Combined Authorities (Finance) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Swinburne(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Well, this is going to be interesting. The East Midlands will have eight constituent members with two from each authority, as I understand it, so neither two-thirds nor three-fifths works numerically. Do we take the bigger number or the smaller? Do we round up or down?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I am going to write to the noble Baroness with the exact number and calculation that will be used in the East Midlands situation. Ah—somebody knows the answer. It works out as two-thirds or more, so it would go up not down. There we go.
On the precept overall, the regulations provide for decision-making processes applying to those mayors who set a precept, a process which involves the constituent members who have the ability to challenge and, with a significant majority, amend the mayor’s plans for that precept. Where the mayor exercises police and crime functions, the referendum principle for the PCC component of the mayoral precept has been set at the same level as for PCCs. The Secretary of State has been clear that he will consider any increases set by mayors when determining referendum principles in future years, so there are measures that allow us to intervene if need be.
It is true that local audit is vital to support democratic accountability and in providing the assurances for local people that their elected representatives are doing what they should be doing with the budget that they have. The Government are working with the Financial Reporting Council and others in taking action to deal with the significant backlog of local audits in England and put the system on a sustainable footing. In February this year, system partners, including the Government, issued a joint statement setting out a package of measures to meet these challenges. During February and early March, DLUHC and the National Audit Office consulted on core elements of these proposals. We are reviewing that consultation response and will set out our intentions and respond in due course. It is an urgent matter and we are trying to get to grips with it. I am not taking it lightly; it really does need to be dealt with.
A number of other questions have been put but I think it will be of interest to Members to have proper, detailed answers, rather than what I am scrabbling together here. I will come back with written responses to those, but in the meantime I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Building Safety
Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Swinburne(8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, in reference to the Statement, I have to say how irritating it is that statistics are selected to project a positive picture of progress made on the remediation of building defects as a result of the Building Safety Act and how refreshing it would be if the Government were able to reflect on the poor rate of progress, instead of trying to spin a success story. Spinning the progress made is not doing anybody any favours. It is certainly not helping the thousands of leaseholders who are still stuck in limbo in flats where work has not been started and where even an assessment of whether work is needed has not been made. Perhaps an honest appraisal of the situation would put some government energy into trying to resolve this issue. As the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, has just asked, what is the timetable? How long have leaseholders to wait while this scheme is making snail-like progress towards some remediation?
In Inside Housing last week, a piece by the investigative journalist, Peter Apps, provided some very different numbers from those given by the Government in the Statement. I am not accusing the Government of having inaccurate figures, but they were very selective. I have no reason to challenge the report in Inside Housing, which says:
“As it stands, of 3,839 buildings above 11 metres being monitored by the government due to the need for cladding remediation, 2,286 have not even started works yet”.
The terrible Grenfell Tower fire was nearly seven years ago, and 2,000-plus buildings have not even had work started yet. But the report in Inside Housing went on to say that
“the 3,839 figure could eventually rise by as much as 5,000”.
based on the Government’s own estimates. We really do not know how many are in desperate need of remediation.
So my question to the Government is: can we have a full and final estimate—which surely should be possible nearly seven years after Grenfell—of how many blocks of flats are in need of remediation? How many of them are over 18 metres and most at risk? How many are over 11 metres? What consideration is being given to those under 11 metres, given that many thousands of leaseholders and tenants live in such flats, which the Government regard as being relatively safe but which insurance companies and service charges and all the rest do not? They are in total limbo, waiting for some action to unlock the situation that they are in. That is my first question.
Secondly, in January, there was a fire in Petworth Court in Wembley, which is a social housing building. The social landlord knew that work needed to be done and the original builder accepted that work needed to be done, but they have been in dispute ever since about how much responsibility each should take for it. That is another issue which desperately needs to be addressed because, at the end of it, it is leaseholders who are stuck in this awful situation of going to bed every night knowing that their buildings are unsafe and vulnerable to very serious fires. So another question that I want answered, please, is about how the Government are going to resolve the disputes between what are sometimes leaseholders and sometimes social landlords and the developers and builders.
