Building Safety Bill

Debate between Lord Whitty and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, safety has a cost, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans reminded us. We have to decide where we should require money to be spent. I will talk a bit about the electrical safety and standards provisions and then come back to staircases.

I know there is a shortage of electrical experts able to carry out these assessments. Our own electrician, who is very expert, cannot do the assessments we are being asked to provide for social housing and other blocks of flats—for example, my son has a let flat, because he is an academic. The electrician says that he needs to go on a week’s course and, as a busy self-employed person, he does not have time. The lobbying organisation Electrical Safety First, which tried to get me to support Amendments 122 to 124, because I am keen on safety and looking after the consumer, seemed relatively unconcerned about this. Moreover, the amendments are wide-ranging and uncosted. As noble Lords will know, I worry a lot about the shortage of skills in the industry.

These amendments would further jeopardise housing supply, this time including social housing, and leave flats empty. Social housing landlords will be doing this sort of thing anyway post Grenfell, I think. For similar reasons, I am against the wide-ranging Amendment 121.

I am much more relaxed about Amendment 120, especially as it includes a consultation provision. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and I did the Consumer Rights Act together; she is right to think forward to the needs of an increasingly ageing population, which is exactly what this amendment does. We also heard from the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young. The huge potential cost to the NHS of accidents in an ageing population is also a very strong argument for action, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff.

This is Committee, so I am sure the Minister will reflect further, but if one can find a way—without imposing significant costs—of making staircases safer, that could be extremely useful.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I added my name to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, which the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has just disagreed with. Those three amendments seem to me an essential guarantee of safety for the tenants, leaseholders and others who occupy buildings that are owned by what are broadly social landlords.

The noble Baroness is correct that the normal training of electricians does not include an ability to do this, but that needs to be addressed. I contrast it with the gas situation. Social landlords are obliged to have a gas inspection regularly and, by and large, they do it. Gas suppliers both train their people in that respect—it is an essential element of a gas fitter’s training—and, certainly in my experience of London boroughs, they carry it out pretty regularly and effectively. I do not see why electrical suppliers should not be in the same situation.

As has been said, over half of fires are ultimately caused by electrical faults; most of those are in appliances, but if those appliances are fitted to an installation and a system whereby the defusing mechanism does not work and the fire goes back into the wall and beyond, you have a terrible and inaccessible situation. That is exactly what the more serious fires caused by electrical faults are. There is clearly a responsibility on the manufacturers and retailers in terms of the quality of the appliances, but there is also a responsibility on those responsible for the buildings to ensure that there is a proper inspection of the whole electrical system. That needs to be addressed; it is an anomaly that gas is different from electric. There was a time when the biggest accidents were gas—now they are predominantly electrical. I hope that these three amendments are carried.

On staircases, I agree with the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jordan. I would also say—somebody referred to it earlier—that there are new high-rise and medium-rise buildings that have received planning permission with one staircase and one means of escape only. That is perfectly legal at the moment. It should not be, but I know of at least three examples in London boroughs which have been passed because they say that there are alternative means of escape—in other words, a lift. Most of us are advised not to use a lift in a fire, and it is pretty much built into our psyche, so that is not a sufficient reason. If we are addressing the staircase regulations, for medium-rise and high-rise buildings, two means of escape without involving an electrical lift need to be written in. I support all the amendments in this group.

Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding

Debate between Lord Whitty and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

If I may, I will continue and perhaps return to that point in due course.

No doubt on Report, which starts next week, your Lordships will wish to debate the further specific measures and suggestions contained in the report, but an important point is that the Government remain committed to introducing a transparent opt-in system for political funds for all union members, not just new ones. However, we will reflect on both the recommendations of the committee and the views of other Members of the House expressed in Committee on the Bill and this evening on the mechanism of the provisions.

