Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report stage & 3rd reading
Friday 24th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches totally support Amendments 62 and 63 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and moved and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. The most unfortunate part of doing this Bill in wash-up is that we have lost the opportunity to address some of the omissions in and failures of the Building Safety Act. Many leaseholders who are stuck in their properties with high and escalating insurance rates and service charges that are growing inexorably and still have a fire safety issue. These two will be issues that will I ensure are addressed by the next Government, whoever they are.

I thank those on the Front Bench for the helpful comments and the co-operation they have provided during this Bill. Most of us are of one mind: it is such a shame that this Bill is being lost without the changes that many of us would want to have put into it; but with that, I end my contribution for today.

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

My Lords, I will, very briefly, just add our support for Amendments 62, 63 and 67. The noble Lord, Lord Bailey, presents a way forward for addressing those issues as well. I wish we could be doing them, and I think it is disappointing we are not, but I will leave it there.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage
Monday 22nd April 2024 Lords Chamber

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

It is good to hear that they have a strategy; maybe the Minister can explain to the Committee what the strategy is. All I see at the moment is that there is a lot of support for commonhold—everyone is committed to it and wants to bring it in in due course—but I would like to see some sort of timeline. When are we going to get it? They will have had this report from the Law Commission for four years in July. Where is the plan? If they had a plan they could set out for the Committee, I am sure they would get a lot of support from us here, but the worry is that we will be sitting here in another four years. What is the plan from the Government?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords—

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

I am sorry, but I asked a couple of questions there and I am hoping for a response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the purpose of Amendment 13 in my name was to encourage a debate on commonhold and the route to achieving it, and in that it has been successful. I am pleased about that and thank all noble Lords for their involvement. It has been a long time since the first legislative proposal was made to abolish leasehold. I think it was in the Liberal Government of 1906, so we are going back a long way.

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

It was 1880, with Henry Broadhurst.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I do not think that that was a legislative proposal—I was very careful in the words I used. What this debate has achieved is that it is very clear across the Committee that there is overwhelming support for the move to commonhold. That is very positive. The next achievement is that it has brought forward three different ways, or perhaps four, in which the Government can move. One is a draft Bill, which seems to me to be a very interesting proposal and one that again I think would get support across the House, because the move to commonhold is complex. I and everybody else who has spoken accept that, so let us find a way of working together to achieve that common end.

The second proposal was a “Let’s get something done” type of proposal for a sunset clause. If nothing else happens, let us adopt that. The third proposal, from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, was similar to a draft Bill: to get the Government to agree a draft strategy. Unfortunately, the Minister used the phrase “in due course” a number of times. The trouble with “in due course” is that the due course can go on for a very long time, as it has already. Some of us are concerned to enable all existing leaseholders to achieve commonhold and be part of home ownership. The party opposite always talks about that, so you would think it is in its interest to push it. That is why it is very disappointing to hear the Minister say “in due course” and, “We are considering the recommendations of the Law Commission”, which was four years ago now.

Finally, we have heard from various Members on the Labour Benches that, if they ever have the privilege to serve—that is the phrase they are using—this will happen quickly. I look forward to maybe 2025 when we might see whether the Minister will bring forward a proposal for a draft Bill on commonhold or whether somebody from the Labour Benches will do so, in which case we will make progress. We on these Benches will hold both parties to account if they fail to do that at the earliest possible moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Lords Chamber

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

I accept entirely that when the noble Lord was a Minister, we got that first stage of ground rents through, and that was very good to do. The problem of course was that I could not persuade him on the next stage, but hopefully it is coming soon. But the noble Lord certainly got the first thing through, and I am very grateful for that.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, good debate. I agree.

Local Audit (Appointing Person) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, a member of Kirklees Council and a member of that council’s audit and governance committee.

The Redmond review into local authority financial reporting and audit is far-reaching in its recommendations and broadly welcomed by those in local government, who want greater simplicity and transparency in financial reporting and auditing. One challenge facing local government audit requirements is the narrowing number of private audit firms willing to take on such audits. Yet sound auditing is an essential prerequisite for value-for-money judgments and financial transparency, as local government financing becomes ever more complex.

The proposals in this SI tackle some of the issues regarding process. These relate to fee scales, deadlines, standard fee variations and the length of time for which an auditor is appointed. Setting the end of November as the deadline for setting fee scales so that up-to-date information can be included in the calculation seems sensible, as does setting standardised fee variations. However, can the Minister confirm that such fee variations will be in proportion to the local authority accounts being audited?

I have some concerns about the potential for an auditor to be appointed for as long a period as five years. As external auditors rely heavily on a good working relationship with the local authority finance team and its internal auditors, there is always a risk that a cosy relationship develops. Can the Minister explain the thinking behind the ability for the same auditor, rather than the same audit company, to continue for five years? An explanation of the criteria that will be used by the appointing person to appoint for shorter periods “where desirable” would be helpful, as would an outline of the circumstances for audit firm rotation partway through an audit period, to understand the thinking behind that. If the Minister does not have all that in front of him, it would be good if he could write me a note.

There is a far deeper concern with local authority audits than will be dealt with by this SI. The Financial Reporting Council, which regulates the accounting industry, said this year that 60% of the English local authority audits it had reviewed did not meet its required standards. The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee detailed the problems this July. I will quote from the summary of its report, as we need to think about it:

“Without urgent action from government, the audit system for local authorities in England may soon reach breaking point. With approximately £100 billion of local government spending requiring audit each year”,


the Ministry of whatever it is called now—levelling-down, communities and whatever—

“has become increasingly complacent in its oversight of a local audit market now entirely reliant upon only eight firms, two of which are responsible for up to 70% of local authority audits. This has not been helped by the growing complexity of local authority accounts … If local authorities are to effectively recover from the pandemic, it is critical that citizens have the necessary assurances that their finances are in order and being managed in the correct manner.”

Both the FRC and the Public Accounts Committee report raise fundamental issues about local authority auditing which are not addressed by this SI, but which I hope the Minister can respond to either now or in writing. Having said that, with the exception of the questions I raised earlier, I concur with the changes that have been proposed.

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

My Lords, I, too, declare my interest to the Grand Committee as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Audit is about ensuring the proper inspection of a body’s financial affairs, ensuring that the financial dealings of the organisation, and the information that residents get, is correct and proper. It gives confidence to local people and, of course, to the Government and everybody else that an organisation is acting properly—or it identifies irregularities.

I was first elected a councillor in 1986—I am showing my age now. I remember the old district auditor, who used to look after the accounts. Of course, that is now all gone; we have local audits run through the Local Government Association.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised an important point on fee scales, what those fees are, when they can be varied and changed, and why. There is also the risk around the relationship: if the same person does the work every year, there may be an issue with things becoming too cosy. For me, there is the whole question of value for money. This is council tax payers’ money that we are spending here—so what are we doing to ensure that, when any fees are varied, we are getting value for money? The noble Baroness made the point that fewer and fewer firms are willing and able to do this work, which is also an issue for the Government to look at.

For me, it is about ensuring that public money is spent wisely, properly and legally. If fees are going to be varied, how do we ensure value for money? Then there is the issue of the reduced number of firms doing this work. How do we ensure that the relationship is not too cosy and is always properly professional? Having said that, I have no issue with the regulations, and I shall leave it there. I hope that the Minister can respond to the issues raised. I know that, if he cannot, he will come back to noble Lords with a letter and place it in the Library of the House.

Fire Safety Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 27th April 2021 Lords Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

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

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

Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

3rd reading
Tuesday 20th April 2021 Lords Chamber

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

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

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

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

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

Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report stage & Lords Hansard
Wednesday 17th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my interests in the register as a member of Kirklees Council and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I must say that I enjoyed the forensic probing that my noble friend Lord Greaves has undertaken. The words in the Bill that he is keen to clarify are ones that legislators frequently use. One wonders whether this is for the precise purpose of storing up business for lawyers when a challenge is made and the words then have to be to defined. My noble friend has done his research and quoted case law. The Minister’s response will be of interest to many of us because it will relate not only to this Bill but to others where charitable institutions are involved.

My noble friend also drew our attention to the difference in the use of “consists” and “used”. As he rightly pointed out, a “well used” facility may not get relief, whereas one that consists “wholly or mainly” may well do. Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain the reasoning behind the use of the words in the Bill that my noble friend is questioning. I look forward to what I am sure will be a most informative response.

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

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for tabling the amendment. We debated issues around similar words in Committee. I thank him for raising these important matters again because we have to be clear. I was very struck by the points he made towards the end of his remarks about how important it is to get legislation right and to have good legislation. If we are not clear what we mean and mean what we say we will have all sorts of problems.

This gives the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, the opportunity to be very clear about what the Government mean. We need to be clear when we have words such as “mainly” and whether it is “more” or “less”. If we do not get these things clear then we get confusion. That leads to bad law and might potentially involve the courts. It potentially involves wasting more time in this House clarifying what we should have clarified in the first place.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is very good at picking these things up. I remember the debate that we had on rogue landlords, when he tabled an amendment on what was meant by the word “rogue”. It is important that we get these things right because then we will not need to clarify them. I thank the noble Lord for that. I look forward to the Minister’s response on the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Randerson has a wealth of knowledge of the value and importance to our communities, large and small, of the provision of clean, well-maintained public toilets. Her argument is a powerful one. We learned from the meeting that we had with the representatives of the British Toilet Association and the Minister that, in fact, there is no longer accurate mapping of open public toilets around the country. During these 12 months of Covid closures, public toilets have been shut out of concern that their use might enable virus transmission. As the country seeks to return to a more normal way of life, what is vital is that public toilets are available in every community. All noble Lords who have spoken so far have made that point. That is why I totally agree with my noble friend that this Bill lacks ambition and what is needed is a strategy for public toilets from a public health perspective.

I have a suggestion for the Minister. The Government are allocating funding via a Towns Fund to help regeneration. Perhaps he can urge his department to attach a requirement to successful grant applications that towns ensure, as a minimum, that they have a well-maintained and accessible public toilet for the disabled.

My noble friend Lord Greaves pointed out how important parish and town councils are in maintaining existing public toilets. He also pointed out the difficulty that those councils have in accessing capital money in order to restore or build new facilities. That, too, is something to which I hope the Minister will respond.

The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, urges us, as a society, to recognise the essential need for decent public loos, and that their provision is in crisis. I agree wholeheartedly when she says, “If Wales can do it, so can England.” It was well said.

My noble friend Lady Thomas speaks with long experience of the barriers that are unwittingly created for disabled people by the rest of the community. There has been a failure to provide public toilets that are both available and accessible. If we all had to plan our days out shopping or visiting on the basis of the availability of an accessible toilet, my hunch is that many more would soon be provided.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for pursuing a similar amendment and for supporting the purpose the amendments in the names of my noble friends. Of course, we on this side totally support this Bill. It will have some limited impact that might well ensure that some public toilets remain open. Unfortunately, it fails to address the wider issues of comprehensive provision and the role of government in encouraging and supporting the funding of such facilities. Hence, I fully support all the amendments in this group. Perhaps the Minister can provide some hope that the Government will return to the lack of provision of public toilets in future legislation. Better still, they could use the current funding regime to make their provision a priority for grants. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer some evidence that the Government take the matter seriously, and I look forward to his response.

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

My Lords, Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is a good amendment and I support it. I look forward to the Minister’s response. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to highlight these issues. An ageing population needs more facilities; parents need facilities for their children. The point the noble Baroness made about changing facilities for fathers and male guardians is very well made. We also need to ensure that proper facilities are provided for disabled people, so I very much agree with the noble Baroness on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, spoke to an amendment to the lead amendment. He was absolutely right in talking about people visiting town centres, beaches and so on. We are all looking forward to the lifting of lockdown over the next few months. The Government are going to say, “Get out there. Go out there and spend some money, visit some places and meet your family and friends”. I want to do that.

Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 24th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

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

Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 24th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Greaves’ Amendment 8 rightly explores the possibility of closed public toilets being eligible for the relief under the Bill. As those toilets provide no relief for the public, it is quite proper that no relief is provided for the authority paying the rates. It is clearly an issue that we need to explore, and be certain that the legislation ensures that authorities do not benefit from closing public toilets. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raises an important point and I hope that the Minister will able to provide some clarity on it. The amendment, on the face of it, highlights what would be an incentive to keep a public lavatory open. I look forward to the Minister’s response because, from what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, it would be perverse if, by closing a public lavatory, one would be eligible for rate relief. I am sure that that is not the Bill’s intention but it is important to get clarity from the Government on the issue that the noble Lord rightly raised.

Building Safety

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 22nd February 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I declare my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, chair of Heart of Medway Housing Association and a non-executive director of MHS Homes Ltd.

Three and a half years on from the Grenfell tragedy, in which 72 people lost their lives, decisions made by the Government have left thousands of people trapped in unsafe homes and many more unable to move. The Government’s announcement has come far too late for many and is, sadly, a repeat of undelivered promises. It backtracks on a key promise that no leaseholders should have to pay for the cost of this scandal, which is not of their making. On 11 March 2020, nearly a year ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that

“all unsafe combustible cladding will be removed from every private and social residential building above 18 metres high.”—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/20; col. 291.]

But that has not happened.

The funds set up have been dogged with problems. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell the House how much of the money available has been spent so far. I believe there has been a major underestimation of this scandal—this problem—by the Government. Can the Minister tell the House how many buildings are unsafe, where they are and what danger they pose? Until the Government have credible answers to these basic questions, there will continue to be mistakes and the offering of piecemeal solutions that must be updated when they do not deliver. Can the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, update the House and guarantee that the funding provided will cover all buildings over 18 metres high?

Will the Government set up an independent task force to prioritise buildings according to risk, with powers to get the funds out of the door and the ability to go after building owners when they fail to get the work done? That has been a consistent problem that we have raised again and again. Ministers have now promised 17 times—yes, 17 times—that leaseholders will not bear the cost of fixing a problem they did not cause; these were the promises made to the innocent victims of this scandal. But the Government have betrayed their promise that leaseholders will not pay for the building safety crisis. Three and a half years on from the Grenfell Tower disaster, hundreds of thousands of people cannot sleep at night because their homes are unsafe. On top of that, the Government have decided to pile financial misery on them. This is wrong; it is an injustice, and it is unacceptable.

Can the Minister tell the House why this arbitrary 18-metre height limit means the difference between a safe home and, potentially, financial ruin? What are the terms of the loan? What will the interest be? Will leaseholders be required to pay the interest as well as the main costs? On the point that the leaseholder will not pay more than £50 a month, if they sell the property, does the loan have to be paid at that point? Does it go with the former owner, or does it stay with the current owner? We need to know where we stand. How long will the scheme run for? Will it go up by the rate of inflation each year? What will the Government do if these homes remain unsaleable? How will they ensure that freeholders take up the loans? How will the Government speed up remediation, given that the current stalemate cannot continue?

Other properties do not have dangerous cladding, but these people have been charged thousands of pounds per flat to fix other safety issues. The Government should focus on securing our economy and rebuilding after Covid, not saddling homeowners with further debt. The Government should pursue those responsible for payment and prevent leaseholders and taxpayers carrying the can. The Government have announced a levy and a tax, which I welcome, but those responsible should bear the cost. How much do the Government anticipate the levy will raise? Will they pursue others, such as the cladding manufacturers, responsible for putting the dangerous cladding on in the first place? The Government have missed every target for removing ACM cladding and 50,000 people are still living in flats wrapped in it. This is the same cladding that was found on Grenfell Tower, and thousands more have other dangerous cladding on their buildings. When will this all be removed?

What about the skyrocketing insurance costs that innocent victims are being forced to pay? Can the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, tell the House what he expects, on average, a leaseholder to pay? People cannot continue to live in unsafe, unsellable homes. Homeowners should not be faced with financial ruin—bankruptcy, even—to fix a problem they did not cause. Unfortunately, these proposals, instead of providing justice, will still leave too many people struggling and facing loans. This is a very poor Statement from the Government—they will have to come back to the table and do what they promised in the first place: ensure that no victim of this scandal will have to bear the cost of fixing a problem they were not responsible for.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the repeat of this important Statement on the Government’s response to the cladding crisis. I remind the House of my interests, recorded in the register, as a member of Kirklees Council and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I was pleased when I read the heading of the Statement, “Building Safety”, and the opening paragraph, which refers to the mission of the Secretary of State being that of “safety and fairness”. Unfortunately, the Statement then fails to live up to those laudable words. The first issue I have with it is that throughout, there is reference only to “unsafe cladding”. In fact, what has become clear, as the vast scale of the problem that the Grenfell tragedy exposed, is that the building safety failings go far beyond “unsafe cladding”. As flammable cladding is removed, in some buildings further significant construction failings are revealed: flammable insulation has been used; firebreaks have not been built into the structure as a way of slowing the spread of a fire; balconies are not made of fire-retardant material; and spandrel panels are also seen as a potential safety concern.

