Construction Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 18 December 2018 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 13 February.

Motion agreed.

Buckinghamshire (Structural Changes) (Modification of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007) Regulations 2019

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 14 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 13 February.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move the two Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper en bloc.

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, perhaps I may make a brief intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, it is not my intention to delay the House, and I apologise if that is the case. I realise that we have a heavy day of statutory instruments ahead of us.

I would like to use the opportunity of this order concerning Buckinghamshire to make a parochial plea on behalf of my own native Cumbria, in which I should declare an interest as a county councillor. I am raising the issue on this order because the situation of our county is precisely parallel to the situation in Buckinghamshire. I am rather pleased that, in the case of Buckinghamshire, the Secretary of State has decided in favour of a single unitary authority for the county. In Cumbria, we went through an extensive period of debate with the district councils on the question of local government reorganisation. We tried very hard to establish consensus, but we could not and therefore the county council with the full support of all parties has applied to the Secretary of State, as it is entitled to until the end of March, to make a request for consideration of reorganisation.

I would like an assurance from the Minister. I realise that a lot of effort has gone into this Buckinghamshire case and that the Government will have an awful lot on their plate by the end of March, but for us this is an absolutely vital concern if we are to avoid major cuts in our services and to have an efficient local authority system in Cumbria and one that can deal with the very big challenges that we are facing.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, while not strictly on the issue of Buckinghamshire, I think I signed off a letter yesterday to the noble Lord in response to the one that he had written to me on the subject of Cumbria. I am not sure whether he has received it yet—possibly not. The same letter went to my noble friend Lord Cavendish putting forward similar arguments which support the thesis of the noble Lord that there is cross-party support for this. The issue is very much in the in-tray. Suffice it to say that, after the end of March, there is still a facility for local government reorganisation, even if the initiative is not taken before then, although it is on a slightly different basis—it would be an invitation from the Secretary of State. I do not think, from memory of the letter, that we are ruling that out in any way. We would need to consider that.

Motion agreed.

Housing: Private Rented Sector

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth Excerpts

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of older people living in the private rented sector.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s primary assessment of the private rented sector is through the annual English Housing Survey. This allows us to make a robust statistical estimate of the age of households in the private rented sector. Taking older people to mean those aged 65 or above, the latest survey estimates that there are 380,000 households where the household reference person is 65 years or older.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, higher costs for older private tenants—40% of income compared to just 14% for owner-occupiers—insecurity, with evictions now the main reason for older renters leaving, and projections that by 2040 one-third of people over 60 will be privately renting are a toxic combination. Does the Minister agree that ending the current Section 21 and having a permanent right to stay, as in Scotland, should be an urgent priority before this becomes a crisis?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, it is important to keep this in perspective. That 380,000 represents 6% of the private rented sector. That figure has undeniably gone up, although it has gone down from last year, so I hasten to add that the pattern is not uniform. Many people choose to rent; it is not wise to assume that all these people renting do not want to do so. There are challenges, some of which are met by the Prevention of Eviction Act, as the noble Baroness will know, and others by the Fitness for Habitation Act which we recently passed. So I do not share her analysis.

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

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the number of older people in private rented accommodation is rising and that that trend is likely to continue? If he does, will he tell the House what he is doing to address the resulting policy challenges?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, as I said, we cannot assume that this is uniform. According to our figures, last year there were some 40,000 fewer such people, although that is not necessarily statistically significant. I do not think we can draw conclusions. The figure has been on an upward trend for the last 10 years but there was more than a blip last year. As I have indicated, the private rented sector in general undoubtedly presents challenges. We know that 25% of it is unfit for habitation, although that is better than a decade ago when the figure was 45%. We are seeking to meet those challenges, which apply across the board, not just to older people.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, was this not an inevitable consequence of the Blair and Brown period, when there was an all-time low in new council housing builds? So those 13 long years not take quite a time to turn round? Are not local authorities now being encouraged again to take part in building council houses for all ages?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that the borrowing cap for local authorities has been raised, which undoubtedly boosts the possibility of housing by local authorities, as he indicated. As I said, there are challenges out there, but I would caution against assuming that all older people do not want to rent and that all of them are unhappy with their rental. That is not the case.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the Government pay out some £21 billion a year in housing benefit. Does he agree that this huge sum is the consequence of high rents caused, in turn, by a shortage in the supply of homes to rent? Would it not be better to invest in social housing, using future savings on the housing benefit bill to help fund building more homes for social rent?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that there is a problem with supply. As he well knows, that problem existed in the coalition years as well and we are seeking to address it. Last year was the best one for new homes for over a decade. I agree that we need more social housing. That is the principal reason why the borrowing cap for local authorities was lifted.

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend will be aware of the Government’s rent a room scheme, which has the dual benefit of providing up to £7,500 for the home owner and releasing furnished accommodation for the rental sector. However, this scheme is not well known. Will my noble friend tell us what more the Government might consider doing to promote it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My noble friend is right: it is a good scheme that perhaps has not had the take-up we hoped for, and it might benefit from added publicity. I will take that message back because it is a good scheme and we are trying to do many things to get the housing problem under control. That is just one more, and it comes at a low cost.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

What assessment have the Government made of the number of older people living in social housing while paying the bedroom tax, or who, because of rent increases, have moved into the private rented sector?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I would be interested to know if the noble Lord has evidence of that happening. In short, we have not made that connection but if he has evidence, I would be very keen to see it and we can take it forward and share the results with the whole House.

Buckinghamshire (Structural Changes) (Modification of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007) Regulations 2019

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Buckinghamshire (Structural Changes) (Modification of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007) Regulations 2019.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)]

My Lords, a draft of these regulations was laid before this House on 14 January. They are an enabling element in the processes for implementing the locally led proposal to replace the five existing Buckinghamshire councils with a new single unitary council. If approved by Parliament and made, the regulations will allow orders to be made under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to implement the Buckinghamshire proposal. In short, this is the first of two steps for these proposals.

Specifically, the regulations provide that Part 1 of the 2007 Act is varied in relation to Buckinghamshire so that: proposals may be made for the purposes of the 2007 Act by any principal authority in Buckinghamshire on its own initiative; any unitary proposal received by the Secretary of State from Buckinghamshire councils, including pre-existing proposals from before the regulations are made, may be implemented with or without modification by order; and the requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the councils and other persons affected by the proposal does not apply, reflecting the extensive consultation undertaken by the county council and the subsequent period for representations.

The regulations would expire at the end of March 2021 to allow sufficient time for all necessary orders under the 2007 Act to be made, to give full effect to the proposal. For regulations made on or before 31 March 2019, the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 requires at least one of the councils to give its consent to the making of the regulations, if the regulations are to be made. Buckinghamshire County Council has given its unconditional consent to the making of these regulations.

Alongside these regulations, in addition to the usual Explanatory Memorandum, we have also laid a report explaining the effect of the regulations and why the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to make them, as required by Section 15 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. The report also provides contextual information about the regulations.

Regarding the context, as that report explains, the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to make these regulations which provide for Part 1 of the 2007 Act to be varied in its application to Buckinghamshire, to reflect the initiative of Buckinghamshire County Council to make a proposal for structural change without an invitation having been received from the Secretary of State.

The context to this proposal is that there is wide consensus that the current local government arrangements in Buckinghamshire are unsustainable and inappropriate. In September 2016, the county council submitted a proposal for a new single unitary council. In January 2017, the four district councils submitted a proposal for two unitary councils. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State and his predecessor evaluated these proposals against the Government’s criteria. They concluded that both proposals met the criteria about a good deal of local support. The over 3,000 representations we received on this matter showed overwhelming support for change, with 87% of all representations supporting unitarisation in principle, 35% of all representations supporting a single unitary council, and 47% supporting the two-unitary proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of a local authority with a population of 280,000. I am also an honorary vice-president of the Local Government Association.

