Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Tope Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 20th March 2023 Lords Chamber

This measure is supported by members of the Liberal Democrat party and Liberal Democrat councils, and the ULEZ proposal has been opposed publicly by Labour Party Members of the other place. I hope that my amendment will command the widespread support of your Lordships’ House, not least of the one party not mentioned so far—the Conservative Party—when my noble friend comes to reply. I beg to move.

[Lord Tope (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, not least for taking me down memory lane. He began by describing the Greater London Authority Act. I had the honour, and sometimes the pleasure, of taking that Bill through this House from the Front Bench, along with my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I remember the debates very well indeed. The noble Lord’s references to the prospective Mayor Livingstone were slightly wide of the mark. As I recall, the then Labour Government were terrified of the threat of Mayor Livingstone—and it was a threat as far as they were concerned. We spent much of our debate on the Greater London Bill discussing measures to reduce his powers. However, we should not divert too much into history.

I welcome Amendment 178B, on the budget. As it happens, when we were doing the Greater London Bill, I was the leader of a London borough council. I was certainly the only council leader in the Lords, and perhaps the only one in Parliament at that time. I went on to lead the Liberal Democrats on the Greater London Authority for its first eight years. I remember only too well the first eight years of Mayor Livingstone’s budget. Never once did he come close to getting majority support for it. It was always passed, because it had to be, but always without the two-thirds majority to amend it.

That has continued to be the case throughout the life of the Greater London Authority. In both of the last two years, in the preceding debate on the budget—it is a two-stage process—there was not even majority support for the mayor’s budget. When it came to the all-important final decision, a two-thirds majority was not there. So I entirely support what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said about the need for some democracy there and that the practice for majority support for a budget should apply, as it does virtually everywhere else.

I move now to what I call the ULEZ amendment, although it is not strictly speaking a ULEZ amendment. The expansion of the ULEZ to outer London is hugely controversial in outer London at the moment. I should declare an interest, as I was a leader of a London borough council for 13 years—incidentally, a London borough council that has been under Liberal Democrat control for the last 37 years and has won the last 10 elections with a majority, so we must be doing something right there.

ULEZ is hugely controversial and is causing a lot of upset. This amendment is not about the particular proposals for its expansion; it is more about the relationship between the London boroughs and the mayor. That needs to work on a form of consensus. The mayor has the strategic authority, as you cannot deal with a subject as important as air pollution on only a borough-by-borough basis. It must of course be dealt with on a London-wide basis, in this case, so from that point of view I am wholly in agreement. However, the borough and the borough councils have to do the mechanics and implementation, and they are getting most of the heat from the objections here.

I could all too easily divert myself into talking about the shortcomings of the mayor’s present proposals, but I do not want to. I say that as someone from a council that strongly supports any measures that will genuinely reduce air pollution and tackle that issue. But the way the consultation was conducted and the way the implementation is being proposed owe everything to the mayor’s awareness of the timetable he has to meet before the next mayoral election—he wants the expansion firmly embedded in good time before May 2024—and nothing to good common sense.

This amendment is actually about the relationship between the Mayor of London and the borough councils, particularly their leaders. I was very much minded to put my name to this amendment, but I did not do so and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, knows why: I think that proposed new subsection (2) is wrong. It says that

“before the scheme is introduced, consent to the introduction of the scheme is granted by all local authorities”

within the affected area. That gives any one authority the power to veto, in effect, the whole scheme. That is simply wrong.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

With every possible respect for the noble Lord, would he accept that it would in fact allow the mayor to tailor the scheme to include those boroughs that are willing to have it and exclude those that are not? It would not veto the entire scheme for other boroughs that wished to see it implemented as the mayor had proposed.

[Lord Tope (LD)]

My Lords, I accept that a mayor, were he or she so minded, could act in that way. However, I have to say that the current mayor has shown no interest whatever in conceding anything to any of the boroughs, let alone to one single borough. We could get to a state in which the mayor allows one borough—I will not name one, although Bromley comes to mind, remembering the trouble we had with the introduction of the Freedom Pass—to opt out and the mayor could accept that, but I would not want to put that responsibility on some future mayor.

It would be much better if we stuck to the majority principle that we were talking about just now; the boroughs should have the right themselves to opt out of the scheme. I would hope that they would not do so, but they could have the right to opt themselves and their area out of it, but not the right to either stop it for everywhere else or rely on the benevolence of the mayor—little of which we have seen recently—to opt that borough out. So a much better way would be to reword the amendment. I suspect that the noble Lord is not going to press this to a vote tonight, although a lot of people in London think he is: much better that we come back on Report with clearer, better wording to try to achieve what we want to do.

