Fire Safety Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Eaton

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

[Lord Shipley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, first, I remind the Committee that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I support both amendments in this group. My noble friend Lord Tope, who is a signatory to Amendment 1, is unable to take part today but I know that he is looking forward to debating the issues raised in both amendments when we reach Report.

As we have heard, evidence from Electrical Safety First tells us that electrical faults cause more than 14,000 home fires a year. That is almost half of all accidental house fires. Logically, therefore, the more electrical appliances are checked, the lower the risk will be of a fire breaking out and then spreading to other people’s properties. This is not just a matter of building safety but about preventing fires breaking out in the first place.

I suggest that the general public have a right to expect that Governments of all persuasions should be willing to legislate to ensure high standards of regulation to improve public safety. Those who live in blocks of flats have a right to expect that they are living in a safe environment and that the owner of their block has undertaken the necessary safety checks within it, in this case to electrical appliances within that block.

The proposal in this group of amendments is for checks at least every five years. That is justified. If I drive a car that is over three years old, I have to prove every year that it is roadworthy by having an MOT check. This is to protect other road users, not just me and my vehicle. The same principle should apply in shared buildings where electrical appliances that are a fire risk could cause damage to other properties and to their occupants in that shared building.

I therefore conclude that the fire safety order should apply to electrical appliances where a building contains two or more sets of domestic premises. That seems reasonable. For high-rise residential buildings, in particular, it is important that a responsible person should keep a register of white goods in the building for which they are responsible, that they ensure that white goods are registered with the manufacturer for recall, should that be necessary, and that safety checks are conducted at least every five years.

Any privately rented home in a block of flats of mixed tenure will now be subject to electrical safety checks. It seems odd that in a high-rise block of mixed tenure, only the privately rented properties will be subject to the 2020 regulations. I would be grateful for the Minister’s explanation as to why that is, and to know whether the Government will act now to address that anomaly.

[Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I, too, declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. We all share the object of improving the safety of residents and protecting them from the hazards of fire. The Bill is a most welcome contribution to this aim, and provides much-needed clarity about the responsibilities and duties of building owners.

My noble friend’s amendment has been tabled with the best of intentions. On Second Reading I mentioned my concern about the potential for fire hazards from white goods, as did others. I therefore looked with great interest at my noble friend’s amendment. Although I share the concern behind the two amendments regarding fire hazard posed by faulty electrical appliances, this amendment would transfer the responsibility for that issue away from the manufacturers and owners of such appliances, to the responsible person and the fire and rescue service.

The requirement for the responsible person to keep a register of electrical appliances and to check whether they are subject to a recall notice would be completely impractical, particularly in social housing, where the responsibility of the local authority or housing association has significant implications, especially in relation to keeping a register of all electrical appliances.

Surely the responsibility for the safety of electrical goods should sit with the manufacturers. Recent legislation created a national regulator, the Office for Product Safety and Standards, to lead and co-ordinate the product safety system, and respond to safety incidents and recalls. The Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016 place strict legal obligations on manufacturers to ensure that electrical equipment is safe before it enters the marketplace. An added concern was gaining the co-operation of occupiers and to private properties. There are potential problems of access rights, and ECHR issues.

Clause 86 of the draft building safety Bill imposes duties on residents regarding maintenance of electrical equipment, and I feel it would be better if the aims of the amendment were seen in relation to general electrical safety checks, and were part of that Bill’s safety case provision.

Fire statistics show that 34% of accidental dwelling fires in 2019-20 were caused by misuse of equipment or appliances, with a further 15% due to faulty leads. However, faulty electrical goods, although unacceptable, are not the primary source of fire fatalities: 23% of fire fatalities are linked to smokers. However, even if it were possible to fulfil all the obligations created by my noble friend’s amendment, we would always need to recognise that fires often start in kitchens—and Amendments 1 and 24 will not negate fire danger in kitchens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I strongly support all the amendments in this group because they would help improve standards immensely. My name is attached to Amendments 15 and 17.

The purpose of Amendment 15, which is also in the name of my noble friend Lady Pinnock, is to secure an up-to-date public register of fire risk assessments, to be kept and made available on request. I see this proposal as a matter of significant public interest and of vital concern to those who live in a shared accommodation block, particularly one which is high-rise. As my noble friend Lord Stunell pointed out, they have a right to know that their building is safe. I raised this problem previously when I discovered that such publication can be excluded under freedom of information legislation. Surely all those who live in tower blocks have a right to know about the fire safety of their block, so I wonder what further assessment the Government may have made of the rights of those who live in such blocks to further information.