We are in the paradoxical position of passing regulations which effectively bypass the wishes of four district councils in Buckinghamshire and of the 47% of respondents to the consultation on the proposal to abolish these councils and merge them with the county council. As we have heard, they voted for two unitary authorities to be created from the four districts. Slough, which is geographically in Buckinghamshire, is already a unitary authority, and so is Milton Keynes. Their views were backed by the chair of the District Councils’ Network, who blamed the decision on what he described as “ill-conceived legislation”; namely, the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act. This includes a sunset clause expiring—curiously enough—in March, which permits the Secretary of State to fast-track changes with the consent of only one local authority; in this case, the county council.

Even the Secretary of State, who bears the uncannily appropriate name of Brokenshire, acknowledges the concern that a single unitary authority might weaken democratic engagement at the most local level. Incidentally, he said he would consult on whether this year’s local elections should be delayed to avoid councillors being elected for only one year. Can the Minister say what has been decided in respect of this matter?

The public consultation produced only a 35% response in favour of the proposals. How can the Government justify proceeding with such a slender measure of support? I understand that Chiltern and Wycombe District Councils—neither of them, I regret to say, yet Labour-controlled—wrote to the Secretary of State with notice of intention to institute a legal challenge. Joined by South Bucks, they are now seeking judicial review. Can the Minister indicate when the case is likely to be heard? Would it not be more seemly to defer any decision on the regulations until the legal proceedings are concluded?

In the debate on the draft regulations in the Third Delegated Legislation Committee, Dame Cheryl Gillan, the Member of Parliament for Chesham and Amersham, launched a blistering attack on the proposals. Among much else, she quoted the previous Under-Secretary of State, James Wharton, who, during the passage of the then Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, stated that it was the Government’s intention to build consensus, saying:

“We are not going to impose change on areas that do not want it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/15; col.772.]


Given that four of the five authorities involved—that is all the district councils affected—oppose the proposals, how can the Government square their decision with that emphatic commitment? In addition to the unanimous view of the district councils, 70% of parish councils in the area support the proposal for two unitary authorities, as do local businesses and other stakeholders.

Dame Cheryl also drew attention to the Government’s effective imposition of the county council leader as the initial leader of the new authority, with a majority of county councillors on the executive and the potential appointment of the county chief executive as “implementation leader”. This looks uncannily like a county council takeover—a sort of Amersham Anschluss.

In his reply to the debate in the Commons, Minister Rishi Sunak said:

“It is time for a fresh start for Buckinghamshire. It is time for people to forget about what has happened in the past, leave aside the tags of district and county, and come together to work for the benefit of residents”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 4/2/19; col. 18.]


This is all very well, but the people are being given no voice and no vote on the issue.

This is yet another example of government practice since 2010. Then, some councils were compelled to hold ballots on whether to move to elected mayors. Although many, including Newcastle, voted not to do so, the Government’s reaction over time was to require elected mayors as a condition of the establishment of combined authorities. Their contempt for local government was further exemplified by the abolition of regional offices of government—originally established by an earlier Conservative Administration—which had proved a successful way of building constructive relationships between the two tiers of government.

I trust that the Minister will not emulate his colleague in the Commons, who concluded the debate on the regulations by declaring that he was,

“confident that, before too long, we will have a happy resolution to all outstanding matters, and that the people of Buckinghamshire can look forward to a bright future”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 4/2/19; col. 18.]

This is the utterance of a political Candide, believing that all is for the best in the best of all possible local government worlds.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate on the proposals for unitarisation in Buckinghamshire. I remind noble Lords that a locally led proposal is the background to this—as it should be, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, rightly said. The provisions will run out on 31 March this year, when we will revert to the previous procedures and to legislation brought in under Tony Blair, if I am not mistaken. That would require an invitation from the Secretary of State to amend local government procedures, unless there is unanimity among local authorities, in which case it would not be necessary.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, made a point about Milton Keynes. He is right that it is a dog that has not barked and was not part of the locally led proposal. I recognise that Milton Keynes is significant in that area but it was not part of the process. He also made a point about viable geography and the size of a unitary authority. I think this issue has been addressed; indeed, my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government dealt with this issue in the other place and followed it up with a letter that talked about the process. I will make sure that the relevant letter is sent to noble Lords.

Originally, we imagined a population range of between 400,000 and 600,000 people, but subsequently found that this was too high. I am not saying that no ranges are above that figure, but the norm is somewhere around the 300,000 mark I referred to. It is not a hard-and-fast rule, but it is a guiding principle. The size has an effect on the nature and the split of services; indeed, the children’s commissioner gave the view that one unitary authority would be more beneficial than two. That view was reflected in the consultation—not exclusively, I accept, but getting 100% support for proposals is always pretty unlikely in a consultation. There was certainly discontent from the authorities, all of which were not content with the status quo. We have not had representations from local parties saying that the proposals are untenable.

The choice facing my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was between progressing with one unitary authority for the four district authorities or with two. Obviously, a judgment of Solomon must be made. With respect, all the authorities are Conservative-led, so there can be no idea of this move being for political gain; that was not suggested but I want to make the point. The Minister acted in this way after looking at the viable geography and representations made, and trying to work out which proposal presented the best option for local government in the area. He thought that a single unitary authority was that best option.

I do not pretend that this will please everyone; clearly it will not. For example, it will not please the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, which I suggest will not change after I finish speaking and after the regulations have, I hope, been agreed to. As I say, we must look at the considerations I presented, the provision of services and the size of the entity. All are important but there was certainly little or no support for the status quo: 87% of people felt that the status quo was not viable, so the suggestion that this will upset everybody in the area is somewhat far-fetched. The noble Lord also mentioned the deferral of elections. They are being deferred for a year, in line with what all the authorities—district and county councils—asked for.

If I have missed any other points made by noble Lords, as I almost certainly have, I will pick up on them in a letter. Echoing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, noble Lords will get another bite of the cherry when the order comes forward and we look at some of its provisions in more detail. With that, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Given that the Minister welcomed the idea of further debate on the order, is he prepared to meet me and other colleagues from the area to exchange views on some of the deeper issues raised by this?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

It is always a pleasure to meet the noble Lord. I am very happy to do that, but without any promise that it will make any difference.

Motion agreed.

Construction Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Construction Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the Committee has considered the draft Construction Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, before the Minister continues, may I enter a protest at the fact that this discussion is taking place at all while the House debates the very issues of Brexit that we are supposed to be debating.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I am not giving way.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I wish to make the point that it is totally unsatisfactory that we should be debating these no-deal regulations at the same time as the House is debating Brexit.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Order!

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, these regulations were laid before both Houses on 18 December 2018. They are part of the Government’s programme of legislation to ensure that if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period, there continues to be a functioning statute book. Securing a deal with the EU remains the Government’s top priority, but it is appropriate to accelerate no-deal preparations to ensure that the country is prepared for every eventuality. This is the responsible thing to do. To confirm, the regulations would come into force in March only in the event that there is no deal and no implementation period. They are made using powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to fix legal deficiencies in retained EU law. They are needed to reflect that the UK will no longer be an EU member state after exit day.