My third point is this. According to the Statement, the Government are going to drip another £6 million of public money into council enforcement action. Now, I am absolutely fed up with the answer to any problem being that the Government will spend another bit of money trying to do something about it, instead of accepting what the fundamental issue is here. If you do not fund the public services on which we all rely—such as building regulations and building enforcement—properly in the first place, when there is a problem we are forever going to have the answer, “We’re going to drip another £2 million or £3 million in to try to solve it”—and it will not. It will deal with a little bit this time, but nobody can plan with little bits of money being dripped into public services in this way. So, please, at least take this back to the Government: fund the thing properly rather than dripping in money.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Swinburne) (Con)
I agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Pinnock, that too many residents in England continue to live in unsafe buildings, while irresponsible building owners fail to set things right. Last year saw a fundamental step change in our programme to fix unsafe buildings, with the launch of the cladding safety scheme last July. All private sector residential buildings above 11 metres in England now have a pathway to fix unsafe cladding. Following intensive talks with the homebuilding sector, we have also secured a solution that will see the original developers of defective buildings take responsibility to pay for and fix historical safety defects. Where developers are building owners and not currently funding cladding remediation, the Government have committed more than £5 billion to ensure that residents are safe—and feel safe—in their homes. However, there is still more that we can and will do.
Where building owners are failing to fix unsafe buildings quickly enough, enforcement action by our regulatory partners is critical. That is why we are announcing a new comprehensive package of support for regulators to boost enforcement. We continue to accelerate our remediation programmes. Over 4,000 buildings of over 11 metres are now in our remediation schemes; this is double the number of buildings in our schemes a year ago. The number of buildings reported to have started or completed remediation work has also more than doubled since February 2023.
From the start, we have prioritised the remediation of the highest-risk buildings. The ACM cladding remediation scheme, which funds the removal of the most dangerous Grenfell-style cladding, is nearing completion, with 98% of those buildings having started or completed works by the end of this month. This figure rises to 100% in the social sector. Over 50% of high-rise buildings in our building safety fund, which deals with buildings over 18 metres in height with non-ACM cladding, have also started or completed work. I apologise for the statistics, but these are real numbers, so I think the House deserves to know. For 346 buildings identified as requiring works under the developer remediation contract, remediation work is expected to start by January 2025.
Registered providers of housing also report that remediation work is complete or due to be completed for 87% of identified buildings with cladding related to defects by September 2028. The bulk of the outstanding buildings requiring remediation are between 11 metres and 18 metres in height. These medium-rise buildings now have a funded route to remediation, following the launch of the cladding safety scheme in July 2023. We expect the number of medium-rise buildings starting and completing remediation to increase as applicants enter and progress through the scheme.
Our focus is now on getting more buildings into our funds and accelerating their remediation process, including through robust enforcement action where needed. The data published this week in our new enforcement league table shows that levels of enforcement activity vary by regulator and region. Some regulators are doing a commendable job. For example, Newham Council recently won a landmark case and successfully prosecuted a building owner for delaying vital remediation work on unsafe cladding. However, as today’s data shows, some councils and fire and rescue authorities need to do more to ensure the safety of residents in their area.
Last year, the department published a joint statement with building safety bodies committing to see buildings made safer faster through a robust regime. The building safety regulator, the Local Government Association and the National Fire Chiefs Council all put their names to this statement. This week, we are delivering on this commitment by announcing our next package of support for our regulatory partners.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I support allocating the further £6 million for the next financial year in grant funding to councils, in addition to establishing a new grant funding scheme to support councils and fire and rescue services with complex enforcement. It is needed; the work is additional work, and therefore we are putting in the money to enable them to do it properly.
To ensure that regulators have the tools they need to harness this funding and drive remediation, we are publishing a new suite of guidance this spring. New enforcement data also increases transparency for the public and empowers communities to see how their authorities are using their funding and powers to keep them safe.
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, asked about a number of things, including progress made on registration of building control inspectors and other safety measures. Together with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, she asked about buildings below 11 metres. I will seek to answer as many of those questions as possible. If I miss any, I apologise and will write to the noble Baronesses.
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, asked what progress has been made on the registration of building control inspectors. The deadline for registering with the building safety regulator is 6 April. All building inspectors must be registered at least class 1 by that point. However, the building safety regulator has taken the decision to extend the registration period for experienced building inspectors in England who have not yet completed their competency assessment. To benefit from the extension period, they must be registered as class 1 before 6 April and be enrolled on a validation scheme in order to have their competency assessed at the level at which they intend to practise. They will have until 6 July to complete the assessment process. It is crucial that the sector continue to undertake the validation and registration processes in order to meet the competence requirements set by the building safety regulator.
Regarding second staircases, following public consultation and liaison with expert bodies, there is a recommendation that all new tall residential buildings over 18 metres have a second staircase. This will provide an additional means of escape for residents, and I am sure it is supported across the House. We will publish the updated approved document and guidance. I am told, with some authority, by my department, that that will still be by the end of March. Therefore, I am assuming that it will be in the next day or two. I will report to the House if that does not happen—but I hope that it will.