On Amendment 17, there is a clear case for a prohibition on freeholders of a building passing remediation costs for their building on to leaseholders or tenants. We know that following Grenfell, as we have heard, so many leaseholders have found themselves being asked to meet huge remediation costs. In addition, many owners cannot sell their homes because they have not got—and cannot get—the right certification on the construction of their building. Preventing the provisions of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, leading to further costs for leaseholders or tenants must be an absolute priority for government.

[Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I wish to speak against Amendment 17. The purpose of this clause is to prevent freeholders passing on remediation costs to leaseholders and tenants through demands for one-off payments or increasing service or other charges. This issue is of understandable concern to leaseholders, who are not to blame for the situation. The problems arise from the behaviour of product suppliers, the building industry and the failure of the regulatory system over many years.

The Building Safety Bill, which has already been referred to this afternoon, makes provision for a building safety charge. That Bill will need to make provision for leaseholders to be protected from unaffordable costs, as the Minister recognised in his evidence to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill.

Amendment 17 does not make provision for freeholders to recoup the cost of work, so it will not help leaseholders who collectively own the freehold of their block—nor will it help councils, housing associations or other freeholders who, equally, are not to blame for the failings of the construction industry and successive Governments of all political colours. I cannot support this amendment.

Care Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Eaton

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 15 and 23. I would draw attention to a welcome tribunal judgment in Middlesbrough last week concerning the decision by Redcar and Cleveland Council on the under-occupancy charge. A woman, who is disabled, won an appeal against the decision of her local council which the council claims it took in line with DWP guidance. The tribunal concluded:

“In considering whether there is under-occupation of the appellant’s property, the local authority have not taken into consideration her disabilities and her reasonable requirements, as a result of these, to sleep in a bedroom of her own”.

Redcar and Cleveland Council said that it had properly applied the law as it stood when it decided this case but that the tribunal had introduced an additional test of reasonableness which did not appear in the Department for Work and Pensions guidance. Amendments 15 and 23 would remove a great deal of the doubt that has now been raised. Amendment 23, which refers to access to suitable living accommodation, must include access to suitable sleeping accommodation. That requires there to be a separate bedroom if reasonably required. Amendment 23 would also make it clear that there is a requirement on a local authority to provide access to suitable living accommodation for a person who needs a specific amount of accommodation to enable them to lead a full life.

There is now a great danger for the Government in a large number of tribunal hearings as a consequence of the decision that was made in Middlesbrough last week. One way of avoiding this is for the Government to give a clearer definition of what “reasonableness” is. Amendments 15 and 23 define what is reasonable. I hope that the Minister will agree to look further at this issue in order to ensure that adults who have care and support needs have access to suitable living accommodation. That is clearly not the case at present and it is unfortunate that a large number of people with disabilities are being placed in an impossible situation because of the under-occupancy tax.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 15 and 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. Contemplating the need for changes in lifestyle, managing illness and losing the ability to live independently are very daunting and stressful experiences for many elderly people. The proposals in Clause 4 for local authorities to provide information and advice are crucial in enabling people to have the knowledge they need to make decisions with which they feel comfortable. It does seem that the Bill as drafted has a major omission—the absence of advice on housing options.

I worked as a councillor in a northern metropolitan area for many years. I noticed on many occasions that elderly people were totally unaware of some of the opportunities that were available to protect them. I will give the House one example. An elderly lady asked whether I could help her by getting the electricity board to repair the light on the other side of the footpath across her garden. When I pursued the case, it transpired that because this lady was physically infirm, she was unable to reach her bathroom and lavatory, so she was crossing her garden in the depths of winter to use an outside lavatory. The reason she needed the light was in order to get to it. She was totally unaware of the possibility of making adaptations, with help from the local authority, to provide her with a downstairs bathroom. These kinds of incidents reflect the reality of what elderly people know about in terms of services. It is not good enough to say, “They will find out about them somewhere”. If it was part of this provision, that would be a great advantage to all.

My elderly parents lived at home until they were in their 90s. My father was 96 when he died, and my mother was 95. They were fortunate because I was aware of the adaptations that could be provided for them—small things such as grips, handrails and the like. They enabled my father to cope with the infirmities of my mother and for the two of them together to enjoy independent living. But, as I have said, most elderly people are not aware of this provision. When looking at options for care, most people would not think of asking the local authority about housing options. As a local authority person, I am always cautious of giving extra tasks to local authorities, but I know that this part of the Bill would not create a huge burden because local authorities already provide information about the care-related housing options that are available in their area. The point is that those options are not joined up and they do not come under the provision that this clause as drafted would give. I strongly support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Best.