As for the specific recommendations on the operation of Clause 11, I am pleased that the committee has endorsed the principle that union members are entitled to a reasonable amount of detail about the political expenditure of their unions, and agrees that the current level of reporting is insufficient. Again, we will reflect on the committee’s technical recommendations and, as I said, continue to engage with the Certification Officer on this and other matters.

I turn to the wider issue that the committee was asked to consider in relation to party funding: the necessity of urgent, new legislation to balance those provisions with the other recommendations made in the Committee on Standards in Public Life report. As the committee itself noted, we have a democratic mandate to introduce the opt-in for political funds. Our manifesto did not state that that depended on there being party funding reform. So the Government agree with the committee’s conclusion:

“While there is no agreement between the political parties, we see no scope for introducing urgent new legislation on party funding to balance the provisions of this Bill. We believe that the political parties should give effect to their manifesto commitments on party funding”.

The Government agree in principle, but for any talks to be productive, there needs to be a sense that all parties agree on the basis for discussion.

Let us not forget that, despite the efforts of its members, the 2011 Committee on Standards in Public Life report did not get cross-party support. Indeed, both parties opposite objected to at least some of its conclusions. It is also important to note that the report predated the Government’s 2015 manifesto.

There are clearly major stumbling blocks to progress. There is no appetite for state funding of political parties. As the noble Lord, Lord Wrigglesworth, a former treasurer of the Liberal Democrats, told the committee:

“I cannot see a time when political parties will be willing to go to the taxpayer and ask for money for their own organisations”.

So what might the approach be? The unfortunate fact is that inter-party party funding talks over the last decade have failed to reach any consensus, in part because they have focused on controversial and complex structural changes. Evidence to the Select Committee suggested moving ahead with smaller reforms that might command cross-party support, such as finding practical ways in which to encourage more and smaller donations from wider audiences. As part of the Government’s broader approach of promoting giving to good causes, the Government would be willing to take that forward for further consideration, such as publishing a discussion paper in the first instance, if there was a positive reaction to such a potential step from the political parties. I hope noble Lords will be pleased to hear that; I shall be particularly interested to hear the views of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, on these issues.

To conclude, we are heartened that the committee agrees on the fundamental principle behind Clauses 10 and 11—that union members should be given an active choice to contribute or not contribute to political funds. We welcome the contribution and ideas on how that mechanism might work and commit to reflecting further on these recommendations, such as the transitional provisions for implementation and the methods of communication that a union is permitted to use in our digital world.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I just reflect that that was a very disappointing performance in view of the sentiments that have been expressed all around the House. We all recognise that the present system of funding of political parties has a lot of problems and that we need a fundamental new review. Without a commitment from the Government to engage in that review, the compromise that we have come up with in this committee does not deliver what the committee wants and what I believe this House wanted in its decision to set up the committee, and what has been expressed quite widely in the debate tonight. I hope that between now and Report the Minister and her colleagues will reflect further on whether this is a sensible stance for the Government in the face of such widespread sentiment in this House.

Enterprise Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Whitty and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, my understanding is that PRA was not discussed but I will engage further in the process and ensure that it is discussed in the context of the consultations going forward next week. As I pointed out, it is mentioned in the consultation paper, so obviously it can be on the agenda of the discussions taking place this month.

[Lord Whitty]

The noble Baroness played an effective defensive game on a very sticky wicket with a fair amount of hostile bowling. However, I do not think that she actually scored any runs. She is in a difficult position, as we all recognise. The fact of the matter is that she has clearly admitted that there has been a change of policy. As far as I can see from her responses to the various questions from my colleagues, that change of policy was not conveyed to the participants in this industry. In effect, it changes the legislation, which certainly was not communicated to us as legislators. That is a failure on behalf not of the Minister but of the department. We are therefore faced with a rather difficult situation regarding this issue between now and Report on this new Bill.

