Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Stunell and Earl of Lytton

3rd reading
Thursday 21st September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I am happy to take part in this debate simply because it is the last debate on the Bill in this House, at least until after the Conference Recess: we have had 16 days in Committee, eight days on Report and more than 1,000 amendments, skilfully disguised by the suffixes of letters. The noble Earl himself mentioned Amendment 247YYA as an example of how we have these invisible numbers. The Government have of course been a big contributor to the number of amendments, including 55 today. I do not object to those 55; they are a very sensible step forward to improve the Bill even further. Even so, I do not know if it is a record but the Government had, I think, four separate amendments to the Long Title of the Bill, which perhaps emphasises the point that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, made about the process.

Whatever our criticisms of the Bill, though, it leaves this House much better than it arrived, and I want to thank a wide range of people for helping that to be the case, not least the ministerial team. I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for her work in leading the ministerial team, and to the noble Earl and some other Ministers who stepped in at short notice, including the noble Baroness, Lady Swinburne, just last week. In my contact with the officials in the department, they were always polite, considerate and helpful. Catherine Canning last week was a very good and able representative of the Minister’s point of view in our discussions. So, whatever the criticisms of the Bill and the form in which it is now, I just say to the noble Earl that I hope that the ministerial team will work with their colleagues in the subsequent write-rounds and encourage them to the maximum extent possible to accept all of your Lordships’ valuable amendments in the other place, so that they can reduce the amount of ping-pong to the absolute minimum and we can keep the famous table tennis ball on the other side of the net.

I do not want to omit from my thanks the work there has been co-operatively between noble Lords in the Labour Party and ourselves, but also with our Cross-Bench friends and indeed with some of our friends on the Conservative Benches as well. Collectively, we have shown that it is possible to scrutinise thoroughly, to improve legislation and to produce an outcome that we can take some pride in—perhaps muted pride in some parts but, nevertheless, it is a step forward.

Behind the scenes, in our case I have the amazing and redoubtable Sarah Pughe, who has done a fantastic job supporting colleagues here in the Chamber with her drafting skills and her knowledge of parliamentary procedures. So, the Bill goes back to the Commons. I hope that when it comes back to us, it will be as near as possible the same document that we are sending to them.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, as it is not customary for anyone on these Benches to speak on their behalf, I just add thanks on my own behalf, which I hope will be shared by colleagues, to the Minister, particularly for his appreciation of the contribution made from these Benches. Of course, I send my best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. Her courtesy throughout has been outstanding and her tenacity to be admired, and I add my best wishes for her restoration to good health as soon as possible. I add my thanks to the Bill team, even if we did not agree on quite a number of points, and to our clerks. I particularly thank the noble Earl’s colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for the way in which he responded to the question of building preservation notices, to the CLA, of which I am a member, and Historic Houses for their valuable input on that.

On the other matter of interest to me, namely building safety remediation, I am of course sorry that I could not persuade the Government or your Lordships to support a different way forward, but I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to people outside—they know who they are and I will not mention them by name, but they have dedicated their time free and without any benefit to themselves to assist me with their comments and their critique. I also thank the many other experts, and professional and trade bodies, who were willing to share their thoughts with me.

I particularly express thanks to Amanda Walker, a leaseholder, for her courage in coming forward with her story, and the hundreds of other leaseholders who wrote to me with theirs. I thank Jake Fisher for his online petition, which gained 50,000 signatures in 25 days. My focus throughout has been on them and getting fair treatment for affected leaseholders generally, even if my approach has not always been fully understood or appreciated. I do not intend to give up trying.

Finally, I am most grateful for the support across the House for the general principle sitting behind the fact that we all, I think, believe that leaseholders should not pay for construction defects for which they are blameless. There is clearly a lot more work to be done, but I am enormously grateful for the general acceptance across the House of that principle.