With respect to buildings under 11 metres, it is generally accepted that the safety risk is proportional to the height of the buildings. The risk to life from historic fire safety defects in buildings lower than 11 metres is less. Therefore, building safety-related remediation works are required in a very small number of buildings under 11 metres. A fire risk assessment and accompanying fire risk appraisal of external walls, conducted in accordance with PAS 9980 principles, will often find that lower-cost mitigations are more appropriate in low-rise buildings.
To give some assurance, in rare cases where remediation work is required in buildings under 11 metres, the Government have retrospectively extended the limitation period under Section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972. This enables legal action to be taken against developers and contractors where works completed in the last 30 years make a dwelling not fit for habitation.
With regard to the accountability of manufacturers involved in building safety defects, the Defective Premises Act has been amended to cover refurbishment and refitting work for works completed after the Building Safety Act came into force on 28 June 2022. Civil claims can therefore be brought against manufacturers for defective or mis-sold construction products where these products contributed to the dwelling being unfit for habitation. This provision applies to all dwellings and has retrospective effect for cladding products within a 30-year period. The Building Safety Act also gives courts new powers to extend liability to the associated companies of developers.
With regard to the way in which leaseholders and taxpayers will retrieve money they have paid towards a remediation scheme, under the Building Safety Act 2022 we have granted leaseholders the power to apply to the First-tier Tribunal for remediation contribution orders. The First-tier Tribunal has the discretionary power to decide a timeframe in which the money must be paid to the specified person. In the first ever RCO issued, the respondent was required to pay the amount specified in the order within 14 days of the decision date. If the respondent does not pay the specified person within the deadline set by the tribunal, the order can be enforced through the county court system.
Discussions have been taking place with the insurance sector. A lot of discussions have happened and, indeed, where buildings comply with building regulations or align with the industry-accepted PAS 9980 standards, insurers should now offer affordable premiums and should not prescribe additional remedial works. The Association of British Insurers and its members have stated that premiums should reduce where buildings have completed remediation or have become PAS 9980 compliant in the external wall assessment and have therefore shown a marked risk reduction. We expect insurers to honour their commitments and ensure that premiums are priced fairly and appropriately, given the level of work that will have been done.
With regard to selective statistics, monthly data is now being released that can be seen by all, and the progress can be seen; therefore, rather than selective data, the whole dataset will be available for people to observe. Indeed, when taken together with the transparency and enforcement measures through the enforcement league table, I hope that will allow not just this House and its Members but the wider public to keep up the pressure on remediation, making sure that it all happens at pace.
With regard to additional estimates, the numbers have not changed since they were released as prevalence estimates. The publicly available data suggests that 4,092 residential buildings of 11 metres and over with unsafe cladding are being monitored by DLUHC. This comprises just over 2,500 18 metre-plus buildings and 1,500 buildings of 11 to 18 metres. We will continue to bring more buildings into the remediation scheme and provide monthly updates on that progress as and when we have it.
I thank the two noble Baronesses for their comments and look forward to working with noble Lords to try to make sure that we continue at pace to make sure that people live in safe homes.
Capital Projects: Spending
Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Swinburne
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I can specifically say that the new delegation approach has had very little impact on the usual course of departmental business. Most spend needs to be subject to HMT approval. The department has worked closely with the Treasury to ensure value for money and continues to do so.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Can the Minister tell us what percentage of the levelling-up fund has been allocated to those areas most in need in priority 1? Maybe she could explain why many areas which are less deprived have been awarded that funding and other priority 1 areas have therefore missed out.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I will get back to the noble Baroness in writing with the specifics because I think it deserves a very detailed answer.
No-fault Evictions
Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Swinburne
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
As the House can imagine, this is a complex area; court reform is really important, but it is also important to understand that the statistics are actually relatively good for the judiciary at this time. We are hearing that, of those that actually have a target here, the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service already meet the requirement for hearings to be within four to eight weeks of receipt in over 95% of courts. The time it now takes has gone down to seven weeks rather than 25 weeks a year earlier, so things are happening but a lot more can be done.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
For those families dependent on housing benefit to pay their rent, the local housing allowance has been frozen since 2020, and that frozen figure is based on 2018 private rental figures. This forces many families into poverty and food banks so they can manage to pay their way. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will unfreeze the local housing allowance and bring it up to the local housing allowance rate that it should be?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I am afraid I cannot give the noble Baroness that specific assurance. The Government recognise the cost of living pressures that tenants face, and that paying rent is likely to be a tenant’s biggest monthly expense. Some 8 million of the most vulnerable households across the UK will continue to be supported through the next winter by additional cost of living payments.
Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Swinburne
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions. If they can bear with me, I have a lot of inserts and Box notes which I have been handed, so this may not sound like a closing speech. I will endeavour to answer the questions rather than to sound too eloquent.
I covered ring-fencing in my opening remarks, but I should be clear on why we are not saying that this additional income generated should be ring-fenced: it is because it is in primary legislation. There is a requirement for planning fees to be used by the local authorities to perform the function of determining planning applications. That is already in primary law so it is does not need to be restated here in a different format. As there is no surplus to planning fee income, logically there is no overspend that could be used to cross-subsidise other services. We therefore do not believe that this has to be ring-fenced.
However, I agree that, having made clear to all local planning authorities that they are expected to retain the income from planning fees for direct investment in their planning services, we should reiterate this expectation after the regulations are made. Indeed, I hope to have reassurance in writing from my department that we will monitor how these fees are generated and used.
I come to the issue of whether performance will be enhanced and how it will be monitored. In return for increasing planning fees, we expect local authorities to invest more in their planning services and deliver better performance. The fee increase provides the opportunity for authorities to consider how they might use that additional income to improve their performance and whether they are resourcing their planning application service adequately. We need to see them assessing this for themselves.
We are also developing a new framework that will measure that performance across a wider set of criteria to ensure that local authorities are delivering on all fronts, for all users of the system. That is really important. I am sure that the department and certainly the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will welcome the involvement of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and his thoughts on how to develop service level agreements further.
A “free go” was mentioned by many noble Lords. We recognise that a free go has a significant resource impact for local planning authorities. Therefore, if applicants still want to arrange an extension, they can, but they cannot have a free go. I hope that has a positive impact on planning departments’ ability to resource planning efficiently.
I know that planning authorities setting their own fees is controversial. There are some who believe that they should be able to set their own fees, at an appropriate level. However, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, there is also a risk that fee variation between areas could dissuade home owners and small developers from undertaking development. It could introduce unpredictability at a time when we need developers to accelerate the number of homes they are building and to support economic growth. I am sure that that objective is supported across the House. A national fee increase ensures that all planning authorities can benefit, so we consider that to be the appropriate measure in the meantime.
Why do fees not cover the full cost of that planning application service to local planning authorities? It is fair to say that we want to proceed in a measured way. It is important that we provide additional resourcing to local authorities without disproportionately impacting businesses and householders. If we were to set full cost recovery now, we could see a substantial rise in some fees that could adversely impact potential developments. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and others who mentioned this that we intend to undertake a wider review of the actual cost of processing different types of applications, as the proposed planning reforms are implemented and the savings, particularly from digitisation, are realised. In future, we might see fees relate more directly to the cost of the service itself.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is correct that there is a difference in the numbers that I mentioned in opening. Between the £225 million deficit and the £65 million new funding being raised, there is a difference of £160 million. As was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, there are measures that will make an impact on that, including the free go.
I also draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that local planning authorities are, we believe, under- resourced, but there are ways in which we are addressing this. Staffing issues and efficiencies were mentioned. We have developed a comprehensive planning, capacity and capability programme, which provides the direct support that is needed now and upskilling opportunities for existing planners, while developing the future pipeline into the profession. As part of this, we have also launched a new £24 million planning skills delivery fund; this will directly support local authorities to help clear the backlogs of planning applications and to address skills gaps. We have also announced an additional £13.5 million to stand up a new super-squad of experts to support local planning authorities to assess specialist resources to accelerate the delivery of homes and development, starting with the activities in Cambridge with which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is familiar.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I thank the Minister very much for giving that detailed explanation. Is she willing to put it into a note for Members, so that we can see exactly how it will all add up?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
Absolutely. I am sure that my team in the Box and back in their offices are monitoring this very closely to make sure that I am not saying anything I should not.
We monitor the financial health of all local authorities on a regular basis, using a wide range of data as well as extensive engagement with those local authorities. We stand ready to speak to any council that has concerns about its ability to manage its finances and the pressures that planning is putting on them.
In conclusion, I reiterate that we believe it is vital that we have a well-resourced, effective and efficient local planning service, and the House seems to agree with that. The measures in these regulations support this ambition by providing much-needed additional resources for local planning authorities. The Government are clear that the income from planning application fees should be used by local authorities to provide a high-performing planning service. This is essential to deliver the homes and economic growth that our country needs.