Building Safety Bill

Lord Greenhalgh Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Tuesday 29th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, turning first to Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, we agree that longer-term protections for residents’ safety are absolutely critical. His amendment also raises the importance of how we manage longer-term protections relating to fire safety.

Look at the government cuts to the fire service. Between 2010 and 2016, the Government cut central funding to fire and rescue services by 28% in real terms. In 2020, that was followed by a further cut of 15%. If the Government are really serious about tackling fire safety—there is a lot of good stuff in this Bill—they need to look at reversing those cuts to our fire safety organisations to make sure that they have the proper support they need to do the job that needs to be done.

Turning to Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, I assure him that, in principle, we support what he is trying to achieve. The issues that he raises are important. Health and well-being need to be considered in a lot of our legislation and we too often overlook it. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, introduced his Amendment 7 very ably, as he always does, and we certainly support in principle what he is trying to achieve with it. We have every sympathy with many of his practical suggestions for what could be done to improve things in this area.

Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, which he just clearly introduced, is particularly important given the areas that it includes and to which he referred. We had a long debate in Committee on the importance of the safety of staircases and making sure that the minimum standards are properly applied. We heard from many noble Lords about the RoSPA campaign and the number of people who die falling down staircases. This is an opportunity to do something about that.

We also had much debate in Committee on electrical certification and the importance of the safety of electricity systems. It is important that this also includes provision for disabilities. I am aware that the Government have introduced amendments on disabilities, but this is another opportunity to support that.

It is important that we have an amendment that looks at timely intervention—timely action—on safety issues. Grenfell was not the first time in recent years that a fire in a high-rise block of flats resulted in loss of life. In 2013, coroners wrote to Ministers about two separate fires: first, Lakanal House in Camberwell in 2009, in which six people died, and then Shirley Towers in Southampton in 2010, in which two firefighters died. The coroner’s letters included clear points of criticism and recommendations, which were not acted on. These also included retrofitting sprinklers into high-rise social housing blocks. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, includes the importance of sprinklers. The Lakanal House fire involved high-pressure laminate cladding, but that was not ordered to be removed from buildings until 2019—between 2009 and 2019 is 10 years.

It is important that when coroners, for example, or anyone who understands the safety of buildings writes to Ministers about genuine and serious concerns with actions that need to be taken, these are acted on in a timely way. That is why we strongly support Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell and, if he decides to divide the House on it, we will support him.

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

My Lords, I thought that it would be helpful to reflect on why the Bill is before us today. It is entirely driven by the Grenfell fire tragedy, which took place on 14 June 2017 and resulted in the largest loss of life in a residential fire since the Second World War. It was also the deadliest structural fire in the United Kingdom since Piper Alpha in 1988. As the Minister who has taken on responsibility for both building safety and fire, as Building Safety Minister in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Fire Minister in the Home Office, I have reflected on the factors that drove that outcome of such a loss of life. One of those was the corrosive construction industry culture that uses the sort of Spanish practices mentioned by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. I have had similar experiences in construction—we all have, to a greater or lesser extent. Anyone who has undertaken any kind of construction project knows that the margins are squeezed and the people you value, the tradesmen who are on the job, are often simply not paid. It is shocking.

But there are also two other reasons why that tragedy happened. The first was a regulatory system that is essentially broken, which is why we have the Bill to establish the new building safety regulator, which will then take on responsibility for building regulations. Secondly, there was an inadequate response on the night by fire and rescue services. The Home Secretary will shortly launch, and I will support her, a White Paper on fundamental reform of fire and rescue services.

A considerable amount of money has been invested in fire and rescue services in the past three years while I have been Fire Minister, particularly on fire protection. There had been a loss of skills in those people who were very capable of assessing the built environment in fire and rescue services, so we introduced a £30 million uplift to try to repair that. It is not just about numbers and investment; it is about ensuring that we have the right skilled people in our fire and rescue services. We will continue with further investments on fire protection because we recognise that we have to prevent fires from happening in the first place, but we also have to ensure that we build in a way that is safe both from a fire perspective and in every other sense of the word.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Greenhalgh]

3: Clause 4, page 3, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) The assistance and encouragement that must be provided under subsection (1) includes, in particular, assistance and encouragement with a view to facilitating securing the safety of disabled people in or about higher-risk buildings in relation to building safety risks as regards those buildings.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the regulator must in particular provide assistance and encouragement to relevant persons with a view to facilitating their securing the safety of disabled people in or about higher-risk buildings.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I open this group by introducing a set of amendments that respond to many of the issues raised during previous debates on this Bill. I hope that these changes will be welcomed.

I start with a change that I trust will be welcomed across the House: the removal of the building safety manager. Following feedback from leaseholders and persuasive interventions from noble Lords during Committee, we are scrapping the legal requirement to appoint a building safety manager. I thank noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox of Buckley, Lady Pinnock and Lady Hayman of Ullock, the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for their thoughtful contributions on this important matter.

The Government are clear that accountable persons are responsible for ensuring that their buildings are safe and must not pass on unnecessary costs to leaseholders. We must restore common sense on building safety. There are more effective ways of discharging the responsibilities set out in the Bill than recruiting managers on high salaries for individual buildings.

Accountable persons should reflect on their current management arrangements. If they are confident that they deliver safe outcomes, there is no reason for change. We are committed to driving up standards of safety management and maintenance in high-rise buildings and the competence of those who deliver it. In the first instance, this should be done by supporting the development and upskilling of those already managing buildings. The Government will continue to work towards raising professionalism and standards among property agents and are considering the recommendations of the working group of the noble Lord, Lord Best, on regulating the market. We will continue to work with industry on improving best practice.

I turn now to our amendments to the building safety charge. I have listened to the feedback that we have received from stakeholders and in the other place and I thank my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham for raising this matter during Committee on the Bill. I recognise the concerns raised—that the building safety charge as previously envisaged could have created additional bureaucracy for landlords and leaseholders alike—and I have listened to those concerns.

The amendment simplifies how the costs are managed by removing the building safety charge as a separate charging mechanism. We will do this by changing the modifications that we are making to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Building safety costs will now be accounted for as part of the service charge, as my noble friend recommended. The costs will be clearly identifiable and part of a system that is familiar to both landlords and leaseholders, thereby ensuring transparency of the costs. As the building safety charge will be incorporated into the service charge, the legislative protections against forfeiture will already be in place, so I am removing the amendments related to forfeiture that were laid in the other place.

I move on to how we can strengthen the voice of disabled residents. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for tabling amendments in Committee to highlight this important matter. The Government and the Health and Safety Executive are committed to providing residents with diverse backgrounds and lived experiences—including, in particular, disabled residents—with a strong voice in the new regulatory system. We have therefore brought forward amendments to ensure that the building safety regulator will have to pay particular attention to the safety of disabled people in high-rise residential buildings and engage with them.