The issue of the shaping of markets under Clause 23 is also important. We are always in danger of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. Criticism is made of departments doing one thing on the one hand and another thing on the other. There is now a requirement on planners to look ahead and make provision for the numbers and types of homes that are needed. Surely the two things should be brought together as indicated and that health provision should advise and direct the planning process in terms of what will be needed in the future. I warmly support both amendments.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Eaton

Wednesday 10th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I agree with my noble friend Lord Jenkin about the share of the business rates. If the central share continues at 50%, there is a disincentive to local growth by local authorities. The series of amendments tabled by my noble friend, in favour of an escalator, would result in local growth being driven more strongly. His amendment should therefore be supported.

I will concentrate on Amendment 37A. It is an extremely important amendment, the implications of which were discussed in Committee; I had thought at that time that they would have been resolved by now. I have been a strong supporter of the concept of the big society. There is enormous value in promoting volunteerism, trusts and social enterprise. I have been encouraged by the positive approach of the Government to this. However, we have to assist and encourage volunteers and not put barriers in their way, so I am genuinely puzzled by what is still contained in this Bill when these problems were indentified in Committee. Sports and leisure trusts, as we have heard, the Association of Independent Museums and Social Enterprise UK have all pointed out that the incentives to keep such public services in-house, in local authorities, or else to privatise them, will become more pronounced as a consequence of the Bill. Discussions over the summer seem not to have solved the problem. The amendment does.

Under the Bill, there will be serious consequences for expanding trusts, for the creation of new charitable trusts and for the outsourcing of running council buildings which might be better run locally by a charitable trust structure. This is because the incentives to create trusts and mutuals will be reduced and local authorities will have less incentive to grant discretionary business rate relief.

On charities and charitable trusts, councils will be compensated for only 50% of the cost of a new or additional charitable concession on business rates. Currently, all of the mandatory cost—that is, 80% of the total business rate and 25% of the discretionary cost—has been met by central government. In future, that central contribution will drop to 50% and local authorities will have to meet the other 50%. Yet local authorities retaining services and facilities in-house will pay only 50% of the business rate cost because they will split the business rate income 50/50 with the Government. Previously, local authorities have paid 100%, all of which has gone to the national pool.

The incentive for councils to create their own trusts will be reduced. Such new trusts will have to meet additional business rate costs that keeping provision in house would not. Similarly, local authorities that outsource the operation of facilities and services to a private contractor will keep 50% of the business rate that these companies pay; previously, of course, 100% of these payments went to the national pool. There is therefore in this Bill a financial incentive to privatisation.

Trusts can involve significant transfer of buildings and facilities, and unfunded additional costs need to be avoided if more charitable trusts are to be encouraged. We really must give them the means to do the job. The solution is for the costs of mandatory and discretionary concessions to be met by the central share of the business rate revenues where there is an additional net cost to a local authority. Such a decision would remove barriers to trusts being formed.

I hope that the Minister will take on board these concerns and prevent significant additional costs arising for local authorities if they wish to transfer facilities and services to trusts. The proposal is of course revenue-neutral overall and I hope that we can secure all-party agreement to a different way of proceeding prior to Third Reading.

[Baroness Eaton]

My Lords, first, I must declare an interest as an elected member of Bradford Metropolitan District Council. Along with many Members of your Lordships’ House, I am also a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Jenkin is an extremely valuable contribution to the consideration of this Bill and I am very happy to support it. I should make it clear that I support the localisation of the business rate and congratulate Ministers on having pushed this policy through against much resistance. I campaigned for this change as chairman of the Local Government Association and I am pleased to see it becoming a reality.

However, today we are addressing a typical problem faced by a Government who are trying to get ideas from the drawing board of policy into the workshop of implementation when there are so many eager Civil Service helping hands to pass through on the journey. The amendment forces us to face up to a basic difficulty with the Government’s decision to set the central share of business rates at 50%. It is a problem we can even put a figure on thanks to the Government’s own evidence. As we have heard, we have a £10 billion problem.

