Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Stunell

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group. We had a clear and compelling case put to us by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. I thank her very much for that. She was very ably supported by the noble Lord, Lord Best, who emphasised what, to me, is the really significant part of the value that would come from the passage of these amendments.

Clearly, the heritage angle, which is one that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, dwelt on effectively, is important. However, in the context of the levelling-up Bill, I say to Ministers that the social and community impact of investment by parish councils in their local facilities is a key part of ensuring that we have some levelling up. Perhaps principally in rural and suburban areas, but throughout the country, it is absolutely normal—I would say commonplace—for church buildings and buildings for those of other faiths to be used by the local community for a wide range of community functions, such as recreational functions, learning and educational functions, and food banks, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Best. I should perhaps have said by way of introduction that I am a member of the Methodist Church. Quite close to me is a Baptist church, and a significant part of its building is used as a very busy food bank; that is by no means an unusual situation.

The Minister’s letter expressed the view that this was a small issue which affected only quite a specific, niche situation. I put it to her that there are thousands of buildings which at the moment are excluded from help by parish councils and which perform valuable community functions, and where that exclusion is pointless and disabling for the development of those facilities and that community. I hope that her approach to this is gradually changing. I hope that her most recent letter gives a little glimmer of hope that perhaps she recognises the force of the arguments being deployed today, which were set out so clearly by the right reverend Prelate.

I very much hope that the Minister will offer a commitment to re-examine this before we get to Report, and, if she is able, to persuade her ministerial colleagues to table an amendment on Report that we can all enthusiastically endorse. If not, and if the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol is minded to do so, I will certainly support her in an amendment of her own on Report.

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

My Lords, I have made only one intervention in Committee, which was on my pet subject: leasehold. I will not do that today. First, I will get on the record a number of interests. I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association, the chair of a housing association in Kent, and a director of MHS Homes, as set out in the register.

I offer my full support to the right reverend Prelate in her amendments. This is one of these debates where all sides of the Committee are happy to come together. They can see the sense of the amendments and, as the noble Lord pointed out, they are easy amendments for the government to agree. There is no cost to the Government and they are passive—no one has to do anything at all. However, the amendments would allow people to do something if they want, which is the good thing about them.

I hope that, as the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said, we will get a positive response from the Minister—at least a commitment to meet people, go back and talk to officials, and bring back a government amendment that deals with this issue and provides for clarity. That is what these amendments are all about: providing clarity on an unclear issue. I know that the Government would want to ensure that things are clear.

I should say that I was brought up a Catholic. I grew up in Elephant and Castle in south London. I would probably describe myself as a lapsed Catholic, but I was brought up as a Catholic and come from a large, Irish Catholic family. My two younger brothers and my sister regularly attended the youth club at St Paul’s, in Lorrimore Square, run by the Reverend Shaw—a wonderful man who retired a few years ago. He set up the youth club and a mental health drop-in centre. When he retired, I had become a local councillor. We went to his retirement do and you could not move in the place. There was a complete cross-section of the community—people of different faiths and of no faith. Everyone there knew what this man had done in that parish church in the Walworth area of south London. He had done everything. If you were a young person growing up in that part of south London, there was not really much else to do. This parish church had become the centre of the community. Why can it not be that if a local authority wants to support such a place, they can do so? It seems ridiculous that they cannot.

As we have said, this is about having clarity about what councils can and cannot do if they want to support different things. My experience as a councillor was many years ago, but I am conscious of the work that churches do now, as the right reverend Prelate set out herself. People in many different situations are going through difficult times and churches host different groups and organisations—people can go in just to have a cup of tea and be warm. Such places are really important in communities and, sometimes, all that is now there is the local parish church and the church hall.

I really hope that the Minister is convinced by what she has heard today. There have been many good arguments made around the Room. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, these amendments on their own would not do anything at all, but they would enable things to be done. I hope the noble Baroness will support them. I will leave it there.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Stunell

Committee stage
Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I give three-quarters support—I was going to say half-hearted support—to what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has moved by way of his amendment. The nationally significant infrastructure projects programme was quite a radical change when it was introduced. It was seen as a way of what one might call railroading—except that would perhaps be unfortunate given some of the projects—or delivering national projects which would be perpetually trapped in the local planning system should they go by the conventional route.

It is something of a planning bulldozer, and I absolutely share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about the expansion of Heathrow; we are on the same page as far as that goes. It is equally clear that, if a project such as Heathrow was ever to go forward, it would not survive the local planning processes, so the existence of a nationally significant infrastructure project mechanism for delivery is certainly well justified in the legislation. The question is: what happens when a project begins to fade from the priority list of the Government or, for that matter, that of investors in a private project? The noble Lord has produced two examples, known very well to him from his personal work experience and career, which illustrate the point.

I say to the Minister that surely there should be some process of project review in central government. The Built Environment Select Committee—I was a member until January—considered that in some detail, in looking at some evidence that we received in relation to reports. The committee took evidence from various parties. Who is actually in charge of the oversight of whether projects will proceed, are proceeding or are making progress? The committee was not convinced at that time that the Government had a viable and clear process for deciding that a project was or was not a priority, what that priority might be or what its consequences might be. The idea that there is a national pipeline, with projects neatly lined up going in at one end and coming out completed at the other, is fanciful. However, that is the way that the thinking, and often the public expression, about having a national infrastructure plan is expressed.

I am with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and this amendment, but I see it much more as being about hearing from the Government that they have a review process, that the review process is capable of taking a hard decisions, and that, when it takes a hard decision, it makes it operational on the ground so that we do not have huge areas, such as those around Heathrow, that are blighted. Indeed, on the peninsula on the Thames estuary, to which the noble Lord, Lord Moylan referred, progress is going in no direction. In the presence of a Section 35 designation, nobody else can go there either. It is essentially a dead development area, which I would have thought the Government would be anxious to avoid.

I am keen to hear what the Minister believes the mechanism is and whether, in the judgment of the Government, it is effective. If it is effective, it should be quite easy to answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on how long it will be before the Ebbsfleet peninsula is de-designated. I suspect that it would be difficult for the Minister to de-designate Heathrow at the Dispatch Box today for a variety of reasons, but I hope that it is clear the direction from which I am coming, and that the Minister in replying can give us some satisfaction on this before we proceed further.

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

I will come in very briefly. I certainly see the point of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and of the three-year review. I am not convinced that yearly after that is necessarily the right way to go; it could be a longer period between the reviews. However, I see the point he is making, and the problems it causes if things do not happen in an area.

I will leave it there, other than to say that I have always been a backer of Heathrow expansion. I want to put that on record because we have had a couple of people opposed to it. I think it would be good for the economy and that we should get on with it.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Stunell

3rd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I join the Minister in thanking Members on all sides of the House for their contributions and expertise in working to get the Bill to where it is today. I also thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for his courtesy in his dealings with my noble friend Lord Lennie and myself. We appreciate that very much. I also thank all the officials and his Bill team for their work with us. I place on record my thanks to Ben Wood and the office of the Leader of the Opposition for the work that they did.

My involvement was in the Second Reading of the Bill. I then became the Chief Whip, so I departed the scene, leaving it all to my noble friend Lord Lennie. I have come back to make these final remarks as my noble friend cannot be here today. I thank him in particular for all the work he did in taking up the Bill very much at short notice. I think we have made the Bill better than it was when it first came to this House. This is the first stage in leasehold reform; there is very much more to be done. We look forward to the work of the Law Commission and to a Bill that will address other leaseholder problems—but this is a good first stage and I am very happy with where we have got to so far.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I too offer my thanks to those who have contributed to the improvement of the Bill and, in particular, to say that the Minister has been exceptionally helpful and generous with his time in proceeding with it through Committee and at the intermediate stages. My noble friend Lady Grender would have liked to be here, but I am speaking in her place on this occasion.

I have given notice to the Minister that I believe there is one aspect of this that still requires a word of clarification, which I hope he will be able to give as we move on. It is clearly very important that this Bill makes rapid progress, and even more important that the second Bill, long promised, follows close on its heels. The issue relates to retirement homes and those blocks that are partially occupied at the time that the changes instigated by this Bill come into force. There is a serious risk of a two-tier market in those blocks if this is introduced wholesale across every part of the same block. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the Government’s intent and the effect of this legislation, so that those who have made representations to me can have some understanding of the direction in which this legislation will now proceed. With those few words, I am very happy to see the Bill pass into law.