Non-Domestic Rating Bill

Debate between Lord Stunell and Earl of Lytton

Report stage
Tuesday 19th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, said in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. Looking at those amendments and their context, I think they present a viable option for the Minister to examine and respond to. It is important to consider where the benefit is likely to fall should these amendments be accepted. As I see it, it will primarily benefit SMEs above the small business rate relief threshold. That is not a guaranteed threshold, by the way; it is at the discretion of the Government of the day, from time to time.

For many of those smaller SMEs above that threshold, business rate costs easily exceed energy costs, even in this day and age. Therefore, for many of those businesses, their focus is on getting their rates down and getting the Government to do that, perhaps overlooking the need to make energy improvements, which they perhaps do not see as central to their business operation, nor producing a dividend that they can cash in good time. This amendment skilfully joins those two things. It offers, to those who find the rates burden excessive—and perhaps we could add “Who doesn’t?”—a mechanism for reducing them by investing in energy performance measures. I certainly agree with what the noble Baroness said about the shape of the guidelines, which would obviously be produced if these amendments were passed, and what those energy improvement measures should be and how they might be properly measured.

There is a clear incentive mechanism here, which is clearly needed because there is no doubt that businesses in that sector in particular are lagging behind on energy efficiency—for the reasons I have outlined: they have other business pressures on them and it is certainly not at the top of their to-do list. Also, they probably do not have an ESG policy or a policy statement committing their enterprise to getting to zero carbon by 2050. These are a band of enterprises which are core to the British economy, but they are not exactly headline-making businesses when it comes to developing their social and environmental policies. They need a nudge. To give them a nudge which reduces their rates bill seems a mechanism which merits careful exploration.

The measures in these amendments would be helpful in that hard-to-reach SME sector, often occupying hard-to-improve premises. To join those two things up would be very worth while. We cannot rely on reaching our 2050 targets for the built environment purely on the good will and common sense of hard-pressed SMEs, which have so much else to do.

There is a greater public good to be achieved. If the Government feel that there is any element of giving money away that they do not need to do, I would simply argue that this is, or could be, an important step in delivering that public good, which is reaching zero carbon by 2050—reducing our carbon emissions and avoiding climate extinction. I very much look forward to what the Minister has to say by way of response on behalf of the Government.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I support these amendments. As we are at this stage of the Bill, I declare that I am a chartered surveyor, a registered valuer and a member of the Rating Surveyors’ Association. It is some time since my bread and butter was generated from dealing with non-domestic ratings; the concepts are well trod, but I will not claim to have any up-to-date knowledge on some of the finer points.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, mentioned some of the concerns that the Minister has put forward. My ears pricked up a bit, as they always do when I hear about ministerial concerns. The first was a reduction in revenue. Let us be clear: we are talking about not making an increase—not actually losing something that was there before. It is the increase created in value that is discounted under the Government’s proposals, for no more than one year. The purpose of these amendments is that the increase should not bite for a longer period. That is important, because the work to improve energy efficiency of buildings is sometimes only really justifiable over quite a long period of time. There is no instant fix. In the meantime, it has to be funded, by a loan or an imputed opportunity cost of money for that period. As I said at an earlier stage of the Bill, one year is simply too short and would be no incentive. The other question about the reduction in revenue is: what is better, not to be able to charge the increase in rates, or someone not to do the work at all because they consider that they should defer the evil day for doing it? There has to be some incentive all round.

The second point that the noble Baroness referred to about what the Minister had said was on the classification of energy-efficiency works in valuation terms. I really do not see that there is any particular difficulty with that. Valuers are dealing with these sorts of things all the time, whether they be tenants’ improvements that are disregarded for rental value purposes, which is actually the nearest open-market analogy to what one is dealing with in business rates valuation, or whether it be for some other purpose—the cost-benefit of some scheme or other. One obviously has to look at these things in the round. If somebody is just replacing the windows and nothing else, clearly they are doing a bit to the U-value to make it more efficient, but it is not a holistic approach. Alternately, if they are part of any type of scheme that one would put forward—that may come out of the further guidance that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell—they will have to look at these things on a holistic basis, because you cannot just put a draught-proof strip on a door and expect your bills to go down. It does not happen like that.

