Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Blencathra

Committee stage
Monday 28th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is right to try to urge the adoption of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act through this Bill, but she is right that there was an expectation that it would be implemented this year. Given the new Government’s determination to expand the construction of housing as quickly as possible across the country, this schedule is pertinent and relates to the water services Act. We ought to try to address it, through this Act or not. The Minister’s heart is in the right place on this one, so now she has the levers of power I am sure that she will pull the right one.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for tabling these amendments, which rightly seek to tackle the issues of flooding and drainage. The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 set out standards for water companies regarding the reduction of flood risks and created more power for local authorities to be able to take action to protect their local areas.

When in government, we tightened restrictions on water companies to protect our countryside, and we are pleased that this work is being continued. Since 2010, under the Conservatives, government investment has better protected more than 600,000 properties from flooding and coastal erosion. Since 2015, Conservative investment has protected over 900,000 acres of farmland, rightly putting the needs of rural communities first.

In 2020, we built on this further and announced a doubling of capital funding into flood defences in England, to a record £5.6 billion from 2021 to 2027. As the Committee will understand from these steps, we had a strong record of investment in flood defences and water management. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister what plans the Government have to improve on those Conservative measures to protect communities across the UK from the harms of flooding.

Much of our debate on the Bill has so far focused on the corporate structures and financial management of companies in our water industry. It is right that we consider these issues in depth and seek to put the right incentives in place to deliver better outcomes for the key groups and interests that we should be aiming to protect under the Bill; namely, consumers, employees of water companies and the protection of our environment.

While the majority of the public debate around our water sector focuses on the damage that sewage overflows do to our waterways, my noble friend Lady McIntosh is absolutely right to take this opportunity to consider the dangers of flooding and to seek to ensure that water companies put this issue front and centre. We on these Benches certainly understand the issues of sewage contamination in our rivers across the country and would like to solve this issue to preserve the nature and wildlife that this has serious impacts on. We also recognise the horrendous impact that floods have on many communities because those water companies have not done enough in terms of flood management.

The first impact most people experience when water management is poor is flooding on roads and on other key transport links. However, in serious cases—such as the 2007 summer floods and the floods of 2015-16—this can result in threats to lives and livelihoods, enormous costs to the economy and massive devastation for the people affected. I am not sure if the Minister is politically old enough to remember the terrible Carlisle floods a few years ago, but it was horrendous to drive through Carlisle and see thousands of homes with abandoned furniture outside, which was soaked through. In my own constituency, just south of Penrith, at Eamont Bridge, houses had been flooded to a depth of about three inches, but with osmosis, the water had been sucked right up the walls and everything had been destroyed. So, flooding seriously impacts people’s lives.

Reporting on those two exceptional examples together, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated that the 2007 summer floods cost the UK economy £3.2 billion, while the 2015-16 winter floods cost the economy roughly half of that, at £1.6 billion. These examples alone demonstrate the importance of improving water management to protect our communities from flooding.

That said, it is not only the extreme examples that demonstrate the importance of managing flood risks. As anyone who is involved in farming or other rural affairs will tell you, 2024 has been a very wet year, with many communities facing difficult challenges with flooding. In April 2024, England as a whole received 150% of the long-term average rainfall for the time of year and the north-west was particularly wet—as the noble Baroness and I will testify—with, as my notes say, the wettest April since records began in 1871. I can also tell noble Lords that it was also the wettest August, with one dry day this year.

This is a good opportunity to remind ourselves that it is not just people’s homes that rely on a good water system but our food supply—people’s livelihoods rely on it too. That is why my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering is right to bring this point forward for debate as the Bill makes progress.

When flooding and poor water management affect our rural communities, invariably this has a knock-on effect on agriculture and, in turn, consumer costs. Earlier this month, the Guardian reported that fresh food inflation increased to 1.5% from 1% just in August as the wet weather affected British production of salads and soft fruits, while storms in the Atlantic delayed imports of more exotic fruits, driving up prices.

No Government can control the weather—thank goodness; farmers would like to control it of course, but each would want to control it differently—and no water company can entirely mitigate the impacts of wet periods on our agricultural output. However, good water management is very important when we are faced with unusually poor conditions.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for tabling these amendments to the Bill. I know many farmers will be pleased to hear their concerns about the impacts of poor water management are being discussed in your Lordships’ House tonight. While the Government may not be inclined to accept these amendments, we on this side of the House see this as an important opportunity to ask the Government to please keep the issue of flooding and water management high on the agenda, in light of the very serious impacts it has on people across the country, in both direct damage to their homes and communities and the secondary impact it can have on food prices for all of us.

I would therefore be interested to hear whether the Minister might consider bringing tougher flood mitigation duties for water companies into the Bill. As we have heard constantly, the Government intend to bring forward much wider reforms in the coming year, but, as we approach winter, many families up and down the country will have concerns in the backs of their minds about the risks of flood, in light of the continued failures in our water sector.

Will the Minister take this forward and look at possible improvements that can be made to the Bill now? I hope the Government will listen to the important points raised by my noble friend tonight and consider these carefully before Report.

Building Safety Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Blencathra

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

[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 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.