How do I know this? In January 2020 the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government issued guidance note 23, relating to the seven building components under review, requiring building owners and managers to take urgent action on these. The question for the Minister, therefore, is: will the additional government funding pay for all the defects revealed when the unsafe cladding is removed? If, for instance, it becomes evident that there is an absence of firebreaks, will the funding cover the costs of installing them? If not, the leaseholders will still be faced with large bills to pay for failings in the construction.

The next fundamental question that I hope the Minister can answer is: why has 18 metres been chosen as the bar above which cladding removal is funded by the Government and below which the leaseholders and tenants are required to pay? Is the 18-metre figure an historic one that needs to be reassessed? Serious fires can occur in blocks of varying heights: for instance, the fire in a block called The Cube, in Bolton, was very serious—although fortunately, there was no loss of life—but the building was lower than 18 metres.

That leads me to the question of fairness. As noble Lords will recall, this is the mission of the department in respect of building safety. Can the Minister explain how it is fair for leaseholders in blocks below 18 metres high to have to pay for remediation? I recognise that low-interest loans are available and that the currently anticipated maximum payment is £50 per month. This will, no doubt, be added to the service charge and will be one of the costs that potential buyers will consider. It will make these flats less attractive to buyers and they will almost certainly command a lower value. How is it fair to require leaseholders to pay for building remediation which is not in any way of their making?

One of the roles of government is to ensure that safety regulations are appropriate to the task and that there is an inspection regime. The Government have failed to do this, so they are partly culpable, must bear the cost and recoup it from those who share culpability.

Then there is the question of building regulations. It is alleged that some of the buildings affected by this scandal failed to comply with building regulations at the time of construction. Can the Minister confirm this and provide some estimate of the numbers involved? Where breaches of regulation are involved, will the Government require full remediation costs to be met by the developer? This is what happens with the manufacturers of cars and white goods, for example. Surely it should also apply in these instances. Does the Minister agree?

Next, I turn to the total funding package. The additional funding provided by the Government is a start, but this £5 billion needs to be put into context. During the debate on the Fire Safety Bill, the Minister confirmed that the total cost of remediation was likely to be in the region of £16 billion. Does that imply that £10 billion or more will be paid for by leaseholders through the loan scheme? Perhaps the Minister will let us know whether this is what the Government have calculated.

It is proposed to recoup some of these costs from developers by raising £200 million per annum via a tax on the sector. The cost of the minority of the remediation to be recouped from developers is pathetically small. During the last four years, the five largest developers made profits of around £16 billion, which rather puts the proposed figure into context. Will the Government reconsider the level of this tax to make it fairer?

Finally, I hope that the Government do not need to be reminded of the terrible, personal cost of the cladding scandal. For instance, Laurel and Jonathan in Manchester are seriously considering bankruptcy as the only way out of their predicament. Hayley in Leeds has already been forced into bankruptcy. In an Inside Housing survey last year, 23% of respondents said that they had considered suicide. Such is the stress of living in an unsafe home and being forced to pay huge increases in insurance and service charges. For leaseholders and tenants, this building safety crisis is not in any way of their making, yet they are expected to pay the price while those who created it are not being similarly expected to pay in any significant way. Can the Minister explain how this adheres to the department’s mission of fairness? Will he press for a review of the current proposals as more information comes to light?

Fire Safety Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

3rd reading & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 24th November 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for his engagement with myself and the House in general as we have considered the Fire Safety Bill. The noble Lord engaged with Members of all parties and none in his friendly, engaging style. I very much appreciate that; it is the only way to do business in this House. I think the noble Lord will have a long career on those Benches, and I wish him well there. The Bill goes back to the other place in a much better state than it arrived here in. Important amendments have been passed. I hope the Government will reflect carefully on those amendments and not just seek to overturn them in the other place.

It was good that the noble Lord again confirmed that the Government are committed to implementing the first phase of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry report. I am delighted to hear that, and we have passed amendments to facilitate that. I will say to the noble Lord and the Government that it is ridiculous that the Government keep voting against the pledges they make at the Dispatch Box and had in their manifesto. I hope they will take that on board in the other place. Surely it is right that a public register of fire risk assessments is available and kept up to date.

Finally, we must end the leasehold and tenant cladding scandal. These are the innocent victims; they must not bear the costs. The costs must be borne by the people who built the building—the warranty provider, the guarantors and the people who signed the buildings off as being fit for purpose—not by the poor tenants and leaseholders. All the amendments agreed by the House have gone to the Commons. I hope they will do the right thing in the other place and not just oppose them and send them back. I thank everybody who engaged in this Bill.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this short, two-clause Bill has provoked considerable interest across the House, which is surprising, as it is a Bill that seeks to remedy some of the system failures that led to the appalling tragedy at Grenfell Tower. I join in the thanks to the Minister for arranging meetings with those of us who wished, through amendments, to improve the Bill. I thank him very much for listening to the concerns we raised.

The Bill, as amended, provides greater protection for residents by implementing some of the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry phase 1 report and requiring fire risk assessments to be made publicly available for potential residents. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry is, little by little, exposing the building practices that resulted in flammable cladding being attached to Grenfell Tower—and many other buildings across the country—with such tragic consequences.

Currently, there is a crisis involving people across the country who are in constant fear and anxiety because they are living in flats that are encased in flammable cladding. Currently, it is the leaseholders and tenants who are expected to pay towards the costs of making their homes safe. However, we have passed an amendment to stop that outrageous practice. They have been sold homes that were deemed to be safe but are not, because of building failures. The cost of putting those failures right must not be theirs. The amendment we passed on Report puts that principle into the Bill.

Since Report, I have had many emails and messages from desperate and distraught residents of these flats. Some are being asked to pay way over £40,000 towards the costs of putting these cladding and other building failures right. It is not fair and it is not just. I hope the Government will be able to accept the principle set out in the amendment. I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Fire Safety Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 29th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stunell has made a characteristically well argued and factually detailed contribution in moving Amendment 3. The basis is this: that the practical implementation of new legislation is as important as the legislation itself. Fine words butter no parsnips, as the saying goes.

The Grenfell tragedy taught us, I hope, that the concerns of tenants and residents must be listened to. At Grenfell, concerns were ignored, with horrific consequences. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in his amendment, seeks to list potential consultees. There is always a risk in this that some valuable contributions may not be heard because they were not included in the list. Constructors should be among those who are consulted, and I thank the British Woodworking Federation for its detailed briefing, as referenced by my noble friend when proposing the amendment. Hence I prefer the more general statement in our Amendment 3, which is much more open-ended.

Experts are invaluable, fire safety assessors never more so. In the debate in the House of Commons, the Minister stated:

“I share honourable Members’ alarm at the existence of unqualified fire risk assessors”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/6/20; col. 51.]


The fact that vital fire risk assessments are being carried out by people not qualified to do so is something that we should be taking very seriously. Later amendments seek to close any possibility of unqualified assessors by creating a public register of those certified to undertake the varying demands of the role. As my noble friend has pointed out, there is always a cost attached to improving safety regulation. The question then is: who will be required to meet that cost?

It is surprising that those who have constructed buildings in the last decade are not currently being required to meet the majority of the costs of putting right their errors. Perhaps the Minister can say whether the construction firms are seen as being a significant part of the solution to those leaseholders now facing potential costs in the tens of thousands to make their homes safe.

In response to the last group of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, stated that construction firms and insurance companies are expected to contribute towards these significant costs—which is good news. Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain how quickly this will occur and what actions the Government are taking to ensure that decisions will not be long drawn out, as, for many, three years with no light at the end with the tunnel is already far too long. How much can these leaseholders expect to be paid from the government funding?

I look forward to the Minister’s response to these important questions.

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

My Lords, I very much support Amendment 3, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. My own amendment in this group is very specific. It is about ensuring that relevant organisations are properly consulted and that, after consultation, a report on the findings is laid before Parliament. I hope that the Minister will be specific about consultation on changes made by the Bill to the fire safety order, because we must go much further than the National Fire Chiefs Council. I am looking for commitments to consult local authorities, trade unions, including the FBU, and representatives of tenants and residents.

I noted the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in respect of my amendment, and refer her to (e), which adds

“any other bodies deemed relevant”.

The point of my amendment was to highlight that certain organisations must be consulted, along with any others that the Secretary of State is minded to.

The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is particularly appealing in respect of the requirements set out his proposed new subsection (5)(b) and (c). As the noble Lord set out, the potential implications of the amended fire order for individuals and organisations are huge.

We obviously support the intentions of this Bill very much, but one of our concerns is the question of who will be doing all this work. What will be the qualification requirements and levels? There is no quick fix to that. I am sure that I and other noble Lords do not wish to see a race to the bottom, with people who have very limited skills being authorised to undertake assessments and inspections, because that is a route to disaster and no lessons will have been learned. We need properly skilled, properly qualified people undertaking this work. There will be new obligations, and there must be a process, a route to achieving them, without cutting corners. Proposed subsection (5)(b) in the noble Lord’s amendment sets us off in the right direction.

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock [V]]

There are two related but separate amendments in this group concerning off-sales. The first, to limit the time for off-sales, was the subject of extensive debate in Committee and a commitment from the Minister to bring forward a government amendment on Report. The government amendments achieve that by limiting to 11 pm the latest time by which off-sales can be made. As this exactly replicates the proposal from these Benches in Committee, obviously we support these amendments and thank the Minister for responding so positively to the arguments made.

The second element is that of off-sales in open containers. My noble friend Lord Paddick has made another powerful case for limiting off-sales to closed containers, be it in cans or bottles. The reason is to prevent unruly scenes that may follow drinking from beer glasses in the street. Broken glass in the hands of those worse for wear is a nasty weapon. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, seeks to limit such off-sales to non-glass containers, but that misses one of the critical arguments entirely, which is that off-sales in open containers, whether glass or plastic, can lead to anti-social behaviour. There have been plenty of such incidents before sporting events that resulted in drinking limits being made. My noble friend Lord Paddick’s amendment seeks the same protections for local communities and, indeed, other sensible drinkers. We do not wish to see a Bill designed to help businesses becoming one which, as a side-effect, encourages irresponsible and unsafe drinking. My noble friend’s amendment is important for individuals, communities and policing, and it clearly has the full support of these Benches.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for tabling the government amendments. As other noble Lords said, a convincing case was made for the ending off-sales at 11 pm under these new licences. This was first raised in the other place by my honourable friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, Meg Hillier. She raised the problem she is having in her constituency even before these powers will come into play. There were huge problems in London Fields, and she raised the concern that if the Bill as it was then had been passed, it would have exacerbated the problem. I thank the Government for listening to that. I also thank the Covent Garden Community Association and the Soho Society. Weymouth Town Council was also concerned about this, as was everybody else who got in touch with me. It was also pleasing to see that we had the leaders of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the City of Westminster, Camden and Southwark, two Conservative and two Labour boroughs, coming together because they had a number of premises that would be affected by these proposals. It is good that the Government listened and I thank them very much for that.

On the question of containers, I see the point that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is making, but there is also the issue of buying beer to drink outside, which the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, touched on. I sometimes go to the Shipwrights Arms in Tooley Street, and if you go in there and ask for two pints of bitter, they will ask, “Inside or outside?” If you say “Outside”, you will get it in two plastic containers—you do not get glasses outside. You will meet a big, burly security guard, and you will not get past him if you are carrying glasses. I take the point that glasses are dangerous and can be used as weapons, and we need to be mindful of that. However, in many cases we have those plastic containers, which you often see at sporting venues. However, I see the point the noble Lord is making.

My noble friend Lord Mann made a point about policing resources. I remember being a young councillor in Southwark in the 1980s. At that point, the council gave the music and dance licence, and the magistrates gave the alcohol licence—of course, that has all changed now. I remember that the police came along to us, exasperated, and said, “You’ve granted all these music and dance licences, then of course the pubs are getting all these licences. On the Old Kent Road on a Friday and Saturday night, we have to put in a huge amount of resources when we do the weekly rosters. Then at the same time you’re moaning at us that you want more officers on the beat. We can’t physically manage it all.” I remember how that was important at the time.

However, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the government amendments that she has spoken to, I am delighted that the Government have listened, and I look forward to her response to the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock [V]]

[Inaudible.]—and related amendments, including one tabled by my noble friend Lord Addington that seeks to give sports clubs, which often rely on bar takings, the same facility as pubs and other bars to provide off-sales. An amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, seeks to achieve the same extension for small breweries. These amendments support small businesses and give essential support to community clubs, and as such we on these Benches support them both.

Another very important amendment, Amendment 52, would enable digital age verification. It is surprising that that does not already exist. A very strong case has been made for this change by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. In the light of the experience throughout this crisis of a significant shift being made across society to digital means of providing services, this proposal should surely be accepted by the Government. Perhaps the Minister will be able to indicate when that move to digital age verification will be enabled—as come it will.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lord Addington, relating to small breweries and sporting clubs. I am a bit disappointed that the Government have not found a way to do something here. We hear lots of talk about supporting small business, but we seem to be in a rigid situation, where we cannot move out of where we are. I do not see why we could not do something and it is regrettable that we could not find a way. I accept that breweries do not have licences now, but they could be given something temporarily. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made the point that sports clubs are often open only a couple of nights a week. Why have we not sorted them out? In this emergency Bill to deal with Covid-19, we have chosen to ignore them, and that is regrettable. I do not see why the Government have done that. They could have moved a bit more on that. I support the amendments, and it is regrettable that there will be no progress on them.

A convincing case has been laid out for Amendment 52, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and other noble Lords. I supported the idea in Committee. Equally, I see some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and I accept that this is a temporary Bill; perhaps doing something permanent in a temporary Bill may be a problem, but the least we should get tonight is a commitment. Technically, this can be done and the Government should get on and make sure that it happens.

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 14th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 77 on employee and employer considerations, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, is a timely reminder that all the elements of the Bill have a consequence on working lives and employer responsibilities, and provide opportunities to develop better working practices and relationships. Liberal Democrats have long proposed employee involvement in businesses as a means for improvements to be gained, both by the employer and those employed. This debate is important, we support the sentiments, and I look forward to the response from the Minister.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 77, in the name of my noble friends Lord Hain, Lord Monks and Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, introduces the issue of employer-employee relations and highlights the role of trade unions and other organisations that represent employees in determining the success of these changes.

The Government will want to engage constructively with the relevant trade unions, and it would help the House if the noble Earl could set out how he has consulted them during the drafting of the Bill and sought their views on the issues contained in it, which have a direct consequence for the people they represent.

The Bill seeks to support economic growth, but if workers, their views and the views of their representatives are not taken account of and their safety is ignored, that is irresponsible—and I am sure the Government would not want to do that. The worst thing of course would be if we did not take their views properly into account and that failure contributed to a second wave of the pandemic, which would be—health-wise and economically—an utter disaster for the United Kingdom.

I agree very much with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, about how we should look to Germany and the work it does there with its works councils. I was over in Berlin a couple of years ago and saw the great work Rolls-Royce was doing at its factory just outside Berlin.

My noble friend Lord Hain mentioned the Communication Workers Union, and I fully endorse his comments. I also pay tribute to USDAW, the shop workers’ union. I was a member of USDAW for many years. Its members, the shop workers, are the people who have kept our shelves filled, and not without abuse and assaults from people. There have been some disgusting stories of offensive behaviour that shop workers have had to endure from people coming into shops. We should pay tribute to them. During the passage of the Bill concerns have been raised with me by the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, which of course has many members employed in pubs, about their safety as we move forward.

I also endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Hain that managers and trade unions working together can make a huge difference for businesses, local authorities and the rest of the public sector, particularly the NHS. We should not forget that when we clap NHS workers, pay tribute to shop workers, rightly praise local government staff and call firefighters heroes, they are members of unions such as Unison, Unite, the GMB, USDAW and the FBU. They are the same people—there are not two groups of people, one of heroes and great workers and the other of trade union people. There is something that has always frustrated me, and I raised it many times when the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, was Local Government Minister. When we discussed the tragedy of Grenfell Tower, the frankly totally unfair attacks on the FBU by the Prime Minister always irritated me. I repeatedly raised that, because it was totally unfair. Those heroes are members of that trade union. I will leave my comments there, and I look forward to the reply of the noble Earl to the amendment.

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 13th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my interests set out in the register as a councillor and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. We on these Benches support the purpose behind this Bill, which is to provide additional flexibilities to businesses in the hospitality sector that have been forced to cease trading for three months and more as a result of government decisions to control the spread of the coronavirus.

As many Members have pointed out through the amendments discussed in this group, alcohol sales and premises are carefully licensed for a reason: undue consumption of alcohol can result in detrimental effects for both the individual and the locality. Although this Bill provides for temporary measures, temporary measures lasting 18 months can still cause considerable disruption for residents, communities and the environment. These factors must be carefully considered.

There are helpful proposals in these amendments to extend the flexibilities to include sports clubs and bars, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Addington. As he described, these provide a significant part of the funding for community sports clubs. I hope the Government will support this extension.