These amendments are very important. I do not see the difficulties that the Minister raised in discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, so I wholeheartedly support this. The Government could afford to be a little more generous-minded over the whole thing. I encourage the Minister, when she is replying, to perhaps apply that metric.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Stunell and Earl of Lytton

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and am a signatory to this amendment. I commend him for his succinct explanation. I also have land interests and some professional familiarity with compulsory purchase.

I have very little to add, but I simply say that the use of CPO powers, and the number of bodies exercising them directly or indirectly, is expanding. It risks subsuming the interests of the individual owner from whom rights are being compulsorily wrested. Some acquiring bodies have overriding commercial objectives, possibly only indirectly aimed at the promotion of public best interest, and I think we should be aware of that. Moreover, many of the safeguards built into the processes when they were used by what I will call the traditional acquiring authorities—for instance, government agencies, local government and so on—seem no longer to be entirely honoured in spirit. That is very important, particularly as we have an expanded use of CPO powers.

The amendment is thus a natural, logical and necessary safeguard for owners who are subject to these powers. They would, inter alia, deal with the evils of entry and taking of land without concurrent payment of compensation. That arrangement leaves a claimant on the back foot in negotiations, prejudiced financially and reorganising their affairs. Failure to adhere to the principles behind this amendment suggests a material erosion of the protocols that are familiar to us under the Human Rights Act—for the reasonable enjoyment of a citizen’s property not to be deprived without due process and for the rules-based system. That is why I support this amendment.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, on this side we are sympathetic to the intent of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, although somewhat doubtful about the mechanism he has proposed. I think we all want people who are subject to compulsory purchase orders to be treated in a humane and certainly human rights-compliant way. We do not want to return to the days of Crichel Down and everything that emerged from that.

Nevertheless, I think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, made it clear that he saw the fundamental problem being one of resources and a search for a less mechanistic way of enforcing compulsory purchase regulations. I would be interested to hear the Minister respond and, I hope, confirm that purchasing authorities will be given support to make sure that they take that process through speedily, particularly the payment of compensation, and in a timely fashion.

Building Safety Bill

Debate between Lord Stunell and Earl of Lytton

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has certainly been energetic, forthright and determined on this issue, and rightly so. He has reminded the Committee that the Hackitt report made it clear that the withholding of money from second-tier, third-tier and fourth-tier contractors and suppliers put pressure on them, which made it much more difficult for them to deliver a proper and effective product or job on site. The downward pressure that they faced as a result of the withholding of that money was a major problem for them as functioning entities. That was the view expressed in Hackitt, based on the evidence that had already emerged from the Grenfell inquiry.

Of course, there is much wider evidence around the country. The collapse of Carillion is an example. I think that £140 million of retentions were held by Carillion and thereby lost from those on lower tiers in the pyramid. Whatever else might be said about it, that put a number of companies at risk of going out of business, and indeed a number of companies did so just because that money was lost to them. The evil impact of this is very clear.

Some of the impact is less clear but just as difficult. Such companies find that they do not have the resources to invest in skills, training and continuing professional development, simply because they do not have that cash in hand. So it has an impact. Under

“Matters which the review may consider”,


the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has sensibly listed in his amendment three important ones and then put “(d) other factors”. I would add investment and training as one of the other factors that suffer as a result of this.

I want to remind the Minister that it is government policy that all government contracts should be written in such a way that retentions are not in place. Unfortunately, not every government department has read the memo. I asked the Business Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, a Written Question and subsequently an Oral Question about how that was progressing. He was quite frank in admitting, and it is on the record, that the Department for Education had so far refused to implement the Government’s overall guidance that all public procurement should be without retentions built into the contract documents. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is having a good go at the education department; I hope that I can add to that today and another Minister will have a good go at it, at the very least to make sure that the Government get their own departments to follow their own policy, which would be very much in the direction that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is advocating. I have probably said enough, but I certainly hope to hear good words from the Minister in a moment or two.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Aberdare. The matter of retentions comes right at the end of this series of Grand Committee sessions, but it is part of a culture. It is the race to the bottom, value engineering or cost-cutting. Construction contract architecture and the practices that have grown up with it are all part of the perverse incentives that have somehow been built up.