Fire Safety Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Stunell

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 17th November 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, Amendment 8 in my name seeks to make progress in respect of the recommendations of the first phase of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. I intend to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.

It is disappointing that progress has been so slow, in all matters, following the tragedy at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017. That is a matter of huge regret and, quite frankly, unacceptable. I have stood at this Dispatch Box for years urging the Government to move forward on all aspects of the tragedy with greater speed and urgency, but that plea has so far not been answered. We have on record pledges from Ministers to implement the full recommendations in the report of the first phase of the inquiry, but this Bill does not include provision for any of those recommendations to be implemented. That is most regrettable.

When this Bill was before the other place the Government did not take the opportunity to correct this, and opposed bringing it forward. Instead, they said that they would launch a consultation. The consultation was launched in July and ended last month—a full year after they pledged to implement the first phase recommendations. That highlights the problem: we are not moving quickly enough. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, will explain to the House why the timescale that the Government are working to is so slow. People have waited far too long for legislative action.

I do not understand why the Government are not even prepared to include in the Bill the simplest of the inquiry’s recommendations, such as the inspection of fire doors and the testing of lifts. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why when he responds to the debate. These recommendations need to be implemented urgently. The Government need to do more and act with greater speed.

We remember that terrible night of 14 June 2017, with its dreadful loss of life and the ruin and devastation caused to the lives of those left behind. The physical scars may have healed, but the mental scars remain. It is beyond belief that, more than three years later, we have seen so little action.

This is the third piece of legislation from the Government. Today, people are still living in blocks of flats covered with ACM cladding; there are schools, hospitals and other buildings covered in it as well. Three years after the Grenfell Tower disaster, people will go to bed tonight having to rely on a waking watch. The cladding scandal has people trapped in their homes, unable to sell them and with the unimaginable worry that they are living in buildings which are potential death traps.

We ask the Government to take the long-overdue action to which they have committed themselves. It is urgent, necessary and right. Everyone concerned demands that these safety changes are put into effect. There is no justification for delay. The Government have given no reason for not acting immediately. They say that they want to do it not in this Bill but in the building safety Bill. That is just not acceptable, and I hope that the House will reject it. I beg to move.

[Lord Stunell (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I strongly support the eloquent plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, that we should get on with what everybody knows needs to be done. No one is apparently objecting to it, but the Government have not yet acted. The sense of impatience in your Lordships’ House is much more strongly felt by those who live in blocks affected by ACM and by all the terrible flaws in building construction revealed during the Grenfell inquiry and in Dame Judith Hackitt’s responses.

Amendment 8 systematically lists some of the key requirements that Dame Judith’s report strongly commended and recommended be done. The Government came to your Lordships’ House—not once, not twice, but at three-monthly intervals, for two years—promising that everything would be implemented and that this was a high priority. I am afraid to say that opportunities have been missed. The draft building safety Bill is silent on these issues, so it is not simply a case of saying that it will come up there: it does not. The opportunity has also been missed to include it in this Bill.

Among the recommendations is the inspection of individual flat entrance doors. We all know that tenants and leaseholders have individual views about personalising their accommodation. Not surprisingly, many flat doors do not comply. A survey in July showed that, of the roughly 750,000 fire doors in buildings of this type, perhaps as many as three-quarters needed some action to make them compliant. There is a potential risk to the residents in block after block after block. The Government are now resisting Amendment 8, which sensibly includes the core requirements of Dame Judith’s report for making our buildings safe. We have to wonder exactly how sincere the Government are in their frequent, powerfully expressed commitments, which, unfortunately, they do not seem willing to implement.

Just this last week, I have been looking with members of the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service at what needs to be done to satisfy the requirements emerging from the Grenfell inquiry. They told me that they have been inspecting high-rise buildings in Greater Manchester—as you would expect—with considerable diligence. Having reassessed the situation based on their professional knowledge, they have already required a number of those blocks to completely change their evacuation procedures. Surely it is time that these sensible requirements were included in legislation. It should not just be up to particularly diligent fire authorities to make residents safe, but to owners, leaseholders and the building industry.

Here is the opportunity for the Minister to accept the strength of the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. Will he come back at Third Reading and include provisions along these lines? If not, I shall certainly be joining the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in the Lobby at the end of this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stunell (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the contributions of my noble friends Lady Pinnock and Lord Shipley and to support this amendment. I hope the Minister will see the strength of the argument and accept the amendment. If not, I regret that I shall also be seeking the opinion of the House on the matter.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his—as ever—very thoughtful and constructive contribution. I am sure the Minister is aware that this is a complex and difficult question with many different moving parts, which the noble Earl so eloquently summarised. The one set of people who are not moving are the tenants and leaseholders stuck in flats which they cannot sell. They may be putting themselves at considerable personal as well as financial risk. These tenants, residents and leaseholders have no control over the circumstances in which they find themselves. They played no part in the decision-making—or lack of it—that has left them stranded. They are the vulnerable people whom the mighty, the powerful, the professionals and those with big pockets have left stranded. Our amendment is saying, “Right, let us at least fix this bit of the moving parts—these bits of the equation.”

I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that there is a much bigger set of problems to be confronted. I hope that the Minister will accept this and will say that the Government are going to launch a wholesale consideration. I suspect that this is of concern far beyond the Home Office. Perhaps some prime ministerial attention can be given to sorting out this difficult and complex area.

The key question is: who will pay for the necessary works? Our amendment is simple and, I hope, clear. The innocent occupiers—the renters and leaseholders of millions of homes across the country—should not be held to ransom by building owners. They should not be forced to pay for making their homes safe, when they should have been safe from the start.

I know that the Government have begun to face up to the excessive costs facing leaseholders. The Minister has a well-tried set of statistics which he will give us again. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, ticked that box for him by recounting them. I know the Minister believes—as I do—that far more remains to be done.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, mentioned the construction warranty guarantees. Most of them are turning out to be virtually worthless. At the same time, they are often sold to residents and leaseholders as though they were some kind of guarantee that, if things went wrong, they would be compensated. This is not so. For the moment, at least, they are not delivering. The rush of people disclaiming that their warranty warrants anything is remarkable.

That puts an interesting light on something the Minister said in discussion of the previous group. He said that we did not need registers or government oversight because self-regulation would deal with it. He said that was the way to go and they did not want to increase the regulatory burden on anyone. I know that is the Government’s mantra in general, but one of the few positive things to come out of Grenfell was the tearing up of that whole story—that regulation was for losers—and the understanding that regulation provides a safety net that secures people’s future. This is just another case where self-regulation failed and none of the industrial, insurance and construction sectors stepped up to regulate their own behaviour and safeguard tenants. No case at all, therefore, can be made that tenants and leaseholders should be the ones collecting the bill.

I shall not rehearse any of the hard-luck stories that we are familiar with, but a straightforward case can be made to the Treasury: the longer this issue hangs around, the longer it will take to put all the remedial work in hand. If there are arguments over who pays, it will not be done and, if it is not being done, the risk of another major incident—and all the public money that will be spent on that—looms in the distance. And it is not just that, of course: there are also the long-term costs of health and stress that will be loaded on to the NHS as a result of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of people finding that the home they live in is worthless. I wonder how many bankruptcies there will be. If you are a sole trader and the bank has a guarantee on your home, what is your position when you cannot get an EWS1 form? How does that leave you in terms of business survivability?

Today the Minister has talked about phasing things, going slowly and proportionately, and getting fire tests and so on, but every time that we have looked further than the end of our noses we have discovered that there is more stuff to do—an estimated 750,000 fire doors around the country, just for starters.

I hope, therefore, that the Minister can give millions of leaseholders some words of comfort and support in backing our amendment. If not, I fear that I shall join my noble friends in testing the opinion of the House.

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

My Lords, Amendment 13, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, adds a new clause to the Bill that would prohibit the owner of the building from passing the cost of any remedial work attributable to the requirement of the Act on to leaseholders or tenants, except where the leaseholder is also the owner of the building.