Equally, small breweries that currently do not have licences, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and others, also seem a worthwhile addition to the flexibilities provided in this Bill.

My noble friend Lady Bowles made a powerful case for businesses that are not directly part of the hospitality sector, such as supermarkets, to be excluded from being able to apply for pavement licences. I hope the Minister will make it clear that this Bill is not, in the words of my noble friend, a Trojan horse for struggling pubs, cafés and restaurants.

Flexibilities on current regulations can result in unforeseen additional concerns. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, to assess their impact after three months and to ensure that these temporary changes are indeed temporary is to be welcomed.

On safety concerns, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, made some interesting comments on the mandatory use of face masks. None of us wants the additional flexibilities to support businesses to result in easier routes for the virus to spread. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, about the use of cash and provision of toilets is therefore important.

Enabling digital verification, in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, which is supported by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, seems eminently sensible.

Temporary event notices are currently used for major local events such as festivals and fêtes. These are currently restricted to protect local communities and other licensees. Greatly expanding the number without a full consideration of the facts and impacts is questionable. With those comments, I pass on to other speakers.

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

My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant registered interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as president of Pubwatch.

Group 1 deals with a range of amendments relating to premises and alcohol licensing, including Amendment 39 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Berkeley on temporary event notices and Amendment 41 in my name, which seeks to add a new clause on health and safety to the Bill after Clause 11.

The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, referred to there being no votes today. We do not often vote in Committee—I have now been in the House for 10 years. I have made it clear in all my dealings with the Government, at Second Reading and in my meetings with them, which have been very helpful, that I will divide the House on Report if necessary. I have been very clear on that. I hope that we will get some resolution today so that it will not be necessary, but I am certainly not averse to having a vote. I would not be accused of that.

The first amendment in this group, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, raises the issue of cumulative impact zones, which are areas defined as contributing to community problems because of alcohol. The noble Lord rightly seeks to stop premises in these zones applying for pavement licences. I look forward to the response from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, explaining how she has consulted with groups such as Pubwatch and other groups representing towns and city centres.

I hope that the noble Baroness will also detail the wider assessment the Government have made of the impact of these changes on crime, and in response to Amendment 11, on police consultation, I hope she will confirm that dialogue with police, local authorities and other interested parties will continue after measures in the Bill are implemented.

The noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, made the point, which I agree with, about the need for the new street drinking to be controlled and managed safely. People can then relax and support the local economy while doing so safely and helping to avoid a second spike. That is very important.

My Amendment 39, plus two amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, deal with how the provisions can help businesses which do not have the necessary licence presently, as they rely on temporary event notices. This would also help street vendors who have been hit particularly hard in this crisis and have seen their doors close, some for good. Up to 15,000 businesses have lost all their income overnight and many tens of thousands of pounds have been tied up in rent for music festivals and rolled over to 2021.

The amendment would also help small breweries, which have suffered. Many noble Lords have spoken about the support for the small brewery industry. As we have heard, small breweries have seen up to 82% of their sales reduced because of Covid-19. They have not received the same level of financial support as pubs and the hospitality sector, and that is a matter of regret. One in four breweries—about 500 of the 2,000—does not currently have any way to sell directly to the public. The Government should adopt this measure as a way of helping them in the months ahead. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley, made a convincing case for the need to help small breweries, as did my noble friends Lady Kennedy of Cradley and Lord Wood of Anfield. As my noble friend Lord Berkeley said, these small breweries have made a fantastic contribution to the variety and type of beers sold in the UK; they employ local people, and they have been devastated. We need to do something and I hope the noble Baroness will be able to give us a positive response.

My Amendment 41 seeks to highlight the importance of workers’ safety in the hospitality sector, which the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, also referred to. I am grateful to the support I have had from the Bakers, Food, and Allied Workers’ Union for its contribution about how to address this issue. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, will address issues such as the handling of cash and how that can be limited. In pubs and other small venues, small amounts of money are handed over. There are payment companies like Worldpay and Shopify, but in many cases if you go into a pub or a small shop and want to pay by debit card, or if you spend less than £10 or £15, they charge you. There needs to be some way in which the companies will not charge the 10p that they presently do. What contribution can they make to ensure that people use less cash and pay by debit card more? Companies would need to step up to the plate and maybe the Government could ask them to do that. It would certainly help reduce the amount of cash being used, with the benefits that that would bring.

It would be interesting to hear about the protection of security staff at entrances to licensed premises. That is very difficult normally, but particularly now that we are talking about social distancing. What support are the Government going to give those staff to ensure they can do their job properly as well as being safe?

How do we ensure that toilets are safe for staff and customers? What discussion has the Minister had with the British Toilet Association including advice on keeping toilets clean and safe? This will be of paramount importance for staff who need to ensure their toilets are kept clean and safe for their customers. Can the noble Baroness also explain what guidance the Government will offer to pubs on these other issues?

Other amendments in the group raise important points, and I hope that we will get a detailed response, particularly on Amendment 44, from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. They both made a clear case about allowing better enforcement of the drinking regulations, which would be welcomed. It will be interesting to see whether it is possible to bring that forward quickly. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, made it clear that there is support in the sector for bringing these matters in quickly.

I will leave my comments there and look forward to the detailed response from the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock [V]]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, has given the Committee an assurance that the Government will bring forward an amendment about restricting the time at which off-sales can be made to a limit of 11 pm. This is most welcome and deals with some, but not all, the issues raised in the amendments in this group. However, we need to see the detail of such an amendment, including the start time of off-sales under the Bill.

Noble Lords have heard the wise words of an experienced professional. My noble friend Lord Paddick knows what he is talking about. He knows at first hand the horrible injuries that can come from mixing too much drink with broken glass. He knows that this has to be curtailed. The arguments are powerful. All noble Lords who have previous or current experience in local government know how vitally important it is that these concerns are dealt with. I added my name to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Paddick and look forward to them having a positive response from the Government.

My noble friend Lord Shipley asked about reducing the late-night levy for businesses whose premises were closed under the coronavirus restrictions. This is eminently sensible, and I hope that the Government can agree to the content of the amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the announcement she made to the Committee at the start of this debate. I appreciate this and look forward to seeing the amendment which the Government will bring forward. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. When we met online they were very kind and listened to the issues raised, as they did at Second Reading when there was genuine concern around the House about the consequences of this additional permission. I am pleased that the Government have listened and look forward to seeing the amendment.

I also thank my noble friend Lord Whitty, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, for supporting the amendments I have put forward. There was also a formidable team in the leaders of the London Boroughs of Southwark, Camden and the City of Westminster, and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea—four boroughs with the vast majority of these licences, all saying that this would cause huge problems for them—who all came together to write a joint letter. It is good that the Government have listened to the points they made. I also have to thank the Covent Garden Community Association which was rightly vociferous about the problems this would cause—they accept that they live in a very lively area, but this would be a step too far. We began to receive support over the last few days from other local authorities and community groups, and we thank them all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock [V]]

The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, lays bare the deep concerns of the tourism sector. The Government’s response will be crucial. As my noble friend Lady Doocey said, the tourism sector is on a knife-edge. The example she gave from the Lake District is no doubt being felt elsewhere in regions dependent on tourism. In replying to the debate, I hope the Minister can give hope and help to these regions.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this group contains two amendments: Amendment 42, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and Amendment 78, in my name. These probing amendments seek to highlight wider issues surrounding support for the hospitality sector. As we heard in the debate, the industry desperately needs government backing to see it through the coming months, which is why this House is supporting the Bill and why it is seeking improvements to make it even better.

I welcome Amendment 42 and entirely agree with the comments of the noble Baroness and the noble Earl. The amendment introduces the requirement for a review of support. Given that these are labour-intensive businesses, we should bear in mind that there is an enormous unemployment risk if businesses in this sector collapse.

Amendment 78 in my name aims to start a debate on two issues plaguing the hospitality sector, the first of which is lack of consumer confidence. Many people are still cautious about visiting hospitality venues, and the Government must play an active role in encouraging customers to return safely. The second issue is rent disputes. One large pub chain told us that disputes between tenanted pubs and their owners are still unresolved and there is no effective mechanism to fix this. I hope the Government can explain how they will encourage consumer confidence to help people return to pubs.

Obviously, this is a probing amendment that highlights these issues and seeks a government response regarding how they see these points being resolved in a satisfactory way that keeps businesses open, staff working safely and customers coming through the doors, reassured that they can enjoy themselves and spend money safely. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Stronger Towns Fund

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made yesterday in the other place by his right honourable friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. This supposed funding boost is extremely disappointing and will do little compared with the billions of pounds that his Government have already cut from local communities. After all the hype, I would have expected more from him and the Government. This will do little to reverse the damage that they have inflicted in each region of England.

The reason why many of our towns are struggling is a near-decade of cuts to local authority funding and to public services by the Minister’s Government. The fact is that between 2010 and 2020 councils will have lost 60p in every £1 that the Government provide for services. Can the Minister tell the House why nine of the 10 most deprived councils in England have seen cuts three times the national average? How can that be right?

The Statement says that the Government have taken deprivation into account when considering the allocation of this fund. I am very pleased that they have done that, but I am also conscious that the Minister’s right honourable friend in the other place refused to say that deprivation would be taken into account when considering the local government settlement. Can the Minister tell the House why that is the case? It is quite rightly included in this fund but not in the fair funding formula review.

The Minister mentioned Blackpool. Blackpool is one of the most deprived areas in England and has seen a cut in spending power of more than £45 million. That is more than the £40 million a year that the entire north-west of England will get from this fund. Look at the east Midlands, an area I know very well. Over seven years it will get £110 million, which is £15.71 million a year. If the Government allocate that funding evenly per local authority—I know they will not do that, but if they did—it works out at around £393,000 per year per authority.

This funding announcement is a drop in the ocean. We have seen spending cuts of £7.3 billion over the past decade because of nine years of austerity. Even if we are being favourable to the Government and to Ministers, this enticement is £5.7 billion short of the cuts that they have already inflicted.

The funding promised by the Secretary of State over the next seven years does not even get close to matching the amount of funding that regions have received from the European Union over the last seven years from the European Regional Development Fund. This package is £642 million a year short of the money that England would have received.

Also, why is £600 million unallocated? I know the Minister said that there will be some sort of bidding process, but we have had no more clarity about that. How will the money be allocated? He also mentioned other parts of the United Kingdom. Will the money be distributed through Barnett-type formulas? Will there be additional money for the other parts of the United Kingdom? What will the allocations to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland be?

This is a most disappointing announcement indeed from the Government, but unfortunately not surprising. We have such serious problems in our towns, seaside resorts, communities and high streets that we need an ambitious programme to deliver their success so that they can thrive, with proper support for jobs, transport, housing and communities. As I said, the Government have failed in this announcement.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I remind Members of my registered interests, in particular that I am a councillor in Kirklees Council in West Yorkshire. I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, but it raises far more questions than answers, so I will ask those questions in the hope and expectation of finding the answers.

The funding is described as being for towns. Could the Minister define what towns will be eligible? Are cities excluded? For example, my part of the country—West Yorkshire—contains Dewsbury, a town, eligible, and Bradford, a city, not eligible, despite the fact that their deprivation assessments will be very similar?

It seems from the Statement that the funding will be allocated to the local enterprise partnerships and the mayoral combined authorities, yet these are the very institutions that have clearly not used growth deal funding to invest in those towns; otherwise, there would be no need for this additional funding. The city region-centric approach may well be successful in bringing new jobs into cities, but my experience is that these institutions have not succeeded in reviving our towns. Yet these are the self-same institutions that will be the keepers of this small fund. Could the Minister explain the rationale for this approach? Given that the LEPs serve large populations, how can the needs of small towns feature and be understood? Local councils are much better placed to understand their communities and which ones will benefit from the relatively meagre investment, so why the LEPs?

Then there is this total failure of government thinking that devolution equals handing out funding that in some way local people can influence. The Statement refers to the Government being in charge. It says:

“We will work with local areas to explore town deals that unlock local potential”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/3/19; col. 714.]


This is no way to engage communities. Will the Minister confirm that plans for investment have to be agreed with the Government? How will residents and councillors of the towns involved be able to determine what funding programme best meets the needs of their town?

The Statement lists the aims of the funding: to create new jobs and training opportunities, and economic development. The list sounds familiar. The Single Regeneration Budget programme 25 years ago had the same aims. However, that had a budget of £5.7 billion over six years—many times larger than what is now on offer. The criticism of the SRB was that gains made in local economies were not sustainable. Have lessons been learned?

That leads me to the size of the funding pot. To take an area I know, Yorkshire and the Humber is allocated £197 million over seven years—£28 million per year for the whole region. These are some of the towns in the region that I think will meet the criteria loosely set by the Government: Dewsbury, Batley, Huddersfield, Halifax, Rotherham, Doncaster, Castleford, Pontefract, Scarborough, Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Barnsley, Selby, Goole, Bridlington, and no doubt others. They may have around £2 million a year to invest. It will do something, of course, but—to use a catchphrase—not a lot.

In the context of the massive cuts to local government funding, this is a drop in the ocean. My own council has had cuts of £183 million up to 2018, and has to make a further £40 million of cuts in the next two years, despite government claims of funding rises, which ignore rising demands—and of course, these cuts do not include the squeeze on school spending.

Another way to consider the funding is to compare it with the £1 billion granted to Northern Ireland. The exchange rate per DUP MP is £100 million. There are 54 MPs in Yorkshire and the Humber. Their exchange rate is £3.5 million. So this fund is a lollipop, a sweetener, and, as they say in Yorkshire, “summat for nowt”. I look forward to the Minister’s answers.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the Minister responds, when I spoke earlier, I should have drawn the House’s attention to my registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their contributions from the Front Benches of their respective parties. I will try to cover the points they raised. First, I will try to put into perspective what is regarded as “something for nowt”.

Grenfell Tower

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 11th June 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier in the other place by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. I shall start where the Minister finished: as he said in the Statement, when we say “never again” we mean it, and that is absolutely paramount.

As the Minister said, the fire happened a year ago next Thursday, and the total of 72 people is the biggest loss of life in Britain due to a fire since the Second World War. Recently I watched the “Panorama” programme, which brought back the images of what happened that night. It was a truly horrific and terrible event and all our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. Every time we have a Statement on Grenfell, our thanks go out to everyone in the local community who has helped: the civil servants, the staff from the borough council and from other councils, the faith sector, the charities, and the community who have come together to help this part of north Kensington to move on and try to get lives back on track.

Having said that, here we are a year on and still more than half the Grenfell survivors are in either hotel rooms or temporary accommodation. I accept entirely that the Minister would not want to see that but it is still not a good situation to find themselves in. There are also more than 300 other tower blocks with the same unlawful cladding on them and so far only 10 have had it removed or replaced. We are not sure where we stand with the private sector, where there are even more such blocks. This is not a good place to be. It is fair to say that the residents of Grenfell Tower were failed long before the fire, and some of them clearly feel that they have been failed since. Actually, if I am right, only 82 residents out of the 209 are in permanent replacement homes, and that is just not good enough.

I believe the North Kensington Law Centre has released a document saying that even in the new homes there are defects in terms of damp and delayed repairs, while some of the tenancies that have been offered are not the same that the residents had at Grenfell Tower. I do not know if that is the case, but if it is then it really needs to be corrected; they should be offered exactly the same tenancies that they had in the tower.

Does the department now have any sort of estimate or deadline for when people will be permanently rehoused? To start with, the Prime Minister talked about getting it done in a matter of weeks, but that has been extended and extended. I know that in the last Statement the Government talked about a year’s time, but at what point do they now see everyone getting into a new home and being able to start to rebuild their lives? We do not want to be back here again in the autumn not much further forward.

On the question of the other high-rise blocks, only 10 local authority tower blocks out of more than 300 have had their cladding replaced. The Government said they would do everything it takes to “keep our people safe”, so in that sense I welcome the £400 million funding that the Minister has announced to remove the cladding. It has come from another budget but it is still welcome. I also welcome the intention to ban combustible material on the outside of tower blocks. Is that all the Government are going to do, though, or are they going to go further? There has been talk before of looking at retrofitting sprinklers in tower blocks. I do not know if the Government are thinking about those sorts of things. Where are we on the question of evacuation procedures in blocks of flats? When will we be in a position to confirm that all blocks of flats are safe?

I was pleased with the important point that the Minister made about the private blocks, which has our full support: blocks in the private sector have to be corrected as well and those costs should not be passed on to the leaseholders. I welcome that.

On the inquiry itself, the tributes to the victims and families were very moving. I wish the inquiry well as it has a very important job to do. After that there will of course be the result of the police investigation, but I will leave it there.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I remind your Lordships’ House of my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a Kirklees councillor.

Seventy-two men, women and children tragically died in the Grenfell Tower fire. Our responsibility to their memories and to those who survive is to seek the truth, secure justice and make the radical change to culture and practice so that no such fire occurs ever again.