I think, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, that what this amendment is actually about is the relationship between an executive Mayor of London—in a sense, a presidential system—and the borough councils, which are essentially a parliamentary system. Nobody has given enough thought, and there are many other examples, to how we match the mismatch between a presidential and parliamentary system. We have a situation now where the boroughs are all, in a sense, elected parliamentary bodies, with borough council leaders playing an increasing role through London Councils in the running of London, and a presidential-style elected mayor who has all the power vested in the mayor, with none vested in the boroughs and none, for that matter, vested in the London Assembly either. I say that with some regret after serving as an assembly member—indeed, as the leader of the Liberal Democrat group there—for eight years.

I hesitate today to ask for a reconsideration of the government of London—I am not sure I would want to go through all of that again—but that is, in essence, what this amendment is about. If we can agree a slightly different form of wording for this to come back on Report, I should be happy then to give it my support.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to speak only to Amendment 178B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in the interests of embracing an extraordinarily rare consensus. It would be ideal, for the Green group, for my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, former London Deputy Mayor and long-time London Assembly member, to be here, but unfortunately she is otherwise engaged, so you get me, a resident through many of the years that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, was talking about. I say “embracing a rare consensus” with enthusiasm, because I was buoyed last week by the fact that we saw the Government table their own amendment to the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill following a Report stage at which the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, had put down an amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and I had both signed it, and that actually ended up in law. So, you never know; maybe the same kind of unusual consensus of the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Greenhalgh, the Greens, the Lib Dems and others all backing Amendment 178B might get to the same outcome. We can but hope.

I think the case has already been very strongly made for this: this is democracy. But I just want to make one additional point, which is that the London Assembly is, of course, elected through a proportional system, so the majority there reflects the views of the majority of the public. That is unlike local authorities, which are elected by first past the post systems yet need only a simple majority to overrule the administration’s budget.

We heard a lot in our debates on the Bill earlier today about tidying up and fixing up past inequities and infelicities; well, this would be a real democratic addition and a real tidying up. I entirely back the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and all the others who have signed this amendment. Let us see where we can get with it.

Fire Safety Bill

Lord Tope Excerpts

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

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am pleased to support my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and I was delighted to put my name to his amendments, together with the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Whitty. My noble friend has expressed very clearly and eloquently what his amendments are about. I also welcome the very constructive discussions we had with the Minister. As my noble friend Lord Bourne said, I believe that he understands fully what we are trying to achieve.

It seems strange to me and, I am sure, to many others, that the rules for private tenants are stronger than they are for social tenants. This inequality of responsibility should be addressed. That applies also to owner-occupiers, of course. As my noble friend said, in high-rise buildings the majority of tenants are, indeed, social tenants, and I think they need as much help as they can get in ensuring the safety of their premises and, of course, the safety of their neighbours.

On the issue of a register, again, I think this is extremely important. We have heard that this is already in place for student accommodation. I feel that there is a real problem: perhaps we should consider, with both of these proposals, that there is a huge number of, presumably, second-hand electrical appliances in existence. People will be buying them not necessarily from retail outlets; they may be buying them on eBay or elsewhere, and they will not necessarily be having them tested appropriately. This is something that I think we have to look at. Having somebody responsible for maintaining that these items are safe is, I think, of paramount importance.

I welcome the social housing White Paper that was published today, particularly the provisions around these matters. Even if we cannot get exactly what we want today—and I understand that the Bill may not be the ideal vehicle for these amendments—I look forward, when the building safety Bill comes before your Lordships, to being in a position to implement these excellent ideas and proposals from my noble friend.

[Lord Tope (LD)]

My Lords, I begin, as always, by declaring my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and co-president of London Councils, the body that represents all the London boroughs and the City of London. Particularly in respect of these amendments, I should declare my interest as patron of the charity Electrical Safety First.

I apologise that I was not able to be present in Committee when the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, moved and debated these amendments. We debated this issue fairly fully at Second Reading; we certainly covered amendments very similar to these in Committee—which I have read, even though I was unable to participate—and I have been very pleased to add my name to them again. I do not think I need to repeat today all the things that were said very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. The key points have been made; I think that they are understood and I believe that they are generally accepted.