Amendment 3 ensures that the building safety regulator must particularly focus on the safety of disabled persons when undertaking its broad Clause 4 functions around safety in higher-risk buildings. Amendments 5 and 6 are consequential amendments. Amendment 9 provides that the building safety regulator must take all reasonable steps to ensure that its residents panel contains representation from individual disabled residents of high-rise residential buildings or groups that represent or support disabled residents. Groups may be represented corporately or by an individual member expected to be sponsored by the organisation. Amendment 12 requires the building safety regulator to report publicly about its engagement with disabled residents of high-rise residential buildings in its wider annual statement on resident engagement. Amendment 14 defines “disabled”, using the widely used definition from the Equality Act 2010.

I thank those noble Lords who made important points about resident engagement in Committee, particularly the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. We have listened carefully to them and are making appropriate amendments to the Bill. The Bill puts residents at the heart of the building safety regime and gives them a clear voice in building safety matters. These amendments take this even further and oblige the principal accountable person to consult residents at prescribed times on the residents’ engagement strategy. This means that residents have the opportunity to comment on the form of the strategy and that those responsible for the safety of the building must listen to such comments.

To avoid any doubt, we have also made it clear that the principal accountable person will be obliged to act in accordance with the strategy. This means that residents and the building safety regulator will be able to hold principal accountable persons to account for their commitments made in the residents’ engagement strategy.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for raising the important matter of resident management companies assuming accountable person duties under the new regime. I have sought to address this issue through collaboration with the noble Lord and will accept his technical, non-government Amendment 86 to my Amendment 85. This will ensure that all resident management companies that are an accountable person have the option to appoint a professional director to support them with their Part 4 building safety duties.

These amendments give a power to the Secretary of State to set out in regulations the detail of provision that will be implied into articles of association of resident management companies to enable this. They imply terms into leases so that costs of the appointment can be recoverable as a service charge under the lease. The amendments apply retrospectively. Through secondary legislation, we will apply leaseholder consultation requirements to protect leaseholders from paying unnecessarily large sums as a result of appointing a professional director and ensure that, where professional directors are appointed, they can also be easily removed when required.

Amendment 263 provides that, where a paid professional director is appointed to support building safety, all unpaid directors of the resident management company will be relieved of their personal criminal liability under Part 4. Resident management companies will continue to be liable for any contraventions that may occur, maintaining the principles embodied throughout the Bill of clear responsibilities and accountability. All the elements of this amendment enable resident management companies to remain in control and responsible for their buildings, while enabling them to obtain the professional support that they may need to meet the duties of our new building safety regime.

I am grateful to noble Lords and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for their careful scrutiny of the delegated power in Clause 12. Noble Lords will be aware that we have responded to the committee’s report in detail. The provision in Clause 12 to repeal statutory committees was included in the Bill on the expert advice of the Health and Safety Executive that this power is needed to enable the committee structure to adapt and improve over time. I understand that the House has concerns that this power might be used by Ministers for other reasons.

I am grateful to the chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee in another place for suggesting a potential safeguard, which the Government propose to accept, through Amendments 10 and 11. These amendments ensure that the power to repeal provision for a statutory committee may be used only following a proposal by the building safety regulator. A statutory committee could not be repealed merely on the initiative of Ministers. Proposals for regulations would come to Ministers only after the regulator had consulted on them and regulations under this clause would continue to be subject to the affirmative procedure.

I hope that the House will welcome these changes and additional safeguards and that it will support these amendments.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for his introduction to a large number of government amendments. Like other noble Lords, I think it is really important that the Government listened to a lot of our debate in Committee and have brought forward these amendments, as well as others that we will discuss later, in response. It is good that we are making such excellent progress in some areas. I also thank the officials in the department, who have been incredibly supportive and helpful in spending time with me to help me understand the huge number of amendments we had to consider at quite short notice; I very much appreciate that work.

However, as the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said, there are still a few areas where people feel there is a bit more to be done; they are addressed by the amendments we have been looking at. I start with the three amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I was pleased to add my name to them, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. There was a lot of discussion in Committee about the need for disabled people to be more supported. I am pleased that the Government brought in amendments to strengthen the voice of disabled residents; that is extremely important.

Starting with Amendment 13, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned that 41% of the disabled people at Grenfell Tower were killed in the disaster, which is an appalling figure. Anything that can be done to ensure that something like that does not happen again in a fire is terribly important.

The noble Baroness also talked about the Equality Act on her Amendment 20. It is really important that we consider how building safety can affect different groups listed with protected characteristics under that Act. This could also include pregnant people, who may need more support in getting out of a building. As a protected characteristic, it is important that that is taken into account, as someone who is very elderly and vulnerable should be.

I am pleased that the Minister has offered the noble Baroness a meeting on her Amendment 35, on personal emergency evacuation plans, because this is really important. I was quite concerned that none of the Grenfell Tower residents had been offered a personal emergency evacuation plan. Again, we need to ensure that in future these things are better managed, so I thank the noble Lord for his time on that.

I turn to the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for introducing these amendments and look forward to his first sermon in the not-too-distant future, we hope. Again, these two important amendments draw attention to areas that need to be looked at further. Government Amendments 37, 38 and 41 to 45 look specifically at tenants’ associations and principal accountable persons. This was also much discussed in Committee, where it needed further work. I would like to talk a bit about the resident tenants’ associations because, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, they need to be more widely promoted. This is a really important part of managing safety going forward.

Recognised tenants’ associations give owners of leasehold flats important rights. To become recognised, an association must have agreement from more than 50% of qualifying leaseholders. They then have the right to request information from the freeholder of their block, such as about the service charge account, which again was discussed a great deal in Committee. It is really important that resident tenants’ associations are properly recognised and more widely promoted. Again, when looking at consultation, they are a vital part of understanding better what residents’ needs and concerns are.

I turn briefly to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. Her Amendment 36 raises the important issue that leaseholders need value for money. On her other amendments regarding entering buildings, it is important that tenants are properly protected in this way. Only when something essential is happening safety-wise can flats be entered, and it is really important to say that. I also welcome the fact that the government amendments remove the building safety manager. As the noble Baroness said, it was important that the Government listened to her clearly laid out concerns in Committee.

Along with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, we very much welcome the amendments to the building safety charge, and the fact that the Government have accepted the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, which will make a very sensible and practical change going forward, as he said. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I start with Amendments 13, 20 and 35, which relate to disability discrimination. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for tabling these amendments, but I am afraid the Government will not be able to accept them. However, we were all struck by the statistic that more than 40% of the disabled residents of Grenfell Tower died in that tragedy, and the Government are committed to supporting the fire safety of the vulnerable. We are particularly aware of the need to improve the safety of those with mobility concerns. As the noble Baroness mentioned, I have committed to meet with her and I have met with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on a number of occasions.