Last week, I met representatives of Grenfell United and listened. I was struck by their quiet determination and by the inspiring leadership of their fellow survivors. They want all the facts before, during and after the disaster to be exposed to the full light of day. Then, those responsible for the decisions that enabled the fire to be so catastrophic must be brought to justice.

All these issues are, of course, the subject of the Grenfell Tower inquiry and we must wait for it to hear the evidence and draw its conclusions. However, what is clear so far is the painfully slow response of the Government to the consequences of this disaster. One year on, some of the survivors are still living in hotel accommodation and have been for a whole year. There is no chance for them even to attempt to start their lives again.

From the information I was given by Grenfell United, some of the accommodation purchased by Kensington and Chelsea Council was totally inappropriate. Perhaps the Minister will comment on the information I heard that one of the survivors was allocated a basement flat with no direct access to daylight. Does he regard this as appropriate in the circumstances of what those families had already endured?

Then there is the issue of the dangerous cladding. I welcome the proposal for a ban on ACM cladding in today’s Statement and that a consultation will begin shortly. This is really positive but this cladding continues to be on many public and private buildings. It is reported in the press that 32 NHS hospitals, several hotels and at least one school, as well as 132 private sector and 208 public sector tower blocks, have this dangerous cladding. Can the Minister assure the House that all these buildings will have the cladding removed as quickly as possible so that people who live or work in them can have some improved peace of mind? Meanwhile, can the Minister explain what actions are being recommended to provide additional safety in these buildings and information as to whether those in the public sector will have compensatory government payments for all their additional costs? As many people will know, fire safety wardens are being employed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to ensure that no fire starts in these buildings and that, if one does, prompt action can be taken. This will be a huge additional cost in the social housing sector. Can the Government assure us that all buildings with this cladding have been identified, with the owners acknowledging their responsibility, and that the Government will monitor that effective remedial action has or will be taken in a timely way? If we are not careful, the curse of this cladding will continue for years to come.

On this day, our thoughts and prayers are with all those people—residents and rescuers—whose lives have been indelibly scarred by this disaster.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the Minister responds, I make clear that I am also a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Combined Authorities (Borrowing) Regulations 2018

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I draw Members’ attention to my interests in the register as a councillor in the borough of Kirklees in West Yorkshire and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

The regulation is a natural extension of the powers of the mayoral combined authorities, and in that light it is to be welcomed. The functions that will benefit from investment where the authorities choose to use the additional borrowing powers are significant and of strategic importance to the development of those combined authority areas.

I say all that because I am not criticising the fundamental issue of the borrowing powers. However, I am concerned that additional borrowing by the mayoral combined authorities will result in additional costs being passed to the constituent local authority. So will the prudential borrowing code of the constituent authorities be affected by the additional borrowing permitted under these regulations?

The direct accountability between the spending body, which is the combined authority, and the tax-raising bodies, which are the constituent local authorities, will be fairly obtuse. If these powers are extended in this way, how will local council tax payers and businesses have a clear and transparent explanation of the use of the revenues of local authorities by the combined authorities if, for instance, there is no direct benefit for that particular part of the combined authority area?

The Minister mentioned Sheffield City Region, which will be in the fortunate or unfortunate position on Friday morning of having elected a mayor who will have no powers and no resources because that agreement has yet to come to Parliament and before your Lordships’ House. It will be an interesting conundrum for the Minister and his department as to what the newly elected mayor of the Sheffield City Region—he or she—will do.

I have a final comment for the Minister. The extension of powers to the mayoral combined authorities in this way is positive, with the addendums that I have already referenced, but it begs the question as to the continuing divergence of the powers of local authorities that do not have these additional powers because they do not have combined authorities and metro mayors. That is beginning to grow. The differences are beginning to be obvious and there will be an issue that will have to be addressed by the Government in one form or another. Has the Minister any thoughts to share on that issue?

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

My Lords, I have no issue with the regulations before the House this afternoon and I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as a councillor and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

As we have heard, these regulations in effect implement agreements between the Government and the combined authorities referred to in this order to increase their borrowing powers for various functions as listed in the Explanatory Notes. The lists of additional borrowing approvals are different, as each deal is bespoke. I know that the Government like this bespoke deal arrangement, but I am of the opinion that the jury is still out on that way of working, as one person’s bespoke deal is another person’s confused muddle, with no one knowing or being clear why one authority has certain powers and another does not.

I also noted in the consultation, as referenced in the Explanatory Notes in paragraphs 8.1 to 8.26, that there are still very small numbers of people coming forward to give their views on these consultations. It might be that the numbers compare favourably with other consultations that the department has undertaken, but, if we are to give proper weight to the views of local people—and these areas have millions of people living in them—some of the numbers are derisory. We need to look at other ways of consulting people to get their views on the proposals coming forward. Having said that, I am happy to approve the regulations tonight.

Integrated Communities

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 15th March 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for repeating the Statement delivered yesterday in the other place by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I endorse the Minister’s comments on the disgusting “punish a Muslim” letters. I hope that the perpetrators of this evil hate crime are caught and punished. Such an act has no place in our society. The success of our communities has been their diversity. I am the son of immigrants who came here in the 1950s from Ireland to make a life for themselves. Immigrants from all over the world have contributed to our communities and make our country a much better place.

I am pleased to hear that the Government are committing money to the English for Speakers of Other Languages programme, though perhaps the Minister can comment on the figures from the House of Commons Library, which show that between 2009-10 and 2015-16, funding for such programmes fell from £220 million to £90 million. So although the new funding mentioned in the Statement is welcome, it will not replace the money that the Government previously took away.

In her report, Dame Louise Casey stated:

“The problem has not been a lack of knowledge but a failure of collective, consistent and persistent will to do something about it or give it the priority it deserves at both a national and local level”.


That is why it is disappointing that the Government have not announced a new policy but another consultation on a potential policy following a report they received in 2016. It is now March 2018.

On education, mixing with children from other backgrounds and religions throughout life is one of the best ways of preventing barriers being erected. I agree that children should not only be learning about British values, but living them as well. I very much hope that the Government’s Statement signals a new commitment; if so, I welcome what I have heard today, but they need to ensure rigorous assessment and evaluation of the pilots as other aspects of the Statement progress.

I have a few questions for the Minister, which I hope he can answer. If not, I am sure he will write to me and other Members of the House. Can he tell us what equality impact assessments on the funding have been made for the five pilot areas he outlined in the Statement? We heard about an aspiration to work with local authorities, which is very good. What role does the Minister believe they can play in this strategy? Perhaps he can outline that for the House. What discussions has he had with his ministerial colleagues in the Department for Education about the role of education and making sure that ethnic minorities can benefit here, particularly on issues such as childcare and so on, and how they can make sure that those minorities fully benefit from the programme?

I am also aware that the Minister’s right honourable friend the Communities Secretary wrote in an article in the Guardian that,

“there are too many communities that are still very segregated and therefore divided”.

I am conscious that he has been in post for two years now. Perhaps the Minister can outline what he thinks those divisions are and what has happened in the last two years to deal with some of those barriers.

As I said, I welcome the Statement and I hope that it goes the right way to solve the variety of problems here. I hope the noble Lord can answer those points, but if he cannot, I am sure he will come back to me in the normal way.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register as a councillor in West Yorkshire and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I start by endorsing the condemnation of the abhorrent letters received by many people—among them, one of my friends.

There is much to be welcomed in this Statement on the integration strategy Green Paper. The Government are at last thinking about the issues and the remedies. Before I comment on some of the main headlines in the Statement, I will draw attention to the thinking at the heart of this policy proposal. The Statement defines integrated communities as ones where,

“people—whatever their background—live, work, learn and socialise together”.

That is a sweeping statement. Within the majority white community, this is patently not the case and never has been, which is why I question that broad assertion. Perhaps what the Green Paper needs to focus on is those elements of our common life in this country that enable each individual to play a full part rather than to attempt a forced integration, which seems by its very nature to frown on differences. I support the Statement when it says that,

“a diverse society does not mean a divided society”,

but the language used to describe the current position and the changes desired is very important, and something is lacking in some parts of the Statement and the Green Paper. Will the Minister reflect on that word “integration” and on whether “cohesive communities” may better describe the aim of the proposals?

The Government have listed five relevant areas for action if our diverse communities are to be more cohesive. Some of us in leadership roles in local government took action when funding was more available. Noble Lords may be aware that I was leader of Kirklees Council— just south of Bradford, which was mentioned in the Statement—which has had its share of difficult situations emanating from communities that were not in touch with each other. We tried a number of schemes, many of which showed successful outcomes. I hope the Government may seek to introduce some of them in the listed areas. They included: school twinning, where children met together to share activities such as art and sport; cookery classes for women from different ethnic backgrounds, where they could share recipes, which was very successful; a programme of sporting activities organised by a community group, with a community cup at the end of it, which was hugely popular and successful in bringing children and young people together, mainly to play football; and an interfaith programme, which was mainly focused on schools but also open to adults, and involved visits to mosques, gurdwaras and churches.

Of course, all these additional activities need funding, and as funding disappeared, so, sadly, did the activities. But a few remain. There is an annual cricket match between Christian church leaders and Muslim imams, and interfaith activity continues, led by a Church of England bishop and a Muslim leader. These activities did much to bring people together. Can the Minister say whether the Government are seeking to promote these sorts of activities and, crucially, whether funding will be provided at adequate levels?

I will draw attention to two areas in the Statement, the first of which is language. People who are unable to be fluent in English are at a disadvantage, and their lives are more isolated and restricted. The Government of course made the decision that support for the teaching of English as a second language was no longer needed, and slashed the funding. How schools manage to be effective in the classroom when the children are not able to speak, let alone read or write, English is a marvel to me. ESOL spending must be increased, and be sufficient to meet needs. Perhaps the Minister may be able to commit to that extent of new funding.

The other area I want to focus on is low skills—a critical factor both for white boys and young men and for those from minority ethnic backgrounds. In Bradford, this is the source of much of the inter-community distrust. FE colleges have a key role to play in enabling young people to acquire relevant skills so they can join in and have employment, which gives them some hope for their future.

There is much that must be done if the aim of the Green Paper is to be achieved. I welcome the integration and innovation fund, as long as it is adequate to meet the need. Unless it is, integrated communities will remain a distant prospect, with all the risks that that leaves behind.

National Planning Policy Framework

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for repeating the Statement delivered in the other place yesterday. I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interests as a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. It is a disappointing Statement, not in all of what it proposes to do but in how timid the proposals are and with the wrong focus.

Since 2010 the number of rough sleepers in England has trebled to almost 5,000 last year. The number of households living in temporary accommodation has risen almost continuously since 2010. The latest figures had 79,000 households in temporary accommodation, including 121,000 children, as I have referred to in this House before. Wage-to-mortgage differentials are making owning your own home, as the Statement says, only a dream. The ratio of wages to affordable rents in many parts of England means that in reality these are unaffordable for most people. Some of the measures in the consultation may make a difference but, as with all the Government do in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, it is too little, too slow and the actions never quite meet the rhetoric.

It is regrettable that, despite all of us agreeing that there is a housing crisis and that we need to build more homes, council housing and the contribution that additional council housing could make are not mentioned at all in the Statement. There is one reference to,

“in the social or private sector”,

in the concluding remarks. The solution to the housing crisis will not be found just within the planning process or with developers—affordable homes that in large parts of the country are unaffordable for most people, or increased permitted development rights, which further exclude the local community from the planning process and other measures. We need to allow local authorities to build council homes and housing associations to build more homes on social rents. It will make a real difference to the housing crisis; where people are on benefits it will help reduce the Government’s housing benefit bill; it will help take the heat out of the market; and it will contribute to delivering the improvements to housing that we all want to see in terms of the numbers and the quality of the homes built, with appropriate infrastructure.

Planning departments have taken a huge cut in recent years and the increase in fees that has been allowed is welcome but it is still not enough. Again, I have called many times for full cost recovery on fees. I have suggested that the Government should find one council to pilot full cost recovery but so far they have refused to do that. There are still more than 400,000 approved planning permissions where not even one brick has been laid. I agree very much with the comments of the Local Government Association chair, the noble Lord, Lord Porter of Spalding, who said:

“If we want more houses, we have to build them, not plan them”.


Can the Minister explain why his friend in the other place, the Secretary of State, returned money earmarked for affordable housing to the Treasury? We have a broken housing market, as the Government keep reminding us, so why is the department not making every effort to spend every single penny to build the homes we need? If one area cannot use the money why can it not be used elsewhere? Can the Minister tell the House what work the department has done to see where money could be spent quickly if it is returned from other areas?

Can the Minister give us some idea of the timescale once the consultation has finished? There are a number of consultations going on in the department at the moment—for example, on letting agents’ fees and electrical safety checks—which I have raised regularly. At some point will we get some real, concrete action? It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us.

With regard to achieving sustainable development, I warmly welcome the comments about protecting ancient woodland and veteran trees. That is very good. But can the Minister say a bit more about how the Government propose that we really do achieve sustainable development, particularly with those authorities that are under delivering on housing in their own areas?

The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, is in her place. I recall our discussions about plan-making last year. Can the Minister comment on plan-making and permitted development—is there a conflict there? If we are increasing permitted development rights in local areas and a local plan has been agreed, is there a conflict? Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.

We all agree that we need to deliver high-quality homes. I am very conscious that Governments of all persuasions made some terrible mistakes in the 1960s and 1970s in the quality of the homes they built. I do not want to see us build homes that are not of good quality and in years to come our successors have to deal with another problem with the quality of housing we have in our communities.

It is not in the Statement but the consultation includes the viability of town centres. We need our communities to be sustainable in terms of infrastructure, and town centres are really important. Can the Minister say a little bit about that? It is not just the planning; issues such as business rates are also important.

Finally, the consultation also talks about sustainable transport. Transport needs to be built into communities as well. I am conscious that we have a number of new towns. Ebbsfleet is one; I have asked a number of questions about that recently. There is some more work to be done to make sure that these new towns succeed.

I will leave my comments there and look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interests as a councillor in the local borough of Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The consultation document that the Government have issued details new changes and collates existing measures into an amended NPPF. The details will obviously be the subject of detailed debate at a later date. Today, we have the headlines of the general thrust of government policy on the planning process and housebuilding.

Over the past few days, the media have been full of rhetoric and what I regard as the unedifying spectacle of the Government in full blame-game mode. The blame is on local planning authorities for failing to allocate sufficient land and be efficient in the planning process; the blame is on developers for failing to build allocated sites. But planning for housebuilding depends on three key players: government, the local planning authorities and developers. All need to work together if housebuilding is to achieve the targets rightly set by government. Resorting to a blame game does nothing but create a negative atmosphere.

The Government must consider and be transparent about their role in the planning process. When local authorities develop their strategic plans, it is with clear expectations of housing numbers and site allocations set by government. Once this plan is signed off by councils, it is then inspected for soundness by a government-appointed planning inspector who can, and often does, recommend changes to the plan—recommendations which are difficult to refuse. So despite the rhetoric, it is the Government who are setting the broad requirements and enabling the loss of green-belt land. Can I suggest to the Minister that some clarity of leadership in these matters would be more effective than exhortations and blame? Constructive leadership from government would be more effective in getting the minority of local authorities that have not succeeded in fulfilling government expectations to do so.

Moreover, despite their protestations, evidence shows that developers do land bank, waiting for prices and consumer confidence to rise. Developers are reluctant to build low-cost housing because profit margins are lower—thus not building all the house types in the numbers that are needed. None of this will change without government policy changes, so I welcome the proposal for an investigation into land banking, as long as it leads to actions that restrict it.

If this country is to provide an adequate supply of housing to meet individual needs, more fundamental changes are needed than are being proposed. Perhaps the Minister can respond to some of these issues. First, there is pressure on the south-east because the Government do not have an economic regional policy that draws investment away from the south-east. Developing one would be a significant aid to housing policy. Secondly, that word “affordable” should be abandoned in relation to housing. It is misleading because affordable is what it is not: it is just not as expensive. Thirdly, the National Planning Policy Framework should be amended to enable councils to specify in their strategic plans different housing types on each site allocation: for example—there is some reference to this in the consultation document—housing for older and disabled people. Councils must be encouraged to take responsibility for building homes for social rent. These changes are sadly missing from the consultation. Exhortations to use brownfield sites will fall on deaf ears if the Government fail to provide support for the remediation of sites which are severely contaminated—I speak from bitter experience in my own area.

Finally, perhaps the Minister will be able to explain the Government’s financial commitment to enabling development through providing funding for essential infrastructure. I am not referring to the infrastructure fund. Currently, government policy appears to be to pass on the infrastructure costs of the development that the Government want either to the developers via the community infrastructure levy and Section 106 funding or to local people through a new tax, the infrastructure tariff that I read is part of the proposals. Will the Government change their tune away from the destructive blame game to purposeful leadership so that we can get the housing that this country and its people need in the places that they need it in a sustainable way that does not take away precious green belt land?