As the noble Baroness has said, these leaseholders have done absolutely nothing wrong. They have actually done everything right: they have bought their property and are paying their mortgage, and they are being penalised for the failure of others. That surely cannot be right. The fact that their building has been given dangerous cladding has made their flats worthless. They cannot sell them but they still need to pay their mortgage. They cannot get the work done. They may be paying for a waking watch.

Fire Safety Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Stunell

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 29th October 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, we come to a substantial group containing Amendments 5, 6, 7 and 9 in my name, and Amendments 15, 16 and 17 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.

Amendment 5 seeks to make progress in respect of the recommendations of the first phase of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. It is disappointing that progress has been so slow, frankly, on all these matters following the tragedy at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017, some 40 months ago. We have on record pledges from Ministers to implement in full the recommendations in the report of the first phase of the inquiry, but the Bill before us today does not include any of the provisions or measures called for in the inquiry to be implemented. When the Bill was before the other place, the Government did not take the opportunity afforded to them to correct this. They opposed moving forward and instead said that they would launch a consultation. The consultation was launched in July and ends this month, a full year after they pledged to implement the recommendations of the inquiry.

I hope the Minister can set out for the House the timescale the Government are working to, as people have waited far too long for legislative action. Will he say why the Government are not even prepared to include the simplest of the recommendations the inquiry called for in this Bill—recommendations such as the inspection of fire doors and the testing of lifts? There is an urgent need for these recommendations to be implemented and the Government need to act with much more speed.

Amendment 6 returns to points I made previously today and at Second Reading. The fire safety Order requires regular fire risk assessments in buildings, but there is no legal requirement for those conducting these assessments to have any form of training or accreditation for this work. Although this service can be commissioned from council-run building control services, numerous private providers compete for the work and their numbers have rapidly expanded since the fire at Grenfell Tower. Numerous experts have criticised the poor quality of the work in building control and fire safety. As I have said before, we do not want a race to the bottom, where anybody can set up and say they are an inspector with very little training to do the work.

I want to hear from the Minister today that we will ensure that when fire assessments are done, we will have people who are properly accredited and able to do the work. Although I accept that there are some voluntary accreditation schemes, it is sadly the case that the use of unregistered fire inspectors is commonplace. The lack of training and accreditation in this important area of work is, frankly, unacceptable. The Government should be using this Bill to legislate for higher standards and greater public accountability in fire inspections.

Amendment 7 requires the schedule for inspecting buildings containing two or more sets of domestic premises to be based on a prioritisation of risk. At present, there is no guarantee that the schedule for inspections will be based on any sort of risk analysis rather than an arbitrary distinction between types of buildings. This was raised in the Commons by my honourable friend the Member for Croydon Central, who said that many experts and stakeholders have “significant concerns” over how the Bill would be implemented. She drew attention to reference by the Minister in Committee to:

“The building risk review programme, which will … ensure that local resources are targeted at those buildings most at risk”.—[Official Report, Commons, Fire Safety Bill Committee, 25/6/20; col. 62.]


I agree, but it should also be pointed out that local fire and rescue services know their area well, and know the buildings where there is greatest risk. It should be they who decide the priority list.

Amendment 9 would require the UK Government, for England, and the Welsh Government, for Wales, to specify when a waking watch must be in place for buildings that contain two or more sets of domestic premises and have fire safety failures. There are still major issues around removal of flammable ACM cladding from tower blocks. A significant number of buildings remain covered, more than three years after the Grenfell Tower fire, and other types of dangerous cladding have also been identified and not yet removed from buildings.

I accept that coronavirus caused many contractors to stop work on cladding sites, while others have not even begun work because of legal disputes, including, as I mentioned in a previous debate, disputes over guarantees and insurance payments. These delays mean that residents are in buildings that are unsafe, which cannot be right, or face extortionate fees for removal. Guidance from the National Fire Chiefs Council suggests waking watches should be a temporary measure, yet some residents have been forced to pay for waking watches for years, with some put in place immediately after the fire at Grenfell Tower, more than 40 months ago. They can cost up to £10,000 a week.

Amendments 15, 16 and 17 have considerable merit. I am happy to offer my support to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and will listen carefully to her when she speaks to them. I hope the Minister will give a full response to all the amendments and I beg to move.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 15, 16 and 17, variously in the names of myself and my noble friends Lady Pinnock and Lord Shipley. Again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his helpful remarks and support: as his amendments show, we have similar views.

Our debate on Amendment 3 prefigured many of the matters covered by our three amendments here. Our intention in tabling them is to get into the Bill some of what I expect we will be told by the Minister are the good intentions of the Government in the first place, and to make them real and concrete. This is a new policy area for the Government, and a new direction of travel—more regulation not less. It is both very necessary and very welcome, and we on the Lib Dem Benches are not just willing but eager and keen to help the Government produce the best Bill possible.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, Amendments 10, 11 and 12 in this group are in my name. Amendment 10 requires the Government to consider legislation covering similar matters to those in the Bill that has been enacted by the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. The Bill covers England and Wales only, since Scotland and Northern Ireland both have separate legislation in place under their legislative competences. The Government should work with the devolved Governments to share best practice and consider which legislation works best, and what should be in place where they alone have legislative competence.

Amendment 11 requires the Government to consider the Bill’s impact on local authority finances. The LGA and local authorities are concerned about the impact of the Bill on their finances, as we have raised in previous debates. An analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, commissioned by the LGA, found that councils in England are facing a funding gap of more than £5 billion by 2024 to maintain services at current levels. This figure could double amid the huge economic and societal uncertainty caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. This is a serious situation. It is therefore vital that councils are fully compensated for new requirements and burdens resulting from the Bill. As I have said before, the Government too often place extra burdens on local government, without a commensurate level of resources to deliver them. That is certainly not acceptable when looking at something as important as the Fire Safety Bill. It needs to be properly addressed when we consider matters of such importance.

Amendment 13 requires the Government to consider whether there is a skills shortage in the United Kingdom, in relation to the requirements of the Bill. Skills have been discussed in relation to many amendments. The lack of qualified professionals has already been raised today, along with the fear that, to get around it, we will have a race to the bottom, allowing unskilled people, who are not professionals, to undertake the work required of the Bill.

Britain has a skills shortage, particularly in higher technical skills, due to a number of reasons, including cuts to further education. The CBI said that two-thirds of businesses worry that they will not have the skilled posts to fill the work that needs to be done. The Government should make it clear whether they believe there is a sufficient skills base in the UK for the purposes of fire safety. If they do not believe that there is—and that may well be the logical conclusion—they need to set out what they will do to ensure we have the right skills base. I look forward to the Minister answering those points in his response. I beg to move.

[Lord Stunell (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I offer my support to Amendment 12, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, which looks to have a UK-wide, or at least England-wide, skills audit. There is clear evidence, particularly for matters relating to infrastructure, construction and this topic specifically, that there is a serious deficit in skills and training, and in the attractiveness of the industry to new entrants. There are many reasons for that but discussing them would be a different debate.

Clearly, if the Bill is to be a success, not just in its initial moments but in the ensuing years, there needs to be a steady stream of well-trained and fully experienced professionals—not just in the white-collar sense, but professionals who can deliver and install changes to buildings on a very big scale. It matches the parallel demands being placed on the construction industry from the move to improve the energy performance of homes and buildings in general. Again, a massive programme of investment is in train and planned by the Government.

This skills audit is urgently needed. I dare say the Minister will talk about the Construction Leadership Council and the various work being done on that front, but it needs a level of intensity and urgency that cannot be held by just one trade association or government advisory body. It must be a central driving initiative of the Government themselves. Although we all sincerely hope the current economic circumstances will turn and improve dramatically next year, they strongly suggest that there will be opportunities to recruit and upskill people who have to make career changes. The Government can and should seize this moment to make sure upgrading skills and recruiting new entrants is taken as a serious opportunity, consequent upon the passage of the Bill. I strongly support what is set out in Amendment 12.

Grenfell Response

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Stunell

Monday 10th June 2019 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for repeating the Statement given by his right honourable friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup in the other place earlier today. I refer the House to my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I join the noble Lord in paying tribute to the London fire brigade, the other emergency services and the staff of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham for the way they responded to yesterday’s fire. They are true public servants, one and all, and we owe them our thanks and gratitude for the exemplary way they carry out their duties.