We have made reference a number of times, and again today, to the fires that happened not only at Grenfell Tower but at Lakanal House and at Shepherds Court. In all those buildings, a significant number of residents living there were owner-occupiers. They were not tenants in the private sector or the social sector; they were owner-occupiers.

In a way, this is key to these amendments. In a high-rise block—these amendments apply only to high-rise blocks—there is what has been described as a tenure lottery. There is a mixture of tenure, yet, by the nature of a tower block, every resident in it—regardless of their tenure—is equally at risk from these dangers. We owe it to all of them, not to any particular sector, to provide as best we can not only to deal with the risks after they have happened but, even more importantly, to prevent them happening in the first place. That is the object of all these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I first associate myself with the excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Kennedy, who put the case extremely well. Perhaps it would be helpful if I provided some of the legal underpinnings of why this is an issue that requires plugging. In that regard, I would also like to offer my deepest thanks to the distinguished leading counsel, Richard Matthews, who has provided us with a lot of excellent legal advice on the underpinnings of this. When I spoke about him in the last session, I may well have done him a disservice by talking only about his skills in fire and health and safety matters and underplaying his overall exceptional status as a well-regarded QC in all matters of regulation and criminal defence relating to businesses. His advice has been extremely helpful and I hope that the Government have had time to reflect on what it means and the implications of it.

Case law, frankly, is clear about the Government’s assumption that a private dwelling ceases to be one under a short-term let and that, therefore, this is covered by the fire safety order. The Government have made a number of statements on this in the House and have published guidance, Do You Have Paying Guests?, in this regard. In Do You Have Paying Guests? the Government’s position is expressed: when anyone pays to stay in your property, other than to live there as a permanent home, the property is not a premises occupied as a private dwelling.

Such guidance is not capable of establishing, as a matter of law, that whenever anyone pays to stay in a property, other than to live there as a permanent home, the property is not a premises occupied by someone as a private dwelling. Furthermore, such guidance is not capable of creating a duty in law extending the operation of the articles of the fire safety order to all such premises where anyone pays to stay in this way; nor is it capable of amending the definition of “domestic premises” in the fire safety order to incorporate the definition of what apparently makes premises temporarily no longer domestic premises.

This point is strongly embedded in existing case law. Looking at, in particular, the elements related to definitions of “private dwelling”, “occupation” and “occupier”, it would be worth making noble Lords aware that case law, in the case of private dwelling, is recent and relevant. There have been a number of landmark cases, including Caradon District Council v Paton, which had some very emphatic judgments expressed by Lord Justice Latham and Lord Justice Clarke. In relation to the occupation and occupier elements, the Court of Appeal judgment by Lord Justice Lewison in Cornerstone Telecommunications Infra- structure Ltd v Compton Beauchamp Estates Ltd in 2019 is of course highly relevant.

What these case law examples identify is that the following considerations come from those points. First, particularly in regard to land and property, occupation can be simultaneous with another occupier and does not require either a continuing or exclusive physical presence. While a contract is not wholly determinative, the fact that a licence to occupy is limited and preserves extensive power of re-entry for the host, coupled with the temporary limitations of the licence, means that the host, particularly if, at other times, they are in occupation of the premises as a private residence, continues to be in legal occupation of the premises as a private dwelling during the period of the limited licence of the guest.

Therefore, of course, this, along with other considerations that come from those case law examples, demonstrates that there is a clear gap in the law. Whatever the intention of the Government to ensure that such short-term lets come under the fire safety order, in law, specifically definitionally and under case law, they do not; that obligation is simply not there. So this amendment plugs that gap, and I hope that the Government are highly sympathetic to it and more than willing to consider how they may integrate this into the Bill.

Finally, another matter raised previously, which is not part of this amendment but does not fit neatly into this Bill, is that there should be some consideration of other elements that are missing in law, which again seem to be omissions due to the nature of the short-term letting business. One of those relates to smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, which fall under the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015. These specifically talk about the objective that landlords in the private rented sector in England should ensure that a smoke alarm is installed on every storey of a rented dwelling when it is occupied under a tenancy and that a carbon monoxide alarm is equipped in any room that contains a solid, fuel-burning combustion appliance. They also require landlords to ensure that such alarms are in proper working order at the start of a new tenancy.