At one stage in my professional life, retentions of, say, 5% or 2.5% for limited periods, as the case may be, started as security for the proper completion of works as set out and to a required standard. However, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that this has now gained the appearance of an informal and unconsented bankrolling of construction costs at the expense mainly of subcontractors and their suppliers. This has to stop. It is like all such situations: retentions have a legitimate use but have been subject to serial abuse. If we could keep our eye on one and render the other improbable, that would be all very well, but if the bad practitioners do not get the message, some brutal measures may indeed be necessary and better regulation and protection of sums due may follow from that. I cannot help thinking that the small and medium-sized enterprises that have dwindled and atrophied as a component part of the construction industry are the chief sufferers. They are unable to take on the big beasts of construction.

There is a real point behind this. If the memorandum that the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, referred to became a universal code of practice in the sense that you really had to justify yourself before stepping out of line, that would at least be a start. There is a lot we can do with what we know and the existing situation in terms of decent treatment, honest measures and taking care of the whole supply line we are dealing with. What the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said about investment, training and that sort of thing is absolutely on point, and I certainly support the thrust of this amendment.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Stunell and Earl of Lytton

Report stage
Tuesday 20th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am largely supportive of this group of amendments, particularly the one moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. It always seemed to me that some of these clauses, particularly relating to escalating ground rents, were unfair, with hidden implications that were not apparent to purchasers at the time when they were entered into. The CMA intervention is welcome but the ongoing blight continues. This is certainly an evil that causes me to support this amendment very much.

I also support Amendment 9. This seems to be a logical provision against pre-emption and creates, as I see it, greater transparency, which really should be the hallmark of landlord/tenant relationships in this area.

It is unfortunate perhaps that I am speaking before Amendment 26 has been spoken to. I see it as potentially retroactive, and think it might remove the value of an asset without fair compensation. In its specific scope, it would not distinguish between a fair and reasonable ground rent and one that was flagrantly unfair. I do not in any way defend leasehold interests as such, but if we go down this road it has much wider public interest and property law implications.

Again with Amendment 30, I would have liked to have spoken after the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, whom I believe will speak to it, but, from a technical standpoint, the question of rent is a payment that in this instance the tenant makes to the landlord for the bits of the property which exist but which are not within the tenant’s specific demise under their leasehold. It is not a service charge. Are we at risk of getting rent and services provided for rent confused—in other words, the use of property as opposed to a tangible benefit in terms of the service charge? In general, however, subject to those points, I support this group of amendments.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 7, 8, 9 and 30. I will focus most of my remarks on Amendment 9, but I cannot speak without first saying that the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, which I see as essentially introducing an early buy-out option for existing leaseholders, is the next necessary step and should have been endorsed by the Minister and incorporated in this legislation. It is yet another of the unfinished bits of business dogging our debates on the Bill. Like others, I am looking forward to Amendment 26 being presented by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, which, as far as I understand its meaning and intention, has essentially the same purpose of moving forward the implementation of leasehold reform for that cohort of existing leaseholders who will be left out of this legislation. As such, in principle, we support that strongly.

Amendments 7, 8, 9 and 30, tabled by my noble friend Lady Grender and myself, are various alternative approaches to ensure that if the limited circumstances of this Bill are as far as the Minister is prepared to go, it is at least not a cause of exploitation of existing leaseholders who may be very close to agreeing an informal lease extension. The process of informal lease extensions is a well-accepted norm in the leasehold industry and, as was discussed extensively at previous stages of this legislation, one which comes into play when the existing lease is within sight of its end. That may be some distance away but nevertheless the value of the lease is declining rapidly, and perhaps its mortgageability on resale is compromised because there is not a sufficient existing term of the lease. If a completely new lease is not to be entered into, an informal lease extension may be negotiated between the leaseholder and the proprietor.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, described Amendment 9 as an anti pre-emption provision. Perhaps his three-word soundbite says it all. The risk at the moment is that an owner—or, should we say, one of the less-scrupulous landlords—may see this as an opportunity to preserve the value of his asset by offering an informal leasehold extension on terms which would be applicable under the current legislation now to pre-empt the possibility of that extension value declining to nil once the new legislation comes into force.

