Private Rented Sector: Electrical Safety Checks

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord is talking about the installation or checking of appliances. Again, this is something on which the Hackitt review will no doubt opine, and we will take account of that when we see the interim and final reports. It is not that we are not intending to do anything; we intend to do something in the round, rather than in a piecemeal fashion, to ensure that the measures are sensible.

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

My Lords, first I should say what an excellent Question from my noble friend.

I refer the House to my entry in the register of interests. The Minister himself announced from the Dispatch Box on 29 March that the Government were going to introduce this measure in the private rented sector. Undoubtedly, it will save lives. Does he accept the deep frustration by campaigners such as Electrical Safety First at it not moving forward quickly? When we get the report in the spring, it will be two years from when the power was taken. Are any groups or organisations that are opposed to it putting pressure on the Government?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, first I congratulate the noble Lord on ensuring that this Question was book-ended by the Kennedy family—one at the beginning and one at the end.

I accept that action will be necessary. I think every fair-minded person would see the sense of waiting for the Hackitt review before taking definitive action, but of course action is needed. We welcome the report. We have said that we want to look at the issue in the round in the light of what Dame Judith Hackitt, whom I think everyone welcomed for the review of building regulations and fire safety, says in her full report. It is not that we are not doing anything; we are waiting to see, and I think that most fair-minded people would welcome that.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

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

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

My Lords, this amendment will place in the Bill the five-year duration for the rate relief scheme for new fibre. The scheme will apply retrospectively from 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2022. The need to have the five years on the face of the Bill was discussed at Report. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for raising this matter and agreeing to withdraw his amendment at that stage so that we could bring forward these changes.

The amendments will also allow for the period of the rate relief scheme to be extended by regulation using the affirmative resolution procedure. This will ensure that, if the Chancellor wants to repeat or extend the rate relief scheme, that can happen quickly without the need for another Bill but still with the approval of Parliament. I trust that noble Lords will agree that the amendment meets the commitment I gave on Report. I beg to move.

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

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

As for the amendments, we will obviously support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, briefly, I want again to thank the noble Lord for handling this Bill in his usual courteous manner. It has broad support across the House and I have been very happy to work with the noble Lord and his colleagues on it. I also thank his Bill team—all the names that he mentioned. I have met a number of his officials and they have been helpful and courteous at all times.

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

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

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2017 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for their comments, their general support and, indeed, their constructive approach. I will try to deal with the points they raised.

First, in relation to whether we should have gone further, I appreciate that it is the Government’s job to bear down on costs and obviously there is a concern, which we all share, about ensuring that we build more. Having said that the planning fees represent only 0.25% of the development costs, we nevertheless have to be aware of the fact that there must be a level where it would begin to be a disincentive to development. That said, as I outlined and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to, we are looking at a potential 20% tied to housing target delivery and we are analysing the responses. I do not see this as punishing those authorities that do not make it. This is very much a carrot, not a stick. I expect that many local authorities will want to respond favourably to this.

However, I listened carefully to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness as I know they have lots of experience in local government. I realise they know what they are talking about—nearly always—particularly on these areas. They made a fair point. There have been gaps under previous Governments when the fees have not gone up as they perhaps should have. I liked the constructive suggestions from the noble Lord, which I will take away, about the index-linking and the pilots. Both are worthy of discussion so we will have a look at them. The current regulations do not provide for index-linking and I suspect that we would need primary legislation to amend the enabling power. That said, let us see if there is some merit in that suggestion because I appreciate that we need to ensure that planning departments are properly resourced. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness are as aware of that as anyone.

The fee for permission in principle—a new route to planning permission, as the noble Baroness knows, giving developers up-front certainty that sites are suitable for housing-led development—was not plucked out of the air, as it were. There was discussion with local authorities and others about fixing that fee, which we consider appropriate. It is a new fee but we have not had massive representations against it—I am right in saying that—in so far as there were any representations. I think it probably is an appropriate fee, as the others are. I appreciate the general point that this is new territory.

