The Building Safety Regulator: Building a Better Regulator (Industry and Regulators Committee Report)
Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts(1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Industry and Regulators Committee The Building Safety Regulator: Building a Better Regulator (2nd Report, HL Paper 225, Session 2024–26).
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce this debate on the report The Building Safety Regulator: Building a Better Regulator, which was published by the Industry and Regulators Committee in early December. As is often the case, we have to wait some time for these debates, but the issues that we raised are still very relevant.
I place on record my thanks to members of the committee and our whole team for the work that they have done. I particularly mention the noble Lord, Lord Best, who was the first person to alert us to the problems that we should be looking into as a committee. I also thank Dominic Cooper, our researcher, for the sterling work that he put in.
There is a wealth of experience in this Room. My noble friend Lord Roe will give us the insider’s view, my noble friend Lady Warwick will talk about social housing, and there is a wealth of experience from local government and elsewhere. However, we should start off this debate by remembering the 72 people who died in the Grenfell Tower fire. This coming Sunday will be the ninth anniversary of that tragedy and, as the Minister told us, remembering that is at the heart of everything we do. We have to remember the 72 people who lost their lives and those who were bereaved and who survived them. It was a very significant event.
The inquiry that followed that tragedy found that the regulatory arrangements for the construction industry were too complex and fragmented. In many cases, they allowed the industry to choose its regulator, creating a commercial incentive not to regulate too strongly. As part of efforts to ensure that such an event could not happen again, Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review recommended the establishment of a new regulatory framework to oversee building safety in higher risk buildings. Consequently, Parliament legislated, with all-party support, to create this new framework in the Building Safety Act 2022, which gave this responsibility to the Building Safety Regulator set up within the Health and Safety Executive.
The Act gave the BSR responsibility for approving safe construction of new higher risk buildings and construction work within existing higher risk buildings. This was to ensure that compliance with building regulations would be assessed by an independent regulator rather than by the complex framework that existed with local authorities or private sector building control approvers. The establishment of the Building Safety Regulator and its regulatory framework was necessary and it was welcomed quite significantly. The committee heard some evidence that the BSR was improving safety by requiring greater consideration of safe design and management by the housing industry. However, the overwhelming impression the committee got was that the BSR’s current impact is that it has caused widespread delays to both the delivery of new housing and the improvement of existing higher rise buildings, including the remuneration of dangerous cladding.
The BSR’s statutory timeframe for making building control decisions for existing buildings is eight weeks, and for new build it is 12 weeks. Its own data shows that it takes, on average, much longer than the statutory timelines, and we have heard that many applicants were waiting up to a year for very significant decisions. This has threatened the viability of new housebuilding in cities and left residents in unsafe buildings for longer than necessary. It does not make anyone safer if we fail to deliver new housing in overcrowded cities or leave residents waiting longer for remediation of their unsafe buildings. We heard from one leaseholder, Pamela Street, that residents in her building
“have quite simply had enough”,
after their application was delayed when the building was identified as needing work in 2019. Many others have had to live with uncertainty and seemingly open-ended financial commitments for work that might have to be done.
There are reasons for these delays but, whatever they are, this level of performance is entirely unacceptable. During our inquiries, the Government and the Building Safety Regulator recognised these problems and began to make practical improvements, which I will mention. The committee welcomed this. However, the BSR admitted that, even after these changes, it may fall short of meeting its statutory timeframes. This will not banish the anxiety or frustration that residents and companies are already experiencing, so I ask the Minister to update the Committee on when the Government expect the Building Safety Regulator to meet its statutory timeframes for making decisions.
We heard several reasons for these delays. Initially, the Building Safety Regulator seconded in members of multidisciplinary teams to make building control decisions, leading to delays in setting up those teams in the first place. The BSR is now increasing its in-house capacity following government investment, which is a significant and positive move. However, this sits within the broader shortage of building and fire inspectors to staff the BSR and other related organisations, such as local building control authorities and fire and rescue services. The Government have made £70 million of additional funding available to address these shortages in building safety personnel, which must be welcomed. The planned construction action plan is also welcome, but it needs to have the long-term funding necessary to increase this capacity. I hope the Minister will be willing to update the House on a regular basis about progress that can be made in this respect.