Because short-term lets fall outside this definition, there is no obligation to ensure either that there are such smoke and carbon monoxide alarms or that they are working. To verify this, during the course of the week I went on to a site and found adverts for short-term lets of a number of properties that ordinarily should, even for building regulations or insurance purposes, have such things, which were explicit in saying that they did not have these devices. Therefore, it is very clear that in operating the law this is a clear error. This is not what the intention was, but this is another definitional problem. I do hope that the Government will be forthcoming in looking to clear up these clear gaps.

[Lord Tope (LD)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for raising this issue today, and to the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for explaining it so fully and clearly. We have come a very long way in a fairly short time from the days when it was thought to be a good idea for people going on holiday for, say, a month to let out their home for a month to help cover the costs of the holiday, and everybody was happy. I recall lively debates in your Lordships’ House during the Deregulation Bill, as it then was, when we did away with the requirement for planning permission to be granted if a home in London was to be let for more than 90 days. That was thought to be one of the regulations that should be done away with, and so it was.

Although this may have happened anyway and is not a consequence of that, there has been an explosion—perhaps I should not use that word, but that is the way it has been—in the number of properties being let, initially primarily in central London, then increasingly spreading to the suburbs of London and now, for some time, throughout the United Kingdom, particularly in areas of high visitor attraction. Properties that are no longer, frankly, people’s homes, are let; probably most of these properties are not lived in by anybody who could conceivably be called an owner-occupier, as the people living in them change, often quite literally night by night.

If you talk to the Covent Garden Community Association, for instance, they will give you some considerable horror stories of the sorts of things that go on in that particular part of central London. We see whole blocks of flats where there is not a single resident—or, worse, there is a single resident surrounded by people who change on an almost nightly, and certainly weekly, basis. So it is a considerable issue, far wider than the very important one raised by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Mendelsohn, and I am grateful to them for spotting this particular loophole, if it is a loophole—this gap in the legislation.

We need to recognise that, for better or for worse—probably for better and for worse—it is no longer simply a question of people letting their home while they are away for a temporary period. This is now big business, and there seems to be a significant and important gap in the legislation. I hope the Government will, if not agreeing to this particular amendment, certainly recognise that this is a very important issue throughout the country, that it needs to be dealt with very urgently, and that this is an opportunity to do so.

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

My Lords, I declare an interest here, as a co-owner of holiday cottages. I reassure noble Lords that for many years now these have been subject to precisely the type of matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, such as electrical system and appliance safety and smoke and carbon monoxide detection, which lie behind the amendment. To be honest, this is no more nor less than good practice; however, success depends on how intrusive the measures might be under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order. There are, as I mentioned earlier, some good precedents for a degree of self-assessment.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in ably moving this amendment, referred, I think, to hotel standards in comparison with Airbnb. I suggest that trying to apply hotel standards for something that is purpose-built for that type of operation, and with the numbers involved, is probably a different situation. However, some of the principles undoubtedly apply. One of the most important factors is that, unlike the homeowner in their own flat, the visitor is not necessarily familiar, at any rate initially, with the layout of the building. It so happens that every time I have to rent a property such as an apartment, or take a hotel somewhere, I usually make it my business to work out where the fire escape is, because one hears so many horror stories about these things. Generally, it is fine, but I make that point.

The point has already been made [Inaudible.] flip in and out of principal or second home status largely undetected. A point arises as to whether, in every case, the mode and category of occupation by somebody who is paying to stay is actually different, whether they are a tenant on a short-term holiday or something even shorter than that, such as Airbnb. The important thing is that the amendment does not need to capture premises that are outside the intentions of noble Lords or, for that matter, fail to capture those that should properly be brought into it.

If I may digress, I make a plea for consistency in the way some of these regulations are applied. I shall use electrical systems as an example. Recently, I was alerted to the need for a certain type of electrician qualification because of a query from building insurers. It transpired that accreditation for an electrician to self-certify their own installation work does not automatically permit them to inspect and certify somebody else’s. Even electricians do not understand this, let alone householders, so knowing what to ask for is a science in itself, and I think that sort of thing needs to be resolved. To stay on that subject, just about every electrician I know is already tied up doing landlord testing, so getting anything in addition done is not at all easy, because there is not the manpower capacity in the system. Personally, I would not want some quick-fix form of training and accreditation on electrical matters, other than by somebody who had a background and a proper qualification in electrical installation.