As noble Lords are aware, we ran a consultation on personal emergency evacuation plans last year. This highlighted the substantial difficulties in mandating PEEPs in high-rise residential buildings, especially around practicality, proportionality and safety. I shared some of our thinking, admittedly quite late before this debate, with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, because it is important to recognise that this thorny policy issue requires a considerable amount of work and collaboration with the fire and rescue service.

We will publish the Government’s response as soon as possible and explain these concerns in more detail. Our response will include a commitment to undertake a new consultation on this proposal for emergency evacuation and information-sharing—an EEIS. One of the things we learned about from the Grenfell Tower tragedy is the ability to locate people who are vulnerable and have mobility concerns, so that we can provide them with the support they need to safely evacuate those buildings where the “stay put” policy has been suspended. It is clear that information is critical. As are visits from the fire and rescue service to help advise them on how to make their properties that much safer. This is fundamental to ensure that we can provide the support that disabled residents require, so this EEIS proposal will give the fire and rescue service the information it needs on where people are located within higher-risk buildings that have a simultaneous evacuation strategy in place.

I completely agree—there is absolute unanimity on this—that accountable people must take all the appropriate steps to ensure that they comply with the law, not least in respect to protected characteristics. However, it is not clear what this amendment will achieve beyond the requirements that already appear in the Equality Act, which I will describe shortly.

Furthermore, an accountable person’s duty to manage building safety risks under the Bill extends to limiting their impact, should an incident involving the relevant building safety risks occur. This means accountable persons are already required by the Bill to consider how people might evacuate safely, if relevant to the building safety risk in question.

Amendment 13 would require the building safety regulator, in its statements of its engagement with residents, to outline the extent to which accountable persons have engaged with residents in relation to a duty to avoid disability discrimination by virtue of Amendment 35.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that disabled residents must be listened to and have their needs met. That is why we have tabled Amendments 3, 9 and 12, which require the building safety regulator to pay particular attention to the safety of disabled people in high-rise residential buildings. This includes seeking out disabled representation on its residents’ panel and publicly reporting on its engagement with the disabled residents of high-rise residential buildings. In relation to principal accountable persons’ proper engagement with disabled residents, it is clear that their responsibility to measure and review the effectiveness of their residents’ engagement strategy will apply to all residents, including those with disabilities.

On Amendment 20, activities relating to the exercise of a public function in the provision or management of public housing in relation to building safety will, depending on their nature and context, already be covered by specific parts of the Equality Act 2010. They may be within Part 3, “Services and public functions”, or Part 4, “Premises”. In other words, protection from discrimination, harassment and victimisation already exists for the users and residents of premises, irrespective of whether they are in public or private sectors, and subject to certain exceptions. A reasonable adjustments duty also arises in this field of activity.

Which part of the 2010 Act provides this protection will be case specific. The preliminary text of Part 3 provides that, if an act of discrimination, harassment or victimisation is made unlawful by other parts of the Act, including Part 4, which relates to premises, those provisions rather than those covering services and public functions apply. The depth or reach of protection between these two parts is broadly equivalent. Therefore, our conclusion is that Amendment 20 is unnecessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

That amendment has been degrouped; we are coming to it later, where I have a similar amendment. The Minister might want to wait until then.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I am addressing my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s amendment; we will come specifically to group 6 from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in due course.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

It is just that it has been degrouped to be with my amendment on the review. I was just explaining.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I am referring to Amendment 264A tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, not the amendment of the noble Baroness. If it has been degrouped, I apologise; my speaking notes have not kept pace with the regroupings of particular amendments, which have been prolific and frequent until the very last minute. In any case, we are not accepting my noble friend’s amendment; we may turn to it once again, in which case I will not repeat myself.

I turn to Amendment 36 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, which would require the accountable person to take all reasonable steps to achieve best financial value. We believe these protections are already in place. The Bill requires all accountable persons to take reasonable steps to manage building safety risks.

As part of this duty, accountable persons will be required to act in accordance with principles that will be prescribed in regulations. We have published these in draft to provide an indication of our intent. They include a requirement that, where reasonable to do so, accountable persons consider the impacts on residents within the higher-risk building and carry out engagement with them. There will be a full consultation on these regulations in due course.

Accountable persons need to be clear about the charges they pass on. This Government believe very strongly that service charges should show this. The law is already clear that service charges must be reasonable. Under the residents’ engagement strategy, residents will be able to participate in building safety decisions and can raise cost as an issue.

I turn to Amendments 46 and 47 on powers of entry, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. The Government recognise the importance of safeguarding against the misuse of requests for access to residents’ premises by accountable persons. I reassure her that those intentions have already been met in the Bill.

Amendment 46 aims explicitly to require that a request for access must be essential to achieve a building safety purpose. I assure the noble Baroness that Clause 101 already does this. To be an enforceable access request under the existing drafting, it must be made for the purpose of fulfilling the accountable person’s building safety duties or establishing whether a resident has breached their building safety duties. Therefore, by its nature, the request will be essential to achieving a building safety purpose.

It is not clear how Amendment 46 would change the current requirement that an access request must be necessary for one of the purposes I just mentioned. It is important that we do not set the bar so high as to make access requests difficult to implement where necessary; accountable persons have important building safety responsibilities and must have the appropriate tools available to ensure the safety of all residents.

Amendment 47 would require that, when making an order to allow access to a resident’s premises, the county court must be satisfied that access is essential to achieve the requested purpose. I reassure the noble Baroness that the county court is already required to be satisfied that the granting of an order must be necessary, under Clause 101(4), and will consider what is appropriate when considering a request. Therefore, the intended effect of the amendment has already been met.

I turn to Amendments 39 and 40 tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, but so ably delivered by my noble friend Lord Blencathra, on residents’ engagement. I thank my noble friend for addressing these amendments, but unfortunately the Government cannot accept them. Amendment 39 would oblige principal accountable persons to change the residents’ engagement strategy to reflect representations made by residents. The amendment is too restrictive, as there will be a number of factors that principal accountable persons must consider when updating the strategy.

The views of residents must also be weighed against other factors, such as the principal accountable person’s ability to deliver what residents want and the cost of doing so, which would of course be passed on to residents. It is right that we allow principal accountable persons the flexibility to determine how best to ensure the views of residents are represented and balanced alongside other building safety considerations.

In any case, government Amendment 38 already requires meaningful consultation with residents. If the principal accountable person fails to take residents’ representations into account when updating the strategy, residents will be able to raise a complaint, and escalate if needed to the building safety regulator.

Amendment 40 would oblige principal accountable persons to establish a tenants’ association where a majority of residents participating in the strategy consultation are in favour of one being established. The Government agree that tenants’ associations can be and are powerful tools for resident representation. However, they work best when established by residents rather than when mandated by landlords or managing agents. Residents already have the right to establish a tenants’ association under existing legislation and any proposed change to the arrangements for establishment of tenants’ associations is not a building safety matter.

