wind up for us on these Benches.