Another key issue was that the construction industry did not understand what information it needed to provide for the BSR to approve its projects. That was compounded by the Building Safety Regulator, certainly in the early days, not communicating clearly with applicants about their projects. It is unreasonable to expect applicants to meet a standard when it is not clear how it is assessed or what a successful application would look like. We heard that progress had been made during our inquiry, with the BSR beginning to provide greater guidance and increasing communication with applicants. How confident are the Government that the BSR has now given sufficient guidance to make its requirements clear?
However, not all the problems are on one side. The Building Safety Regulator has expressed concerns about the capability of the construction industry to meet its requirements, arguing that the requirements of the building regulations have not changed, only the way in which they are assessed. The BSR gave examples of the reasons why it has rejected applications, including an inability to show how buildings had been designed to avoid collapse, which sounds very basic to me, and a common issue whereby applicants’ own computer modelling showed that smoke would be pumped into fire exits rather than extracted. While the BSR must improve its own performance and provide clear guidance, it does not reflect well on the construction industry that many applications are rejected or delayed due to basic errors and an inability to evidence information on central elements of fire and structural safety. The Government have since consulted on their strategy for the built environment professions, and I hope the Minister can tell us when they will announce reforms to ensure that industry can play its full part in improving the safety of buildings.
So we have a situation where the BSR’s own processes contributed to delays and where industry complained that a significant amount of design information was required up front before construction could begin. This was a necessary change from the previous situation, where developers could decide and change critical features after construction had commenced. However, we felt that the BSR overcorrected for this problem and we welcome that it is planning to take a more staged approach to approvals, allowing construction to begin without requiring the full design of non-safety critical features. The balance has to be carefully assessed, because both factors are important.
Of course, our report is not just about new build. We heard significant frustration from leaseholders that smaller, less safety-critical works to their properties, including domestic renovations, required approval from the BSR, and that could often lead to significant delays and a significant increase in the costs of projects. It also tied up in-demand safety professionals on more minor works. So we called upon the Government to remove less safety-critical works from the BSR approval process or to provide a more streamlined approach to them. The Government are consulting on taking a more proportionate approach to works inside individual flats and small-scale works in communal areas, such as the replacement of fire doors, but keeping them within the BSR framework. That would be welcome, and we are hoping that the Government can move swiftly to implement those proposals.
I turn to the products involved. The use of combustible cladding and insulation at Grenfell Tower shows that the quality of construction products is critical to the safety of a building, but the regulation of construction products is patchy and fragmented. The Government have consulted on their initial proposals for improving construction product regulation. We were pleased at that and support it, particularly the introduction of a generalised safety requirement to ensure that all products are covered by at least some regulation. It is urgent that people can trust the materials that their buildings are made of. Again, I hope the Minister can update us on when the Government will take these plans forward.
The Government have taken action, changing the leadership of the BSR, including by installing my noble friend Lord Roe, and we welcome that. The Government have also provided additional investment in BSR staffing and removed it from the Health and Safety Executive to set it up as a stand-alone agency, which are steps in the right direction. This is a move toward introducing a single construction regulator, as recommended by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. We welcome this as it will provide greater clarity and consistency in the regulation of the industry, but there is still a lot to do. The Sunday Times said yesterday that there are still over 400,000 people living in flats with fire risk and that only 21% to 26% of buildings known or estimated to have unsafe cladding have actually been fixed. So a start has been made but further action has to be taken, and it is planned in a number of the areas that we have raised. We welcome that but we think there is still a long way to go to avoid another tragedy happening.
Moreover, and this point is very important, without further action from the Government and indeed from the BSR, there is little chance that the Government will be able to meet their target to build new homes and to remove dangerous cladding, and a failure to meet either of those challenges will leave people living in unsafe conditions for longer. I know that the Minister is engaged and aware of these problems, and we welcome the fact that some action has already been taken during the time since our report was published, but we have to keep on top of this issue because it is still a serious problem that many people are facing. I beg to move that the report be considered.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I said at the beginning that there was a wealth of experience in this Room; the speeches that we have heard this afternoon prove that. Every individual person has added their own insight into the nature of the problems that we are talking about, which has been extremely useful.