I welcome the reviews referred to in the Statement, but more needs to be done to ensure that the regulations in force are fit for purpose, and this needs to be done urgently. While progress has been made in many areas, and is to be welcomed, things are generally moving too slowly. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell the House what he is doing to inject more speed into matters.

I join the noble Lord and others in remembering those who lost their lives on that terrible night two years ago, and I am thinking of those who were injured and their families and friends. I also pay tribute to all the emergency services, the local authority staff, civil servants, the faith communities and the community at large in north Kensington, who have done so much to get people back on their feet.

What have the Government learned over the past two years to ensure that the initial response from the local authority, which failed two years ago, will not happen again? Specifically, I am concerned about the department’s thinking, as opposed to any recommendations that will come out of the public inquiry. That thinking will, I am sure, have played some role in how events last night in Barking and Dagenham were dealt with. It would be good if the noble Lord could update the House.

I was pleased to note that the honourable Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner meets regularly with the families. Can the noble Lord tell the House when was the last time the Secretary of State sat down with the families and others in the community for a formal discussion, as opposed to the event today in Speaker’s House? When did the Secretary of State last meet both the leader of the council, Councillor Elizabeth Campbell, and the chief executive, Mr Barry Quirk?

Clearly progress has been made in finding people new accommodation, but we need to get the remaining households into permanent accommodation as quickly as possible. It is now two years since the fire, and a new permanent home is an important milestone on the road to recovery.

In respect of the consultation launched last week, does the noble Lord accept that there is some urgency here? Across the country, people living in blocks of flats want to see action. I have no doubt at all about the good intention but, as I said, it is the pace of change and reform that concerns me.

The Statement referred to the social housing Green Paper, and I was surprised to hear reference to the need to “address stigma”. I grew up on a council estate and see no stigma about it whatever. Council estates are full of law-abiding, hard-working citizens. My parents always paid their taxes and their rent, and they worked hard. I do not see the stigma there. What worries me is that, if that is the Government’s view, how is it impacting government policy? It would be good to hear the noble Lord’s view on that.

I also want to make reference to the position of the blocks that are in private hands. We need to make urgent progress with the recladding programme. I was obviously pleased that the Government announced additional funding, but will we get to the point when, if progress is not sufficiently quick, we will name the owners of the blocks with dangerous cladding? Will we set a deadline for when the work needs to be done—say, September this year or some time early next year? Are the Government considering giving additional powers to local authorities under the Housing Act 2004 to include fines or other action if the owners of these blocks are not moving quickly enough? Where blocks are not being dealt with quickly enough, will the Government consider allowing local authorities to apply for that funding to actually do the work? We need to ensure that people are safe. It would be good to get a response from the noble Lord on those points.

What about other public buildings with dangerous cladding, such as schools and hospitals? What are we doing there?

I understand fully that the noble Lord may not be able to answer all my questions, but I am sure he will respond to me in writing, as he normally does.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I associate myself with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and with the sentiments of the Statement in what it has to say about both the Barking fire and the role of the voluntary and emergency services at Grenfell. I should perhaps remind the House that, during the coalition Government, I had some responsibility for building regulation policy. I welcome in particular the referral of the Barking fire to the independent expert panel. It seems to me that, if there are further lessons to learn, we need to learn them quickly and make sure that the appropriate action is put in place promptly.

We should very much recognise the fantastic work done by voluntary and community groups in the two years since the fire. It has been quite outstanding; they have brought the community together, and we should celebrate that amid all the tragedy of the fire itself.

I welcome the information in the Statement on rehousing residents. There is a little more to do, but it is good to know that progress is being made. I also welcome the progress on meeting the physical and mental health needs of residents, and carrying out proper testing of potential toxicity around the site.

I include in my congratulations the often maligned British public and their £29 million of charitable giving to relieve hardship, and the stout work done in distributing the funds appropriately in the area.

However, I have some questions for the Minister. Is he aware of the Building magazine survey of building contractors, published last week, which shows that very few firms have yet taken any serious steps to change their supervision and inspection regimes on projects, or their monitoring and recording procedures on the buildings they put up? The change of culture referred to in the Statement does not seem to be happening. The recommendations of Dame Judith Hackitt’s inquiry, as far as they are applicable to the industry, seem to have made no practical difference, despite the urgency of action. It is not really surprising that Dame Judith herself has publicly expressed concern that her report has now gone into the “too difficult” box.

Given that, does last week’s consultation have a proper timeline? Some might say that it is not really in accordance with the Minister’s often expressed views that we should do things “at pace” in relation to this tragedy. We are now two years on, and the consultation and a somewhat minimalist pilot scheme have just been launched. Can the Minister give us some assurance on, or timeline for, when legislation and statutory instruments will be in front of Parliament to change the regulations now in force and the culture of the construction industry? As I am sure the Minister is absolutely committed to do, that is all designed to ensure that we never have another Grenfell Tower tragedy.

Buckinghamshire (Structural Changes) Order 2019

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Stunell

Monday 20th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to this short debate on this statutory instrument. I thank the Minister for his introduction, which sketched out the framework very clearly. I think he perhaps oversold the consensus nature of the situation, which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, highlighted in his contribution. There were court cases, a very anxious local MP and a good deal of controversy in many quarters about the alternative ways of changing the structure in the Buckinghamshire county area. Nevertheless, I think the Secretary of State has produced a sensible compromise between the views put forward by the district councils about how things should be organised in a unitary Buckinghamshire and the proposals that the county council put on the table.

I particularly welcome the choice of three members per ward and a body of 147 members, rather than two per ward as the county council preferred. That is a good decision and I welcome it. What does the Minister envisage will be the total number of councillors for the authority after 2025? He talked about re-warding the county structure as the 2025 elections approach. I have a general concern that every time we do local government reorganisation, one of the underlying consequences is that there are fewer elected representatives serving their community. Even accepting the number provided by the Minister—because of double-hatting, there are perhaps 200 individuals who currently serve on district and county councils at the moment—that will be reduced to 147, which is a 25% reduction in the number of elected representatives. I hope that he will be able to give your Lordships a steer that he is looking for that large council of 147 not to be dramatically shrunk in 2025 to make yet another step backwards in representation. By the way, it is a county whose population is already growing rapidly and, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, made very clear, is set to grow even more rapidly with infrastructure developments over the next decade or so.

That brings me to my second point, which is the role of parish councils in all this. Parish councils in Buckinghamshire feel quite bruised by how things have gone. Seventy-one per cent of parish councillors are reported in the Government’s Explanatory Memorandum as opposing the single authority solution. Therefore, it is important that we have reassurance from the Minister that nothing in this statutory instrument will disadvantage town and parish councils when fulfilling their role as local community champions.

In respect of that, can he say something more about the 19 community boards that are to be set up? Paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to,

“the establishment of nineteen community boards, each with a community hub, enabling local councillors to take decisions on issues such as funding for community groups and local roads maintenance; and providing a single point of contact”.

That is an excellent concept. It is one that Liberal Democrats, when running local authorities, have always felt to be very important. However, it is internal devolution of the budgets and power of the local authority, and much will depend on how those community boards work with or relate to the parishes within their areas and how they develop their external relations with them. What reassurance can the Minister give to those who worry that community boards might be more of a barrier to communities exercising real power and that they will stand between the communities and the decision-makers, rather than turning out to be a conduit for making sure that powers and decisions go down to the local community level?

Notwithstanding the concerns about some of the detail, we will not oppose this statutory instrument this evening. However, we certainly believe that it is important to see that democratic accountability and links with the local community are not worsened by this proposal and that, in fact, the opportunity is taken to improve those links and communications in the future.

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

My Lords, first, I draw the attention of the House to my registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Like other noble Lords, I shall not oppose the order. I very much endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara—who, as a local resident, knows the area very well—and those of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell.

I shall come at this from a slightly different angle. The Minister will not be surprised to hear my views as I have expressed them a number of times before. I just feel that the Government have no real strategy for dealing with local government in terms of its framework and how it is delivered in England. The Government’s general policy can be described as incoherent, confused and muddled. We are creating a bizarre patchwork in England outside London. In one place you could have a unitary authority and next door there might be parish councils, district councils, a county council, a combined authority and a metro mayor. There is no clear explanation of why any one area has one form of local government, yet it can be completely different in the neighbouring county.