I will touch finally on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. I thank him for his constructive engagement with me over the last week, and confirm, as I said in my opening speech to this group, that I am happy to accept his amendment.

I think that we have covered most matters raised during the debate. I am really sorry to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that my speaking notes did not keep up with the groupings. She is the Oliver Twist of the House—I have noticed that she wins, and then asks for more. I thank all noble Lords who participated in the debate. I hope that, with the explanations and reassurances that I have given, they will be content not to press their amendments and to support the government amendments.

Amendment 3 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Greenhalgh]

4: Clause 4, page 3, line 9, leave out “or building safety managers”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments in the name of the Minister leaving out Clauses 82 to 86 (which remove provision about building safety managers).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Greenhalgh]

9: Clause 11, page 5, line 18, at end insert—
“(2A) The regulator must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the committee includes—(a) one or more residents of a higher-risk building who are disabled,(b) a body that represents, supports or promotes the interests of any description of disabled people that includes residents of higher-risk buildings, or(c) a member of a body within paragraph (b).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the regulator must take all reasonable steps to ensure that a residents’ panel includes one or more disabled residents or a body that represents, supports or promotes the interests of disabled residents of higher-risk buildings.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Greenhalgh]

10: Clause 12, page 6, line 15, at end insert—
“(1A) But regulations repealing section 9, 10 or 11 may be made only if the regulator has made a proposal to the Secretary of State for the making of such regulations (as to which see section 7(2)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the power to repeal a Clause about committees may be exercised only pursuant to a proposal by the regulator.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Greenhalgh]

12: Clause 20, page 10, line 36, at end insert—
“(1A) A statement under subsection (1) must, in particular, include information about the regulator’s engagement with residents of higher-risk buildings who are disabled.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that a statement of the regulator’s engagement with residents etc must include information about the regulator’s engagement with disabled residents.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Greenhalgh]

14: Clause 29, page 17, line 6, at end insert—
““disabled”: a person is disabled if the person has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on the person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines “disabled” for the purposes of Part 2.

Code of Practice for Private Parking

Lord Greenhalgh Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the Private Parking Code of Practice has been introduced in an effort to regulate the industry and respond to the evolving threat of rogue operators. This is an objective that I am sure the whole House will support, and I am pleased that steps such as these are being introduced to this end. I am concerned that the Government are, unfortunately, not going far enough. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right to raise his concerns in today’s debate.

The Minister will be aware that the Government have been obligated to introduce the code as a result of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019. There is certainly some merit in the code that the Government have brought forward. I am particularly pleased that the code caps the amounts that should be charged for various parking charges. In practice, this will cut most fines at £50 and others at £100. However, it is unclear whether there are loopholes that could be exploited by this limit. There have been recent press reports of individuals receiving multiple separate fines in one day, resulting in a total fine of many thousands of pounds. Can the Minister assure the House that this would not be possible under the new code?

I am also pleased that a new process will be developed that will allow drivers to appeal fines. Although I appreciate that this service will be independent, what mechanisms will Parliament have to evaluate its operation? The code is right to bring forward the possibility of banning rogue companies that act outside the rules. Will the Minister commit to transparency over this? Will he arrange for the department to publicise those who have been banned?

On the issue of clear signage and markings, while this is also welcome, I would appreciate it if the Minister would explain what steps have been taken to ensure that they are accessible for people with disabilities.

Ministers have previously stated that the code was developed in close consultation with private parking experts including consumer and industry groups. Can the Minister elaborate on the findings of that consultation, and whether this will feed into further regulations?

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, talked about the complexities of this area. I thought he talked well about indicators and, in particular, the volume of CCJs and statistical analysis of what has been happening. We welcome the opportunity to debate the code today. I hope the Minister will be able to provide assurances on the issues raised by this House. Regulations to confront rogue parking operators are long overdue, but the Government must go further to hold them to account.

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his interest in the Private Parking Code of Practice and for securing this important, valuable and informative debate. I hope noble Lords will agree that the code of practice is a significant step towards creating a fair system for motorists, ending the poor practices and behaviour that have been widespread within the private parking industry for far too long, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Khan. It will bring greater consistency and improve standards across Britain, boosting our high streets and town centres by making it easier for people to park without receiving unwarranted charges.

Noble Lords may be aware that the code is part of a wider regulatory framework that we are also putting into place to ensure a fair system for motorists. This includes a certification scheme, to which parking trade associations must adhere if their members wish to request access to DVLA data. It also includes the establishment of a scrutiny and oversight board to monitor the new system and the creation of a single, independent appeals service for motorists to turn to if they are unhappy with the handling of an appeal by an operator.

The certification scheme, based on the code, will outline how the requirements of the code should be measured, tested and assessed. It will provide an opportunity to clarify anything that proves to be unclear or confusing in the code itself for implementation by parking operators. The Government intend to finalise the scheme this spring. We will also appoint the scrutiny and oversight board this spring to oversee the operation of the new system and monitor its effectiveness. The board will advise the Government on the operation of the code and certification scheme, providing recommendations on whether these need to be updated. We anticipate that the code will be reviewed every two years, once it comes into full force at the end of 2023, and the scheme as required.

The governance of the code will include representatives from the department, the DVLA, industry and consumers. We also expect the new single appeals service to be represented in this governance to improve information and data flows, ensuring that the sector is monitored efficiently. In addition, we are preparing a data strategy and a robust monitoring and evaluation framework for the enforcement of the code. The strategy will provide an outline of relevant data and identify opportunities to maximise the value of that data, reflecting the principles of the National Data Strategy.

My noble friend Lord Lucas has a keen interest in ensuring that we track the data appropriately. I assure him that we will cover the data around the number or volume of parking charges issued by operators. The frequency of that will be determined by the data strategy in due course, but I note my noble friend’s desire to see that on at least a monthly basis. In addition, we will be looking at the number of appeals accepted by operators and the number of appeals brought to the single appeals service. I note that my noble friend also wants us to track the number of county court judgments which come in where appeals are rejected and people are still not paying, which would obviously be much lower.

This will allow us to better understand and manage breaches of the code, identify any issues not adequately covered by it and spot patterns and trends across the sector. At the same time, it will provide motorists and the industry with an insight into how the system is working. The data will be collected by the trade associations and the single appeals service. It will be examined by the scrutiny and oversight board and used to make decisions on the operation of the system and the updates required to the code and the scheme. I hope noble Lords will agree that, altogether, these measures will ensure that the code is effectively implemented and monitored going forward, with the appropriate structures in place for important issues to be identified and resolved without impacting on the service received by motorists.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, raised the issue of providing an impact assessment for the code, which I think is a question of timing. I hope I can reassure her that we do intend to undertake an impact assessment of the changes introduced by the code once the single appeals service has been designed, to ensure that we have all the necessary information to complete the assessments. It is about getting the impact assessment right at the right time. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Khan, who is quite an expert on private parking practice, I note that the code introduces a 10-minute grace period. It also introduces high requirements for signage. On loopholes—a very important point raised by noble Lord—we are working with the industry, including the two trade associations, to ensure that there are no loopholes. The noble Lord asked about a register for banning rogue operators. These will be monitored through the wider regulatory framework, including the scrutiny and oversight board already mentioned.