In relation to the point raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord about the national setting of fees, this has always been the approach under successive Governments. That does not necessarily mean that it is the correct approach, I know, but it has. There are a couple of issues concerning setting fees nationally. Allowing local planning authorities to set their own fee levels risks the principle of ring-fencing this. I suppose a ring-fence could be created but it would be a little clunky. But there is also a risk, which would be more of a concern to me and to the Government, that uncertainty in relation to fees may act as a disincentive to home owners and small developers in particular to undertaking development in a particular area. There might be a race to the bottom. We should be careful what we wish for because there is a risk that this could end up underresourcing public authorities by pushing them to charge lower fees than might be sensible. I shall need to look at this carefully but, as I say, my initial view is that it might be difficult and not achieve what we want.

That said, I take the points made about index-linking very seriously; it would save us the difficulty of passing primary legislation. We shall take the suggestion away and look at it for the longer view. The pilot is also a constructive suggestion. With that, I welcome the approach of both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness in their welcome of the fact that we are increasing planning fees.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am pleased that the noble Lord is going to look at the suggestions. The general point to make is that we hear in our authority and from local government generally that there is a lot of pressure in many areas of service. If there is one area where you could get close to full cost recovery, it is this one, and that would be progress. I take the point that it might hamper development, but I am not convinced that 0.25% of the development costs would be the deal-breaker. If council tax payers are subsidising the planning process, it means that money is not being used for other services which are equally if not more important for the authority to deliver. We hear debates right around the local government sphere about the problems and pressures on budgets and the cuts that have been made in the past six or seven years. That is a serious point for local government, so I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will take a look at this.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

We are getting closer to full cost recovery with these regulations and I appeal to the noble Lord’s legendary patience to await the consultation on the other 20%. That will go a long way for many authorities which I know are trying and succeeding to meet their housing targets. However, the general point has certainly been taken on board.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th November 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

4: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—
“Time period for the availability of the relief under this Act
(1) Subject to the provisions under section 6(2), the amendments made by this Act will have effect for the period of five financial years after 1 April 2017.(2) The appropriate national authority may by regulations made by statutory instrument extend the time period for which the relief is to be made available.(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under subsection (2) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under subsection (2) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the National Assembly for Wales.(5) For the purposes of this section, “appropriate national authority” is(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State;(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers.”

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

My Lords, first, I draw the attention of the House to my registered interests: namely, as a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

As we have heard, the Bill is not controversial. It seeks to help with the boosting of the switchover to fibre from our old copper broadband network. This is important as we need to increase the take-up of fibre at a faster pace, and it is recognised that an exemption from business rates could prove an incentive to speed up the process and get more of our outdated network on to a fibre network in a shorter period of time.

Amendment 4 in my name adds a new clause which puts into the Bill the time from which the relief from business rates will operate; namely, five years from 1 April 2017. I considered the issues at Second Reading and in Committee and my amendment seeks to give an additional power to the Secretary of State in England and to Welsh Ministers in Wales: that is, the ability to seek approval to extend the period for which the business rate relief is available to those companies that are installing new fibre beyond the initial period of five years.

The extension would have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament using the affirmative procedure. There will be parliamentary oversight of the process as it enables the Government to have the power to extend the scheme without the need for primary legislation. I think it is proportionate in the circumstances. It is a simple measure and will be an effective way of continuing the scheme if it has been deemed successful in helping roll out the network faster. Of course, if it has not been successful, the scheme will be ended and the option will not be taken up. I beg to move.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for moving this amendment. As noble Lords will know, the matter of whether the five years of the rate relief scheme should appear in the Bill was also raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

As currently drafted, the Bill would allow the relief to apply indefinitely. The draft regulations that we published for consultation would provide that the relief is limited to five years from 1 April 2017—so the five-year period of the scheme appears in secondary legislation rather than in the Bill. We have taken this approach to retain the ability to repeat the scheme for later years without the need to return for more primary legislation. This will allow us to consider the success of the scheme in a timely manner as 2022 approaches.

Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has made a very strong argument for why the five years should appear in the Bill. We have been clear that the purpose of the Bill is to implement the Chancellor’s commitment to offer five years of relief, and we now accept that such a fundamental aspect of the policy should appear in the Bill. But I am grateful that the noble Lord also recognises the value of retaining the ability to extend or repeat the relief scheme without another Bill. Therefore, we also agree that we should take a power to change the period of the relief and that this power should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, as the noble Lord set out.

As I have discussed with the noble Lord—and I appreciate the opportunity to do so—we intend to move our own amendment at Third Reading, achieving the noble Lord’s aim but ironing out one or two drafting defects just to ensure that we can make these changes. We will table the amendment tomorrow. Once more I thank the noble Lord for his constructive and helpful approach. I hope that, with these assurances, he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, very much. As he said, we had a very useful meeting a few days ago. I am very pleased that the Government have accepted the main thrust of what I am suggesting to the House. I am happy to withdraw the amendment at this stage and look forward to seeing the Minister’s amendment when he tables it tomorrow.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

Waste Collection Services

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the hallmark of what we do is to say that local residents should be involved and should give their views on recycling—that is important. That said, good practice is outlined in the litter strategy, and there is a litter innovation group that considers bids for attractive and innovative ways of tackling this. So, although consistency is important, there are individual ideas that we should encourage so that other local authorities can pick them up. Recycling rates vary enormously. The best-performing area in England is South Oxfordshire, with 66%. There are challenges in some of the urban areas. I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is anxious to get to his feet—it might apply to Southwark, goodness knows, but I will not single out local authorities to shame them.

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

My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my registered interest as a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Does the noble Lord agree that we should seek to always reuse rather than put into landfill? With food waste making up 30% of waste not set aside for recycling, will the Government look to introduce mandatory food waste collections and a ban on biodegradable waste going to landfill?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the rubric is that we should first reduce what we use and then recycle what we use. That makes sense: do not use it, then reduce it or recycle it. We have looked at food waste, and the best-performing authorities tend to ensure that they are recycling food waste. It is a challenge for some of the urban areas, with which the noble Lord will be familiar; that is a consideration.

Social Housing

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the noble Lord comes with unparalleled experience in this area. I take the point about the need for diversity of supply, particularly looking to smaller suppliers, self-build and modern methods of construction, which we looked at yesterday. I also accept a point implicit in his question, which was also raised yesterday by my noble friend Lord Forsyth—the fact that there is land banking. We need to take account of that, and we committed to do so in the housing White Paper.

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

My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant interests as set out in the register—as a councillor and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. We will have to wait until tomorrow to see what the Chancellor says about housing, but does the noble Lord not agree that, to get to their housing targets and deal with the pressing need that we have heard about, the public sector has to be both encouraged and allowed to build around 100,000 homes a year for social rent rather than any other unaffordable models?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the noble Lord knows that I agree with his general point that over successive Governments the social rented sector has been somewhat neglected, and we are certainly looking to make up some of the shortfall. As I said, we have had a record year—the best for a decade—but that does not make us complacent. There is an awfully long way to go, but we have a great battery of policies and, as the noble Lord rightly says, we await tomorrow’s Budget.

Housing: Offsite Manufactured Housing

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2017 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the contribution that offsite manufactured housing can make to their proposals for fixing our “broken housing market”.

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

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a councillor of the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

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

My Lords, building more homes needs a modern homebuilding industry. New technology has improved productivity, quality and choice in a range of sectors, but housing has yet to catch up. That is why the housing White Paper talked about specific measures to stimulate the growth of modern methods of construction, including offsite. For instance, on top of providing financial support to builders, we are creating a pipeline of opportunities in the sector and setting up a specific working group on modern methods of construction.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, offsite manufactured housing could play a bigger role in helping to solve the housing crisis in the UK, as it has done elsewhere. I refer the Minister to the Building Societies Association report Laying the Foundations for Modern Methods of Construction. What are the Government prepared to do to further deal with the problem that supply is low because lenders cannot or will not routinely lend on such properties because they do not fully understand the risks, and builders will not build more of this type of housing because mortgage lending is in limited supply, as is home insurance? This type of building has the potential to help to solve the crisis, but more support is needed to help the sector.