The Government have set their face against either of the approaches set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, at least at this stage, and I suspect that they will strongly resist the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. That is a pity and comes despite the evidence that has been put on the table by the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the examples given by my noble friend Lady Grender in Committee, which were referred to extensively at Second Reading. That leaves precisely the problem that I have outlined. An informal leasehold extension may very well be useful to both parties when the leaseholder is shortly to sell or is making arrangements prior to disposal, but clearly it is dangerous if the leaseholder simply wants to continue their lease.

It is also dangerous if the condition for entering negotiations is that the lawyers will be appointed by the owner, and it is dangerous if the new terms which are inserted into that leasehold extension are not drawn properly to the attention of the leaseholder. The evidence shows that it is not unusual for escalator clauses to be built into those leasehold extensions, which are not transparent and not brought clearly to the notice of the leaseholder who is going to sign. The risk is that unscrupulous landlords can see very clearly that, after Royal Assent, their golden goose will be stuffed. If I can mix my metaphors, they have an incentive to offer new lamps for old when it comes to extensions. To offer informal leasehold extensions to unsuspecting leaseholders locks them into a new, unfavourable set of terms when, if they had waited, under the full enactment of the Bill they would have been eligible for its new provisions limiting the ground rent to a peppercorn.

We have tried to fix this statutorily. Amendments 7 and 8 set this out in different ways, but Ministers resisted our efforts strenuously. We have had discussions with the Minister, which I have very much welcomed. He has been very generous with his time and with his officials’ time in working on this problem. Amendment 9 is therefore really quite modest in its intent and its impact. It simply proposes that landlords should have an obligation to alert their leaseholders in advance of these changes coming into force of informal leasehold extension terms being altered by this new legislation. It is a proportionate safeguard which is not onerous on landlords but gives leaseholders a clear sight of the forthcoming changes before they commit to less favourable terms under the existing law. It does not prevent those to whom the balance of advantage still lies with a speedy signature on the existing terms for an informal leasehold extension from choosing to do so, but it seeks to protect the unwary from making a costly mistake which ultimately, as in one or two of the examples which my noble friend Lady Grender brought to the House in Committee, may lead to them losing that property entirely.

I intend to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 9 when the appropriate moment arises.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the amendment just moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.

I am a fan of what I see as post-occupation evaluation. I welcome the amendment for that alone. I would more comfortable if it did not just refer to leaseholders, because the whole dynamic—as regards the ongoing interaction between leaseholders, freeholders, management and so on—is ever moving. That needs to be seen in the round. It should include not just the financial matters referred to in the amendment but a more holistic measure in terms of the sense of place, security, ability to control or influence outcomes and user contentment. I suspect that the Government have a system anyway for reviewing the effects of legislation, but I ask whether that is frequent enough to meet the noble Baroness’s objectives. In general, I support the other amendments in this group.

The noble Baroness referred to the driver behind this being the tragedy of Grenfell. Although the process of evaluation and what has come out of it may be seen, in government terms, to be moving at lightning speed, it has not been nearly fast enough for leaseholders and those who pay service charges. The consequences of that have been amply exposed by the noble Baroness and are ongoing. This is truly a tragedy for many households, which have walked unknowingly into a situation created by the neglect of others. The auguries are not particularly good. The proposal, as I interpret it, to leave the power in the hands of leaseholders to claim—admittedly on a longer timeframe—against those who did not observe basic construction standards creates an almost insuperable hurdle.