So, we know that the involvement of the private parking industry in this process is crucial to the success of the code. We look forward to working alongside the industry—as well as consumer and motorist organisations —as we move towards the full implementation of the code and its regulatory framework at the end of 2023. Finally, with the expertise and knowledge of my noble friend Lord Lucas, I am very keen that he does provide his input around getting the data framework and data frequency right. I thank him very much for securing this very important debate.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and to the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley. I feel thoroughly supported around the House and, indeed, I feel supported by my noble friend the Minister in what he has said, for which I thank him very much. I would really like to take up his invitation to have a look at the data strategy and the other work surrounding that at an appropriate time of his choosing. I, therefore, take pleasure in seeking to withdraw my Motion.

Shared Prosperity Fund

Lord Greenhalgh Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent discussions they have had with the First Minister of Wales about the shared prosperity fund.

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

In the UK shared prosperity fund pre-launch guidance, the UK Government stated the ambition to work with the Welsh Government and we remain committed to this. The Secretary of State and First Minister have discussed the UK shared prosperity fund alongside our wider levelling-up agenda. We remain open to further engagement at ministerial and official level.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)]

There is a broken promise to replace EU funds for Wales and it is set to cost the country £1 billion over the next three years, so I ask the UK Government to co-operate fully with the Welsh Government to redress this huge deficit and treat this matter with urgency and the respect that it deserves from one Government to another. Could the Minister bring regular updates to the House on the content and progress of such discussions of the shared prosperity fund and, indeed, any related matters of funding for Wales?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, there is a very clear commitment to match EU funds in Wales through Wales’s share of the £2.6 billion UK shared prosperity fund. We recognise the importance of very close collaboration with all our devolved Administrations, including Wales, and every aspect of my department is working closely with its Welsh counterpart. I even had a letter two days ago from the Climate Change Minister about building safety. We can learn a lot from each other and can continue, at an official and a ministerial level, to work on the guidance on the UK shared prosperity fund.

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

My Lords, programmes backed by the European Social Fund have supported more than 77,000 people in Northern Ireland to overcome obstacles to social inclusion and unemployment. With ESF funding due to end this month and with no funds from the Executive at Stormont, what additional support do the UK Government intend to offer through the shared prosperity fund to ensure that the wonderful work done by local specialists and voluntary organisations with those programmes can continue in Northern Ireland?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

Timing is everything and of course we are just at the point of announcing how we intend to approach the disbursement of funds through the UK shared prosperity fund. At that point, we will be able to give a very full answer to the noble Lord’s question.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, on that very point, I welcome the principle of distributing funds to counties and regions rather than by some spurious competitive bids, but what will be the parameters for deciding on allocations? Will there be a strategic approach? What will be the role and responsibility of the counties and what will be the mechanism for delivering regional co-operation? What will be the function of the Welsh Government in making this happen?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, yet again, it is about looking at the detail that will be contained in the pre-launch guidance publication—which is, as I say, very imminent.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, of course the UK shared prosperity fund is very important, but can my noble friend tell the House what else Her Majesty’s Government are doing to level up Wales?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am always reminded that on all sides of the House we have tremendous support for Wales, including on the Front Bench. My noble friend is right to probe, and in response I can say there is more than £18 billion through the Welsh block grant, £167 million in local growth funding, a share of the £2.6 billion shared prosperity fund, £900 million for Welsh farmers and a £130 million British business bank fund to support Wales’s small businesses. That is considerable investment to ensure that Wales prospers.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

My Lords, we have gone from “not a penny less” to analysis showing that, by 2024, the Welsh budget will be £1 billion worse off, as the noble Baroness has already said. With very little clarity at the moment on plans going forward, is it not now time to respect devolution, restore the missing £1 billion to the Welsh budget and put Welsh decision-making on building stronger local economies back where it belongs, in the hands of Welsh Ministers?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

We are getting some mixed messages from the House. On one hand we have that desire to see that we empower regions and functional economic areas through councils, but we do recognise that it is important to have proper engagement and collaboration with the Welsh Government. Indeed, at official level and also through the Welsh Local Government Association, that continues to happen, as it does at the level of the Secretary of State, who had a meeting, in the levelling up and housing committee, with the Welsh Local Government Association and local authority leaders. I believe that Minister O’Brien also met ministerial counterparts yesterday. So, yes, we must continue to build on collaboration, and I just caution against the idea that we should model into the future and say that there is a gap. We want to make sure that we repair the public finances, post pandemic, so that every part of this great country gets the investment it needs to prosper.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, although I suppose I could thank the Minister for his warm words about Wales, the truth is, as my noble friend Lady Wilcox pointed out, that Wales is being consistently short-changed post Brexit, and we are seeing power grabs as well from Westminster, such as in the Subsidy Control Bill, which has been described as having a “pernicious effect on devolution” by the Senedd committee responsible. Surely the Government should start talking directly and understanding that devolution is going to work only if Whitehall respects it, both in funding terms and in terms of powers—and it is not doing so at the moment.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

That is essentially more of a comment than a question, but there is a real respect for both the Welsh Government and local leaders in Wales. We continue to work very productively, certainly at ministerial level and also through officials. We want to see a strong Wales—I would like to see a stronger Welsh rugby team, frankly, after the result against Italy.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, bids for the shared prosperity fund were supposed to be in by July last year and the money was supposed to have been spent by the end of next week, 31 March. How is that progressing? Also, projects were being developed in the hope that funding would be at a similar level to the European fund, including the port of Holyhead. How is the European funding of projects in Holyhead progressing?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I will write to the noble Lord on that specific point with a very fulsome answer and I will lay a copy in the Library. I think it is fair to say that this is a problem not just for Wales: we need to ensure that we do not have these cliff edges—I used to call it “March madness”—where we rush to spend money. Certainly, we should be looking at ways of accruing expenditure to spend it a sensible way to get real value for money for the taxpayer. So, it is a point well made.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that our local authorities complain not only about the current confusion but about the limited timespan of the new scheme, which makes long-term planning more difficult?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

We recognise that, frankly, we have too many funds and that we have to find ways of bringing those funds together to ensure that processes are around delivery and not around grant farming. That is a direction of travel that my department recognises as something we need to improve on in the forthcoming years—but it takes time.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I am glad to see that one of the objectives of the shared prosperity fund is to “boost pay”. The Minister will know that the workers’ share of GDP in the UK, in the form of wages and salaries, just before the pandemic was 48.7%, compared with 65.1% in 1976. Can he provide four or five examples of how the Government will increase the workers’ share of GDP in order to meet the shared fund objectives?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I like to be tested at the Dispatch Box, but I have been given a blizzard of statistics and an impossible request to give five examples. No, I cannot do that, but I am not sure it is particularly helpful. We recognise the need to see real economic development and a strong Welsh economy because, ultimately, that is what is going to make a difference to people’s lives.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

How will rural areas such as North Yorkshire, the new unitary authority, benefit from the shared prosperity fund?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I am sorry, I did not hear the question. But Yorkshire is a very important place as well.