I trust noble Lords will allow me to provide a brief overview of how the regime works at present. The Construction Products Regulation—the CPR—is directly applicable in all EU member states. It seeks to remove technical barriers to the trade of construction products. It does this by harmonising the methods of assessment and testing, the means of declaring the performance, and the system of conformity assessment of construction products. Through this, the CPR seeks to ensure that reliable information is available to professionals, public authorities, and consumers, so that they can compare the performance of products from different manufacturers. I should make it clear that the CPR does not harmonise national building regulations across the EU. Individual member states remain responsible for safety, environmental, energy and other requirements applicable to construction works. The CPR applies UK-wide, and the devolved Administrations have been kept informed throughout the process of developing this approach and are content with it.

Moving on to how the CPR works in practice, where a harmonised standard has been adopted, the CPR places obligations on manufacturers, distributors and importers of that product. This includes that the product must have a declaration of performance and be CE-marked—that is, marked with the letters “CE”. The CPR will form part of the UK’s legal system as retained EU law when we leave the European Union. Without the amendments made by the regulations, the requirements of the CPR would cease to apply in the United Kingdom.

The general policy is to keep the same requirements but to convert them into a UK regime. This instrument will ensure that the same standards apply immediately after exit day as applied immediately before the UK left the EU. The key requirements of the regime will not change. The effect of these regulations can be considered in five parts.

First, on standards, existing European product standards will be preserved in the UK. Immediately following exit day, the same requirements will apply as were in place the day before. The standards that businesses must meet will therefore be unchanged. Thereafter, new UK standards will be designated by the Secretary of State. Standards have their own review cycles, typically of five years. The consideration of new standards will be supported by expert advice from the British Standards Institution and consultation with wider industry. Those standards are now, and will continue to be, mandatory.

The second area is about conformity assessment and the new UK mark. This element relates to where third-party conformity assessment is required. Existing UK conformity assessment bodies will be granted the new status of UK-approved bodies under these regulations. Where a UK-approved body undertakes the third-party conformity assessment required under the relevant UK standard, the product must be affixed with the new UK mark. The UK mark is being established under separate legislation and details of the new mark were published by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy at the start of this month.

The third area is the continuity approach. Alongside the domestic arrangements I have just outlined, for an initial period after exit day we will continue to accept products that comply with the European CPR regime. This will mean that products which meet requirements under the European CPR can continue to be placed on the UK market without the need for re-testing or additional marking. As I have mentioned, all European and UK standards will be the same immediately after we leave the European Union. This approach is necessary to ensure that goods continue to have access to the United Kingdom market, and to help minimise disruption for businesses and consumers.

The intention is that these arrangements will be time-limited. We will ensure that businesses are given sufficient notice in advance of this period coming to an end. I can confirm, however, that ending the recognition of CE-marked products would require further legislation by affirmative resolution. Such legislation would be preceded by a period of consultation with industry.

The fourth and penultimate area concerns technical assessment where product marking is not compulsory. This relates to products not covered by a mandatory UK-designated standard. In some instances, it is helpful to the manufacturer to affix a marking to these products, although there is no legal requirement to do so. Therefore, in the same way as is the case under the current regime, there will be an optional route available to enable products to be UK-marked. That will continue.

Fifthly, these regulations give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations to enable the UK to make technical updates to the CPR framework. This is simply a case of the functions currently resting with the European Commission passing to the United Kingdom. These functions enable the Commission to make delegated and implementing Acts limited to specific areas, as set out in the CPR. We are making no changes to the scope of these powers. To be clear, this is simply a case of the existing functions passing from the EU to the UK. This is necessary to ensure that the UK’s CPR regime can respond to technical progress and new or emerging issues. Parliament will be able to scrutinise any new measures and this provides a similar level of oversight as exists under the EU’s regime currently.

I also note that these regulations make a number of technical fixes to correct deficiencies in the market surveillance regime arising from EU exit. This regime is provided for under domestic legislation. These technical amendments will ensure that the enforcement regime can continue to work in the same way as now.

At this point, I confirm that the UK’s ability to take action against products that do not comply with their declared performance—or are illegally on the market—is unaffected by these regulations.

To summarise, I hope the Committee agrees that these regulations are necessary. They serve a specific purpose: to ensure continuity of the regime in the event of a no-deal scenario, providing certainty if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period. I stress that this is not the Government’s intended outcome. These draft regulations have been considered by both the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments; no concerns were raised by either.

To conclude, this instrument is necessary to ensure that the Construction Products Regulation continues to function appropriately if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or implementation period. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I concur with many of the points made by preceding speakers about this process and this instrument as an example of the secondary legislation on which we are having to spend so much time.

In the light of the Grenfell disaster, the subject of these regulations assumes greater importance than might otherwise have been the case. It is therefore even more unsatisfactory that no impact assessment has been published. What assurances can the Minister give that, in the absence of a deal, there will continue to be comparisons for industry and the public as to the performance and safety of products from other countries? Will the Government ensure that EU regulations are constantly kept under review and that steps will be taken to ensure that our standards keep pace with increased safety considerations applied within the EU? In the absence of an impact assessment, has there been any conclusion on the potential cost to businesses as a result of the change? The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made that point.

What will be the process for designating standards under the new regime? Will parliamentary scrutiny of such new or amended standards take place? If so, will that happen under the “made affirmative” procedure? What form of consultation will be applied? In particular, will the British Standards Institution remain a member of the European Committee for Standardization? The Explanatory Memorandum declares:

“Existing European harmonised standards will become UK ‘designated standards’”,


and will be “identical”. Is that to be a permanent position? If not, what timescale is anticipated within which they may be reviewed or changed? What cognisance will be taken of any changes in the EU standards during that period, and by what methods?

Finally, is it to be a requirement that manufacturers must affix a UK mark to products? If so, to what extent have the Government received assurances that such a mark will suffice to satisfy buyers in the European Union or elsewhere?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to these undoubtedly important regulations; indeed, I do not deny that they are important. Obviously, I am not responsible for the usual channels and the timetabling of matters in the House and the Moses Room. I firmly believe that the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has probably been picked up elsewhere so I will leave others to deal with that matter. I apologise if he thought I was being discourteous but I do not think he asked me to give way, which is perhaps why I did not. However, I will deal with his points.

I can confirm that the regulations will not change the law, except mutatis mutandis, in that we are coming out of the EU so some of the terminology is different. The regulations seek to preserve the existing position on exit day, which is why there is no impact assessment. Bear in mind that both scrutiny committees have not commented on the lack of an impact assessment; there will be no impact because the law on exit day will remain exactly the same because of the regulations. To pick up on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham—I think I covered this in my opening speech but perhaps not at sufficient length or with sufficient clarity—any departure from existing standards will require new legislation through the “made affirmative” procedure, on which consultation will be necessary. At the moment, the normal review period for standards is a five-year cycle. I am not saying that this will always necessarily be the case, but any reason to depart from it would have to be strong.

The second general point made by noble Lords concerns the likelihood of our suddenly diverging, or diverging at all, if it is inappropriate for British industry and if there is no great clamour from the British public. It is hard to see why this would be done; indeed, it would not make sense. We should credit our legislators and builders—people with more common sense. There would be no reason to diverge just for the sake of it, particularly given the necessity of the consultation I mentioned. It is hard to see how that would become a priority in any way or something that anybody would want to do.

I take issue slightly with another theme that seemed to come through in noble Lords’ remarks: that the regulations are about safety. Essentially, they are not. They are about standardisation. We have a separate domestic safety regime, as one can see from the Hackitt review and the Grenfell disaster. This has not emanated from Europe; by and large, Europe has not been the focus of the Grenfell inquiry or the response to it, nor of the Hackitt review. This is domestic. I am not denying the importance of these regulations, but essentially they are about standardisation and supply chains so that, for example, bricks and window frames are of a standard size. They are not largely about safety, so I want to keep the focus where it properly belongs. That is the point. That is the reason for the lack of an impact assessment and, as I said, one of the committees would have picked it up if we were in breach of proper procedures. As noble Lords will know, they are very effective committees.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talked about trading standards and additional burdens. He will know that there is already an existing provision that new burdens have to be properly financed. We would expect to consult on that with the LGA and interested parties. If there are new burdens to be imposed, that would be a necessary consequence.