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 6th December 2017 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth. I draw the House’s attention to my interests as a local councillor in Lewisham and vice-president of the Local Government Association. As he said, we had a very fruitful meeting after I tabled my amendment at Report. I was very happy to withdraw that, and I am very pleased with what the Minister has brought back today. As he says, it has enabled the Government to put the dates in the Bill. If they want at some future point to extend the scheme, they can, without the need for primary legislation. It is a very sensible move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my register of interests as a councillor in Kirklees and as another vice-president of the Local Government Association. As we discussed on Report, we agree with and support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. We thank the Minister for his very helpful meetings on the Bill. I have certainly explored a number of issues, although I have not got very far, and I do not intend to let them go. There is a growing need to think about the accessibility and affordability of broadband and mobile networks for people less well off than the majority, when they are going to rely on them for access to public services and other important aspects of their lives. That issue will not go away, and I hope Ministers will take that point away and think about it.

As for the amendments, we will obviously support them.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2017

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 6th December 2017 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I draw attention to my registered interests as a councillor in Kirklees and as one of the many vice-presidents of the Local Government Association. As a local councillor and someone who is interested in planning, I welcome the 20% increase in fees across all types of planning application, although it has been a long time coming.

However, I note with some concern that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, did not refer to the fact that the resultant gain in income will cover only around half of the current deficit in financing the planning applications processed by the local planning authority. Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum draws attention to this. It says that,

“the Government is seeking to reduce the funding gap, and estimate that some £80m additional fee income will be raised annually”.

I also note that the Minister referred to an annual increase of £75 million. The paragraph goes on to state:

“Therefore, although the fee increase will help to address some of this shortfall, even taking this additional income into account, authorities’ costs will overall still be higher than the fee charged”.


We continue to say that the Government are expecting hard-pressed council tax payers to subsidise developers. Given that the interesting figure of 0.25% of planning costs is what the planning fee represents, it seems that we ought to be asking developers to pay the full cost of the planning application. My rough guess is that it would mean a 40% increase. It is not acceptable for council tax payers to continue to subsidise development, and the developers who will make considerable profits out of the projects they undertake.

I noted the new type of planning known as “planning in principle” referred to by the Minister. When I read it, it seemed to be outline planning consent, and I would like to understand what the difference is. In the explanation it talks about there being none of the detail but perhaps only access and considering the principle of building on a certain site. I take that to be outline planning consent and I should therefore like to know what the difference is.

The Minister went on to refer to the opportunity of a further 20% increase in planning fees which would be dependent on local planning authorities delivering on housebuilding targets. This is a bit of a punishment for those authorities that grant planning consent for applications in a timely way but then find that developers sit on them for years and keep coming back with requests for time extensions on their permissions. I cite my own ward in Kirklees, where we have 600 planning consents—that is just one ward, not a whole authority—waiting for development. No doubt my council would not qualify for the further 20%, regardless of the fact that it had granted all these planning permissions.

Perhaps it is because I am new to all this, but I want to comment on this business of the Government undertaking to define planning application fees. Planning permissions and the whole planning process are a local planning authority matter and I believe that planning fees ought to be determined by local government. I do not understand why central government wants to keep such a tight hold on this. If there was more freedom for local planning authorities to determine fees, I am sure that they would introduce innovative processes and be a bit more business-like. If you wanted to attract more development, maybe you would cut fees for development that was within the local authority’s strategic vision. I am not sure why central government has to keep a tight hold of planning fees. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that.

With those comments, in totality I welcome the increase in fees. Local taxpayers have subsidised development for far too long. I look forward to a further 20%, so that they do not subsidise it at all.

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

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, to the Chair, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. I draw the Committee’s attention to my registered interests as a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I welcome the measure as far as it goes, in that it increases the fees that local authorities charge for planning applications. That is welcome, as are the fees for the new categories. The 20% increase will make a difference, but council tax payers will still be subsidising the planning process. As has been mentioned many times, that is regrettable. In paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Notes, that seems to have been accepted, although I do not think that these proposals go far enough. As the Explanatory Notes say, the last increase was in 2012, which highlights a problem—that is five years ago and costs have gone up since. I accept the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, made in asking why the Government are still setting these fees nationally. If they are going to carry on doing that they should look at some way of inflation-proofing this, otherwise we will be sitting here in another five or six years’ time agreeing the fees again. Costs increase all the time for local authorities and waiting five years is far too long. As the noble Baroness said, these matters should be dealt with by local authorities, which will set fees connected to their areas.

The Explanatory Notes also mention applications for permission in principle. A new figure is being proposed, but the fee is set lower than it is for present applications. The justification is that less work will be involved, so you do not need a bigger fee. But of course the fee we have now does not cover it. There is a new fee to be charged but, again, it will not cover the cost of even that work. That is odd logic, unless you always want to set the fees at a lower level than the cost so you always have the council tax payer subsidising the payment process. I would have thought that we would want to get out of that at some point—if not today, certainly in the future. Having said that, I welcome the increase. It is going in the right direction.

We will be talking about pilots later but I have suggested before that perhaps at least one council in the whole of England should do a pilot on full costs recovery. I cannot see the harm of just trying it. At the end of the day it may not work, but if we could find one place to volunteer to do that it would give the Government useful information about whether that is something we could do. I have called for it, as have colleagues. Perhaps we should do that. Having said that, I am happy to support the regulations, as far as they go.

Grenfell Recovery Taskforce

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 6th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my interests in the register as an elected councillor for the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in the other place. I also pay tribute again to the public sector officials—from the police, the fire service and the ambulance service to the NHS and local and national government—along with the faith groups, the charity and voluntary sectors, and the community in North Kensington, for the way that they have all supported families as they recover from this appalling tragedy.

As I have mentioned before, within the public sector there is not one group of heroes and then another group of workers that deserves to be attacked. That is unfair. I remind the House of the treatment of firefighters by the Foreign Secretary when he was the Mayor of London, which is a case in point. Some of the comments he made when he was mayor are shameful. He should apologise for what he said about these heroes, but all we get from him in this area is silence. He is not a politician usually noted for being quiet; he is usually very happy to give his views on a range of subjects, but strangely not on this one. I say again: come on, Boris Johnson MP, your apology to the firefighters of the London Fire Brigade for your ill-informed and hurtful comments is long overdue.

The people of North Kensington were failed by those elected to serve them. Therefore, the change of leadership in the authority is welcome, and I wish the leadership well in the important work that they are doing. The former chief executive of my own borough, Barry Quirk, has been installed as the new permanent chief executive of Kensington and Chelsea Council. He will provide much-needed stability and leadership for the council staff. He is a very able man and the council has chosen wisely in this respect.

The report of the recovery task force highlights some serious problems that need to be overcome. At some point, consideration will have to be given as to whether this authority can continue in its present form. That is not a decision for today or next week, but Ministers must keep it under review and not take it off the table. What we cannot have happen is that as the authority fades from our attention, the old ways, habits and failures return. If the structure is beyond saving then other options will need to be considered to ensure that all residents of the borough are properly served. The governance arrangements are of concern to us all. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell me whether the new leadership has offered a seat or two in the cabinet to the opposition. I have mentioned that a number of times before and it would be a welcome step.

I take the point about the frequency of meetings of the ministerial recovery group and the pressure that it brings, and agree that it should be reduced. However, it is welcome that the council will remain very much in the sight of the department. Will the Minister tell us what the department has done specifically to help the new chief executive bolster the capacity and capability of the senior staff team? There are some very able people working in his department and elsewhere in local government, in London and across the country. What support has his department given to the authority to aid this work?

I fully understand that we want to give people time to be rehoused in a permanent place rather than having to move again. However, as the Minister said and as the report highlights, the pace is slow. What analysis has the department undertaken to see why this is the case? If it has not done any work on this, why not? What are the barriers to rehousing people permanently and what has the department done to remove them? Can he give the House an example in this respect? I do not believe that people want to carry on living in hotel rooms for any longer than is necessary.

I agree that there is a greater need for more empathy, emotional intelligence and humanity as we move forward. It is just a tragedy and a terrible indictment that when it is the richest borough of one of the richest cities in the world, and in the fifth-richest country in the world, a Minister in 2017 has to come to the Dispatch Box and say so.

Just because you are less fortunate, because you are poor or because you live in a council property does not mean that you should have fewer rights, be less respected or have your views taken into account any less. But that is what the local community has clearly felt and experienced in Kensington and Chelsea, which is shameful. I am pleased that the task force will remain in place for the foreseeable future and that nothing is to be taken off the table. I join with the Minister in thanking the task force and specifically the four expert members for their work and comprehensive report. There is serious work to be done to support the victims and the local community on the long road to recovery. I wish everyone well in that task. They have my full support and gratitude for the work they are doing.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my entry in the register of interests as an elected councillor in the borough of Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I welcome today’s Statement on the interim report of the task force. However, I draw attention to one of the four priorities that were set by the Secretary of State for the work of the task force—that it would,

“ensure that all the immediate housing needs resulting from the fires are fully and promptly addressed by RBKC”.

But we have heard today in the Statement and the interim report that the number who have been permanently rehoused is pitifully low. Four months after the dreadful fire at Grenfell, only 26 of 204 families have been rehoused permanently and 130 are still in emergency bed and breakfast accommodation. I find that disgraceful and a tragedy; I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us why those figures are so low. The full report also asks for an immediate strategy and agreed targets for rehousing. It would be good to hear from him whether that has been done, whether targets have been set and what they are. That is the most important feature of the aftermath of this dreadful fire.

The second point that I would draw attention to is that the report, I am pleased to say, makes no immediate recommendation about the future of the tenant management organisation. Fears have been expressed in the media by residents that disbanding the TMO would lead to avoidance of effective scrutiny of its actions or inactions, and the avoidance of potential prosecutions. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case? Will the TMO remain in place until the report of the Prime Minister’s inquiry and for any consequences of that inquiry?

The third issue that I raise is not referenced in the report, which is strange. It is the consequences of the fire and the impact on those families in the adjacent tower blocks. For example, what action is being taken to have the fire hazard panels replaced? What government contribution will be made towards their replacement?

Lastly, the final recommendation in the interim report talks about the awful consequences of having the burnt tower remaining in place. It recommends:

“Covering the Tower: Management of the site is not currently the responsibility of RBKC. Nevertheless we would strongly recommend that those responsible for it accelerate covering the Tower. It is reprehensible that it has remained uncovered for so long”.


It then gives a timetable for it to be done by December 2017—in six weeks’ time, perhaps. That is unfortunately not mentioned in the Secretary of State’s Statement, but it is an important step towards a healing process and I urge the Minister, if he is not able to reply this afternoon, to give us a written response.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 24th October 2017 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I have wondered from the outset of the Bill’s proceedings why companies with billion-pound turnovers require business rate relief, as stated in the Explanatory Notes, of £60 million over a five-year period to provide an incentive for laying fibre to provide fast broadband. My amendment relates to concerns about the lack of focus for the expenditure of public funds. When, as is the case, resources are extremely limited, it is important that they are spent in the most effective way. In this instance, the focus should be on providing incentives where broadband speeds are already poor.

At the last Budget in 2016, the Chancellor emphasised the importance of fibre-to-property broadband to meet future needs, especially of businesses, where improving broadband speeds is probably the single, and simplest, change that will improve this country’s lagging productivity. A report in August of this year assessed that the UK was behind 30 other countries in accessibility to fast broadband. The Government’s current assessment is that 90% of properties have access to fast broadband; however, this figure includes properties that are 1 kilometre distant from the cabinet—not the Cabinet but the street cabinet—and consequently have barely a connection at all.

The Bill simply gives an incentive for broadband providers, both large and small, to lay fibre. The major companies have billion-pound turnovers, so the question has to be asked whether an incentive at the level provided for in the Bill will be significant. Obviously, it will make a difference for smaller providers but the Bill does not distinguish between large and small providers. The Bill makes no requirement for companies to focus on laying new fibre where broadband speeds are currently below the Government’s standard of 10 megabits per second, where the need is greatest.

Hence the amendment, which will limit the business rate relief to laying fibre where broadband speeds are already poor. I have deliberately not made the distinction between rural and urban, as some rural areas such as Cornwall have already benefited from EU investment in improved broadband access, while some urban areas have very poor broadband speeds. Even in London, some areas such as parts of Southwark suffer from having below 10 megabits per second.

I should like to explore further a concern that the largest provider of fibre, BT, has a business plan based on laying cable to the cabinet in the street and not to the premises. From there to the premises the link will be by copper, which in itself degenerates the speed. The further the premises are from the cabinet, the worse the broadband speed. At 300 metres distant, the broadband speed is not much improved from the old copper connections. As I said earlier, at 1 kilometre the connection is barely accessible. A further factor that results in broadband speeds reducing, even with fibre, is the number of properties connected to the cabinet. None of these issues is addressed in the Bill.

My final concern, which is admittedly outwith the Bill, is the cost to families and individuals of accessing broadband. Fibre cable can be laid to provide access but if the cost is prohibitive, some families will not be able to access the better-quality broadband. Since it is becoming, in my view, one of the utilities—like water, electricity and fuel provision—it is really important that we start thinking about how all families are able to afford broadband. I put this into the equation to ask the Government whether they will, at some point, be willing to address that increasingly significant concern. My amendment would encourage the Government to focus public funds on incentives that will make areas with poor connectivity see significant improvements. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer the Committee to my registered interests as a local councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I support Amendments 1, 5 and 11 in this group, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. They highlight some real problems for communities—be they urban or rural—which suffer from poor connectivity, and there has been no real incentive to improve the situation for them by improving speeds. The amendments add the condition that, for the relief to apply, it has to be focused on areas within a local authority where the average broadband speed is 10 megabits per second or less. I think I am right when I say that about 93% of homes and businesses in the UK are able to receive superfast broadband, but it is the copper version. The Bill is generally welcomed.

The noble Baroness is right to focus her amendments on areas with poor connectivity. There is a good argument for this as reliefs provide an incentive to do something that a business might otherwise not want to or be keen to do. The view may be taken that it is not economically beneficial, or something else could be more beneficial. The noble Baroness raises the important issue of how to ensure that those parts of England and Wales, urban and rural, which suffer from poor connectivity can benefit from the relief provided to companies. Otherwise, such areas run the risk of falling further behind. We can all agree that the benefits that fibre can bring could be enormous for all parts of the UK.

Can the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, respond to the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, as we do not want to see parts of the country falling further behind? How can we ensure that this relief, welcome though it is, actually benefits those areas with the worst connectivity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendments 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 are all in my name and form group two in our deliberations. This group seeks to address one of the principal concerns expressed by people and smaller companies in the industry: that the way the Bill is written does not provide enough protection from companies ripping out old fibre and laying new fibre solely to benefit from the relief, which would pay for itself in less than two years. I think that was one of the points the noble Baroness, Lady Harding of Winscombe, made at Second Reading after her discussion with colleagues and people in the industry. I am convinced that there is a real risk of this happening, which would be absolute madness and not what the relief was intended for. It would, in effect, become a subsidy for old networks. Can the Minister address this particular point: how will we ensure this does not happen?

My amendments seek to prevent this in three ways. They would put in the Bill the words,

“must include the condition that new fibre is part of the hereditament”.

They would add a subsection that would put in the Bill the meaning of “new fibre” and what would not be covered by this relief. They would go further to address the point that laying, affixing, flying or attaching should not be solely to gain relief. Amendment 9 makes the specific point that the relief should not be there just to “replicate existing” telecoms structures. The Bill is about providing business relief to encourage and to speed up additional fibre telecommunications infrastructure.

There may be other ways to do what I seek here, but the Bill as drafted has people in the industry concerned. They are unhappy with the protections that the Bill affords at present, or fails to afford. The purpose of these amendments is to raise the issue with the Minister, and to get a response and, I hope, a commitment from the Government that these issues will be looked at seriously. Further, would he be prepared to meet me and representatives of the industry between now and Report? That would be helpful, because it is a serious problem. Somehow the Government, either with these amendments or by regulation, have to address these points further. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock]

My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, because he, like I did in previous amendments, seeks to focus the relief provided in the Bill on those places and areas that need it most. He is asking to put in safeguards to prevent some companies deliberately laying cable with no purpose and to ensure that what is done on rate relief achieves the outcome the Government seek, which is to provide more domestic premises and businesses with fast broadband connectivity. I look forward to the response from the Minister—I am not sure which one, perhaps it will be a double act. The questions that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has raised are important and need an answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I will be brief, as we have rehearsed some of the points made earlier. Amendment 14 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, puts a requirement on the Secretary of State to lay a report before both Houses of Parliament. A similar amendment was tabled in the other place to get the Government to make an assessment of the operation of the relief proposed under this Bill. The amendments list, in paragraphs (a) to (e) in subsection (2) of the proposed new clause, the areas that the report should cover. I hope that the Minister can address the concerns raised by the amendment. It seeks to ensure, among other things, that the issues we have been discussing today and in previous debates do not arise. It would be a major disappointment if we failed to address these concerns and also failed to take any measures to keep ourselves informed about the effect of the relief and how it is working.

