Rough Sleeping

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I point to the commitment through an entire Parliament of building 6,000 new homes for rough sleepers, which is backed by over £400 million of funding. We hope to see the reductions that we have seen on the streets of London, which were in line with the national reduction of 37%, continue.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

On the issue of Covid vaccination policy for rough sleepers, is it not true that they are not treated nationally as a priority group for vaccination and that we have a postcode lottery in operation? Some areas treat them as a priority, others do not, yet they are a particularly vulnerable and difficult group. What action are the Government taking to organise a national framework for rough sleeper priority vaccination? I was concerned when I heard the Minister say, “When it is their turn in the queue”—they should be at the very front of the queue.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, the JCVI has set the overall framework for vaccination, and there is, by definition, a queue in terms of relative vulnerability and when people are called to be vaccinated. Of course, as part of that it is important that rough sleepers are registered with their GP. Therefore, we have been working closely with local authorities—backed up by £10 million of funding—to ensure that rough sleepers are registered with GPs so that they get the vaccination when it is offered.

Building Safety

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for raising this significant issue. We are looking at how we can increase the supply of the professionals needed to carry out those EWS1 assessments, and we have provided £700,000 worth of funding to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and that is looking to upskill around 2,000 building surveyors to be in a position to do that after about a month’s training. As well as increasing the supply, we are working closely with RICS and other parties to narrow the scope of when EWS1 is required. You should not need to have an assessment of an external wall system in buildings under 11 metres. There is less latitude in buildings above 18 metres, and a number of buildings between 11 metres and 18 metres will also not require an EWS1. It is only in the event that they are covered with some kind of external cladding system to a great degree—let us say, more than 25%.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

Why do the Government not require every local authority to publish the addresses of all buildings falling under cladding fire risk categories? Is the FOI response from the DCLG of 12 March last year refusing such information still valid where it spuriously states that

“disclosing it would be likely to endanger the safety of individuals”

and

“could enable someone to identify particular buildings”,

usable by “those with malicious intent”? That could apply to any inflammable building, a chalet or indeed any temporary building.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, it is sensible to be very careful about the dissemination of information about the precise locations of buildings with flammable material. We need to recognise that there are potentially people out there with malicious intent. It is right and proper that we keep information that would enable people to identify those buildings confidential as far as possible.

Mobile Homes (Requirement for Manager of Site to be Fit and Proper Person) (England) Regulations 2020

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, having been in dispute with the powers that be over the peremptory truncation of this debate, I shall simply place on record the comments of Ros Pritchard, who heads the British Holiday & Home Parks Association, the lead trade body. She wrote:

“We are concerned that the fit-and-proper scheme as proposed will not meet its objective as a deterrent to the worst site owners. We feel that the bureaucratic system will give official fit-and-proper endorsement to park owners already denounced as rogues. We provided evidence to the Government about fit-and-proper regimes introduced in Wales which led to not one application being refused under a tick-box approach. Sadly, this system has given an endorsement to some of the very park owners already denounced as rogues. We also provided evidence showing how powers provided to local authorities under the Mobile Homes Act 2013 were simply not used or used ineffectively. Councils have neither resources nor expertise to implement these essential powers. Their legal departments feel forced to adopt a cautious approach to mobile homes regulations. When faced with applications by rogue park owners with expert legal teams, they feel obliged to grant fit-and-proper endorsement to avoid expensive legal challenge. Where one authority approves, others who refuse will become more vulnerable to the legal challenges, thereby discouraging even more authorities from effective action. These regulations only require the manager to meet criteria about background. With the legal structure of the business easily arranged by rogue operators, many councils will lack both resources and expertise to question business practices. He who pays the piper will call the tune, despite the fit-and-proper status of appointed managers. Finally, why impose on local authorities a regime which unnecessarily only replicates the role of individual officers? Sadly, the only people that benefit on this system will be lawyers dealing with appeals following inconsistent decisions and not vulnerable homeowners who deserve the protection of effective licensing systems. We need government to ensure consistency, resource and expertise in tackling rogue park operators. These regs are not enough.”


That note from Ros, edited by me, deserves a full response from Ministers: if not today, then I hope they will put it in writing.