[Baroness Jolly (LD)]

My Lords, Cornwall was in receipt of considerable EU funding. Can the noble Lord confirm that Cornwall is still in the mix for shared prosperity funding?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

Cornwall is incredibly important—with its own language, even—and we want to make sure that we level up within regions and all parts of the country. We recognise the need to deal with some of the real rural deprivation that exists in Cornwall.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm that Staffordshire and Shropshire are also important?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

Staffordshire and Shropshire are in the plan as well—I can confirm that to noble Lords.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Repeal of EU Restrictions in Devolution Legislation, etc.) Regulations 2022

Lord Greenhalgh Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Greenhalgh]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 25 January be approved.

Relevant document: 30th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 16 March.

Motion agreed.

Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Lord Greenhalgh Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Greenhalgh]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 31 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 16 March.

Motion agreed.

Combined Authorities (Borrowing) Regulations 2022

Lord Greenhalgh Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Greenhalgh]

That that the draft Regulations laid before the House on 31 January be approved.

Relevant document: 30th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 16 March.

Motion agreed.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Repeal of EU Restrictions in Devolution Acts etc.) Regulations 2022

Lord Greenhalgh Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Greenhalgh]

That the Grand Committee do consider the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Repeal of EU Restrictions in Devolution Acts etc.) Regulations 2022.

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before the House on 25 January. Their purpose is to repeal the powers introduced by Section 12 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which provided a regulation-making power to temporarily freeze devolved legislative competence while UK common frameworks were finalised. If approved, the regulations will also remove limitations on devolved legislative and executive competence introduced into the devolution settlements and any cross references to those powers.

The European Union (Withdrawal) Act has an inbuilt duty on Ministers to consider the repeal of Section 12 powers. Those powers are time-limited. In any case, the powers have never been used and, since 31 January this year, can no longer be used. There can now be little reason to retain them. Although the powers have never needed to be used, they provided a useful contingency while the Government and the devolved Governments worked jointly to develop UK common frameworks. The Government and the devolved Governments have successfully worked together on a collaborative basis to develop common frameworks, and the powers have not needed to be used. The frameworks that have jointly been developed now underpin a common approach across the United Kingdom to policy areas previously governed by EU law that are within devolved competence.

If approved and made, the regulations will remove the now redundant powers from the statute book. They will also remove the ongoing statutory obligation on the Government to report to Parliament on the use of these powers. The Government have produced 14 reports since the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 was enacted, with the most recent report published last week.

In addition to keeping the statute book in good order, the regulations mark the progress that this Government have made jointly with the devolved Governments to develop common frameworks. These frameworks are in operation to create a consistent approach across the United Kingdom in a wide range of policy areas. I commend the regulations to the Grand Committee.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

I thank the Minister for the clarity of his presentation. As he has already outlined, this SI removes the powers introduced into the devolution settlements by Section 12 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. These were temporary powers to prevent divergence from existing structures established in the UK by EU law while the UK common frameworks were developed. The Explanatory Memorandum points out that these regulation-making powers are no longer needed, as the Minister has already explained, because of the progress made towards developing the frameworks. It also points out that the power to make such regulations cannot be exercised after 10.59 pm on 31 January 2022. As we are now six weeks past that date, I presume that the powers no longer exist and that this instrument is therefore needed to remove these redundant provisions from the statute book.

The Government make much of the collaborative approach taken towards working with the devolved Administrations, and point out that the powers introduced by Section 12 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act have never needed to be used because of that. My concern is that, by removing the powers from the devolution settlements, we are also removing an ongoing statutory obligation to report to Parliament on the use of the powers and, crucially, report on the implementation of the UK common frameworks.

I am a great admirer of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee and the expertise of its chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and of its members. I hear of its activities through members of the committee. In its report, Common Frameworks: Building a Cooperative Union, the Committee highlighted three problems with the common frameworks. The first was that the frameworks have been developed behind closed doors, with minimal stakeholder engagement or parliamentary scrutiny. The second was the need to clarify the relationship with the Northern Ireland protocol, and the third was the lack of information given to Parliament to enable it to scrutinise the operation of these important governmental agreements, which, it says, remain largely invisible. While doing excellent work, the committee appears almost to be working in limbo, so what progress has been made on the three problems that it identifies? What steps have been taken to present information to Parliament on a regular basis so that Members can better understand and scrutinise the intergovernmental relationship?

As usual, I am particularly interested in the quality of the collaboration between the UK Government and the devolved Governments. In various Bills that have come before this House recently, the UK Government have talked about consultation or collaboration with the devolved Governments, but they in turn have complained about a lack of meaningful consultation, having sight of a Bill only the day before it is presented to the Commons, and being presented with information without being allowed a sensible response time—so much so that the Senedd’s Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, in its legislative consent memorandum to the Elections Bill, made a recommendation that the Welsh Government should include a commentary on the extent of co-operation and engagement with the UK Government in all legislative consent memoranda that are required by virtue of Standing Order 29. This enables the Senedd to scrutinise the level of engagement between the Governments.

I hope that the noble Lord can assure me today that the UK Government have a plan to allow scrutiny of all aspects of the common frameworks process by Members of this House.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have heard, this instrument will remove the Government’s powers to temporarily freeze devolved legislative competence, which were previously introduced while the UK common frameworks were finalised. The intention was that they would be used only in exceptional circumstances. I am pleased that the powers were never used. Since they were always intended to be time limited, they are now being removed.

The Minister said during the debate in the other place that the removal of these powers is

“a reflection of the huge progress that the Government have made with the devolved Governments in developing new common frameworks.”

I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Andrews for her chairing of that committee, at which I spoke a few months ago. In the Commons, Labour’s Front Bench welcomed the removal of these powers, saying that

“these were seen as valuable safeguards at the time to ensure orderly transition, but the moment for that has certainly passed.”—[Official Report, Commons, Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee, 3/3/22; col. 4.]

Like other noble Lords today, I continue to urge the UK Government to work in partnership with the devolved Governments, which of course have their own elected mandates. It is positive to build and strengthen the union, not undermine it.