With those comments, and with the certain knowledge this will be brought up again in the Chamber, I commend these regulations.

Motion negatived.

Yorkshire: Devolution

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to respond to recent proposals for devolution in Yorkshire.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)]

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State wrote to Mayor Dan Jarvis and the 18 local Yorkshire leaders today, saying that while,

“the One Yorkshire proposals do not meet our criteria … we are prepared … to begin discussions about a different, localist approach to devolution in Yorkshire”,

for example, by considering proposals by the Leeds City Region, York and North Yorkshire and the Humber estuary, provided the Sheffield City Region deal is completed.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, at last we have an answer from the Government. I hope my Question helped to push them a little. The devolution deals were supposed to respond to local wishes. As the Minister said, the clear position in Yorkshire is that 18 of the 20 local councils, people from all parties, the CBI and the TUC all agree that One Yorkshire recognises that Yorkshire as an economic and social entity makes the most sense. Why are the Government not prepared to work on that basis when they said that they would listen to local authorities in approaching devolution?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for welcoming the clarity of the approach we have announced today, as I believe he did. I recognise that he is not totally happy with our response but this is not just about listening to local authorities, although that is part of the issue. The One Yorkshire deal would not be consistent with our approach to other metro city mayors as coherent economic entities, as I am sure the noble Lord would see if he looked at our approach there. The fact that that makes more sense crystallised the thinking behind the letter that went out today.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be perverse in the extreme for a group of authorities that agreed to a devolution deal and an elected city mayor, then reneged on it and found out that authorities to the north were already talking about working together on their own deal, not to go back to their original commitment and draw down tens of millions of pounds of public money to invest in local services and infrastructure, at the same time as building an incremental approach to any future One Yorkshire deal?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I find myself in total agreement with the noble Lord. I agree that it makes perfect sense for the Sheffield City Region authority to progress. I understand that it is due to meet a week on Thursday to look at this matter; I very much hope that it processes the issue and moves forward because £900 million over a 30-year period is attached to the Sheffield City Region project. I hope it goes ahead and I hope that other parts of Yorkshire follow, in the way I suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.

[Baroness Warsi (Con)]

My Lords, I echo the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. There is a lot of cross-party agreement on the One Yorkshire deal at a local level; it is supported by the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and the TUC. However, is my noble friend concerned that a balkanisation approach in Yorkshire may result in certain parts of that region being left behind? Does he agree that there may be some merit in considering a much broader One Yorkshire deal?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, my noble friend takes a very different approach to the issue. I read the article on balkanisation to which she may have been referring. Many people have addressed this issue, saying that it would be wrong to cut across existing economic entities. For example, the Select Committee chairman, Clive Betts, the honourable Member for Sheffield South East, takes the view that a One Yorkshire deal would be wrong. We need to look at this issue in terms of where economic ties and cohesive agreements already exist and proceed on that basis. I understand the emotional pull of Yorkshire but we must look at the economic issues as well.

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

My Lords, I first declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am aware of the letter sent to Dan Jarvis, and I thank the Minister for sending me a copy. Can he give the House some more details of the timescales proposed here? It appears perverse that the Government are straightaway ruling out an option that clearly commands a lot of support in Yorkshire and are prepared to discuss only options that seem to have less support.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord for his comments, but on simply ruling it out he will be aware that copious documents have gone forward from the Yorkshire leaders. Some 100 pages of complex analytical documents on this have been studied, so it is not the sort of capricious decision he was perhaps suggesting. A lot of thought has gone into this. If he looks at the other metro mayors, he will see that they represent much smaller, more appropriate, cohesive economic regions—around the West Midlands, Manchester and Liverpool—than a county. Also, historically Yorkshire has never been a single devolved entity in its administration. As the noble Lord will know, it was split into ridings, for example, so perhaps the Government’s thinking is much more reflective of the economic units that used to be in place in Yorkshire.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I am one of those who have been very much involved in devolution proposals for Yorkshire for a long time now. Can my noble friend confirm that, while there has been a lot of unity of purpose, parts of the region, particularly the southern parts—Sheffield is the city concerned—have not been able to get their act together and have disagreed, originally intending to leave Yorkshire altogether in their proposed union with Derbyshire? Now they have changed their minds about four times. That does not help us get a settlement. Would the Minister urge the South Yorkshire representatives, including the mayor, to get their act together and to come around the table with the other 18 authorities to discuss the matter further?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, in all fairness, I think the mayor has been very keen to get this moving, and his actions have reflected that. He is very much committed to ensuring that we implement the Sheffield city deal. I hope this now goes forward a week on Thursday, when the meeting is due. It is much more complex than some would suggest, in that some parts of the economic entities are outside the historical county of Yorkshire—he has mentioned Derbyshire and the same could be said of parts of north Nottinghamshire, which look towards Sheffield and the South Yorkshire area. Also, looking at Humberside, for example, north Lincolnshire would be an appropriate part of any deal there. So it is not simply a case of looking at Yorkshire and building a deal around Yorkshire.

UK Shared Prosperity Fund

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)]

My Lords, we intend to launch the single prosperity fund consultation shortly, as confirmed by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in the other place last month.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, first, is the money that the Prime Minister has been scattering around actually new money, or is it money that would otherwise come out of this shared prosperity fund? Secondly, we might need this fund in seven weeks’ time. How come, therefore, we have yet to have a consultation on it? We do not know whether it will be allocated on the basis of need or prosperity. Can the Minister assure us that, if it is needed in seven weeks’ time, it will be up and ready for the communities it is to serve?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, first, the noble Baroness will be aware that current EU programmes will run their course—in some cases, beyond 2020—so I do not quite recognise the urgency of which she speaks. At the same time as the Prime Minister announced that the consultation would be short, she talked about the importance of tackling inequalities between communities—something I am sure the noble Baroness welcomes, and it may well be something that the right honourable Member the leader of the Opposition chose to discuss with the Prime Minister. I am sure that she would hope so because, clearly, this is very important. We have been doing a lot of work with engagement events around the country. The consultation will start shortly and the decisions will be made in the spending review.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, in a letter in today’s Times, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford makes it clear that the offer of cash subsidies to an MP for the benefit of constituents provided that the MP votes for the Government’s withdrawal agreement is in breach of Section 1 of the Bribery Act. Does the Minister agree that having ad hoc, specific discussions of this nature is not just legally unwise but a disreputable act of a desperate Prime Minister?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I bow to nobody in my discipleship of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on legal issues, and I am sure that what he says is correct, but noble Lords should not believe everything that they see in the newspapers. What is important in regard to any fund—such as the shared prosperity fund, on which we will consult shortly—is that it tackles inequalities across communities. I am sure that the noble Lord would agree with that, and I would think that he would want to engage in the consultation on that basis.