This proposal and the neighbouring areas illustrate that point precisely. The proposal is to create a unitary authority for the area covered by Buckinghamshire County Council, but north of Buckinghamshire is Northamptonshire, which appears to be going down the route of two unitary councils. But then we have Bedfordshire, to the east of Buckinghamshire, where there are three unitary authorities: Bedford, Central Bedfordshire and Luton.

Cambridgeshire, the next county along, has the full suite: parish councils, district councils, a county council, a combined authority and a metro mayor. It has the whole lot. Below that we have Hertfordshire, which has the more traditional two-tier local government structures. Many noble Lords, I am sure, will know these areas quite well. They are all very close together and not one has the same local government structures as another. That is not a good way to run things. It is confusing for residents and does not help anybody. It leaves lots of challenges. It is pick-and-mix local government, and that belongs on the sweet counter at Woolworths. It is a really bad way to do things.

There is a vacuum here that is not filled by Ministers. We have policy drift, and that is how we end up where we are today. I have never yet heard the Government set out their vision for local government in England outside London. It is bad value for the taxpayer. The order suggests there will be a saving. Before the Minister was in his job, the previous incumbents would tell me, “We are not going down the reorganisation route because it costs money”. But here we are told it will save us money. Part of me wants to say that he cannot have his cake and eat it.

Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Supplementary Provision and Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2019

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Stunell

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

I am delighted to participate in what I am sure will be a short debate on this item. My delight is enhanced by the fact that it is the one piece of business we are considering this afternoon that has nothing whatever to do with Brexit. In fact, as a consequence of the evolution of local government in England, the larger part of it is directed from local areas and the changes in it are at their request—certainly with their active co-operation.

I am delighted that the Minister outlined some of the issues relating to mayors, sheriffs and lords-lieutenant and the role of charter trustees. At one time, I used to think of myself as something of an expert of those things; it is good to see that they have filtered through into this statutory instrument. There is always a huge amount of civic pride about and importance given to these ceremonial roles and tasks. I know that it is important to make sure that they are retained properly.

My only point of any consequence relates to the transfer of the housing debt. Clearly, there has been consultation with the relevant local authorities—and, no doubt, with the Treasury and everybody else who might want a finger in this particular pie. Housing debt for local authorities is a complex topic on which feelings can run high over whether one has got a good or a bad deal out of changes being made. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the agreement on the changes tabled today is fully consensual and that any difficulties that may have arisen during the course of these discussions have been satisfactorily resolved.

Without any detailed knowledge, I wonder whether that would be true in the case of the Somerset West district authority, which is a very small authority of limited means. On the same thread, the other side of this coin is no change being required on housing debt relating to the West Suffolk district councils coming together, presumably either because they do not have such debt or because there is some other factor that the Minister may be able to advise us on. If the Minister can satisfy the Committee on the question of housing debt figures, that would give us some extra comfort.

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

My Lords, I also think this will be a relatively short debate. I have a couple of questions for the Minister. As we have heard, these changes are to local government areas in three parts of the country. The Minister made a point about charter trustees and talked about areas retaining their right to appoint a mayor. The councillors in that ward would then have to appoint a mayor. What happens at the next level? They also get a mayor. We are getting more mayors, who become chairs of councils. We are creating a lot of mayors here. I just want to point that out.

The point about housing debt was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that. On chartered markets, it is just a case of carrying forward people’s rights.

Generally speaking, I am not against the order as it stands. The only point I would make is a more general observation that I have made it before on other issues, such as local government income. We have a strange kind of patchwork developing all over England. I am not convinced that is necessarily the right way to go. Local government in Scotland and Wales is certainly much more straightforward. When we have all sorts of tiers of local government throughout England, I am not convinced that in the longer term it will make for good government. However, I am not against the order as it stands.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Stunell

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 12th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for giving me such full attention in her speech: I appreciate that. According to paragraph 3.2 of the Prevent report that the Government published in March this year, the police made 1,946 referrals to the Prevent programme, which was 32% of the nominations made. The education service, by which I think they mean schools and colleges, made an almost identical number of referrals, 1,976, also described in the government publication as 32%. The question that I am happy to hear repeated by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, is: are those figures appropriate? Is the net catching too many fish? I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, which is perfectly fair, but the same paragraph of the same report says that 2,199 cases “required no further action”, which is 36% of those referred. The total of those referred to “other services” is 2,748, which is 45%. If one adds those two together, over 80% are referred or require no further action.

Where are they referred to? Thirty per cent are referred to education, 17% to the police, and 29% to local authorities. Exactly what all this means will come up in the debate on the following amendment, as will whether the reporting system is giving us the kind of information and insight that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, just tried to throw on the subject. I await the Minister’s response with great interest. I certainly support the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, in moving the amendment today.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Clause 19 provides for a local authority to have the power to refer a person who is vulnerable to or at risk of being drawn into terrorism to a Channel panel for support. Amendment 54 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, would place a requirement in the Bill that the person who previously referred the individual cannot be the representative of the local authority on the panel.

The noble Baroness set out a clear and compelling case for the amendment, and I will be happy to support her. She addressed a number of points that need to be responded to by the Minister in this short debate. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, also made an important point about the risks to decision-making if you are the person making the referral and you make decisions as well. It may be that the Minister will say that the points made by the noble Lord will be taken into account by the local authority anyway, so it would not get into that situation, but he made a very valid point.

Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Stunell

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 19th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

I will speak to Amendment 7, which looks at the same issue but with a different point in mind. The intention of tackling the issue of empty homes is laudable. I support the proposals in the Bill—I could hardly do otherwise, having been the Minister who introduced them in the coalition Government. The test of time over the last few years has shown that the escalation proposed here is a legitimate and practical measure and it is a good thing to expand it.

I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend on the Front Bench as well, but this amendment has a different perspective. It is a way of supporting improvement in the energy performance of buildings. The general aim of the Bill is clearly to get homes back into use as quickly as possible. That produces a risk of short cuts and of doing things the quickest and cheapest way possible, in order to avoid the penalty—or, as my noble friend said, the incentive—of the increased council tax payment by getting it done and let or sold as quickly as possible. That is the Bill’s general and laudable aim. The amendment aims to mitigate that risk in the situation where somebody is prepared to increase the energy performance of the home. It limits the additional payment that a local authority can charge if the developer or owner improves the energy performance of a property in refurbishing or redeveloping it.

That is the principle; Amendment 7 is just one simple illustration of how that might be done. The amendment says that there would be a 25% reduction in penalty if the energy performance of the home was going to be increased by at least two energy performance levels. In other words, if it is raised from level E to level C, or from D to B, there would be only a 75% increase replacing the numbers in the Bill. There are clearly plenty of other options. I have played around with a few of them, but just bringing forward the most simple and basic version allows the Committee to consider the general principle. I would be more than happy to discuss with Ministers the best way of introducing this approach before Report. It avoids, or at least lowers, the risk of cutting corners to get work finished at the expense of energy performance. It nudges those doing refurbishment to have more ambition in reaching energy performance without, at the same time, having to look at their back pocket and what might be lost if they take an extra few weeks to do the work.

More widely, this is a plea for joined-up legislation. The Government have decided not to proceed with the Green Deal or zero-carbon homes. On the other hand, they have introduced new rules for energy performance standards for lettings. This is a simple mechanism to produce a good outcome. I urge the Minister to adopt it, if not in the detail which I proposed then on the principle, which we can work on before Report.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments. My amendment in this group is Amendment 6, which simply seeks to increase to 200% the amount of extra council tax that can be levied on an empty property. We all agree that we want to bring long-term empty properties back into use, and these amendments would give local authorities the discretion to use these powers.

Having said that, I very much like Amendment 5, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock; it provides for an escalator, which I think works very well. The longer a property was empty, the more you would potentially pay, and that could be a good incentive to get people to bring their empty property back into use. I also like Amendment 7, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, which would take account of whether people had spent money on their property to make it more energy efficient. The increase would be discounted or reduced to take account of that, and that seems a very sensible thing to do. Amendment 10 is just a tidying-up amendment.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that these are interesting ideas. Perhaps if we could all get together and have a discussion and we brought something back on Report, the Government might support it. I think that there is something here that could improve the Bill dramatically.

Grenfell Tower

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Stunell

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for repeating the Statement delivered by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State in the other place earlier today.