Picking up on the point from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I was at a meeting earlier today with the Minister for Local Government in the Welsh Government, Rebecca. She noted that the Welsh Government had not heard of the £150 council tax rebate announced by the UK Government; they were getting questions about it but had not been informed. Those niceties would take only a phone call—from Minister to Minister would be good, but so would senior official to senior official. In this day and age of communication, that should not be a problem.

I will ask two questions in conclusion. Can the Minister foresee any future situations in which these powers would be reintroduced? Does he believe that any consequential legislation is needed to fully repeal these powers? Diolch yn fawr.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their attention to these regulations. I think there is great unanimity that we are where we are and that we need to tidy these matters up in the way that noble Lords have outlined. It is quite clear that there is cross-party support for the removal of these regulations.

We have had a short but very helpful debate, with rousing voices from Wales. Under normal circumstances we would probably have heard from my noble friend Lord Caine, who has great experience on Northern Ireland matters; I am the understudy and will try to do my best in that regard. I have certainly learned a great deal from my discussions. In fact, I had tea with the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, to learn more about common frameworks, which I had not really heard of until I became a Minister at the department that has now taken over this responsibility, with the arrival of my right honourable friend Michael Gove as Secretary of State.

I will do my best to answer the questions—they were asked because noble Lords want some answers. To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, there are no plans for these powers to be replaced. They are not being replaced; that is a tick.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, on common frameworks and our approach to them, we are committed to transparency in the frameworks programme and will continue to work with Parliament to inform it of significant developments beyond the point at which Section 12 powers are repealed. The devolved legislatures have also shown an interest in being kept up to date with the common framework developments, and we are working closely together with the devolved Governments on the form that future reporting on frameworks might take—so there is that commitment, and we need to make sure that we deliver against it. I am sure that noble Lords will hold this Government’s feet to the fire in that regard.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, wanted to know about any difference in approach between Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. There is essentially a uniform approach across all devolved Administrations, but I was struck by something that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, said. We need to get devolution right, because we all have a shared interest in a strong union through effective devolution. I know that, working together, we can always have that in mind in ensuring that for the devolved Governments or Administrations—to talk about Northern Ireland in particular—this works alongside the strengthening of our overall union as four nations and one United Kingdom.

I have done my best to address the points raised, and I am happy to talk about them, if I have not done so, outside this forum. For the reasons set out, I commend the regulations to the Grand Committee.

Motion agreed.

Building Safety Bill

Lord Greenhalgh Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Greenhalgh]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clause 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 21, Schedule 2, Clauses 22 to 26, Schedule 3, Clauses 27 to 42, Schedule 4, Clauses 43 to 54, Schedule 5, Clause 55, Schedule 6, Clauses 56 to 106, Schedule 7, Clauses 107 to 115, Schedule 8, Clauses 116 to 124, Schedule 9, Clauses 125 to 138, Schedules 10 and 11, Clauses 139 to 145, Schedule 12, Clauses 146 to 161, Clause 1, Title.

Motion agreed.

Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Lord Greenhalgh Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Greenhalgh]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move the regulations. This statutory instrument was laid before the House on Monday 31 January 2022 under paragraph 12(1) of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It was debated and moved in the Commons Second Delegated Legislation Committee on Tuesday 8 March. Mirroring legislation has been prepared for data registered against properties in Northern Ireland and was considered by the Assembly, also on 8 March. Scotland operates its own energy performance of buildings register and is not covered by this instrument.

This is probably one of the most straightforward statutory instruments that noble Lords will be asked to consider this year. It is almost exactly 12 months ago that I introduced and we last debated a similar measure, and last year the Committee dubbed that SI

“as simple as they come”.—[Official Report, 18/3/21; col. GC 9.]

The instrument relates to the statutory fees that are charged when data is registered for energy performance certificates, display energy certificates and air conditioning inspection reports for properties in England and Wales. Fees are applied to two classes of data registration covering domestic and non-domestic properties. This instrument proposes to reduce fees from £1.64 to £1.50 when data is lodged for domestic premises and from £1.89 to £1.70 for non-domestic premises.

Fees charged for data registrations in England and Wales were last adjusted nearly one year ago. A significant reduction in fees was possible at that time because government had invested in a new, cloud-based digital platform and had moved away from the fixed hardware model, run on concession contracts, that had been in place since 2008. In the last 12 months, contractual costs for building the service have fallen out of the model, which means that we have the opportunity to extend last year’s reductions further.

The new EPB register became operational in September 2020 and has been managed in-house since then. Significantly, it passed the digital service assessment in December 2021 and is the first citizen-facing digital service in my department to be hosted on the GOV.UK platform. It is also one of very few government digital services to publish performance statistics. The register now carries approximately 28 million energy certificates across all types, which includes more than 2 million data lodgements since September 2020, which we are receiving at a rate of around 155,000 each month. Importantly, by managing this cloud-based service in-house, we have delivered efficiencies and reduced the overall burden on public resources.

This instrument builds on the fee reductions we introduced last year. New fee rates set out in this regulation will allow costs of operating the Energy Performance of Buildings Register service to continue to be met. We aim for the register service to be cost neutral, without profiteering, but we do not expect taxpayers to subsidise a loss. Costs of the service, and the fees we propose, have been calculated in line with government policy and tested with stakeholders in the property energy profession.

Officials in my department have engaged with officials from the Treasury, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Welsh Government, and all have agreed that, given uncertainty in the property market, recent movements in interest rates and higher inflation, the modest reduction proposed today represents the most practical way to amend fees and ensure that the register is run on as close to a cost-neutral basis as possible.

The small differentiation between fees for domestic and non-domestic lodgements reflects technical differences between the classes of data, but it is now significantly smaller than historically.

The Committee will recall that the United Kingdom aims to bring greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. Heating and powering buildings currently accounts for 40% of the UK’s total energy usage. We must therefore ensure that buildings are constructed to high standards of energy efficiency.

In December last year, we implemented an uplift to Part L of the building regulations to improve conservation of fuel and power. When it comes into force this summer, new homes and new non-domestic buildings will be expected to deliver 30% and 27% fewer carbon emissions respectively. We are still on track to develop the full technical specification for the future homes strategy and the future building strategy, which we will consult on in 2023.

The Energy Performance of Buildings Register is a key tool in supporting our aspirations for improved energy efficiency. It holds valuable information about the energy performance of buildings. We want homeowners, commercial building owners and occupiers to improve the energy efficiency of their buildings.

Energy certificates improve market information, so that consumers can make informed choices. An energy performance certificate is needed whenever a property is built, sold or let. At a glance, a consumer searching for a new home or for commercial premises can determine how efficient a property might be, while an owner can consider recommendations for how they might improve the energy efficiency of their property.