[Lord Tomlinson (Lab)]

My Lords, in his usual generous way, when the Minister answered the question from my noble friend Lady Hayter, he answered more than she had asked. However, he did not answer the crucial part of her question, which was whether it was new money.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I answered that, to the extent that I said that any spending decisions would await the spending review. However, the noble Lord will be aware of the amount that is currently spent on EU programmes—more than £1 billion per year—which I am sure will inform that review. Any decisions will await the spending review, but I am sure that that is a good guideline figure.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, do the Government agree that many of these steel and mining areas have been left to rot for many years, and it is about time that the Government provided funds to address some of the poverty in those communities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, it was on that basis that I said that the Prime Minister was very keen to say that this was about tackling inequalities between communities, which I would think noble Lords would welcome very widely—I hope that the Labour Party does—and we will be keen to stress that in the consultation and the future spending review.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, twice now the Minister has referred to inequalities being a key factor in the shared prosperity fund. How does that sit with the latest consultation on the fairer funding formula, where deprivation and need have been excluded? Will this not mean robbing Peter to pay Paul when it comes to inequality and need?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I will make two points. First, I referred to inequalities in communities because that was in the Written Statement on the UK single prosperity fund made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in July; it was restated by the Prime Minister, and in looking at that consultation we have talked about the importance of people, infrastructure, business, environment, ideas and place. The noble Lord referred to the fairer funding formula but did not do so totally fairly, if I may say so. He will be aware that deprivation is recognised as a key factor in many areas, such as health.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, to come back to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, can we have the position made absolutely clear, that the money that was being talked about over the weekend is not in any way conditional upon support for the Government in the House of Commons? Can that be made absolutely clear at this Dispatch Box?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I will make two points. The first is a relatively minor one, but lest the Order Paper appear strange, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, did not table the Question but was cited in another question. In relation to the content of the letter that was read out, I am sure that the noble Lord is right legally. I say simply that the context of this consultation, when it happens shortly, is about ensuring that we address inequalities between communities. That is the essence of what we are looking at.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that if any meetings are held with individual MPs, the minutes of those discussions will be published immediately after they have taken place?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, that is well beyond my brief. I am not quite sure whose discussions the noble Lord is referring to. As he will be aware, many confidential discussions are held, and both MPs and Ministers respect their confidentiality. It is unthinkable that a Government Minister is breaching the law in the way that has been suggested—directly and, in some cases, indirectly—in the Chamber today. Once again—your Lordships should not need encouragement in this—noble Lords should not believe everything they read in the newspapers.

[Baroness Quin (Lab)]

My Lords, in view of the Minister’s concern for former steel- and coal-mining areas, I ask that it be extended to areas devastated by the demise of the shipbuilding industry. On the allegations of bribery, does that not apply to the agreement between the Government and the DUP?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is fair. I shall address the first part of her question, which is certainly fair; the second, I think, was a throwaway comment. I am sure she is more concerned about the shipbuilding industry than scoring political points. On shipbuilding, I address her to the fact that much of the EU funding that will no longer be in place has been to assist such areas—the north-east, which I know she is familiar with and concerned about, is one of those areas. As I said, it is about addressing inequalities in communities, so I am sure those communities would be part of that; for example, there has been an engagement exercise in Gateshead, where I am sure this policy issue would be considered in framing a consultation. There have been engagement events around the whole country—the UK, not just England.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, will this policy affect Airbus or Vauxhall in north-east Wales? It will cause tremendous devastation of the economy in those areas. Does he really think that coming out of Europe will be to our benefit and ease the austerity in Wales and other places?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I bow to no one in my respect for Airbus, but I would not be as keen as the noble Lord is to write it off. He will be aware that it is in an area not currently in receipt of cohesion funding, and I shall not be making decisions here—I do not have the writ to do so anyway—about who gets money after the consultation and the subsequent spending review. Those are the parameters: the consultation will happen shortly, the spending review later, and that is when decisions will be made which will shape what happens post Brexit.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that in the consultation, local community organisations will be assured that they can access the new fund so that local issues really do rise to the surface in use of the funding?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for raising the matter. I can confirm that this will be a wide consultation. I very much hope that the sorts of organisations he referred to will participate, and obviously we will react to what we find in the consultation.

Local Authorities: Essential Services

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful for all the valuable contributions to this debate. It has been frank and honest and, obviously, it has given us much to consider and ponder. I will ensure that any particular points of detail, or indeed anything else that I have missed, are covered in a letter to noble Lords. I am sure that it is understood that this debate has covered many different areas of governmental activity, and quite correctly I would not want to mislead. I will also ensure that the debate is brought to the attention of all government Ministers because it has touched on so many subjects. I want in particular to thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for introducing the debate so effectively and enabling us to discuss these very important issues.

I certainly concur with what has been said about the vital importance of local government at all levels, as the noble Lord said in opening the debate. That work is important not just for local government; it is vital for everyone living in our communities. We all benefit from the considerable work that is done by councils. I should like to thank all those who work for our councils and, indeed, councillors of all political persuasions and none.

I also agree with the comments that have been made, most recently by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that in so far as there is blame to apportion—and I am sure that that is the case—no party can walk away from this scot free. Only the right reverend Prelate can leave with his head held high, not having been steeped in the blood of any mistakes which have been made. It is best that we are candid about this, so I will say no more on that. However, it is an important point to make.

I shall first cover matters of local government finance and council tax and then say a little about the structure of local government. Finally, I will deal with the many issues relating to local services which have been raised.

First, I understand what has been said about local government finance over the years. All the political parties have been in government during a time when incredible pressure has been put on to local government—that is undoubtedly the case—and, again, at all levels. I would also agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said about how we should be grateful to local councils for doing what they have done, given the pressures that are there. He is right to point out that our thanks are due to local authorities for what they have done.

I shall make a couple of points which I do not think have been articulated in the debate. Whatever one thinks about local government, the last settlement was a step in the right direction. The chairman of the Local Government Association, my noble friend Lord Porter, who is not in his place at present, welcomed the settlement as a good one. Newcastle will see a 1.36% increase in core spending power and an increase in real spending power. Bristol, the area of the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, gets 2.24%. Lewisham will receive a 2.74% rise, Kirklees will receive 1.75%, while Watford, not doing quite as well, will see an increase of 0.8%. I am not saying that this will solve the problem, but in the spirit of being open-minded and fair, we should acknowledge that it is a step in the direction that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for example, is keen for us to pursue, and correctly so.

I should also say what the Chancellor and others have said: we have come to the end of austerity. I do not want to go over the history and look at the reasons for taking that action. It was needed; at least two political parties—and I think possibly three—accepted that there was a need for austerity. However, we are coming to the end of it, and that needs to be said as well.

I have referred to the cash increase, and I will touch briefly on the 50% business rates retention scheme that is due to come forward in 2021. As is currently the case where pilots are being run, that should lead to an increase in spending power for those councils.

Much has been said about the consultation on the fair funding formula, which of course sets the objective that this should be brought forward in 2021. We are still looking a little way ahead, although it is getting closer by the day. Noble Lords know that this is a consultation, so there will be ample opportunity to express views. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, asked when the consultation is to come to an end. It is important to know when that will be, and I think that it is 21 February. There is an opportunity for people to participate in that consultation. Obviously, we will look at and consider the responses in detail. The importance of deprivation is expressly recognised in four areas in the consultation—adult social care; children and young people’s services; fire; and public health—although that is without prejudice to people to mention other issues in the consultation, if they feel that it is important that they are considered elsewhere.

Mention was also made of council tax and the local referendum restricting increases. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, touched on this and said how important it was that we recognise that there is the power of the ballot box to restrict increases. He was thinking of council elections, which is presumably why this has not been tested by local councils—they know what the outcome would be. We are not stopping local increases but saying that a referendum should be called if local increases are beyond this. All three political parties have lived with this system, so I hear what is said but I would caution that it is there for reasons.