As usual, I pay tribute to the response on the night from the emergency services, and of course the response from all the public servants who have been helping ever since that terrible night, as well as the charities, faith groups and others who have worked to get the community back on its feet. We owe them all a great debt of gratitude for the work they have done and continue to do.

I also put on record—I have mentioned this many times—that the firefighters are still waiting for the former Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, to apologise for the offensive comments he made about firefighters in the past. He is still silent on this, and of course he is a man who is not normally known for not voicing an opinion. We will probably never get that apology, but it is right that we should put that on record.

At 11 pages, this is a fairly long Statement from the Government today. When you look at it closely, it reveals disappointing progress; the Minister recognised that in his comments. We have 204 households, and only 62 have accepted permanent accommodation—so 142 households are still in some form of temporary accommodation nine months on from that dreadful fire. That is a regrettable situation to be in. The Prime Minister said in the immediate aftermath of the fire that everyone would be rehoused in three weeks. We now learn today that there will still be people in temporary accommodation on the anniversary of the fire. That is a most regrettable situation to be told of in the House today.

Can the Minister set out for the House what actions he and his other ministerial colleagues have undertaken since they previously reported on the numbers of households that had accepted permanent accommodation? In addition, for future Statements, can the Minister persuade his colleagues to set out where we are a bit more clearly? We know that we have 204 households—that is an agreed figure. It would be much easier for everyone if he then stated the number of households in permanent accommodation, then the number in temporary accommodation, and then the number in hostels, hotels or staying with family and friends. Sometimes we end up getting the permanent and temporary totals added together, and it is not always clear where we are. It would be much more transparent if we got them all laid out clearly for everyone in that way.

It is disappointing to note in the report of the task force that progress has been far too slow, with 82 households in emergency accommodation, including 25 families and 39 children. I agree with the Minister that this is totally unacceptable. As he said, the suffering that these families have already endured is unimaginable. However, although I agree with him, he is a member of the Government, and it is their duty to deal with this matter and to do right by the survivors as quickly as possible. We as the Opposition can only raise this question, but the Government’s job is to deliver, and they need to do so much more quickly. I noted also in the Statement that the Government had hoped to see more progress. When the Minister leaves the Chamber today, what will he do, with his other ministerial colleagues, to make sure that we do not have such a disappointing report the next time he reports back and that more progress takes place? Clearly, there have been systematic failures here. Whatever we thought would happen has not happened.

Regaining the trust of the community has to be the priority for Kensington and Chelsea Council. The political and senior management team has been changed, but we still have not seen the council get to grips with the challenges it faces. We expect the council to take on board what was reported and to be able to deliver. Can the Minister confirm that he is confident that, even with the changes to date, the authority can meet the challenges it faces? I accept that these are unprecedented challenges; if it cannot meet them, what else will the Minister and his colleagues do to ensure that the authority can deliver and do right by the residents? I noted the change of the housing organisation, which is good and what the residents wanted—but again, what about the council?

This is a most disappointing Statement from the Government. I hope that the next time we have a Statement, much more action will have taken place. I hope that the council takes on board the recommendations—but if the Minister feels that it does not, what will he do? I thank again the members of the task force for their report, which is a valuable contribution to what has happened, and I agree that the community in North Kensington has come together, which is the saving part of the tragedy. I will leave my comments there and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

I thank the Minister for the Statement he has made and echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, on the emergency services and the voluntary organisations in the area—and, of course, on the huge community spirit that has been released by this tragedy and which is still driving the community forward. I also welcome the forthright and robust terms that the Statement used, such as, “disappointing”, “concern” and “clearly not good enough”. All those feelings of anger and concern which were expressed in the other place and which the Minister has expressed again in this Statement are shared on these Benches—and more than shared by the local community, which is at the cutting edge of the disappointment, the concern and the anger.

As the Statement acknowledges, far too little progress has been made between the first report and the second report. It was good to hear that there will be increased attention to getting results, and so on. However, when all is said and done, I found it difficult to see in the Statement any new and different thing which the Government or their agents and agencies will do to move things forward. First, therefore, can the Minister tell us what new, practical steps will come out of the anger and concern that the Secretary of State expressed at the other end of this building? I recall that in a Statement before Christmas, the Minister responded to a question from me by saying that the wrapping of the eyesore—the fire-damaged block—would be completed by Christmas. I would welcome confirmation from the Minister that that is now the case.

There is a wider issue. There are 340 other blocks around the country with compromised fire safety, and many of them also have compromised insulation, which means higher heating bills as well as a higher fire risk. What advice is the Minister’s department giving to the owners and managers of those blocks about the remedial measures that they should be taking and, just as importantly, how many agreements have now been made with local authorities which have affected blocks about paying for the remedial action needed?

Grenfell Tower and Building Safety

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Stunell

Monday 18th December 2017 Lords Chamber

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

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

Secondly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for repeating the Statement made earlier today by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

Thirdly, as I have done on previous occasions, I pay tribute to all those involved on the night in question, from the fire brigade and other emergency services, the public sector staff from both local and national government who have been working with the survivors and the local community, to the voluntary sector and faith communities that are there today and have been there every day since that awful night. I thank them for all they have done and continue to do.

As I do every time I respond to a Statement on Grenfell, I want to point out that the offensive attacks on firefighters by Boris Johnson when he was Mayor of London are unfair and hurtful. I live in hope that one day he will apologise for his ill-thought-out words. He is not a man known for keeping quiet or hiding from the limelight, but strangely he is silent on this issue.

Last Thursday, six months on from the tragedy, I asked a Question expressing my concern that a significant number of people will spend Christmas and New Year in either hotels or temporary accommodation. Despite any caveats that people need to be given space to move on in their own time, it is disappointing that so few of the families have moved into permanent accommodation. I agree with the noble Lord’s comment that the council has undoubtedly been slow off the mark in starting the rehousing process. What specific action has the department taken to speed up this process, because at every stage since the tragedy the council has been slow off the mark? Can the noble Lord give me specific examples of the pressure and support from the department, to which he made reference in the Statement?

I have also raised the question of how the leadership of the authority is engaging with the opposition on the council. For example, is the leader of the opposition being properly briefed and invited to meetings? If the noble Lord is unable to answer that today, perhaps he will agree to write to me with details of the specific actions being taken in this respect.

The noble Lord made reference to the sums of money donated by the public and broke down how much has been allocated from these funds and what is being held back to allocate later. Can he update us on where we have got to with the allocation of the funds provided by the Government to the families concerned?

I note the noble Lord’s comments about the wrapping of the tower. There are mixed views on that locally. As he said, it is paramount that whatever happens to the site, it is led by the bereaved, the survivors and the local residents. I welcome his comments in that respect, although the actions and reputation of Kensington and Chelsea Council on community engagement are not as good as they should be. The local community will expect the Government to hold true to their words in that respect, and to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that Kensington and Chelsea Council does so as well.

In respect of the inquiry, I and noble Lords on these Benches give our full support to Sir Martin Moore-Bick. I hope that the Prime Minister will listen carefully and agree to any requests by Sir Martin to be supported by an extended panel. In addition, I welcome the suggestion of a consultative panel of local people. It is important that this inquiry is thorough and answers the questions that need to be answered, and that it has the confidence of the survivors and the local community. Looking back at other inquiries that have dealt with difficult issues, an extended panel can often help in that process. Lessons must be learned and be seen to be learned.

I am pleased that the Government have accepted all of Dame Judith Hackitt’s recommendations in full. That is an important first step, but it is only a first step along a very long road. In accepting these recommendations, will the Minister confirm that the Government accept that this will result in increased costs and that the Government will meet their fair share of these costs and not leave it to local government, business and others to fund any new safety measures or changes brought about by the revision of regulations and procedures?

Many in local government and elsewhere have been disappointed at the attitude shown by the Government since the fire towards the funding of replacement cladding. If the Government are truly signalling a sea-change in respect of their attitude and how we approach building regulation in regard to these matters, significant costs will be involved. Will the Minister update the House on how much they have paid out to local authorities in respect of works needed to make buildings safe since the fire at Grenfell Tower?

In conclusion, what we need to do can be expressed in the concluding sentences of page 10 of Dame Judith’s report summary:

“In summary, this is a call to action for an entire industry and those parts of government that oversee it. True and lasting change will require a universal shift in culture. The industry has shown this is possible in the way the health and safety of construction workers has seen a positive transformation in culture and practice over the last decade. This change needs to start now”.