I like to base my decisions on evidence. As I said, I was at a meeting today on a completely different matter, where, after many years down the line, we have not got a mechanism to change things. I hope we can get a positive response. I do not accept that having a report to Parliament, whether next year or in 24 months’ time, in itself creates great problems for business in terms of uncertainty. We are in very uncertain times on a whole range of issues, and I am sure businesses would be much happier with other things. I am sure the point can be made for the moment, but I do not accept the inference made. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock]

As I have put my name to this amendment, clearly I support it. The specific parts of this amendment that I would like the Government to consider are paragraphs (a) and (e) of subsection (2). The first is the impact of the relief upon the level of local authority income raised and the second is, importantly, the mechanism for the distribution of the relief, whether it is going to be a speedy one and how carefully it can be calculated. I can see quite a lot of room for dispute about the cabling, such as which part of local authority boundaries it crosses and so on. What we would like is an assurance that there will be an appeal mechanism for local authorities if the distribution of the relief is not what they anticipate. The reporting would enable that to happen.

Property Agents: Registration

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

So here is another announcement on housing from the Government, who are going to seek evidence on addressing unfair and unreasonable abuses in service charges affecting leaseholders and private rented sector tenants. What is frustrating is that in the Government’s own Statement, they refer to the problems that we are all aware of and which need to be urgently addressed. After they collect their evidence, we need to see some real action from the Government.

The call for evidence lasts for six weeks, which gets us to the beginning of December, when the Government will want to reflect on the evidence received. Can the noble Lord tell the House when he expects concrete action that benefits leaseholders and tenants living in the private rented sector—the second biggest housing tenure—as a result of today’s announcement? The Government have form here. On page 61, the housing White Paper, issued in February 2017, refers at paragraphs 4.31 and 4.32 to,

“A fairer deal for renters and leaseholders”.


On page 62, under a section entitled, “Leaseholders”, paragraphs 4.36, 4.37 and 4.38 refer to the issues, stating:

“We will … consult on a range of measures to tackle all unfair and unreasonable abuses of leasehold”.


What have the Government been doing for the last eight months? They are just reannouncing what they announced in the White Paper.

I recall the debates on client money protection during the passage of the Housing and Planning Act. Following those debates, a working group was set up, co-chaired by my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill. Their consultation closed in October 2016 and their report was published on 27 March this year. The very next day, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, announced at the Dispatch Box that the Government were going ahead with a mandatory scheme of client money protection—since then, absolutely nothing.

Then we have the ban on lettings agents’ fees, such as inventory fees, tenancy review fees and agents’ admin fees. The ban was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Autumn Statement 2016. Then it appeared in the housing White Paper, published in February 2017, in paragraph 4.32 on page 61. Then it appeared as a pledge in the Conservative Party general election manifesto, and was again announced in the Queen’s Speech on 19 June. But since then, absolutely nothing.

Then, we have mandatory electrical safety checks in the private rented sector, on which there were a series of debates during the passing of the Housing and Planning Act. A review took place, concluding in December 2016, and the report from the review group, which was sent to the Minister earlier this year, was crystal clear: it recommended five-yearly mandatory electrical safety checks in the private rented sector. The checks are again referred to in the housing White Paper, where, on page 62, paragraph 4.34, the Government state that they will set out their next steps shortly. That was eight months ago and since then, absolutely nothing.

Despite reviews, announcements, pledges and commitments, no meaningful progress has been made on any of these three measures. This Conservative Government could certainly not be accused of acting in haste when it comes to bringing in measures to provide private sector tenants with further protections from rogue letting agents, rogue landlords and rip-off fees, much-needed safety measures, and measures to protect leaseholders from unfair and unreasonable abuses. I am very disappointed with the Government’s inaction and, although I like and respect the noble Lord very much, he is just reannouncing a previously announced pledge, when what is needed is action to deal with a range of serious problems in the private rented sector and leasehold sector, which has just stalled in the department.

As I said earlier, the Government have form here. When they are under pressure, they announce reviews and consultations, and kick matters into the long grass to avoid facing up to the issues that need to be addressed. The noble Lord and the Government are failing leaseholders and they are failing private sector tenants. Serious issues need to be addressed, and they have to do much better and sort them out.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has accurately listed the failings of the Government in attempting to reform the housing sector, particularly for private sector tenants and leaseholders. It is very sad to see the Minister come here with good intentions which are then not carried out by the Government. As today’s Statement demonstrates, there is a long-overdue need for serious protection for tenants. Indeed, some of the poorest families in this country rely on private sector rents for their homes. Those same people are being fleeced by others who have no regard for the welfare of their tenants. That, of course, is not representative of the entire market but there is a growing number of those sorts of landlords and management companies.

Having said that, I welcome the consultation, which has been a long time coming. I want to address two issues. First, the Statement refers to leaseholds. We all know that there has been a growing trend in property development for new builds to be sold as leasehold and for the buyer, for whatever reason—there has been quite a lot of publicity about this—to find out, often too late and to his or her considerable cost, that they have signed not a freehold purchase but a leasehold purchase. I urge the Government to move quickly to fulfil the commitment they have already made to prevent this unjustifiable burden falling on the house buyer.

The service charge is another element which affects private sector home buyers. In my area a new development has an open grass area that has not been reverted to the local authority to maintain but to a management company. The home owners in that development have had huge difficulties getting any maintenance of the shared open areas. I have first-hand knowledge of that, albeit in a small way. These people can fight their corner but, for many private sector tenants, service charges cause considerable anxiety. These people may often be on short-term tenancies and can find those tenancies ended without any redress if they raise questions about the service charges imposed on them.

I assume that the Minister will have read the consultation and therefore will be able to reassure the House that evidence will be sought on transparency over service charges and on accountability and redress, and that action will follow. If I was a private tenant, I would want to know that those three elements will be addressed. I would go further: there needs to be a right in law for a tenant to withdraw payment for a charge that is proven to be unacceptable or unjustifiable without the threat of eviction or the tenancy being brought to an end in any way. I have not read the consultation but perhaps the Minister will be able to help us on that.

Lastly, the rogue landlords register, which has been agreed, is secret and is held by councils. Councils know who these rogue landlords are. If we are truly protecting tenants, we ought to follow up on the pleas from this side of the House that that register be made open and transparent so that tenants can see before they sign an agreement whether or not their landlord is on that list. I look forward to reading the document and to the Minister’s response.

Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2017

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 11th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my interests as a councillor on Kirklees Council and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for raising these important issues and for describing them in such great detail that we are able to have a good debate.

The regret Motion draws attention to the difficulties that businesses and local authorities have with the current appeal system against valuations. What is more regrettable, in my view, is that a root-and-branch reform of the business rates system is still awaited, despite widespread support for the necessity for a major change in the way in which business property is taxed. The business rating system, which started in Elizabethan England—under the first Elizabeth—was consolidated in 1988 but has failed to reflect the significant changes in the way in which businesses operate, the premises they use and their location, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. The consequences of a failed system are compounded by the inadequacies of the current appeals process.

The matter is made worse by the extended time between valuations, which has resulted in a significant impact on many businesses which saw their rates rise dramatically. It is difficult for many small businesses, particularly in the retail sector, to plan or readily absorb such increases. It is hardly surprising that more than 1 million businesses have challenged their business rates bills since 2010. The Government’s response has been to impose significant changes to the appeals system with the intention of reducing the number of appeals. They have made it more difficult and put restrictions in the way.

On the other side of the balancing act, local government increasingly relies on business rate income to fund services. The appeals system that existed prior to the April 2017 changes often resulted in many months passing before the appeal was decided. As we heard, this resulted in local government having to set aside £2.5 billion to cover the risks of appeals as local authorities are required to fund half the cost of backdated refunds. This is a very inefficient use of scarce public resources. That has been brought into sharp relief as government grants for local services continue to suffer very deep cuts. Setting aside desperately needed funds to cover the risks of appeals is, in the circumstances, totally unacceptable.

We have a dilemma: businesses need a fairer method of business property valuation and taxation, and local government, which is in receipt of the business rate income, desperately needs to avoid having to set aside significant funding to cover risks of successful appeals. Meanwhile, the appeal system that is devised is seen by many businesses to lack fairness and transparency. Something needs to, and should, change.

The difficulty for businesses, especially SMEs, is that there appears to them to be a lack of clarity as to how valuations are determined, and how these compare with similar businesses in the same location and with those in different parts of the country. Businesses have traditionally resorted to the appeal process in very large numbers, as we have heard. The Government’s decision to impose the new system has inevitably led to scrutiny highlighting the consequent inequities.

It is therefore not surprising that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee received evidence that,

“the current proposal as to grounds of appeal is unlawful and inadequately drafted”,

and continues by pointing to the fact that the Government have abandoned the principle that the rating list be accurate, rather than have a reasonable valuation as the Government wish. With all due respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who knows much more about interpretation of those two words than I, it seems that the use of those words can lead only to legal challenge and more delay for all concerned—for the businesses appealing their valuations and for local government, which requires the income to provide services for local residents.

All this is the consequence of bolting a more restrictive appeal system on to the business rates framework, which is itself outmoded and broken. The way forward is for the Government to consider a fundamental reform of the business rates valuation system. Perhaps the Minister will be able to indicate whether there is any likelihood of that happening. Not to do so will lead only to increasing disquiet in the business sector and in local government. Both want and need a transparent and obviously fair system.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, before I make my remarks I shall make a number of declarations of interest. Obviously, I am a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I also declare that I am a member of the Co-op, which has a number of convenience stores around the country, and I am a member of CAMRA, the Campaign for Real Ale, an organisation that has been campaigning about business rates, as has the All-Party Beer Group, which I am also a member of.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for tabling the regret Motion. As noble Lords have heard, the noble Earl speaks with great authority on these matters. It is very good that he brought this to your Lordships’ attention so we can have a debate and get a response from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. As I said, the noble Earl is extremely knowledgeable. We are very grateful to him. We have seen his expertise in this debate.

I say right at the start that I agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that we need a root-and-branch reform of business rates. In some ways the problems we have heard about are a symptom of the fact we do not have that root-and-branch reform. We are just tinkering with the system and it needs to be dealt with properly.

As we have heard, these two SIs relate to the introduction of the new rating lists, containing the updated rateable values on the basis of which business rates are charged; and the amended appeals process known as check, challenge, appeal or CCA. As the noble Earl has told the House, these SIs were first laid on 17 March. They were intended to come into effect on 1 April. That is an unusually short period between laying regulations and their coming into force. I will come back to that later. The noble Earl tabled his regret Motion. The general election intervened and Parliament was dissolved. Of course, we could not bring these instruments back until Parliament resumed. The noble Earl did that.

There has been considerable press coverage of the new rating lists and appeals. It is fair to say it has not all been positive. We need to look at it very carefully. As we have heard, businesses are very worried about the action the Government are taking in this respect. Claims made by the Government that this is an improved and fairer system are certainly questionable. We have heard a number of contributions from noble Lords that support that. Some businesses are certainly very unhappy with the new system.

The problem is that the entire tax base has not been reviewed at all. The noble Earl raised the question of what business rates are for. As we have heard, they are of course to provide council services. We need to look at that. In many respects they provide services, as does council tax. They have been very welcome in recent years because council tax has not risen very much but, as we have heard, that has not been the case in respect of business rates, which have gone up year on year by quite significant amounts. That is causing problems for businesses.

Many years ago—a very long time ago now—I worked in retail. You have your fixed costs, rent, rates, other utility costs and stuff, then you have your business, you trade and you look to make profit. These constant rises make that difficult because you cannot always be passing them on to your customers. That is a significant problem that the Government need to address. These changes appeared to be only cosmetic and do not raise the important issues we heard earlier on.

The noble Earl raised the issue of check, challenge, appeal, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, will respond. The noble Earl’s points were also raised by the Association of Convenience Stores. As we have heard, it represents 35,000 convenience stores. These small businesses are particularly affected by these things. It is disturbing that we have heard about problems with the website. It is not the first website from a Government or a government agency that has had some problems, but we have heard the following from members of the association. The portal often crashes during working hours, requiring ratepayers to manage the case at impractical times. Presumably that means that they are doing it in the middle of the night. That is not very good. Details about properties, previous appeals and digital certificates are not assessable. Ratepayers cannot search or filter claims or properties, which costs time for retailers with a large property portfolio. Retailers report poor customer support when facing problems with the portal. Ratepayers must manually appoint an agent to each property and cannot do it in bulk for their property estate. Those seem quite shocking. You would hope that any modern-day portal would get those things sorted out—they are pretty basic—but it clearly has not. Given that this is a government agency, it is not good enough. I can certainly see a business being very frustrated by the whole process. I hope that the Minister will tell us what the Government are going to do about it, because it is totally unacceptable for businesses to have to suffer those problems.

Grenfell Tower: Rehousing Update

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made by the Housing Minister earlier today in the other place. I draw to the attention of the House my registered interests: I am a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

It is accepted that the response by Kensington and Chelsea Council fell far short of what would have been expected. I thank and pay tribute to all those public sector workers who have come to the aid of the victims and their families and the wider community. They are drawn from London councils, the wider local government sector, the police, the NHS, the fire service and officials from central government, along with the voluntary sector and faith communities. Their contribution in supporting the residents and the wider community has been remarkable, humbling and invaluable. I thank them all for all that they have done and continue to do.

The new leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council, Councillor Elizabeth Campbell, has rightly given a fulsome apology for the abject failure of that local authority in the immediate aftermath of the disaster. She has an important job to do in getting the council back on its feet and serving the community as intended. It is important that the new leader works with all members of the authority and specifically involves the leader of the opposition, Councillor Robert Atkinson, and quickly gains the trust and respect of the local community, working with them closely.

I have read the Written Ministerial Statement issued by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and welcome the decision taken to appoint an independent recovery task force to advise the council on the longer-term recovery needs. I am pleased that this body is reporting directly to the Secretary of State and can advise him of any further action that needs to be taken as it sets about its job of supporting the local authority. However, it cannot act as commissioners can, which would have been the best option, and will need to be kept under review. However, what has been decided is progress and moves on from the “keeping an eye on the council” approach we had earlier.

More work urgently needs to be done on progressing the provision of new homes to the families. As we have been told, only three families have moved to a new temporary home and 11 more have been offered somewhere they feel able to accept, out of the 158 families that have been identified as in need of rehousing. If there was an offer for me and my noble friend Lord Beecham to see examples of the housing available, we would certainly like to take it up. I agree that even the suggestion that a victim could be made homeless if they do not accept an offer of housing is completely unacceptable. If anyone has information about such actions, could the noble Lord explain where they should go and who they should speak to if they feel pressurised? Such people are, of course, traumatised and frightened.

That leads me on to a disturbing report of which I was given details this morning. I was told that, in the immediate aftermath of the fire, the TMO provided space at a premises for an art therapy group to work with young children from Grenfell Tower who were traumatised by the fire. It had been working with the children—who had experienced a horrific tragedy—but sometime later the TMO contacted the group and said that it needed the keys back as it wanted to resume the letting of the premises. The group asked for more time to carry on working but, on arriving at the premises for the next session, it was unable to gain access because the locks had been changed, leaving the art therapists and the children standing outside. Will the noble Lord urgently investigate what happened here, because that is not the action of an organisation or individual who has any compassion, empathy and respect for the victims or, frankly, any understanding of what has happened? It is a truly appalling action by those in authority and an example of why further interventions may be necessary.

This tragedy should never have happened. Everything must be done to make sure it never happens again, to do right by the victims and their families, to treat them with care and respect, and to give them the support they deserve and the answers they need.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for keeping the House so well informed about the consequences of this disastrous and tragic fire. Although shamefully delayed, I am encouraged that the Government are now recognising the scale of the disaster, which, as the Minister himself has said, was wholly avoidable. It is also positive that the council leader of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has resigned, as called for last week by several Members of your Lordships’ House. I am pleased that the newly elected leader has acknowledged the council’s failings, which clears the way for others to step in and provide it with the support it obviously needs. The Government have announced how they intend to do that through the task force.

The Grenfell residents who survived the fire have lost their homes through no fault of their own. It is therefore right that the wishes of the residents in seeking new accommodation are paramount, so that they can begin to settle into new homes. They must be given time and support in making their decisions. Many families will wish to remain in the area, which is the one they know, so that their children can continue to attend the same school and families can remain with the local general practitioner. Will this be the case? The Minister seemed to confirm that in the Statement, but it is not clear what kind of distances residents will be expected to travel in order to retain their links, and perhaps will rely on even more given the tragedy they have been through. What is the distance or length of time for travel the Government consider is acceptable to residents from their new accommodation to schools, GPs and so on?