New Towns

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I also acknowledge the great work of the noble Lord in relation to garden towns and cities. I know that he was very supportive when we took forward powers in the Neighbourhood Planning Bill, as it then was, and I thank him for that. I agree about the importance of the regulations, which we will be bringing forward. As I say, the development corporation mechanism is certainly appropriate for some of the larger towns, as it is for Ebbsfleet, and we anticipate that others may come forward and use the mechanism. We are seeing some very successful developments in, for example, Bicester, north Essex and so on. They may want to use the mechanism; that is to be discussed and decided.

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

My Lords, I refer the House to my local government interests as set out in the register. Can the noble Lord tell the House what work has been done by the department to ensure that these developments are self-sustaining with schools, health facilities, transport links and other infrastructure, including broadband? In the past we have not always got this right. For example, people waited many years for a station to arrive in Basildon.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right. The wave of new towns under the last Government—the ecotowns—was very well intentioned but we have learned from aspects of the programme. When developing new towns and villages, the indicators show that we need to pursue infrastructure and design. Often the money that has been advanced to these communities is tied in with doing that work, and reports are often presented on an annual basis to show that that is happening.

Regulation of Social Housing (Influence of Local Authorities) (England) Regulations 2017

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

At end to insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations will not improve accountability of housing associations, and will do little to advance good quality and well maintained social housing as part of the wider mix of housing supply.”

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my declaration of interest as a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I draw the House’s attention to what the Minister seeks to do in reducing public sector control over private registered housing suppliers as part of the Government’s aim to have the Office for National Statistics reconsider classification of private registered providers. In my contribution, I intend to refer to a number of government shortcomings on a variety of housing issues across all tenures.

As we have already heard, from October 2015 the Office for National Statistics announced that private registered providers would be classified as public bodies with their debt appearing on the Government’s balance sheet, due to the controls being exerted by central government through the Homes and Communities Agency and local authorities. With this regulation, a local authority will be able to nominate only up to 24% of the total board membership, along with other changes to other aspects of the constitutions or procedures that some housing providers may operate under. The Explanatory Notes to the regulations go through these and include things such as the requirement for a local authority member to be present at the board meeting, and the removal of the ability of the local authority to have an allocation of membership voting rights.

The intention of the regulations is to get private providers’ debt off the Government’s balance sheet. Can the Minister tell us what other options or changes the Government are making to private providers’ relationship with the Homes and Communities Agency to achieve their objective—or it is purely the changes to the relationship between local authorities and private providers that they hope will deliver them their policy objective?

It is a matter of regret that the regulations before us will do little to improve the accountability of housing associations and not even build a single house. The reduction in the number of locally elected representatives that sit on the boards of private providers does nothing to fix our broken housing market. I am not aware of any concerns being expressed about the role played by local councillors, and you would have thought that the Government would have sought other measures to achieve their policy objective. Local councillors understand their areas and are the democratic link to the local community.

I have recently been reading the final report of the De Montfort University and Municipal Journal Councillor Commission, The Voice of the Councillor. If the Minister has not read it I would recommend it to him. It is an excellent report that must form part of the debate about councillors and their roles and responsibilities. It has a section about speaking beyond the council and shaping and influencing policy and other decisions of other bodies, and about councillors’ proximity to the public. It is regrettable that the Government do not see this as an important role or, if they do, that they do not give it much weight. As I said, the regulations before us do nothing to fix the broken housing market and they do little to advance good-quality and well-maintained social housing as part of a wider mix of housing of all tenures, which is so important.