The starting point that we all had was that the idea of a Building Safety Regulator was something that everyone agreed was necessary. It was born out of those tragic circumstances that we must all have at the back of our minds, and it is a great shame that it got off to such a difficult start. In many respects, it was understandable that the pressures to emphasise, “This must never happen again” perhaps froze some people’s outlook in terms of what could be done and how it should operate. We all agreed that the initial period of the Building Safety Regulator resulted in delays, bottlenecks, a lack of transparency, and bureaucracy that was not necessary and could have been avoided, but unfortunately that is where we are.
It was a suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Best, that we look at this issue, because of some of the delays that he had heard about. The more we looked into this, the more concerned we became. It was the intention of the committee to raise awareness of this issue, to highlight the difficulties that were being faced that were causing delays and difficulties for people who needed new housing—because, as my noble friend Lord Roe and others pointed out, not having a decent home is in itself a danger. We hoped that the establishment of the committee would highlight these issues and focus on the need for change.
I was really pleased when my noble friend Lord Roe said that the committee was actually a useful lever to drive forward the change. It was part of our intention to highlight the problems that could happen. Perhaps things happened more quickly than we anticipated, because we got the sense while we were taking evidence and coming up with ideas that we were having an impact, and that was extremely helpful.
So we are seeing some improvements that have been outlined by my noble friend Lord Roe and the Minister. Perhaps even more important than some of the technical improvements, although they are massively important—getting teams working together—are the beginnings of the cultural change that was being talked about. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, mentioned, you cannot legislate for cultural change, but when you have a regulator and an industry working together to try to improve things, you have the best way forward, and that is what we have been hearing about this evening.
The Minister outlined what she and her department are doing. Her approach is very much along the lines that the committee was hoping for. So I welcome what she has said on a whole range of issues.
I end by saying that we hope that the Minister will keep pressure on my noble friend Lord Roe, keep holding him to account and keep reporting back to Parliament, because that is the best way of giving us assurances about what is happening, and the best way of individuals being able to raise problems that perhaps do not come immediately to those who are at the coalface, so to speak. So I hope that the Minister will keep us posted.
There are still some outstanding issues. The Minister mentioned some of them. Consulting on the proportionate approach is very important. I noted that she did not give a specific date. Perhaps that was wise, because these things can drift from time to time. Making progress on products I think is extremely important. The noble Lord, Lord Best, said that we must all be able to trust that the materials in our buildings are safe. There is an urgency about that need and I think it is one that the Minister will have to continue to look at.
The progress towards a single construction regulator will have to be considered and people will have to be kept in touch and consulted about the best way forward, because we do not want to recreate new problems in the future.
The one issue I will mention that still concerns me is the question of skills. The Minister outlined the very significant investment that the Government are making. I wrote down the figure that she mentioned. Wanting 60,000 by 2028, we have a very deep problem in terms of skills shortages in this country. The Government’s targets are extremely ambitious. It really is a priority of the Government to concentrate on this, for everybody’s sake, not just in construction but across the board—but particularly in construction, especially when we look at the age profile of many of those involved.
I am very glad that we can see tangible improvements. I am very glad that we can see some development of cultural change. I thank everybody who has contributed to this. I assure the Minister and my noble friend Lord Roe that people will be keeping an eye on this issue and I am very pleased that everybody has been able to participate in this debate.
Voter Authority Certificates
Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Both the Electoral Commission and the Government have been working with electoral staff continuously since the Act came in. What will be collected at polling stations will include the numbers and the reasons why electors have been turned away, if they have, whether they returned and whether they voted later, as well as other aspects of the policy. This will just be adding to what they would normally collect in a polling station.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister take this opportunity to apologise for those Conservative leaflets that have been distributed in Norwich and other places, specifically telling people that they do not need ID to vote?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
As a Norfolk resident, I have taken that issue forward.
The Union (Constitution Committee Report)
Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
That this House takes note of the Report from the Constitution Committee Respect and Co-operation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st century (10th Report, Session 2021–22, HL Paper 142).
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to introduce this debate on the report from the Constitution Committee, Respect and Co-operation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st Century. I want to place on record at the start my thanks to all members of the committee and our staff and advisers, who worked very hard on this report and throughout my time as chair. This inquiry was very interesting and demanding and I think we can all see that it is a very substantive report. Therefore, there was an awful lot of work involved. I look forward to hearing the contributions of committee members and the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame—I may be the first to pronounce that incorrectly, but we look forward to the speech.