It is appropriate that I pay tribute to those outside the House who have promoted the polluter pays principle. I know that this matter has been brought to the attention of the Government, and it would place the basic strict liability on those who failed to make the grade in construction standards. My question is: when are the Government going to act on it? I consider the matter of such importance that if the noble Baroness decides to test the opinion of the House, I shall be voting with her.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, this is a devastating case, again, of unfinished business. We have talked several times about unfinished business in respect of reforming the whole leasehold system. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has spoken with great passion about the need to deal with the unfinished business of getting the damaged blocks discovered since the Grenfell fire put back in a safe and workmanlike position. That is a terrible story, which is still unravelling and still producing—I think we can say—shock and amazement as the evidence comes out of the inquiry at Grenfell. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, it is not an isolated failure. I ought to have started by reminding the House that I was the Minister with responsibility for building regulations between 2010 and 2012, which was well before this but is nevertheless relevant.

There was a failure of regulation, a failure at every level of the supply chain, a failure of the designers and a failure of those responsible for monitoring progress. Of course, the fallout is not simply that one building was found to be dangerous and defective and burned at the cost of 72 lives, but that more than 400 other buildings have been found to be equally defective or worse. As is so often the case, once you begin to look, you see plenty else. The British Woodworking Federation estimates that 600,000 defective fire doors are installed in buildings in this country. In that context, it is good to know that the Government have come forward with a compensation scheme, allocating £5 billion. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the guidelines for applying for that compensation have yet been published. My last understanding is that they have not, but maybe he can bring some information to your Lordships’ House today.

It has to be right that this House considers the situation facing those leaseholders and, in so far as we can, safeguards their position. This is actually a very modest amendment; it calls only for a review within six months, not for the spending of government money, so there is nothing for Ministers to shy away from. It would simply make sure that this legislation, relevant to the ongoing tragedy of Grenfell and the ongoing battle that hundreds of thousands of leaseholders are facing with enormous bills—which the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, eloquently spelled out—cannot be passed by your Lordships’ House without serious consideration.

I know that the Minister has repeatedly found himself at the Dispatch Box having to say essentially the same thing: “This is not the time; this is not the place; this is not the right legislation.” We have to reply to him: “Well, when is the time? Where is the place? Where is the legislation?” We need to see some answers. Certainly, this is a matter we wish to press in the oncoming vote.

Fire Safety Bill

Debate between Lord Stunell and Earl of Lytton

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

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and I thank her for moving her amendment.

On the question of registers, I certainly agree that some list of assessments should be held for regulatory compliance reasons. However, there are likely to be several assessment bodies. Although something like the register of energy performance certificates, referred to by the noble Baroness, might be appropriate, I hope that the basis of assessment does not change every few years, as has happened with EPCs. I also hope that the standard of those accredited will be based on those with a professional standing and a working knowledge of construction. That standard was not adopted with the accreditation of energy inspectors, and I am sure that the noble Baroness would agree with me on that.

Beyond the minimum for regulatory purposes, it would probably be necessary to avoid a register that contained sensitive information. It is fair to say that some of the information that could be in a fire risk assessment might be sensitive. Therefore, it should not just be an online, free-public-access provision—at least, not in its full form.

It is also worth bearing in mind that this will, to a degree, for ever be a work in progress, so the register will not necessarily be accurate and up to date—but of course that is the situation with EPCs. However, somebody would have to maintain it. I think that that could be done only by a central government body, and that would have resource implications.

The really important thing is that occupiers and managers of buildings know that an assessment has been carried out, that it is in date and that occupiers in particular have the right to see it, and that any competent authority may do so as well.

Turning to Amendment 11, on the question of a public register of assessors, it is likely that many bodies will offer accreditation. Again, a central register would have to be held by some public agency if convenient public access was to be a reality. In practice, certifying bodies will themselves hold records of those accredited. I am not entirely convinced that others beyond occupiers, prospective purchasers and relevant public authorities need to have access to the register, and the public knowing that this matter is in hand, with enforcement of the need to carry out assessments, starting with those at greatest risk and progressing through the housing stock, would seem a fair balance.

The issue immediately before us, which has already been touched on, is the assessment of competence and, more particularly, capacity. This cannot be dealt with immediately. Not only does trainer capacity need to be built but issues to do with professional indemnity cover need to be resolved. I have already flagged up a number of these issues with the Minister, particularly the question of accrediting already competent professionals with a knowledge of construction. Therefore, the point was well made by the noble Baroness but there are issues that need to be taken into account.