My biggest frustration with the Government on housing is the snail’s pace at which they often move in respect of housing policy generally. They talk big but are not so big on action. That is why the end of my amendment says that the regulations,

“will do little to advance good quality and well maintained social housing as part of the wider mix of housing supply”.

The Minister is aware that I regularly ask him and his department Written Questions on housing matters. The ones to which I have received Answers illustrate the point very well in respect of social housing and the wider housing mix from the private rented sector to home ownership. For example, the Minister and his noble friend Lord Young of Cookham have indicated from the Dispatch Box that there are circumstances that would lead them to consider lifting local authority borrowing restrictions. In a Written Question I asked what those circumstances were, and got the Answer that it would be unwise to prejudge the outcome of these discussions by attempting to list every circumstance under which we might agree to modify borrowing restrictions. The problem with that Answer is that it has not listed one circumstance or example. I hope that in the Budget the Chancellor will lift the borrowing cap for local authorities and let them build council housing in the numbers necessary for the public sector to play its full and proper part and deliver a large number of council homes on social rents for individuals and families.

Another example is that a number of noble Lords on the Government Benches have suggested that that is the fault of planning departments and planning committees, which hold up planning applications for new developments. However, the 300,000-plus planning approvals for housing which sit there with no action negate that claim. Local government has made the point that council tax payers are subsidising the planning process and that, if they could have full cost recovery, that would help them to employ more officers. The Government have increased the fees by 20%. That is welcome but it will not solve the problem, and the further increase is out to consultation. Will the Government try a pilot scheme to ascertain the merits of the claim about the benefits of full cost recovery? No, they just refuse, as I was told in an Answer on 26 October. What is the problem with a pilot scheme?

Another example concerns client money protection. The consultation on the proposals closed in October last year. The report was published on 27 March 2017 and the very next day the Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and announced that the Government were going ahead with a mandatory scheme. The Answer to my latest Question, received yesterday, was that the Government launched another consultation on 1 November, running for six weeks. I am not against consultation, but if we are told that the Government are going to do something, at some point they have to do it.

Another example is the banning of letting agents’ fees. This has been announced repeatedly in Budgets, Statements, the manifesto and the Queen’s Speech and so on. The review on mandatory electrical safety checks concluded in December 2016 and recommended five-yearly checks. I understand that something might be announced today, 11 months later. I hope that we are going to get on with this—it is about protecting people’s lives—and not have another lengthy consultation exercise. This really needs to happen.

Those are just a few examples where the Department for Communities and Local Government appears to have lead boots and moves at a snail’s pace on housing matters or any part of the wider mix of housing supply. We have a broken housing market, as the Government keep telling us, and there is a housing crisis—no one doubts that. Throughout the whole housing mix, we have issues that need to be addressed, and the Government have to sharpen up their act and deliver on them. The regulations before us today do nothing to address those issues and that is a matter of much regret.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in the debate. I quite intentionally raised a number of government shortcomings on a wide range of housing issues. I am obviously sorry that has irritated the noble Lord, but I promise him I will keep doing it again and again. I do not know which fictional character the noble Lord represents. I will have to think about it and bring it to the next debate when we clash again. I make no apology whatever. I am the local government spokesman for the Opposition. I will point out again and again where I think the Government have got things wrong and get things right.

I have no issue with the regulations. The point is I want to see homeowner protection and the banning of agent fees. I am concerned about the constant reannouncements. We are sitting here weeks and months later and we are still going very slowly—as I said, with lead boots. My issue is the speed. I advise the noble Lord to get on and get these things done. I hope he will take that back to the department and that we will see a bit more action and fewer announcements.

My noble friend Lord Beecham and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to Delegated Powers Committee reports. They are right. They also made a point about the Treasury. Classifying these things differently would solve the problem. With that, I do not intend to press my amendment to the Motion to a vote. I am happy to withdraw it.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

Grenfell Recovery Taskforce

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 6th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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