I have noted a couple of other stray but important issues. The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, talked about dissatisfaction with local services increasing. I see that too. Complaints about services arise from time to time, but the latest survey taken—I have no reason to doubt it—shows that satisfaction remains relatively high, with nearly four out of five people, 78%, saying that they are very satisfied with the level of local services. I just wanted to put that in perspective. Yes, we should be concerned and wherever there is any concern with a local service we should look at it, but the level of satisfaction remains very high. If a political party got 80% satisfaction, I think we would all say, “Whoopee!” —though I cannot remember the last time that happened.

On local government structure and reform, there has been much talk—the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, raised it first of all—on devolution. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about the patchwork of devolution. He did not seem to approve of the metro mayors, but to my knowledge he has voted in favour of every order that has come before the House on this. That does not mean he does not think we could do better, but I suggest that it shows he thought it was at least a step in the right direction. I am open to challenge on that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, also talked about centralisation. We are a centralised country—that is perfectly true—but on the metro mayors we have tested opinion and proceeded where it is in favour. As I recall, the most recent exercise on regional devolution—in the north-east, admittedly some time ago—did not exactly find overwhelming support, so I once again caution a little trepidation at putting much more than a toe in the water on this. That said, we seek to redress the balance—with what admittedly is a magnet of activity to the south—with the northern powerhouse, the Midlands engine and the metro mayor system.

Mention was made of unitarisation, and in a very fair contribution the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said this is a way of councils saving money and also potentially responding to local feeling. It might not be about just money, and in the process one of the considerations will be local support. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, also discussed this but without the same approbation.

I turn to a general point on services before I look at the particulars. The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, touched on working innovatively, which we should always be doing even if there are not significant cost pressures. I pay tribute to what local authorities have been doing in this regard. Pendle is an example. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is not in his place, but I am sure he would take great pride in the back-office systems and processes review that has led to significant savings and a significant increase in efficiency.

I turn to housing. I thank noble Lords for their approbation of the raising of the housing revenue account borrowing cap, which has been widely welcomed. That is absolutely right and a step in the right direction. The noble Lord, Lord Best, whom I thank very much for his contribution and for all that he does in this area, asked for a response on lifting the cap in relation to housing associations. It is not a straightforward matter, but I will get a detailed response to the noble Lord and ensure that that is in the letter copied to all noble Lords. I thank him very much for that contribution.

In this regard, mention was made of the Homelessness Reduction Act. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, also mentioned it briefly. All parties supported this. We can all take credit for this measure and thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for piloting it through this House and Bob Blackman for piloting it through the other House. To my knowledge, we are funding the extra burdens, but if there are specific issues that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would like me to look at, I am happy to look at them.

Having talked about innovation, I once again say that Birmingham City Council is a housing exemplar. It has done some very good things in mixed-tenure schemes, including affordable and social rent, as has Ashford Borough Council, and that is important.

Social housing was mentioned specifically. I know that £9 billion was committed in the spending review period as recently as autumn 2018.

Rough sleepers was also mentioned in different ways. Extra funding was announced last year, because this is very serious. I understand what noble Lords are saying: this is very evident on our own doorstep. But I would not want noble Lords to think it is just our own doorstep. That may be where we see it most obviously—we certainly should not forget that—but it is much more serious and widespread than that. We are tackling it.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I apologise terribly for this. I have a question the Minister might like to return to. I read the other day that the subsidy to private landlords paid in housing benefits has risen by some £10 billion in the last 10 years, which, noble Lords might like to know, is rather more than we transfer to the EU. I would love to have the figures, both for the total amount transferred to private landlords in housing benefits and for the increase in recent years. If we are talking about some £9 billion for the extra social housing account, that is rather smaller than this public subsidy for private landlords, which is clearly now getting out of control.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I will certainly make sure the noble Lord gets a response on those points in the letter.

The point I was making was specifically in relation to rough sleeping, which is a serious issue throughout western Europe. The only country that has seen a reduction of any significance is Finland, and we have been seeking advice from it on what it is doing on this. I will cover that in the letter, with more specifics about the funding from the centre going into helping with what is a very serious problem that affects individuals. We certainly should not forget that.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his welcome of some of the things we have been doing on housing. I acknowledge that we have not kept him happy on all these issues, but I remain very keen to discuss these issues with the noble Lord. I know how expert he is in these areas.

I turn to education. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, spoke on this, particularly in relation to special needs. I understand his commitment to this area and the background and expertise he brings on dyslexia and in other areas. On 16 December, we committed an additional £250 million, which the noble Lord mentioned. That is extra funding on top of the £6 billion already provided for the high-needs budget this year. It is an important area and we take it seriously, and I am pleased we committed that extra money.

I turn to social care, which most noble Lords raised. I am told and can authoritatively confirm that the social care Green Paper is expected soon—noble Lords will not be surprised. After this, we will apply additional pressure to say that we really should be seeing this. It is an important area.

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle—again, very fairly—talked about the bandwidth and of other issues of importance not getting the attention they would normally have while we are dealing with these Brexit issues. I absolutely accept that; it is a point well made.

Many noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Best, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and others—talked about this important area. It certainly is important. Delayed transfers of care are down, and that is part of dealing with this problem. But as we have noted, there is an ageing population. As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, we all have a personal interest in addressing this; we certainly have a community interest, and I welcome the wide recognition of this. When that social care Green Paper is presented to us, we will have the opportunity to go through that and to discuss this in some depth.

Meanwhile, some local authorities are doing innovative things, such as Essex County Council’s Community Agents Essex, Hampshire County Council’s telecare partnership, and the early help partnership of Lambeth Borough Council—one of the many councils that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is connected with. Many innovative things are happening.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, touched on children’s services, as did others. North Lincolnshire Council is doing innovative things in supporting care leavers to secure and sustain their tenancies and making sure that families are safe and supported. I welcome what the noble Earl said about the troubled families programme providing assistance.

Noble Lords also touched on domestic abuse, and they will be aware that there has, again, been some delay in presenting the way forward. But we are keen to progress that. It is something that the Prime Minister herself is very keen on, and I look forward to that happening.

Children’s services and social care services are key areas and have attracted extra finance, but I accept that it would be far better if we did not do this on an ad hoc basis each year but looked at it in the round and had a more developed system. I hope that that can happen once we have the social care Green Paper.

Public health services were touched on. Again, I acknowledge their importance. I note that good things are being done in Newcastle and Kirklees.

On transport and bus services, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and congratulate her on becoming chancellor of Cardiff University, which is extremely good news for all of us. I know that the noble Baroness is well deserving of that role. She talked about her role as a councillor, but she was also in the Cabinet of the National Assembly so will understand the importance of these issues and have experience from Wales. I take particularly seriously what was a very constructive contribution with some concrete ideas of what we could do. I would welcome the ability to pass those on to noble Lords and Ministers in other departments so that they can be discussed, particularly the nexus between the voluntary sector and the established sector, if I can call it that. I know that post buses have been used on occasion in this regard as well. There were some useful suggestions there.

The noble Lord, Lord Bird, focused on public libraries, as did others. I welcome what he said. There has been some innovative work in Warrington with community hubs. I have also seen that elsewhere. Lambeth brings together different community services in the same building, the Oasis Centre near Waterloo. It was a point well made, and it is certainly important. I noted what the noble Lord said about his commitment to Sheffield. Indeed, we spent some time together in Sheffield, although I hasten to add not in his nefarious malfeasance days, but much more recently when we looked at what was being done on homelessness, social services and social enterprise.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester mentioned the Worcestershire Archive and Archaeology Service. If the right reverend Prelate is able to give some details, I can put officials in touch to see if other funding streams could help. I note that there is a co-service with the University of Worcester, which is something to look at for the “Faithful City”.