If the Government are committed to that real change, they will have the full support of myself, these Benches, the whole House and the country. It is time to get on with the job.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I remind noble Lords that I was a Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government with responsibilities for building regulations between 2010 and 2012.

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which is comprehensive and reflects the seriousness of the necessary response to the worst fire disaster in this country for 70 years. From this side, we reiterate our sympathy and support for the families of the victims and the wider local community, who were traumatised by the events that they had in fact predicted, but where no one would listen to their concerns. We have praise for their dignity, too, which was shown very clearly at the service at St Paul’s this weekend.

We also need to recognise, as did both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, the valuable work done by local churches, mosques and community groups. They have worked tirelessly for the past six months supporting survivors and families, often when the authorities were missing or ineffective. We should extend our thanks to them for the help they have given and continue to give.

So it is all the more disappointing to find that things are, in fact, going at a snail’s pace in north Kensington, with families left stranded in hotels at Christmas. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in respect of that. We still have the grotesque, burnt hulk of Grenfell Tower dominating the area. A clear majority of residents believe that it should be wrapped and hidden from view. It is disappointing to me, and I am sure very dispiriting to them, that it is still not, even though the Minister himself in a previous Q&A said that it would be completed before the end of the year. He may be able to update us on the cause of the delay and what is being done to accelerate matters.

I strongly welcome the Hackitt review and the fact that the Government are accepting its recommendations. I will pick up on two or three of those recommendations and press the Minister somewhat on what that acceptance really means. One relates to having a nominated responsible person to certify compliance with building regulations on each project. That provision could be done quite simply by regulation as a result of modifications to the Building Act that were introduced in 2004 by my Private Member’s Bill. I look forward to hearing that that will happen very quickly indeed.

I also want to pick out the point that was made about approved documents. The report says that it is not just a question of getting the fire approved documents right, but that various approved documents for different parts of the building process are not well co-ordinated and there needs to be a holistic redrawing of the whole framework. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that that is exactly what he intends to do.

The third and important point that comes out of the Hackitt review is that all of this will impose what the Treasury would describe as burdens on industry. I therefore want to ask the Minister whether the Government are prepared to say that they will suspend the operation of their one-in, three-out rules in respect of this particular disaster and what needs to be done as far as the regulations are concerned.

One recommendation, which is still to be confirmed in the final report, says that a whole set of trades and professions should have a licensing system. The Federation of Master Builders has been pressing for that for a long time and others in the industry see it as essential. But the Treasury, again, will say that it is a burden. It will be perverse indeed if, in complying with one-in, three-out—or one-in, anything-out—in respect of this, there was a diminution or lessening of standards elsewhere to reduce burdens as they are seen in the Treasury. Will the Minister respond to that?

Finally, I am sure that the Minister recognises that, right across the country, residents are living in tower blocks that have had their cladding removed. They face a winter of worry, not just about fire risks and safety precautions, but because they are in flats that are more exposed to rain and are colder, and that are more costly to run because the cladding has been stripped off. When will the Minister’s department tell landlords what they can do that is safe and approved and will restore the standards that they need in those flats? Of course, linked to that, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, we need to hear where the money is and when it will be available as well.

I welcome the Statement and the report and look forward to the Minister’s response.

Neighbourhood Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Stunell

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 31st January 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Stunell]

My Lords, I was quite surprised to see this amendment, which takes me back to the Commons Committee stage on the Localism Bill when a long succession of amendments were proposed by Labour Members that could be summed up as wrecking amendments designed to disable the process, but they were swept aside. I had thought, from what I have heard from Labour Members in this House and Labour spokespeople in the House of Commons, that it had now become part of the accepted culture of the Labour Party that the neighbourhood planning process is a beneficial one for local communities and should be supported.

That made me look at the numbers which are being talked about. It is 40%. If we divide it by 10, we have 4%, and that would still be more than 10 times as many local residents involved in a local plan than are involved in a district local plan or what used to be a unitary development plan. In fact I could probably add another nought to that because the percentage of local residents in an area who have actively participated in the standard pre-existing planning process is minute. They become engaged only after the plan has been signed off and when a developer puts in a proposal. That is precisely what is wrong with the current situation and is what the neighbourhood planning system is designed to overcome. So there should be no threshold, or perhaps it should be more than the number who contributed from the planning area to the preceding local plan. It would be so small a number that we would not need to consider it.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I intervene only briefly because I made reference to turnouts in my speech at Second Reading. It may well be that the figure of 40% is too high, but our concern is that a plan can be approved on a very small turnout, which itself could cause problems. That is why we have put this amendment forward for debate, but it is certainly not an attempt to wreck anything. As I have explained before, I am a councillor in Lewisham where we are actually producing our own neighbourhood plan. We are about a year into it because it is a very complicated process, but it has definitely involved many members of the local community and I am supportive of that, as is my noble friend Lord Beecham.

Perhaps there should be a discussion about what would be a legitimate figure. Would a turnout of 1%, 2% or 5% be legitimate? At what point would a plan genuinely have community backing when it is put to a referendum? That is the point of the discussion today, rather than any attempt to wreck the provision. I think that we have had a useful discussion that has covered a range of issues.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Stunell

Monday 25th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment proposed by my noble friend, which has been supported also by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and my Labour colleague. There is absolutely no inconsistency with Conservative policy, or the Conservative Government’s policy, in supporting this amendment. I remind the Minister that although the genesis of this measure lay with the preceding outgoing Labour Government, it was strongly supported by both parties in the coalition agreement. Indeed, last year the Prime Minister said at the conclusion of COP 21:

“The talks at the COP21 conference in Paris have culminated in a global deal, with the whole world now signed up to play its part in halting climate change. In other words, this generation has taken vital steps to ensure that our children and grandchildren will see that we did our duty in securing the future of our planet”.

Therefore, I say to noble Lords on all sides of the House that this is absolutely a mainstream and necessary policy move to take. Of all the things that can be done to improve the UK’s performance on reducing climate change and the impact of CO₂ emissions, tackling the built environment is right at the top of the list. Buildings account for 34% of our carbon emissions and within that homes account for two-thirds—that is, 22% of carbon emissions—significantly more than the whole of the transport sector. Governments devote many brain cells trying to find ways of reducing vehicle emissions and CO₂ emissions but contribute nothing like the same level of policy input or intensity to reducing the much bigger output of carbon dioxide emitted from homes.

That brings me to the reasons given by the Minister when we discussed this in Committee. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments deployed then, but one which came across very strongly was that the Government were placing a lot of reliance on the additional cost that this measure would impose on the construction of an average house. Connected to that was their understanding that if there was such an additional cost, it would automatically lead to a reduction in the volume of homes that would be built. As my noble friend said, at the time the Minister relied on a Zero Carbon Hub estimate that the extra cost would be £2,885 per home. Unfortunately, the Minister did not complete the quotation from the Zero Carbon Hub report, which said that the cost would fall very substantially over subsequent time. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned a range of values. It is highly likely that at this stage, two years after that estimate was made, the likely cost, given existing technology and building experience, would be about half that figure—perhaps, say, £1,500. If the cost was £1,500, the annual saving mentioned by the Minister in Committee would be repaid in five years. In other words, the additional cost would be repaid in five years given the reduced energy costs for the inhabitants of those homes. Given that the typical house built today will still be standing and occupied in 60 years, I would have thought a payback period of five years suggests that there is not too much of a problem on that score.

A second leg of that argument was that the increased cost of construction would result in fewer homes being built. I have put some questions to the Minister which I hope she will be able to answer when she responds to this debate. I thank her for the very constructive meeting with her that she arranged for a number of us who support this amendment. The reality is that building costs go up each year in any case for lots of reasons, such as shortage of labour, increased pay rates, shortage of materials and higher costs. For instance, the average cost of building a three-bedroom home in Hertfordshire has been slightly higher in each of the last five years. It has been increasing. I hope the Minister will be able to give us those figures later on. It is even more true that the cost of the land on which that home is built has been increasing as well, by a very much larger amount. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what that increase is.