The timing of this debate is very interesting, because it is exactly a year to the day since we published this report. That highlights two things. The first is that, too often, reports from this House, which are very insightful, important and topical, are welcomed when they are first published but then go on a shelf and we wait a very long time before we manage to have a debate on them. That is a concern for many people on many committees and I think it is something that the House needs to do more to address.
Having said that, the timing of this debate proves the importance of the decision of the Constitution Committee to undertake this inquiry. It is right that we need the insight into the constitutional relationships. I hope this debate will not be dominated by the current controversy about Section 35 powers, so I will not go into that here, tempting though it is. However, the fact that the situation we are now seeing is so toxic illustrates the need for a change in relationships and attitudes, which this report outlines.
The report is titled Respect and Co-operation and that is not without good reason. Indeed, the title was chosen very carefully and reflects our conclusion about the future governance of the UK after months of taking evidence, both written and oral, visiting parliamentarians in Scotland and Wales, and having discussions with those in Northern Ireland.
Last year marked the centenary of the United Kingdom in its current form and we were conscious of that while we were doing our work. It was evident to the committee that many tensions existed in the UK and that they posed a series threat to the union but also our democracy as we know it. We are not just talking about tensions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; there is a devolution problem within England as well. There is a feeling in many parts of England that decisions about people’s lives are made in some distant, out-of-touch centre and this does not inspire confidence in our democracy.
The fact is that the UK is exceptionally centralised. We heard evidence from the Conservative chair of the Local Government Association, who told us very bluntly that there is unanimous agreement that current arrangements are far from optimal. The UK is one of the most centralised countries in the modern developed world. He was very clear and many others supported what he was saying. There is a general belief that this overcentralisation is holding back the UK in economic and development terms, but also in terms of dealing with social policies.
Some of the reasons for individuals feeling cut off from decision-making are to do with the pace of change in the modern world—new technology, the information revolution, the problems of climate change and even the pandemic. However, there are issues, especially with our withdrawal from the EU, that have tested our system of government, and Brexit itself has undoubtedly led to greater tensions between the devolved institutions and Whitehall.
We have to acknowledge that part of this is due to political differences, but as the committee pointed out, there are measures that can be taken to improve working relationships. However, we say in the report that the arrangements and attitudes pre-Brexit did not put us in a good position to face those challenges.
Similarly, in dealing with Covid, at times the Government were provocative and damaged relationships unnecessarily. In the earliest stages of Covid, the Prime Minister included First Ministers in the COBRA meetings, quite sensibly, but then decision-making moved to the Cabinet Office and First Ministers, the devolved representatives, were excluded. That was unreasonable, given that it is obvious that pandemics do not respect boundaries and that joint working would have been beneficial.
I mention this because, although the committee made specific recommendations about some of the formal factors such as the regularity of formal meetings, we concluded that it is still the case that attitudes, perhaps on all sides but certainly in Whitehall, need to change—hence the relevance of our report’s title, Respect and Co-operation. I have seen the Government’s response to that report and the recent correspondence from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up to my noble friend Lady Drake, the current chair of the committee. The tone of some of it suggests a calmer and more reasonable approach. If so, that is to be welcomed, although some people might think that the past few days have called this into question. The real test of relationships in future will be how much institutions and individuals are willing to embrace the principles and spirit of respect and co-operation. I must flag up the retained EU law Bill, which will test those very significantly.
The committee made some positive and constructive proposals. I cannot deal with all of them in the time available, but I want to raise some key points. The first issue is the working of the Sewel convention and the process of legislative consent. We felt that the legislative consent process generally worked well from 1999 but political change and implementing Brexit has put it under considerable strain. We did not recommend that the courts should be involved, as we believe that this is a matter for Parliament and something we must take on board, but we did recommend a strengthening of the way in which this House scrutinises Bills which require, or could be considered by the devolved institutions to require, legislative consent.
I know that the Procedure Committee is looking at this issue; I hope there can be progress here because I note that the Government’s response said:
“We will carefully consider the Committee’s recommendations”.
Personally, I take that as meaning the long grass and that little in the Government’s attitude may change. If that is the case, it is even more important that Parliament steps up its game in ensuring that it is fully aware of problems arising from legislation when there is a question about legislative consent. Moreover, I share the concern of many people in this House that the Government are increasingly looking to use secondary legislation as a means of avoiding the legislative consent process that is required for primary legislation.