Waste services are vitally important. Car parking was not touched on. Public parks were mentioned, and as a department we put money into pocket parks, which are a great development—I saw one recently in Redcar, which was great.

I will deal with public toilets very quickly. It is an important issue, so I welcomed what the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and others said. When I got off the train at Saltaire, they were not my first thought: my first thought was to find the Hockneys in the gallery in Saltaire, which is a great place. But I noted what the noble Lord was saying about this issue. In the Autumn Budget, the Government announced 100% business rate relief for stand-alone public toilets, and we are compensating for lost income where there are privately run toilets, which the local authority is effectively subsidising. I will provide full details in the write-round.

I thank noble Lords for what was a wide-ranging and, from the Government’s point of view, useful debate on local government. It is vital to us, we have great people working there and great councillors, many of whom come to this House, so I do not need convincing about that. But I take it seriously, as do the Government. We will forward a copy of the debate to all government departments, and I will write to noble Lords on points that I have not been able to deal with in more detail.

Tower Blocks: Cladding

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat as a Statement the Answer given to an Urgent Question in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for Housing. The Statement is as follows:

“There is nothing more important than making sure that people are safe in their homes. We remain determined to ensure that no community suffers again as the community did so tragically and appallingly at Grenfell Tower.

Within days of the tragedy, a comprehensive building safety programme was put in place to ensure that residents of high-rise blocks of flats are safe and feel safe, now and in the future. Our department has worked with fire and rescue services, local authorities and landlords to identify high-rise buildings with unsafe cladding, and ensured that interim safety measures are in place until they are permanently remediated. These have included measures such as “waking watch”, which has been put in place in all high-rise buildings with ACM cladding, with the oversight of the National Fire Chiefs Council. As of 31 December 2018, interim measures have been in place in all 176 high-rise private residential buildings with unsafe ACM cladding.

Permanent remediation must now, rightly, be our key focus. On 18 December we published our plan to implement the recommendations of Dame Judith Hackitt’s Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety, which will create a stronger regulatory framework and fix these issues for the long term.

We have repeatedly called on private building owners not to pass costs on to leaseholders who find themselves in this position through no fault of their own. We have also warned private building owners that unless they remove and replace unsafe ACM cladding from their high-rise residential buildings now, local authorities have the power to complete the works and recover the costs from the owner. As a result of our interventions, we have secured commitments from the owners of 268 privately owned buildings, while 212 have either started, completed or have commitments in place to remediate. There remain 42 private residential buildings where the owners’ plans are unclear. On this we are maintaining pressure, and we rule out no solutions.

This is obviously a matter of great importance to many colleagues and indeed to many constituents, and that is reflected by the huge amount of activity that is taking place within the department, externally within the industry concerned and, critically, in this House, with an Adjournment Debate tomorrow and appearances by me at Oral Questions and in front of the Select Committee this coming Monday”.

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

My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer given in the other place to this Urgent Question.

I agree with the Minister that there is nothing more important than making sure that people are safe in their own home. The fire at Grenfell Tower happened on 14 June 2017. Today is 22 January 2019. The fact that 19 months later dangerous, even lethal, cladding has not been removed from all buildings is a national scandal. Does the Minister agree that it is time for all the information about individual tower blocks, schools, hospitals and other buildings covered in dangerous cladding to be published so that all residents, staff and users can see what the situation is and question those in authority about what they are doing to make sure that the building they live in or use is safe? It is clear from the latest scandal reported in today’s Daily Mirror that we cannot rely on those who have responsibility for building safety to do the right thing.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his questions and for his welcome of the Statement. I understand, and I shall repeat what was in the Statement: there is nothing more important than making sure that people are safe in their homes. I think we would all agree with that, and that is precisely what I have said today. The measures that are in place ensure that everyone is safe tonight and every night in the buildings where they are. There are two aspects to this. One is making sure that people are safe, and the other is the remediation to make sure that we have a permanent solution to the cladding issue. I have given the figures on that. Even since I last gave figures in this House in answer to the noble Lord on 7 January, the first day after recess, we have made significant progress. He will see that we are closer to ensuring that we complete that process.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Statement. But even after his emollient words, there are still around 800 families living in privately owned blocks who do not yet know what is going to be done to make their homes safe or who will be responsible for paying for that. If, as the Statement says, no solution is being ruled out, does the Minister not agree that the time has come for the Government to commission local authorities to step in and carry out this work without any further delay?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I thank the noble Lord for those points. I agree that we are entering that stage where local authorities need to be considering these measures. I update the House, as I did on 7 January, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State wrote to local authorities in December, indicating that they have the power—and, in extreme circumstances, even a duty—to act here. We have given an assurance that if financial assistance is needed, we will come forward with it. The Secretary of State will be reviewing progress, as officials do every week to ensure that progress is being made. As I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, we have made progress, even since 7 January. Do we need to do more? We do, but officials are pressing forward, as is the Secretary of State.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

My Lords, the Government should be commended for the speed with which they have put extra resources into the social sector to make sure that money has not been a barrier to getting the cladding removed. The time must now have come for financial assistance to be given to those buildings that are in the private sector. However, I do not believe for one minute that the money should then be written off for the taxpayer. Surely the Government must pursue the people responsible for the inappropriate materials—not just the cladding, but the inappropriate insulation, where it has been used. Every effort should be made to recover that money for the taxpayer, but the current leaseholders should not be the ones having to face that dilemma every night.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, as ever, I thank my noble friend for a timely and helpful intervention. While his question related specifically to private residential buildings, I do not want to miss the opportunity of saying that in the public arena and the social sector, we have made £400 million available for remedial activity. I agree with what he says; that is part of the process the Secretary of State is engaged in. We are very aware that we need to complete this process. We want to do it with the assurance that leaseholders will not pick up the bill. That would be morally unacceptable, as we have indicated. I pay tribute to the many private companies that have come forward to say that they will sustain the financial cost of this position. We need to encourage, cajole and ensure that others do the same.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I refer to my local government interests, recorded in the register. Secondly, I query the arithmetic which says that of 268 privately owned buildings, 212 have been started or completed, and 42 remain. Should that not be 56? If not, what happened to the other 14? More seriously, the Statement avers that local authorities have the power to complete the works and recover the costs from the owner. If they are unable to recover the costs from the owner, will the Government fund the work?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I thank the noble Lord for the points he has raised; I too questioned the mathematics. I will write to the noble Lord to confirm the position, but I think the other 14 are made up of hotels and other types of buildings that are not private residential buildings.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I always admire the noble Lord’s great assiduity. With regard to the other point the noble Lord made about picking up the bill, we have ruled nothing out. I agree with my noble friend Lord Porter that we are seeking to ensure that the cost of this is picked up by the owners, not the leaseholders. That is the position we are in and the position that the Secretary of State is carrying forward. As I have said, officials monitor progress in this area on a weekly basis.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I remind the House of my entry in the register of interests. In repeating the Answer to this Urgent Question, the Minister referred to the waking watch that has been put in place in all high-rise buildings with ACM cladding. In the case of social housing tower blocks, will he confirm that the significant cost over many months will be paid by the owners and not loaded on to the tenants’ rents?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I understand that that is the position but if I am wrong, I will write to the noble Lord. The most important thing, as I say, is that the Government are determined that the safety of individuals comes first. As he knows, we have committed the £400 million to that, of which I think only £248 million has been deployed. There therefore remains a significant amount of money that will help in this process.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I commend my noble friend the Minister for keeping us well informed on the wide-ranging progress on Grenfell. Has there been a clear conclusion as to the original cause of the fire, and are there any implications for the safety of electrical and other household goods?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much. The position on possible criminal charges remains outstanding, so I must be careful what I say in that regard. I do not think the cause has been established, as it were, by a court of law. My noble friend is right that there are wider considerations here, and they will certainly inform the Hackitt review on safety requirements, in which we are engaged. It is of course not just on buildings that Dame Judith has reported. We have a very wide-ranging response to the safety considerations, which will inform our process in many other areas as well.