It ought to follow, from the theory deployed in Committee by the Government Front Bench, that as those costs rise the number of homes should fall and, presumably, so would their price. It is interesting that the sale price of a typical three-bedroom house in Hertfordshire has been rising faster than any increase in construction costs. It is also the case that this has not led to a reduction in the volume of housebuilding. It seems that neither leg of the argument stands up in regard to the link between the cost of providing high quality and the impact on volume or quantity. I hope the Minister will provide the House with some additional information on that and, perhaps, tell noble Lords which leg of the argument the Government will now use to advance the view that this amendment should be rejected.

It has also been said, and was mentioned in Committee, that the Federation of Master Builders is against this proposal and is very important. I do not think anybody in this House would deny its importance, but its members are responsible for only some 20% of the new homes built each year. As has been reported, the overwhelming concerns of builders large and small are access to finance and land and shortage of labour. Right down at the bottom, at only 4%, are concerns relating to regulation and red tape. I do not know what other arguments the Minister may rely on. There is certainly a need for more consultation, but all the consultation on this proposal has already been carried out and the Government had already reached the conclusion that it was appropriate to go ahead. Any consultation which may still be necessary will easily fit into the 12-month period allowed for in this proposed new clause.

I guess that the final argument will be that such a provision should not be so precisely and explicitly stated in the Bill: it ought to be in regulations. The Government have brought this upon themselves. The regulations already exist; they have been printed and published. However, the Government have announced that the next triennial uplift in building regulations has been cancelled. They could reinstate it and give an undertaking to proceed with the stalled regulations. They have not done so and that means that the only way forward, the only way to demonstrate that Britain is sincere in its signature on COP 21 and the only way of helping the Prime Minister to demonstrate that this Government, like the preceding one, intend to be the greenest ever is for this clause to receive the support of your Lordships today.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my declaration of interests. I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham. Although the government amendments which we will be looking at later on today may, in some cases, be responding to points raised by noble Lords in Committee and on Report, the fact that they are there highlights how unprepared the Bill was when it arrived in your Lordships’ House. The Government should reflect on that when bringing legislation to this House in future. Even when we do not like legislation, we at least expect it to be fit for purpose. That has not been the case here and I hope we see no legislation in that state in the next Session of Parliament.

Amendment 118, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, has the full support of these Benches and if she wishes to test the opinion of the House today we will support her. The issues raised in the amendment were debated in Committee, as we have heard.

We all agree there is a housing crisis, but any attempt by the Government to deal with it must ensure that homes are built to a high-quality standard and meet the challenges that we are all aware of rather than ignore or fail to address them. The zero-carbon homes standard is important to deliver on our climate change commitments, and the cost of building to standards that will achieve this and provide homes that will drive down energy bills and reduce carbon emissions could now be much less than the £3,500 we heard about in Committee; we have heard today that it could be as low as £1,500. The cost is initially borne by the homeowner but over the long term it will reduce fuel bills and getting it right in the first place will be much cheaper than having retrofit measures at a later date. This is good and we support it.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Stunell

Monday 14th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, as this is my first detailed contribution during today’s Committee consideration of the Housing and Planning Bill, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the register of interests and declare that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham. However, I feel bound to repeat the point, notwithstanding the points made by the noble Baroness earlier, about the complete failure of the Government to provide the regulations that enable proper scrutiny of this Bill. I again place on record how unacceptable it is that a Bill as complex and controversial as this is brought before Parliament in such a poor state of preparedness. It is nothing short of an outrage that not only have the Government treated the House of Commons and House of Lords in such a manner, but that local authorities, social housing tenants and others affected by the Bill are being treated in the same way. The consequence is a failure to allow the proposals to be properly considered. The line from the Minister last week that the contributions from noble Lords are helping and informing the consultation just underlines the weakness of the Government’s position. We have also heard a variety of apologies and expressions of frustration, and I am sure that the noble Baroness must be frustrated with the problem, which is entirely of the Government’s own making, and the effect it is having on the proper consideration of the Bill by your Lordships’ House. At the end of the day, the power is in the hands of the Government to make the process considerably more acceptable, but they have not gone far enough as yet.

Of course, the Minister is a Minister in the department responsible for this Bill. Instead, we have heard the manifesto defence deployed in Committee, even though it is more usually deployed when the Government are fearful of an imminent defeat on Report or during ping-pong. I shall not be surprised if I hear it suggested from the government Benches that it is all the fault of the last Labour Government that we have not got the regulations before the end of consideration of this Bill.

I oppose Clause 73 standing part of the Bill because it is totally unnecessary. It really is a bit rich: when a local authority has paid too much money in a particular year, that money should be returned to them immediately. The clause will put it the Government’s back pocket as a deposit for next year’s bill. That is totally unacceptable.

However, it gets worse. In our debate last Thursday the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, told noble Lords that there was a process to return money overpaid by local authorities under Clause 67. Through this clause, that process is totally negated. There is not even a suggestion that a local authority would get any interest from the Government’s holding its money. There is more. The money can also be offset against liabilities owed under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 2003. I am sure we will be told not to worry and that it will be offset only against housing debt, but the fact is that Section 11, on my reading, goes wider than the Government suggest, and that is unacceptable. This clause should not form part of the Bill and should be removed.

I take a similar position regarding Clauses 74, 75, 76 and 77, which I also oppose standing part of the Bill. Clause 75 appears to add in a further matter that could lead to a local authority being refused permission to dispose of an asset: any reduction in the amount the local authority would be liable to pay under Clause 67. By way of belt and braces, the Government propose to add a similar provision to Clause 43(4)(a). In respect of local authorities in Wales, Clause 76 makes sure that the Secretary of State can offset against what they should pay to an authority amounts they believe should be paid by the authority under Clause 67, or the relevant section of the Local Government Act. It is like a Government money-hoovering operation.

Clause 74 sets out the conditions and requirements for a local authority to sell its vacant council houses. We on these Benches believe that that is just wrong. It is an attack on council housing, whether by selling the council house or by paying the levy. It is making the duty of an authority to meet its housing need much harder. It does nothing for large families, who often live in larger properties that are usually of higher value. I have said before that I come from a large family, by modern standards, and grew up in a large council property. Living in such a property improved all our lives and helped us progress as a family. I fail to see what this measure does for families in similar situations today who cannot afford to buy their own home.

Amendment 69A, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham, seeks to help the Government change this disastrous course of action in future if they will not see reason today. It places a sunset provision on Clause 74, meaning it would expire three years after the Bill is enacted. This should not cause the Government any real problems. I specifically set the expiry at three years because we are in the first year of a fixed-term Parliament which is due to run for five years until 2020, so it is this Conservative Government who would be making the required regulations to prevent the clause being repealed. I do not have a crystal ball but unless there is some unforeseen event, it is not unreasonable to assume that the present Government will be in office in the summer of 2019 and able to take the action they need with the benefit of seeing the policy in action.

That is all I have to say at this stage but I may intervene later, as in Committee, that is permitted. I beg to move.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

Does the noble Lord agree that the potential for overpayment by local authorities is made much worse by the capacity of the Government to change the meaning of words and interpretations as they go along? A “new affordable home” means what the Government say it means in Clause 72(7); then Clause 72(9) states:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section so as to change the meaning of ‘new affordable home’”.

In other words, local authorities are going to be charged under a regime that may change as the period of the agreement goes on, leading inevitably to miscalculation and overpayment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I agree entirely with the noble Lord. I know the Minister is trying to deal with the point I made earlier about regulation, but where we are today really is unacceptable.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Stunell

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell]

My Lords, I hope that the Minister did not get the impression that, if a high-value house becomes free in Stockport, it is then not ready to be let to another tenant on the waiting list. It is not surplus property, it is empty property in the course of transition from one tenant to another. If the incoming tenant is to be told that the property is not available because it is being sold to participate in some government confiscation scheme, that does not provide the social welfare outcome which this House wants.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I grew up in a large council house in Southwark and my family benefited very much from that. Denying other, larger families that is just wrong.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Stunell

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

When the Minister writes, can she specifically say how many residents in Stockport, which is the borough in which I live, have the two full-time incomes to which she refers? That would be quite a handy ready reckoner for us as regards assessing the information she intends to give us.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, makes a very good point; for example, would it apply to Norfolk, where my noble friend lives? Whether it is one person or two people, they will not get to the £45,000 she is talking about.