My noble friend Lord Jenkin explained fully, competently and clearly the Government’s analysis of the scheme and the economic value of localising the business rate. I am sure that the Minister will explain what in this case trumps growth. But we have a few indications from the Government already about their reasons for setting the central share at 50%. For example, the Treasury is explicit that it will use the central share mechanism in order to continue to impose control over how much councils can spend, even though that spending is self-evidently funding itself without any impact on the national taxpayer or the deficit. This control has nothing to do with the Government’s deficit reduction plans, which are entirely necessary and correct. The expenditure and the local revenue balance out without any impact on borrowing. As I see it, it is control of the amount of spending for control’s sake alone.

With such a large central share the opportunities will be legion over coming years for the Treasury to try to share responsibility for programmes which are currently funded by the Exchequer into the ambit of the central share, to which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has already referred. That would go beyond mere control into a zone where local ratepayers are being asked to shoulder burdens that previously would have been funded by national taxes. Perhaps I am being cynical but I feel that this would give me great concern.

The local share escalator proposed by my noble friend Lord Jenkin is a very elegant solution to resolving this problem over time. It would recall the Government to their localist and growth-focused principles, and bring the Bill closer to its advertised purpose. I am very happy to support it.

Neighbourhood Planning (Referendums) Regulations 2012

Debate between Lord Shipley and Baroness Eaton

Monday 23rd July 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Eaton]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the clarity with which she presented the regulations. As your Lordships will be aware, councillors play a central role to facilitate, encourage and champion local people becoming involved in planning. The LGA, of which I am a vice-president, has consistently supported the principles of neighbourhood planning as a tool available to local authorities, but has also highlighted the unnecessary bureaucracy of the Localism Bill.

These concerns have not prevented the LGA from working very constructively alongside DCLG and member councils on more than 200 front-runner pilots to test out the neighbourhood planning approach. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Best, strongly argued that neighbourhood planning referendums would be wasteful, expensive and divisive. I agree with him and the LGA on this matter. With 241 clauses and 25 supporting schedules, the size of the Localism Bill is quite something. In keeping with that scale of detail, these regulations add a further 122 pages of prescription to the 38 pages of detail on neighbourhood planning already found in the Act. It is disappointing that the new regulations are so lengthy, indicating Whitehall’s control over the minutiae of how the localist agenda works on the ground.

What are the problems with referendums? The first is expense. Actions with Communities in Rural England estimates that the cost of parish polls will range from £300 to £8,000. In line with this figure, the LGA estimates that running a referendum on the neighbourhood plan will cost in the region of £5,000. In the current economic climate this level of public expenditure is a core reason why it can be argued that referendums should be avoided it unless they are expressly required by local people, whereupon the cost could be justified.

Secondly, the process is wasteful. Local referendums are time-consuming, complex and expensive. A referendum would be important where there was a local disagreement, but surely they should not be required as a result of national diktat.

Thirdly, local referendums can be divisive. Local experience has proved that community-led planning works most effectively when it is based on consensus building, consultation and discussion. It would be far more appropriate to hold referendums only as a last resort if consensus could not be reached through other means.

Schedule 1 to the regulations details the questions that should be asked in a referendum. While the questions are clear and accessible, by their nature they give communities an either/or option. This reinforces why a referendum is not the most appropriate tool for community decision-making on a neighbourhood plan that may deal with a number of issues. Confusion could easily occur where respondents agree with some but not all parts of a proposed plan.

It is crucial that neighbourhood planning is not considered as the only mechanism for community involvement but is presented as one of a range of measures sitting alongside tried and tested local approaches.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I shall say a word or two about legitimacy and the ballot box. Development plans and orders and community right to build orders are extremely important matters, and decisions made on each of them have to be legitimate and to be seen to be so. I understand my noble friend Lady Eaton’s position and indeed, as one of its vice-presidents, that of the Local Government Association, and I understand that some think that the proposed process is expensive and bureaucratic. However, I have concluded that there has to be a link between the ballot box and approved neighbourhood development plans and orders and community right to build orders.

Parish councils are elected and have a clear mandate for the decisions that they make. Neighbourhood forums, however, are designated—they are not formally elected through the ballot box—and it is not clear that they have the same degree of democratic mandate. It is possible anyway that the parish council, when elected, may have a split vote in adopting a plan or an order. For that reason, I have concluded that the regulations before us are correct in principle; that localism cannot just be about the rights of principal councils; that localism is about neighbourhoods, parishes and the rights and responsibilities of the people who make up those neighbourhoods; and that, if we are serious about trusting the people, the only way in terms of neighbourhood planning is to be certain what people think. That implies a referendum and the use of a secret ballot through the ballot box.