To conclude, these regulations serve a very specific purpose: to reduce the statutory fees charged when data is registered for domestic and non-domestic energy performance certificates, display energy certificates and air conditioning inspection reports. Over the two classes of fee, reducing domestic data registration fees from £1.64 to £1.50, and non-domestic data registration fees from £1.89 to £1.70, extends the savings that we introduced last year.

Colleagues in Northern Ireland are introducing their own mirroring legislation to ensure coherence between different parts of the United Kingdom that use the same register. This will ensure that fees charged for Northern Ireland data lodgements are in line with those for England and Wales.

I hope colleagues will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I commend them to the Committee.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I warn noble Lords that there is likely to be a series of Divisions in the Chamber quite soon, so prepare to be interrupted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for a short, sharp and focused debate. It is appreciated. The fees have changed again a year later because there is essentially a dividend around an IT project, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said; we do not want to profiteer or make a profit, but the cost of running the service has gone down. That comes in the form of lower prices for consumers and commercial users. I think I mentioned in my speech why there is a slight difference between non-domestic and domestic rates, as noble Lords will see in Hansard.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I understand that there is an energy company obligation between 2022 and 2026, estimated at £1 billion per year, to enable poorer, more vulnerable households to get more energy efficient. That is a BEIS policy, and I am not an expert on it.

My property interests are declared in the register, as I am sure the noble Lord’s are. It is a difficulty that, the older the property—I own a Queen Anne cottage—the harder it is to hit the net-zero target; there is a real issue around older properties, even if there is real resolve from the homeowner to be carbon neutral over time. That is a point well made. Brains across government are thinking across different departments about how we embrace that challenge. One way is to set standards, and the future homes standard is critical to do that for new build, which is again only a certain proportion of the existing stock. The question then is how we retrofit and deal with the stock we have in this country.

However, I think we are going beyond EPC price ratings, which are essentially good news for the consumer and people who pay these bills. I take the points from noble Lords that it is good to see an IT project working well, being managed in-house and done efficiently. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Combined Authorities (Borrowing) Regulations 2022

Lord Greenhalgh Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Greenhalgh]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Combined Authorities (Borrowing) Regulations 2022.

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid before this House on 31 January 2022. The other place approved them on 14 March 2022. If approved by this House and made, they will implement a commitment made by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, my noble friend Lord Hammond, back in 2016 to extend the borrowing powers of mayoral combined authorities that have agreed debt caps with HM Treasury, which is reflected in the devolution deals that North of Tyne, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire have agreed with government.

This extension is another important step towards empowering these mayoral combined authorities to invest in infrastructure while giving local leaders the tools needed to stimulate local economic growth, increase productivity and seize levelling-up opportunities available to their areas. In the levelling-up White Paper we set out plans to transform the fortunes of places across the UK by spreading growth and prosperity in areas that feel as though Westminster has forgotten about them. That paper sets out a series of long-term missions that put us on a trajectory towards that goal, including giving every part of England that wants one a devolution deal by 2030.

Devolution is a central part of our levelling-up agenda and we want to give areas the powers they need, along with a simplified, long-term funding settlement. We are committed not only to extending devolution to new areas but to deepening it in areas that already have devolved powers. The regulations we are discussing today will live up to that ambition: deepening devolution in North of Tyne, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire in line with commitments we have already given, by providing new and deeper powers to the local leaders so that they can act more flexibly and innovatively to respond to local need and be held to account by local citizens.

Put simply, these new powers will allow these three combined authorities to borrow not only for their transport functions but for any of the other functions conferred on them as a result of their bespoke devolution deals. These areas will be able to make the most of new opportunities by borrowing for their investment programmes, delivering improved public services and greater prosperity for their areas. At the moment, the legislation in place allows combined authorities to borrow only for transport or, where the mayor is also the police and crime commissioner, for such purposes. The primary legislation also provides that the Secretary of State may, by regulations, confer the ability to borrow for additional functions.

The draft regulations specifically provide that the three named combined authorities can borrow for all their functions other than transport, which is, of course, already covered by the existing primary legislation. Each of the three mayoral combined authorities and each of their constituent authorities—15 in total—has given consent to these regulations. If Parliament approves these regulations and they are made, then North of Tyne, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire mayoral combined authorities will be able to borrow for all their functions. I should say that, through regulations made four years ago, this is already the case for the six other mayoral combined authorities of Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, West Midlands, West of England, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and Tees Valley. It is also the position for the generality of local authorities, which are empowered to borrow for all their functions.

In the same way as a local authority, combined authorities are subject to the requirements for borrowing provided in the Local Government Act 2003. The prudential borrowing regime requires that an authority can borrow lawfully only if it can demonstrate that servicing and repayments of debt are affordable. As such, this gives the necessary assurance that the proposed borrowing powers will be used appropriately. I add that, in the case of combined authorities, this ability to borrow is also subject to a debt cap agreed with the Treasury. Each agreed debt cap specifies the ceiling for the mayoral combined authority’s debt for 2021-22. Debt caps for future years are currently being agreed with all nine mayoral combined authorities.

These regulations fulfil our existing promise to deepen the devolution deals of these three combined authorities and extend their borrowing powers to bring them in line with the six other mayoral combined authorities. With this extension, they will be able to borrow to make investments in infrastructure that are essential to an area’s ambition for growth. We firmly believe they will also lay the groundwork for further levelling up in these areas. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, this instrument implements a 2016 commitment to extend the borrowing powers of mayoral combined authorities. As the Minister noted, it reflects devolution deals agreed with the Government for North of Tyne, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire.

During the debate in the other place, the Minister said that this is

“another important step towards empowering mayoral combined authorities to invest in the right infrastructure while giving local leaders the tools needed to stimulate local economic growth, increase productivity and seize the levelling-up opportunities available to their areas.”—[Official Report, Commons, Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee, 9/3/22; col. 3.]

Labour colleagues in the other place welcomed the instrument and reminded the Government that Labour mayors had indeed been calling for this change.

I politely and respectfully ask that the Minister recommends to his colleagues in the Department for Education that they trust the judgments of the MCAs when finalising the skills Bill that is about to return to your Lordships’ House.

I have two short questions for the Minister on this business. Do the Government intend to extend these borrowing powers in further devolution deals? What steps will they take to monitor levels of borrowing?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, that was a very short and knowledgeable debate. I make the general observation that we are both former local authority leaders. We are the most centrally taxed nation in western Europe, but we also hold the least amount of debt below the level of national debt. That is the policy background for all this. Essentially, this moves to a level playing field for all mayoral combined authorities.

I have just been given a helpful note to say that we are negotiating deals, so the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, are in play and will be part of the negotiations with all the mayoral combined authorities. We all know that the reality is that the levers required to change places often require thinking about local taxation that is appropriate to a local place, but also about borrowing. If you get that right, you can borrow in a way that provides a real dividend for local areas. Those flexibilities are part of what makes local government function more effectively. This is a step in the right direction and I am sure that more will follow.

Motion agreed.