[Lord Cotter (LD)]

My Lords, I want to make a general comment to the Government. Coming from a plastics manufacturing background, I was staggered to read in the newspapers that weekend that plastics were used to encase buildings. I say to the Minister: beware of experts. Based on my plastics manufacturing experience, I would have been very concerned by that. Please can the Government check on these experts?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

Good advice, my Lords, and we will certainly do so.

[Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)]

My Lords, over the years the fire brigade has been a key factor in planning. That has changed dramatically. To what degree has the fire service been involved in looking at not just cladding but electrics—mentioned earlier—and escape methods? Can the law be changed in such a way that the fire brigade will always be brought in at the early stages of planning, when life was a safer bet?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend’s question, which enables me to pay tribute to the public services for the great work they have done in this regard, particularly the fire brigade. It is central to the policy we are putting in place and will inform the process. I know it is involved in consultation on document B, regarding the safety of buildings, which I think remains open until 1 March. I am sure that the fire service will take part in that consultation. We have been in touch overnight about matters that have arisen and have its assurance that the building in Manchester, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is entirely safe and that the process is going forward to ensure that the cladding is removed.

Parking (Code of Practice) Bill

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 18th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate—a very consensual debate, I am pleased to say. I will try to deal with the points that have been raised. This debate on Second Reading has been wide-ranging in many ways. It has been full of important content and some very interesting and important points have been made. In so far as I cannot deal in detail with any of the issues which have been raised, I will make sure that noble Lords get a detailed response. I will write to noble Lords and place a copy of that letter in the Library.

I want to thank very sincerely my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral for his hard work in promoting this Bill. It is a matter for which the whole House is most grateful. I also thank my right honourable friend the Member for East Yorkshire, Sir Greg Knight, for introducing this Bill in the other place. It is pleasing, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has just said, that in these times of discord to have before us something on which we are so totally in agreement and have reasonable concerns. This is the Lords at its best, just as it was on the Tenant Fees Bill earlier this week.

My noble friend Lord Hunt has shown considerable determination in ensuring that this comes to us and is navigated successfully. I very much endorse the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has just made on the need for no amendments to this Bill. I will endeavour to deal with some of the issues that have come up on council car parking and so on, but that is without this Bill. I want noble Lords, if they would, to remain focused on this issue.

My noble friend Lord Hunt gave us an effective overview of the Bill and why it is needed—for consistency and clarity. There has been an increase in private parking tickets. I endorse the point that many noble Lords have made that there are many ethical operators which are operating quite appropriately and where there is no concern. But there are others. We all have our horror stories; I too have suffered from a cliff-edge car parking charge—as my noble friend Lord Lucas, mentioned—so there are concerns. We all have our examples or—in the case of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill—our close relatives’ examples to consider and quote.

This is in essence a very simple Bill. It facilitates bringing in a code of practice for private operators to ensure we have consistency, clarity and a proper appeals system. I will nail this at the outset, but will probably come back to it as I go through my speech: there will be a code of practice with an advisory committee drawn from people with expertise in this area. That code of practice will be consulted on and there will then be appropriate parliamentary procedures on the detail.

On the point made by my noble friend Lord Lucas about a meeting, I am happy to facilitate that—hopefully along with Sir Greg and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral—to talk about some of these aspects and provide reassurance. The important point is to provide the focus to ensure that this measure, which is simple and straightforward and should command our support, goes through unamended.

The code of practice will deal with matters such as appeals to ensure that there is clarity and consistency; that is important. It seems appropriate—this is subject to the consultation exercise—that it mirrors appeals procedure elsewhere. I am sure that is at the forefront of people’s minds. On notices and the points made about signage, that should reflect best practice and the same process as in local authority car parks and on Network Rail land—where there is a slightly separate regime with slightly different considerations, but it very much mirrors what we have here.

I am sure fines would be considered in the code of practice, particularly in those cliff-edge cases. You see the sign telling you how long you can park for, then if you overstay by a short amount you are very often subject to some horrific charge and the ransom types of situation that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to. My department has been made aware recently of somebody accidentally mistyping their registration number into a parking system and for the sake of a 50p ticket receiving a £45 charge. This is unacceptable and the sort of thing that would be dealt with.

The noble Baroness and others raised the issue of those that are unlicensed and do not receive the appropriate laying-on of hands as a registered provider. They will not have access to the DVLA data, so will not be able to enforce the charges at all or to operate successfully. I am sure the code of practice will reflect this, but clearly the sanctions would not necessarily go for denial of access to the DVLA data straightaway if it is a very minor breach, but that would be appropriate in some situations. It could be the case that it would be like endorsing a licence.

Signage will be dealt with. Noble Lords have raised the issue of contractual signage before you actually go into the car park. It is a basic principle of contract law that you can only be subject to terms known to you and agreed by you, either expressly or implicitly, at the time the contract is concluded. I will look at that, but I am sure it will be borne in mind by those putting together the code of practice. After the contract is concluded, you cannot then seek unilaterally to put in extra terms, as per the case of Olley v Marlborough Court. If I may, I will cover that in more detail in the letter.

My noble friend Lord Goschen referred to county court judgments. There is certainly an issue there that we want to take care of. There have been instances of people having notices sent to their old addresses when they have made known their present address, and such cases should also be covered.

I have covered the issues of unlicensed operators and fine levels, and the use of debt collectors will no doubt be covered in the code.

I shall deal now with one or two of the issues that have been raised. My noble friend Lord Hunt referred to the fact that he first entered this arena through passenger vehicles legislation—the Minibus Act 1977. It says much for the contribution he has made to public life that he is still firing on all cylinders and helping us with these issues. I put on record my thanks and the House’s thanks for that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to the local pub test in Watford. I will not ask how she is aware of what is being talked about in the local pubs but we all recognise that unfair car park charges fire people up, and we all have our horror stories to tell about them and I thank her for her contribution and support. She referred to the synergy with local authorities. Many people would suggest that local authorities often make hefty charges but I will deal with that issue in separate correspondence with her. I agree that sometimes people are unfair in the abuse and attacks they direct at people who are responsible for enforcing the rules, a point also made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Goschen for his comments on this focused legislation. As he said, it seeks to deal with legalised unfairness. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley for his contribution and his broader discussion of car parking. We recognise some of the issues he raised, particularly about the need for compatibility. He said that many companies behave perfectly properly and ethically. They have nothing to fear. We want to make good operators the norm, the universal situation.

My noble friend Lord Kirkhope also goes back some way on this issue of parking and I thank him for his expert knowledge and for his support of the need to move forward with this legislation. I also thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for recognising some of the challenges. He referred to the cliff-edge operators. I have been a victim and note that it is very unfair on people.

All we are seeking is clarity, consistency, transparency and fairness. This is a process measure rather than a substance; it is to make sure that people are dealt with fairly.

In particular I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for, as always, putting his finger on what needs to happen here—which is support from around the House to ensure that this sensible legislation, which has universal support in the Lords, goes forward without amendment. In the meantime, I am happy to write to noble Lords on some of the issues that have been raised and, indeed, to facilitate a meeting if that is felt appropriate. With that, I again thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for bringing forward this legislation.