I turn to devolution in England. Bearing in mind the evidence of Councillor Jamieson about us being the most centralised country in Europe and the developed world, we were told that local government has been the sector of public service delivery most affected by job losses throughout the decade of austerity while, at the same time, there has been a growth in Civil Service numbers. There is no doubt that those involved in local and regional government believe that they could deliver more, and do so both effectively and efficiently, if they were given the opportunity.
Personally, I can understand why Ministers—from all parties—want to interfere, want to set targets, believe that they know best and, indeed, want to fulfil their political commitments, many of which derive from a political mandate. I think they find it difficult to say, “We won’t interfere or try to micromanage”. However, if we are talking about efficient and effective delivery, we need Ministers to acknowledge that there are problems with the current system and its structures, which cause difficulties in delivery and add up to people feeling alienated from the decision-making process.
We were given significant evidence—it is worth reading—of the problems that confront local authorities when they have to bid and compete with each other for small amounts of money. It can be costly for them to prepare that bid with no guarantee of success. They often have to go through an elaborate process of box-ticking and, they tell us, are often denied essential data. Councillor Jamieson said:
“The current process is very contractual. It is very much about a deal”—
a deal that is delivered by central government deciding what should happen, which we have seen recently with yesterday’s announcements. We heard more about this issue yesterday in terms of the levelling-up fund and some of the reaction to it. Local authorities’ reaction—I share their concern—was summed up by Andy Street, the Conservative Mayor of the West Midlands, when he said that
“this episode is just another example as to why Whitehall’s bidding and begging-bowl culture is broken … I cannot understand why the levelling up funding money was not devolved for local decision-makers to decide on what’s best for their areas.”
That confirms what others have said: we really need a proper framework. No one is saying that one size fits all, but we need a proper framework for devolution in England so that we can transfer powers and resources. Those in local government simply do not have confidence that that is the direction of travel at the moment. Again, respect and co-operation should be the theme.
One other point I want to highlight is the potential for improvement in interparliamentary relations. I must place on the record the work done by the Lord Speaker in this respect by encouraging the Interparliamentary Forum to function well and committees to visit. Our committee found our visits to Scotland and Wales extremely useful; I hope that others can build on that work. However, I mention the need for UK Ministers to be willing to attend and appear before the devolved legislatures; this sometimes happens but the Government will not write it into the Ministerial Code. All of us who are members of committees know that it can be difficult to get Ministers to appear; I just have to live in hope on this point.
In conclusion, the attitude at the beginning of the devolution process was “devolve and forget”. I think we have moved on, but Whitehall cannot carry on as if nothing has changed. Both civil servants and Ministers need to accommodate the changes. It is always painful to let go of any power, but it will be damaging if we do not make devolution work because it is important for the success of the United Kingdom and all its component parts. When we devolve, we must apply the principles of respect and co-operation. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this relatively brief debate on these significant issues. I am sure we will return to them on many occasions in this House, whether we are discussing the future of local government, in the way the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, was suggesting, or some of the suggestions made by my noble friend Lady Bryan, with whom I disagree on virtually everything—from her view on House of Lords reform to fatalism. I am sure we will have some significant debates in future.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame—we will get the name right eventually. I am sure he feels very comfortable in this House and will make many contributions in future.
We have heard from many colleagues who served on the Constitution Committee. My noble friend Lord Stansgate will not be surprised to learn that it was the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, who coined the phrase “poets and plumbers”. Today the noble Lord demonstrated why his particular lightness of touch is of such value to committees. The welcome he got in the House today reflects the esteem in which the House holds him, and it is good to see him here. The speeches we have heard demonstrate why it was such a pleasure to chair that committee. The word that the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, used was “fun”. I am not sure I would go so far as to say it was fun, but it was a productive and enjoyable experience. Again, I thank all the committee members.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, who has done as much work on one aspect of this report as anyone else, emphasised that the committee has confidence in the union and certainly in the potential for its future, but we all agreed that there is an element of fragility, as my noble friend on the Front Bench said, and we cannot be complacent about the future. There is a lot of opportunity, but a lot of work still needs to be done.