Finally, however safe the system may be, occupiers bring in equipment of their own, or may do things that are unsafe. There should be a certain amount of saving provisions for that sort of eventuality. I think of a typical example: you go and do your regular inspection of a holiday home and you find that the cover of the smoke alarm is dangling, with the battery missing. It may be that somebody removed the battery because it was bleeping—although, because you put the battery in only three months ago, that is not a terribly likely situation. Then it occurs to you that perhaps the battery was needed for some child’s toy and it was removed for that reason. Occupiers can do silly things, particularly when their minds are on holiday. If the noble Lord were to press the amendment, I am not sure at the moment which way I would vote, but I do think there is an issue about compliance in this case that needs to be addressed.

Fire Safety Bill

Lord Tope Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 1st October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tope (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, and also as co-president of London Councils, the body that represents all 32 London borough councils and the City of London.

I join with other speakers in welcoming the Bill, which is long overdue, and I share their questions and interests. For the sake of brevity, I will not repeat them, but I am looking forward very much to the Minister’s response and to learning a little more about the future proceeding of this Bill and, more particularly, the timetable and consideration for the Bill that will follow it in due course.

I declare another interest today, as a patron of Electrical Safety First, the charity that takes a particular interest in this area. In that context, I welcome very much the points that have already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, my noble friend Lord Storey, and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. It is a subject that I am sure we will return to at a later stage, quite probably when we consider the building safety Bill.

I want to say a little more about the subject because it is important here. As others have said, electricity causes more than 14,000 house fires a year. The Grenfell Tower fire was caused by faulty wiring to a fridge-freezer. In 2016, a flaw in a tumble dryer led to a fire at Shepherd’s Court in west London, which ripped through five storeys. The fire at Lakanal House has already been referred to—it was also caused by electricity. There are around 4,000 tower blocks in the UK with nearly half a million flats, so probably more than a million residents live in those tower blocks throughout the United Kingdom.

Electrical Safety First’s analysis of government data shows that accidental electrical fires in high-rise blocks have been steadily increasing between 2006 and 2019. In an excellent article in the Times this morning, the chief executive of Electrical Safety First referred to what she described as

“tenure lottery on safety in tower blocks”,

with

“a mixture of tenure types from privately rented homes, owner occupied and social housing that leaves individual flats bound by different regulations.”

She went on to point out:

“Unless every unit is subject to the same safety regime, the entire block and all those living in it can be put at risk from a single flat.”


Tenants living in the private rented sector are now protected—or soon will be—by mandatory five-yearly electrical safety checks. Indeed, I recall that that provision —the ability to make those regulations—was introduced by amendments from the Government during the Lords stages of the Housing and Planning Bill. I mention that as a hint to the Minister that these opportunities arise and should perhaps be seriously considered and sometimes taken. Surely now is the time, and this Bill the opportunity, to introduce five-yearly mandatory safety checks in tower blocks, regardless of tenure.

As I have already said, the fires at Grenfell Tower, Lakanal House and Shepherd’s Court, all in London, were caused by faulty white goods. Despite the efforts of manufacturers and retailers, consumers are reluctant to register their white goods and to respond to any recalls. This poses an obviously high risk in tower blocks and needs to be addressed. Electrical Safety First has therefore proposed that the newly created role of responsible persons for any high building should be given the task of compiling and maintaining a register of every white good in the building. This would ensure that when a recall occurs, anyone with an affected appliance could be quickly alerted to the recall and encouraged to act on it. This Bill, although intentionally limited in its purpose, provides an appropriate opportunity to do that.

On 7 September, during the Report stage of the Bill in the other place, amendments to give effect to these proposals were moved by the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Fire Safety and Rescue Group, David Amess, to whom reference has already been made. Those amendments received warm support from Members of all parties taking part in that debate. In his reply, the Minister referred to the provisions of the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016 and to the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020, to which several noble Lords, including me, have already referred. However, he clearly recognised that this did not fully meet the concerns expressed in the debate and went on to say that

“we will look across Government at whether there are any gaps in the current regime and proposals to strengthen accountability in this area … if there are still gaps, we, like so many Members, want to see those filled effectively”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/9/20; col. 442.]

I and other speakers today have highlighted at least two such gaps and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. The comments in the other place were made over three weeks ago. Can the Minister today give us an update and tell us what gaps the Government have identified so far? When will the Government take the opportunity offered by this Bill and the building safety Bill that will follow to bring amendments to fill those gaps?