I want also to ask about ongoing mental health support, in particular for all the children who have been through this awful experience. If residents choose to move well away from Grenfell Tower, as I can imagine some may well wish to do, how will support move with those families? It would be awful if people move, perhaps even away from London, but still need support to get through this difficult time. Given the reason for rehousing, is the Minister able to reassure residents that every new unit of accommodation on offer will have been given a thorough fire safety check before anyone is asked to consider moving? It is the kind of reassurance that I would seek if I had been through even part of what the Grenfell residents have experienced.

Finally, I understand that yesterday the Secretary of State at DCLG, when speaking to the Local Government Association, claimed that as a result of the Grenfell Tower fire there was a crisis of trust in local government as a whole. I would say to the Minister that the crisis of trust is in only one council—the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. A comparison that I would draw to his attention is that of the amazing response by Manchester City Council to the terrorist attack earlier this year. Equally in that case, there were many casualties and the need to co-ordinate an instant response. As a country, we will not learn the lessons from this tragedy if the Government or anyone else attempts to put the blame on a single institution. Across government, local government and public services in general, we all need to learn the lessons so that this awful and avoidable tragedy can never be repeated.

Update on the Grenfell Tower Fire and Fire Safety

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 26th June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my interests, specifically as a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for repeating the Statement made in the other place by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families of this terrible tragedy at Grenfell Tower, and with our emergency services, which responded so bravely and quickly to the unfolding disaster. Their actions saved countless lives. The whole nation owes these heroes a debt of gratitude.

The Prime Minister acknowledged that the response by Kensington and Chelsea Council was not good enough and a firm grip on the situation needed to be taken. The response by charities, faith organisations, businesses and local residents has rightly been praised and I pay tribute to them all. They add to the shame with which the response of Kensington and Chelsea council is viewed by everybody. I find it staggering that the council leader did not resign immediately. He should resign without further delay. The chief executive of Lewisham, Barry Quirk, has taken over as the chief executive of Kensington and Chelsea council. He is a public sector manager with years of experience and will get a grip of the situation quickly. The command centre is under the joint leadership of John Barradell, the chief executive of the Corporation of London, and Eleanor Kelly, the chief executive of Southwark council. Both are experienced public sector managers. Eleanor Kelly is known to me, and she will do an excellent job, I am sure, with the chief executive of the Corporation of London.

I have no intention of speculating on matters that are best left to the police and the inquiry. I have confidence that robust work will be undertaken, and where criminal activity is found to have taken place, prosecutions to the full extent of the law will be brought. But lessons have to be learned and things have to change. I hope that we never again hear the nonsense that we have heard in the past about red tape and health and safety regulations. It is clear that, rather than having too much regulation, there has in this case been a catastrophic failure. Regulations were either not good enough or were not followed and applied thoroughly and properly.

The checks on tower blocks throughout the UK need to continue as quickly as possible. I pay tribute to the residents of Camden who have been affected by the right decision to evacuate their blocks, which are deemed by the authorities to be unsafe, and to the leadership shown by the leader of Camden council, Councillor Georgia Gould, who has been there on the ground speaking to residents. It would be welcomed by the whole House if we were given further details of the work being undertaken by the Government Property Unit to oversee checks on wider public sector buildings.

Cladding is not the whole story. That is clear from the Lakanal House and Shirley Towers fires, as the respective coroners’ reports show. Can the noble Lord tell the House what plans the Government have to provide up-front funding to local authorities to take recladding measures, the installation of sprinkler systems or other fire precaution measures rather than the after-event funding through the Bellwin scheme? I welcome the independent advisory panel that is being set up, but the Statement repeated by the noble Lord seems to suggest that the system is at the point of collapse, and urgent action must be taken. We need to do that quickly.

Last Thursday, the Prime Minister said,

“we simply have not given enough attention to social housing”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/6/17; col. 169.]

I would suggest that the Government have given plenty of the wrong attention to social housing. Schemes such as the National Tenant Voice have been scrapped. The social homes build is down from 37,000 to 1,000, and Homes and Communities Agency funding for the Decent Homes programme has been ended. What we need now from the noble Lord is a commitment to do everything to ensure that the Prime Minister’s promise is not just empty words and that we will see a complete change of course by the Government in support of funding for social housing so that we have truly affordable homes in this country.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I start by declaring my interests as a councillor elected in Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I join with what has already been said in tribute to both the fantastic work of the emergency services on the night and to the ongoing support that has now been put in place by a combination of charities, faith groups, community groups and finally—although too late—the Government and local government. I have three major areas of concern following the Grenfell Tower fire.

The first area is that of care for the victims of the fire. The initial co-ordination of this huge and probably preventable catastrophe was a fiasco. As I said in this House last Thursday, accountability in the political process is absolutely vital if we are to retain trust between those who are elected and those who are represented. I called for the leader of the council in Kensington and Chelsea to take responsibility for the fact that 79 people have died in a council building on his watch. I cannot believe that a leader elsewhere in the country would not have resigned by that point. I repeat my call of last Thursday and I trust that some Members on the government side will talk to the leader and urge him to take responsibility.

A second element in the area of care for the victims is the co-ordination of ongoing support for them. I understand that the Government are implementing the Bellwin scheme, which provides recompense to councils and other authorities for the emergency costs of the work they do. That is positive, but I am concerned about the work that they ought to be doing to support the children who have been involved in this awful trauma. They are a particular concern of mine because of my interests. Are their welfare and ongoing education needs going to be well supported for a very long time, because that is probably what they will need?

My second major area of concern is that of prevention, referred to by the Minister in the Statement. What we absolutely must ensure is that there are no other buildings where further loss of life could take place. My understanding is that all building materials have to be passed by the British Board of Agrément, which determines whether the materials are fit for purpose and how they can be used. I have not heard in any of the statements in either this House or the other place whether this is the case for the materials referred to by the Minister; that is, the aluminium cladding. I would welcome an answer to that point.

The second element in the area of prevention is that I am particularly concerned about schools. I am a governor of a school which should be opening in September. It is being built through the government scheme. As I speak it is being clad and does not have a sprinkler system because the requirement for such systems in schools has been removed. No doubt the Minister will not be able to respond, but a number of schools are currently being built around the country. Will they have sprinkler systems put in and will the cladding be checked?

My third area of concern is that of costs. We have heard that the emergency costs are to be covered by the Bellwin scheme, but we expect that cladding which fails the checks will have to be replaced. Who is going to pay for that? If there are some 600 tower blocks, numerous schools and some hospitals which did fulfil the building regulations but latterly discover that the cladding material is combustible, who will fund the enormous cost of recladding those buildings? I doubt whether cash-strapped local authorities will be in a position to fund replacement cladding, and similarly I doubt whether the NHS will be able to meet the cost of recladding buildings. It is not responsible in the sense that, if the building regulations were complied with, in my view the costs ought to be met by the Government.

Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2017

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 24th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

We on this side support much of what is in the order. The extension of powers and functions to the mayoral authority in Manchester is to be applauded, especially as it moves some way towards those that are enjoyed in London. However, even in London, the decisions made by the mayor can be called to account by an elected body, the London Assembly. Manchester will have the leaders of the constituent councils, and a scrutiny committee will be formed from those constituent councils—that is all. No specific body will be elected for the purpose of calling the mayor and his decisions to account, but the more powers that are given to the mayoral function the more important that calling to account becomes.

The Minister has listed the significant powers that the mayor of Manchester is to have. They include policing, fire, strategic planning, transport and housing, and waste disposal is now added to that list. The only way in which the constituent members of the combined authority can call the mayor to account on the decisions and choices that he makes is via either the council leaders or a small scrutiny committee. I for one think that is inadequate, and I envisage a point further down the line when the mayor will make a controversial decision and local residents will ask themselves, “How did this happen? Who made the decision and why were we not involved?”.

That is the danger, which I would urge the Minister to consider and rectify at some point in the future, particularly as money is now involved. This has already been pointed out, but I will quote from Part 5 of the order, which relates to funding. It states that,

“the constituent councils must meet the costs of the expenditure reasonably”—

whatever that means—

“incurred by the Mayor in, or in connection with, the exercise of the functions specified”.

That, it goes on to describe, is regardless of whether the constituent councils agree, because there only has to be a majority decision among the leaders of those councils, which means of course that local taxpayers in one of the constituent councils could be asked to contribute to a scheme with which their leader does not agree. I find that quite disturbing. There ought to be a mechanism for reaching difficult decisions that enables all local councils to agree to them. That in my view means the kind of set-up that we have in London with the London Assembly.

Obviously there is much in the order about devolution that I agree with and that is right, because we will have a body with a strategic vision for the conurbation of Manchester. What is not acceptable in my view is the lack of democracy that attaches to that, and the dangers of investing all those powers in one person. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to these concerns.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall start with my usual declaration and refer the House to my interests in the register. I declare that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The Greater Manchester Combined Authority order before us brings into force what I hope is the final part of the agreement. I feel that we always seem to be discussing the Greater Manchester Combined Authority in various forms and I hope that this is the last time we will need to consider it before the election itself.

I have no particular issue to raise on the order. My noble friend Lord Beecham raised an important point on consultation. We have now had a number of these orders and I think that it is fair to say that, for each one, the consultation responses, while I will not say they have been derisory, have not been overwhelming coming through the door. At some point the Government might need to look at how we are consulting people. These are quite big changes that are taking place and, if no one is engaging with the discussion on that, it will be something we shall all regret.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, made some important points on the devolution of power. I support the devolution of power. If the noble Lord and I were agreeing the manifestos of our respective parties we would be absolutely fine and we would probably agree. But I have no role at all in the Labour manifesto this time, so we will have to see what comes up. The noble Lord and I would probably agree on many things.

Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention) and (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2017

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 20th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

I wish to draw the House’s attention to the significant number of factors that are changing in the system of a 100% business rate retention and the consequences of those changes. We welcome the move to more locally raised funding for local services because it brings with it less reliance on the variation in perception of local government by different national government Ministers. Such a substantial change brings considerable uncertainty, and as local authorities are already grappling with substantial funding changes, this adds to the risks of councils being able to budget to meet local needs. The fact that the move to 100% retention coincides with the significant and overdue business rates revaluation has added to the complexity of what is being considered and how it will work out in practice. Consequently, there is an expectation that there will be a large number of business rate appeals, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and my noble friend Lord Shipley have already drawn attention. While it is to be welcomed that the Government have established a central fund for payment where appeals are successful rather than the existing system of a 50:50 share with local authorities, it must be fully funded, otherwise it will fall into disrepute.

A 100% business rates retention scheme brings with it both winners and losers. An analysis by the House of Commons Select Committee last year estimated that the winners are more likely to be in all the regions to the south of Birmingham, with the northern regions and the Midlands being net losers. Although government estimates are that local government as a whole will gain by between £10.5 billion and £12.5 billion a year, many local authorities will not gain and will rely on the system of tariffs, top-ups and the new levy system to allow equalisation.

This redistribution through tariffs and top-ups will be absolutely critical if local authorities that are currently not in a position to raise sufficient funding are to be able to meet local needs. This must be done on the basis of an individual council’s needs and not on a regional, sub-regional or combined authority basis as there can be wide variations even between adjacent local authorities, again as the House of Commons committee report of 2016 demonstrated. The safety net is a critical factor and the detail of how this will operate is fundamental to enabling local authorities to deliver essential public services.

The other crucial factor in these considerations is the frequency of the so-called resets—the length of time between business rate revaluations. Obviously businesses, wanting certainty, would want a longer period, but local authorities, reliant on income from business rates and with fluctuation in need, will want a more frequent reset. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister about the lengths of time between resets that the Government are considering. It will also be interesting to hear what action the Government propose to take if, for instance, a large retailing business closes within a local authority and it therefore loses the income from that company’s business rates. Would there be compensation for what could be a significant loss of income?

In addition to these variables, the Government are proposing that local authorities should have new responsibilities as a result of the increase in funding that will be gained by them from the 100% retention scheme. I am relieved that the attendance allowance scheme has now been excluded from the suggestions that the Government originally made, but I hope—perhaps the Minister will be able to give some reassurance—that they will not use the opportunity of local authorities gaining from additional funding to pass on more responsibilities than the funding available. That would be quite a cynical move and would just add to the cuts in local authority funding.

The Government have yet to spell out the arrangements for sharing business rates in two-tier authorities. Perhaps the Minister can throw some light on how that will happen. I would also like to hear from the Government about the central list of major public utilities whose business rates are centrally gathered. It would be nice to know which is on that list, what business rates in total they bring in, and how the money will be redistributed. I have not been able to find a list. I am sure there is one, but it is a little list that I have not been able to find.

A final uncertainty in this major reform of local government finance is the fair funding review, which I hope will live up to its name. The assessment of need referred to by my noble friend Lord Shipley is the fundamental building block for providing local councils and the people they serve with an assurance that councils will be able to meet their basic needs.

The Government are making substantial changes to local government finance at the same time as large cuts are being made to local government funding. This brings with it risks and uncertainty as well as an inability to plan for the long term. We seek assurances from the Government that these changes will not, first, result in even more significant cuts to funding for those councils that will struggle to increase business rate income in the short and medium term. Secondly, can the Minister give an assurance that there will be a fair equalisation mechanism? Thirdly, will he take into account the significant changes in income or, as I have referred to, between the reset periods? Fourthly, will the fair funding review enable all local authorities to meet the needs of the people they represent?

Finally, I look forward to the Government providing information about the one-liner I spotted today in the Local Government Finance Bill:

“The Government will amend the related approach to the setting of council tax referendum principles”.


I have thrown that in in the hope that the Minister will have some information on it.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, in debating these regulations I refer noble Lords to my entry on the register of interests. I declare that I am a local councillor in the London borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

The first set of regulations, as we have heard, governs the payments to and from authorities and to the Government, while the second set governs the operation of the levy and the safety net for 2017-18, taking into account the revaluation and the 2017-18 business rates pilots. The amendments make provision for the following: allowing the pilot authorities, including in Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, West Midlands and West of England and Cornwall, not to pay a central share. There is to be a reduced central share in London to allow for the fact that the GLA will now receive Transport for London investment funding through business rates rather than a grant. The West of England Combined Authority is to receive 5% of business rates as well. There are changes to the baseline funding level for all authorities in line with the 2017 revaluation and the rise in RPI. Changes are made to the levy rates to reflect revaluation and the fact that the levy will not be payable for authorities in the pilot areas.

I have no issues with these regulations as they stand, but I have a few general observations and questions for the Minister. As we move to a system whereby local authorities keep their business rates, the Government need to ensure that the implementation is fair and provides councils with the resources they need to deliver services. Some areas will be able to generate large sums of money from their business rates while others, despite working on and growing their local economies, will struggle to generate sufficient business rate income to meet the demands placed on them. We have heard about the schemes in place to equalise that—the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to them. Can the noble Lord comment on ensuring that the scheme to take account of imbalances has a very local focus rather than the focus being at the regional and combined authority level? I agree strongly with the comments of the noble Baroness in that respect. Can the Minister give local authorities some comfort by saying that the Government are aware of this issue and will be responding to it?

Can the Minister also comment on the trend of the Government to place more and more obligations on local authorities but not to provide the funds to meet them? It is a worrying trend that we have seen developing. I would certainly want to see extra business rates income being used to relieve existing funding pressures before we get to the additional responsibilities to be funded through business rates retention.

Can the Minister also say something in respect of business rates appeals, a point raised by other noble Lords in their contributions, and the risks associated with them for local government? My noble friend Lord Beecham and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, both referred to this issue. I contend that local authorities holding £2.5 billion in case they need to refund money due to successful appeals is not the most efficient way to proceed.

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2017

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 16th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has just said about the need for spatial planning across the whole country, and I remind your Lordships that it was the current Government who abolished regional spatial planning to the disadvantage of many local councils. However, I will address my comments to the two orders in front of us today.

I turn, first, to the Liverpool City Region. Following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, it struck me that we ought to develop a new collective noun for mayors, and I have a couple of suggestions. Should it be “a charm of mayors”, as with goldfinches; “an obstinacy of mayors”, as with, I understand, buffalos; a “gaggle”, as with geese, or—perhaps not—a “murder”, as with crows? However, as has already been pointed out, there will be too many people in an area with the title of mayor and people will be confused.

Most residents think of a mayor as the civic mayor, and we ought to have come up with a different title for the ones whom we are proposing should be elected for the combined authorities. The difficulty that Liverpool may suffer from is having elected individuals with large egos—it already has one with a very large ego. The consequence will either be energetic co-operation or a dysfunctional system. I hope that the Government are thinking very carefully about how elected mayors will be able to co-operate effectively for the benefit of local people and for the regeneration and economic development of their areas.