I return to the title of the report, Respect and Co-operation, because that is the key to getting these relationships right and getting the balance of power and the delivery of services that we would all like to see. Again, I thank everyone who has been involved in the debate, and I beg to move.
Voter Identification Regulations 2022
Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, on that specific point, can the Minister explain why younger people are treated differently to older people in terms of which documents will be accepted? Is that not a form of age discrimination?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I assume the noble Baroness is speaking about railcards, et cetera. We had that debate very clearly when the Bill went through. We have discussed it and I do not think there is any need to discuss it further.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I have given a reply. The details of why we would not accept young people’s railcards were well discussed and debated at the time of the Bill. We are now discussing the statutory instrument to deliver that legislation that has already been discussed.
I will now move on. Showing photo identification is a part of day-to-day life for people in all walks of life and it is a perfectly reasonable and proportionate way to confirm that a person is who they say they are when it comes to voting. Indeed, it has already been a requirement to show photographic identification to vote in person since 2003 in Northern Ireland.
I must also speak to the two amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Pinnock. I thank them both for having met me in the past week to share their concerns and suggestions for this statutory instrument. On the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, we disagree strongly with the views that she has set out. We are aware of concerns that have been raised in the sector about the pressures that election teams may face, but the Government remain confident that the electoral administrators will be able to deliver this important measure to protect our democratic system from fraud. We have worked extensively with stakeholders across the sector to develop implementation plans, and extensive funding has been made available to local authorities to deliver the new processes and to the Electoral Commission for its national awareness campaign.
The Government also disagree with the suggestion that electors will be prevented from voting. As we have said on a number of occasions, everyone who is eligible to vote will continue to have the opportunity to do so. Any elector who does not have a suitable form of photographic identification will be able to apply for a voter authority certificate from their local electoral registration officer, free of charge. It will be possible to apply online or on paper, just as for registration to vote; indeed, it will be possible to register to vote and to apply for a certificate at the same time. We are working hard to make the application system as accessible and user-friendly as possible, and testing with both electors and electoral administrators is receiving very positive feedback.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again but, if everything is as well prepared and clear as she suggests, why is the Conservative chair of the Local Government Association calling for a delay?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am aware that he is calling for a delay. I have not spoken to him, and I do not know why he is doing so, because the electoral officers—
West Yorkshire Combined Authority (Election of Mayor and Functions) Order 2021
Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts(5 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I start by declaring an interest, as I will have a vote in the West Yorkshire mayoral elections. I also endorse what my noble friend Lord Blunkett said about the urgency with which we need to see the White Paper and the more comprehensive approach to devolved institutions.
I will talk not about the powers but about the practicalities of the election. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, has just said that we should have clear guidelines as soon as possible. We would all like the elections to go ahead, but we have to be realistic and make sure that there are proper preparations. We do not want a last-minute decision to postpone them elections, and we are in danger of seeing that if we do not have better preparations at a very early point.
We are only a matter of weeks from candidates having to go around getting people to sign their nomination forms, which would be difficult. We would normally see volunteers putting leaflets through, and knocking on, doors, which will not be possible. Telephone canvassing is not a good substitute.
The Government have said that polling stations will be Covid-safe, but many schools are polling stations. Will they have to close the day before and after for deep cleans? All those things need looking at. Where will returning officers will get their polling staff from—and will they be vaccinated? Will they be vaccinated three weeks or three months in advance? We are running out of time.
However, my biggest concern is for the count, because the practicalities are clear to anyone who has been a candidate in an election. Counts are busy; they are in big halls, many of which are being used for vaccinations, so they may not be available. How can a scrutineer stand two metres apart from other scrutineers and the people counting and have total confidence that they are doing a good job?
There is a real difficulty here because I do not think that the Government have fully taken on board all the practical difficulties. If they are going to go ahead with those elections on the due date, they have to have closer and more detailed conversations with both returning officers and local authority leaders. Those leaders have had a lot to put up with in the past few months, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who is a councillor, was saying. They have very scarce resources: we do not want them to have to spend money making preparations for elections that get called very late and at the last minute.
Finally, I acknowledge the work that has gone on in the lead-up to this situation. I particularly pay tribute to Councillor Susan Hinchcliffe, who has been the chair of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority and has helped to keep all the local authorities working so well together during recent difficult times.