On Amendment 12, in this group, I would much have preferred the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, in whose name it stands, to speak before me. This concerns one of the shortcoming issues that seem to be common in permitted development rights developments. Shortcomings in terms of living space, amenities, local environment, open green space standards and so on are all too frequent, and the health outcomes for occupants are also often very poor. Some of the buildings subject to conversion to residential have been quite unfit for that purpose. I have inspected some, so I can say that from professional experience. None the less, these projects have been signed off, although I suggest that that does not get owners off the hook on compliance more generally and that all developers who think themselves protected by completion certificates should think carefully about that. There is certainly an issue here.

In the meantime, ensuring fire safety in these permitted development conversions is a matter of top priority, particularly because they happen to house some of the most vulnerable people in society. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Stunell (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 10 and 11, but will speak more fully on Amendment 12, as prefigured by my noble friend Lady Pinnock and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton.

Amendment 10 requires there to be a national published risk register, of which the two key requirements we have set out are that it should be publicly available and up to date. I understand the noble Earl’s concerns that this would always be a work in progress, but fire safety is always a work in progress. If we are talking about annual inspections, keeping a fire risk assessment up to date should come with the job.

If every landlord, designer, building contractor and construction operative always acted in strict compliance with the spirit and letter of every part of the existing regulations, this amendment would be superfluous. In my former professional life, I spent some years supervising building construction work; in case every anecdote about shoddy builders has bypassed your Lordships, I can confirm that such strict compliance is rare. However, one thing I thought sacrosanct was compliance with fire regulations. Even if the brickwork was shoddy and the plumbing a nightmare, at least the fire doors would fit. I now know I was wrong.

The picture emerging with devastating force from the evidence given to the Grenfell Tower inquiry is that at every level, from client and specifier to designer, contractor, subcontractor, and, as it now seems from the evidence this week, even specialist suppliers of critical components, it was not just a case of a few unfortunate errors because of lack of skill or experience but in some cases deliberate efforts to defeat the rules—even safety-critical rules on which many lives depended.

In the months and years since that terrible fire, evidence has been accumulating that this was not a one-off event in a particular building that happened to have a terrible outcome. There now seem to be, right across the country, many hundreds of buildings containing thousands of homes that are not just non-compliant, but pose a real and significant risk of harm to the people who live in them.

None of this would have emerged had the horrific events of that night not brought it very starkly to light. There was no transparency or openness to inquiry but a dismissive casualness in handling the legitimate concerns of those who had worries. In the case of the residents of Grenfell, those who had practical observations of non-compliant building work were completely swept aside. There was certainly no register you could check to show that your home was not a death-trap.

That underlines a significant truth: when those with power and authority find out about bad things and high risks that do not affect them but have a great or even fatal impact on the vulnerable and the weak, their natural reaction is to keep the news to themselves in order to avoid trouble and expense and to hope for the best. We must decisively end the hoarding of bad news on fire safety by the informed and powerful and empower the vulnerable who carry the risks and sometimes pay the ultimate price of life itself.

From now on there will be fire safety assessments. That is a very good thing, but it is essential that those assessments are in the public domain. I take the caveats that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has rightly made about privacy, security and so on, but the essentials of a fire safety certificate should be available for public inspection. They should be at least as public and accessible as an energy performance certificate from which you can discover how much insulation I have in my loft and I can discover how much the noble Earl has in his. We put up with that because of the greater good; we ought to be ready to put up with the same sort of thing for the far greater good of saving life post Grenfell.

It is unacceptable for landlords and building owners to hoard that assessment to the detriment of those to whom they rent and lease their properties and whose lives are in their hands. Grenfell Tower residents’ legitimate and specific fears about weaknesses they could see with their own eyes were swept away by those in authority. No one knew if any assessment had been made, what it said or what should be done about it, and who should rectify the faults disclosed.