We discussed some of the functions at Tees Valley two or three weeks ago in your Lordships’ House, and today I want to draw attention to the comments of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It draws to your Lordships’ attention that it was very clear that residents in the Tees Valley, when consulted, opposed by a clear majority having an elected mayor. The committee’s report says that,

“many people have in effect answered a question, ‘Do you want an elected Mayor for the Tees Valley?’, with the vast majority opposing it”.

Despite that, their views have been ignored. It is dangerous for local democracy to pose a question, get a response and then ignore it completely and do the opposite. They should not have asked the question if they did not want to respect the answer.

This is a very unsatisfactory way to proceed. The consequences are that Tees Valley will have an elected mayor, but that elected mayor will have to work extremely hard to gain the trust and confidence of local residents who, as we heard, opposed the measure. Huge effort will be needed and it may drag on the ability of the mayor to enable the development of economic regeneration and transport facilities, because that effort and energy will need to go into convincing local people that this is the right way to proceed. With those comments, I wish both areas a successful devolution, but have considerable concerns about the models that have been adopted.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, turning first to the Liverpool order, I certainly support the arrangements before the House today. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I obviously wish the Liverpool and the Tees Valley combined authorities every success in the future. But I want to put on record that this is no giveaway for Merseyside local authorities from the Government—nothing could be further from the truth. As we have seen, local councils have suffered huge public sector spending cuts in recent years and Merseyside has not escaped that. Cuts to police and fire services, primary and secondary schools, Sure Start and so on far overshadow the comparatively small investment that the Government are making today. That investment will not deliver the Government’s vision for the northern powerhouse, although we seem to hear that phrase less and less from the Government. The foundations for devolution are being cut away by the Government every year, which is not helpful. It just makes the challenges faced by local government that bit harder. Having said that, I welcome the arrangements before us for devolution.

As I said in a previous debate, however, I am concerned about the whole question of patchwork. I accept that there can be difference, but I still think the Government should set out a framework. We have a messy patchwork, which does not bring the best things forward. We should set out what we want from devolution for England and how we see the country going forward. I certainly recall that in a debate last week on Cambridgeshire, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, referred to four tiers of local government in that part of the country. It is all a bit of a mess. We are not clear where the Government are coming from. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned that in the debate as well. This is all a mess and we need some clarity from the Government about where they want to go in terms of devolution.

There has been a distinct lack of public engagement in the order for the combined authority for Tees Valley. It is important to engage the public in devolution discussions particularly where we propose to have mayoral elections. We want to get the agreement of the public because we will ask them to go out and vote for these people at some point in the future. It would be nice if the public engaged with that and agreed that they wanted this form of government. I think about 2,000 people responded to the local authority’s consultation but only 11 members of the public responded to the Government’s consultation, which from a population of 670,000 seems a derisory figure—0.001%, which is poor by any stretch of the imagination. Of those 11, seven had a negative view of the Government’s proposals. The Government should take account of consultation but also ensure that the consultation is done in a way that engages people and enables them to give their views to us.

As I said, it is necessary for the Government to set out clearly where they are going in England with devolution, and they are just not doing that. That is why we have these problems in understanding what is going on with devolution. However, I certainly wish Liverpool and Tees Valley every success in the future.

Tees Valley Combined Authority (Functions) Order 2017

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the north-east in particular is in desperate need of regeneration, inward investment and higher-skilled jobs to bring prosperity to the local area, and Tees Valley is no exception to that. Given that backdrop, I am very supportive of a proposal that enables the local elected representatives to take account, take charge and have the vision and ambition for their own local area; to respond to the challenges of the loss of the steelworks and glassworks in the north-east and the ensuing large area of industrial dereliction; and to themselves be responsible for the challenge in bringing in new businesses, new life and new hope to local people. Noble Lords can tell from that that I am supportive of the notion of that happening. However, I have a couple of questions to explore with the Minister.

First, although the planning functions are critical to the whole idea of a development area, the reports do not make clear how much of the planning responsibilities the constituent councils will pass over to the development corporation. For instance, I think it would be appropriate for major site applications to be the responsibility of a planning authority within the combined authority but that the details, particularly of housing design and so on for the smaller applications, should still be the responsibility of the constituent councils. Those are the sorts of things that strategic bodies do not pay enough attention to. Enabling local councils to take on that responsibility would seem to be the right split of functions. I hope that that is part of the thinking behind the proposal, although it is not clear to me that that was the case.

The second big issue for me is the level of scrutiny that will be applied. Will there be a separate scrutiny function for the mayoral development corporation? I think that such a function would be appropriate, given the significant powers that will be in the corporation’s hands to reshape a considerable area of the north-east. There ought to be a separate scrutiny function to ensure that decisions are appropriately made. With that, I support the order.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I start my remarks by making the usual declarations of interest that I have made in previous debates.

The Tees Valley Combined Authority order brings into force, as we have heard, the agreement reached between the Government and the local authorities in the Tees Valley area. The Minister might be pleased to hear that I support the order, although I have one or two points to raise.

I noted from the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that there were concerns about the creation of a mayoral development corporation, particularly if it covered part of the North York Moors National Park, but was pleased to learn that an agreement was reached whereby the functions and powers will be transferred only with the agreement of the national park authority. I think it is important for the Government to try generally to get an authority’s agreement when it can be brought into the sphere of an area.

I also note the imperative to establish quickly a mayoral development corporation in the South Tees area and that a shadow board has been established. I certainly wish that body well in its important work. Will the Minister say a bit more on what is envisaged and how he sees that body working with business to bring in inward investment? In particular, how will the body relate to the elected Members of Parliament for the area covered by the mayoral development corporation? The area has suffered a serious blow, and everything possible must be done to secure a successful recovery. A close working relationship with local and national government and business and elected representatives at every level is important to ensure that there is a recovery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I have one further point. I accept entirely that this is not a plebiscite, but I ask the Government, what is the point of consultation? Is the noble Lord saying, “Yes, of course we will consult on these things, but at the end of the day it will not make any difference: we will do what we are going to do”? If not, what is he saying?

[Baroness Pinnock]

On a separate point entirely, I asked earlier in the debate whether a specific scrutiny system would be established for the development corporation. If it is successful, as I hope it will be, it will make a huge difference to the area. A scrutiny system should be set up to investigate what decisions are made and how.

Local Government Finance Settlement

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 15th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for repeating the Statement made in the other place earlier today.

This is a settlement that will leave the people of England paying higher taxes and getting worse public services for their money. It will not pay for a single extra carer this winter. With a current crisis in social care and care budgets stretched to breaking point, we have heard nothing from the noble Lord that will give any comfort to those who need good-quality care or to their anxious loved ones.

The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services was already raising the alarm this summer, but the response from the Government was to refuse to accept that adult social care was underfunded. Even now, have we really seen anything that leads one to believe that the Government are serious about dealing with the crisis in adult social care? We have seen £4.6 billion axed from social care budgets since 2010; 1.2 million people not getting the care they need, according to Age UK; and the service at tipping point, according to the Care Quality Commission. In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Porter, the Conservative chairman of the Local Government Association, has made clear:

“Services supporting our elderly and vulnerable are at breaking point now”.

So what do we have? We have blame put on councils, a fair funding review and an increase in council tax. Can the noble Lord confirm how much new money is available to tackle this winter’s social care crisis? Will he also confirm that the further increase in council tax next year will not plug the funding gap for next year either? Does he regret that before the 2010 general election senior figures in his party chose to kill off cross-party talks on how to fund social care going forward? Then there was the Dilnot commission, whose recommendations have been shelved until at least 2020.

Why should we have any confidence that the noble Lord and his party are serious this time about sorting out social care funding? Can he tell us more about the fair funding review? What is the timetable for it? This is, after all, an immediate crisis and we have elderly and vulnerable people who need action now—they cannot wait for the review.

Will the review also address the worsening postcode lottery for social care and other services? In the most deprived areas of the country, social care spending fell by £65 per person as councils were hit particularly hard by government funding cuts, but it rose by £28 per person in the least deprived areas. And will not the social care precept only further entrench inequality? Blackpool, one of the most deprived unitary authorities in the country, faces a 31% reduction in spending between 2011 and 2019, while Wokingham, one of the least deprived areas, faces a fall of just 4% over the same period. When will the Government address that injustice?

I pay tribute to local authorities, councillors and local authority staff up and down the country who are doing their best to plug the funding gap to cope with huge rising demand for care and increasing costs. In 2014 alone, councils diverted £900 million from other services to maintain adult social care services.

Since the Prime Minister came to office, there has been much talk of help for those who are just about managing their finances, However, that seems to have gone out of the window today. The fact is that we need deeds as well as words. The Prime Minister has decided to put up council tax in every part of England again. She told us:

“If you’re from an ordinary working class family, life is much harder than many people in Downing Street realise”.

I think we can all agree with that statement. She also said:

“You have your own home, but you worry about … the cost of living”,

the state of your area and the services you rely on, and you worry whether you can pay the tax bill at the end of each month. Today, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the noble Lord have decided to make things just a bit harder for those hard-working families. On top of council tax rises this year, there will be a 3% rise in 2017-18 and another increase in 2018-19—a 17% rise in council tax compared with 2015, all decided in Downing Street.

The Conservative Party, which once claimed to be in favour of low taxes, is putting up taxes every year until the next election. If you are a band B council tax payer in Blackpool, this will take twice as much as a proportion of your income as it will if you are a band B council tax payer in Wokingham. For some, it will mean the support they had hoped would be there for an elderly relative will not be, while for others visible public services such as street cleaning will be cut ever closer to the bone. There will be even fewer youth centres and more libraries will close.

Can the noble Lord say more about the proposals to, as he says, encourage more effective local planning by making positive decisions on planning applications and housing growth? I have to say to him that it is not councils being slow in approving housing planning applications that is the problem—that is just political dogma from the Conservative Party. We need to deal with the problem of land-banking by developers that just sit on land with planning applications but do not build the houses. What we need is real, urgent action so that the homes that we need are built quickly to deal with the housing crisis. What we have seen here today is too little, too late, with needs unmet, hopes dashed and social care in crisis, and complete and abject failure on the part of the Government to get a grip on the situation. It is not good enough.

In conclusion, I apologise that I did not at the start make my usual declaration of interests as a local councillor in Lewisham and a vice-president of the LGA.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a local councillor in the Metropolitan Borough of Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I am rather relieved today that I am not on the Government’s Christmas present list. The Government’s Christmas presents are ones you pay for with your money, not theirs. A clearer, more transparent picture of today’s Statement is this: the Government, in the four-year deal to local authorities, are slashing the grant they give to local government by 56% over the planned period. This, of course, has a disproportionate impact on those councils that, because of need, rely more heavily on government grants to provide the services that the Government demand of them. The effect so far has been that council spending has, for the majority of councils, fallen like a stone. Some spend 44% less on all services, excluding schools, than they did six years ago. An average metropolitan council serving 400,000 people spent £377 million in 2010 and £257 million this year, according to an analysis of figures by the ONS. The consequence is that hard-pressed councils have even had to cut services to vulnerable adults and children. A crisis has ensued. Care homes are closing down and the impact on the NHS is there for all to see. The Government’s response in this time of good will is to give local authorities their own money and label it a social care grant. The funding has been taken from the new homes bonus and redistributed. No doubt there will be winners and losers, and it will be no surprise to me if the winners are those who need it least.

The Government have given local authorities not one but two presents this year. The second present is to allow councils to collect and raise the Government’s social care tax—so those who are just about managing will be even more hard pressed. Worse still, this largesse from the Government does not do any more than apply a sticking plaster to the gaping wound that is social care, while the patient is bleeding to death. Local figures tell the story better than the national ones. In Kirklees Council there is already a funding gap of £12 million in adult social care because of rising demand. The social care tax of 3% will provide £3.3 million of extra funding, but there will still be significant cuts to be made in social care services.

The new homes bonus reallocation provides no new funding; it is just reallocating and relabelling the same money. What is given is also taken away. Existing new homes bonus funding is being used to prop up libraries, parks and road repairs. These services will now be even worse off, so outlook is bleak for many councils, and there is not much seasonal good will there.

Does the Minister believe that the scale of the crisis in social care requires more than two years of a 3% tax rise to meet existing needs? If not, how does he anticipate plugging the remaining gap? Will he discuss with his colleagues the potential to bring forward increases to the better care fund which are planned for 2020, so that the integration of health and social care can be accelerated? Can he explain how those families that are just about managing will manage the 6% rise in council tax imposed by the Government? Does he expect all local authorities to survive intact under the burden of these pressures?

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham. It would make a grant made to a private provider conditional on the equivalent market rate for the property sold under the right to buy being spent on the provision of affordable housing in the same local authority area, including at least one replacement home of the same tenure and in the same locality.

We have heard a lot from the Government about this policy not reducing the number of affordable homes, but I am not so sure. One problem we must grapple with when debating this Bill is the term “affordable housing”, because I think it means different things to different noble Lords. When many noble Lords from the government Benches speak, they see affordable housing through the prism of a discounted rate of up to 80% of the market value. In many parts of the country, especially London, such housing would more accurately be described for people on low and modest incomes as unaffordable. There are not many noble Lords on the government Benches, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Horam, who have so far put the case for social housing and the need to build more of it. That is why we make specific reference to “tenure” in our amendment, otherwise we would be letting the Government off the hook when they say, “Everything is fine. We have provided so much more affordable housing. Haven’t we done a good job?”, when, in fact, if we look in more detail at what has happened, I fear that we will see an erosion of social housing, of council housing, and its replacement with “affordable housing” that is a very different product.

Amendment 60, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and other noble Lords, will be spoken to shortly and has the full support of these Benches. It would put in the Bill a mechanism to ensure that the tenure of a replacement property was the same as that of the property sold, unless on the basis of local need a different tenure could be justified. This seems a good, sensible example of delivering a national policy with an element of localism included. I will probably intervene again as the debate progresses. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 60, to which the noble Lord has just referred and said he will fully support, as will colleagues on his Benches—so I start off from a good place. Before I do so, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests: I am vice-president of the Local Government Association and a councillor in the metropolitan borough of Kirklees, which, for those who do not know, is in West Yorkshire.

I am very pleased to be able to support Amendment 60, because looking back at the evidence from the right to buy of former council properties during the past 35 years is very instructive in determining whether there is any genuine, realistic hope of like-for-like replacements.

The example that I would like to share with noble Lords is from Kirklees. Prior to the right to buy, there were nearly 40,000 council properties in Kirklees. Now there are fewer than 24,000. Only a very small minority have been replaced by what we now call social housing. Indeed, in the last two years and within the period when councils have had the ability to enable replacements —which is rather different from ensuring that they are enabled, of course—403 homes in Kirklees have been sold under right to buy and only six have been built to replace those that have been lost. What provision is being made to ensure that we can get like-for-like replacements? Without them, we are pushing many people, particularly families, into private rented accommodation.

The provision of decent-quality housing for rent is vital. A particular case was brought to me by a local family. It illustrates why I am particularly concerned about the diminishing stock of social housing for rent. A young family with four children was renting a former council house which was subsequently run by a private landlord. It had what I would describe as 2.5 bedrooms and was semi-detached. It was about 50 years old. The rent was £600 a month—this is in West Yorkshire, not London and that is a lot of money in West Yorkshire.

The other half of the semi next door was still in council ownership under the ALMO that was set up when I was leader of the council, I am pleased to say. It was rented out at £320 per month, so the private rented accommodation was nearly double the price. That was not the only difference. The council house was in a good state of repair. The ex-council house had a leaking roof, which was why it was brought to my attention. The roof had been leaking for a while and the walls were damp, there was mould and the wallpaper was peeling off. The children had health problems, which the GP determined were partly caused by the state of the house. Obviously my first question to the mother who brought this problem to me was, “Have you spoken to the landlord? They should keep the house in a good state of repair. They have a responsibility to do that”. “Yes”, she said. “The only problem is that he lives in South Africa”, and getting action through the agent to the owner was well-nigh impossible, despite the so-called responsibilities and duties of the landlord to do so. Fortunately, I was able to help her find good-quality social housing for her to move into.

That account paints a picture of what is going on. So when the noble Lord, Lord Porter, says, “Don’t worry. We’ll gain one when one is lost because the house is still there”, yes, but what he did not say is that the tenure of that house can be just as important. The selling off of housing association homes will start once this Bill wends its way into law, and the experience of selling off council houses shows that we are pushing families who cannot afford to buy into private rented accommodation. Despite what the Minister and other noble Lords on that side have said, which is that it is important for people to have the right to home ownership, someone needs to explain to me how families that in my experience are often—not always—pushed into poor-quality and poorly maintained private rented properties will ever be able to own their own home. If that conundrum can be explained, I might have more faith in what is being done here. But currently all I can see is that those at the bottom of the income pile are pushed into low-quality accommodation, paying high rents that are not always covered by housing benefit, with little opportunity to put down roots in the community because the length of the lease is short and they have to move on. I know that we passed a Bill which said that if you complain you would not be pushed out, but it does not seem to have worked. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain that conundrum away for me.