In terms of my two amendments which relate to the threshold, yes, we have discussed this at great length before but I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, or the noble Baroness. I put them down so that we could look at this again but they were at that point probing amendments. The real issue before us is the nature of the consultation document and the degree to which it differs from what our understanding was prior to the election—in this Committee, in this House on Report and in the House of Commons—and from the position that is reflected in the current legislation and the understanding of most of the parties in this industry.

The central issue here is not the economic state of the industry. We all deplore what faces most pubs. There are one or two pubs that I would not mind closing but I would prefer most pubs to stay open. Irrespective of the state of the industry, there is an imbalance between the individual tenant and a large brewer or pub chain organisation. This legislation was designed to redress that imbalance. Whatever view we may take, the MRO was seen as one way of redressing it. We would see the PRA and the MRO not as alternatives; they are complementary. However, what has happened with the consultation paper is that the triggers for the MRO have been limited, as has the availability of the PRA to those who might not necessarily want to go for the MRO but need to understand how the situation with their rent arrangements would compare with going for an MRO. It would therefore inform their discussions and relationships with their landlord.

That is fairly straightforward but we have limited the triggers and dropped entirely the provision for any tenant to get hold of that comparative information. That is a restriction on where we were under the previous Bill. It is a restriction on the discussions that we had just before the election involving all aspects of the industry to try to reach consensus. I understand why people feel betrayed. It is an emotive thing when people feel that the Government have not played straight with them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, given the disappointment and concerns expressed and the lack of complete clarity as a result of my not having read the consultation paper in detail—I have tried to do so and my understanding is that there are actually four triggers—I suggest that we come back to some of these issues in a meeting, outside Committee and formal debate, between now and Report. In the mean time the discussion should continue at a technical level. We are trying to get a good outcome that will help tied tenants and will help the industry go forward in a prosperous manner. We have put out a consultation paper that was designed to try to do things in a simpler way. It is a genuine consultation. Noble Lords have raised concerns and we will obviously look at those. We will try to clarify the various points raised from the perspective of the concerns that have been expressed.

[Lord Whitty]

I thank the Minister for that. It would be useful if some of what she said was conveyed to us in writing. More importantly, it should be conveyed to the representatives of tenants, with whom her colleagues will be consulting over the next week or two. If there is misunderstanding about what the changes mean then we need to clarify that rapidly because there are some very hurt feelings out there, let alone among ourselves in this House. We can take it but they should not have to. We will have to think again about what we do between now and Report, and any information that the Minister could convey to us would be helpful.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Lord Whitty and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

Before the noble Lord sits down and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, takes the Floor, the answer is 12 months—but that is 12 months after the Bill comes into force. Apparently it will take two months for the Bill to go through to Royal Assent, so the maximum is 14 months. However, the message that I was trying to impart to the Committee is that we are determined to get on with this, push ahead and find workable solutions in that time.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I am not sure that the Minister is procedurally correct to say that I have the first amendment. She has the first amendment in this group, which she can move at this point. Although mine is the first amendment on Clause 42, it is not the first one in this group. If she is asking whether she has said enough for me to roll over in relation to her own amendments, the answer is probably, “Almost, but with great regret”.

She has said that she is prepared to talk to all the parts of the industry involved, and she has done that in a very generous way. However, when she went through this clause by clause, there seemed to be fairly clear opposition to all the areas of concern that had been expressed by me, the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, and my noble friends Lord Berkeley and Lord Snape. If she is prepared to say that all these things are open for discussion before we get to Report, I suppose that the sensible thing for me to do would be to say that I did not object to her clause. While I was clear on the conciliatory tone at the beginning, when it came to any individual item it seemed to be the firm position of the department to oppose it. However, it is not really my position to object at this point.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

Okay. I welcome the lecture on procedure and apologise for not getting it right. As a new Minister, I am learning. The answer is yes, we are very open to discussion. What I was trying to do, I thought, was to be helpful in going through our thinking about why the various provisions were set out in the way that they were. I have already indicated that there are one or two places where I can see that the points made today would lead to further discussion. The answer is that we are open-minded and are keen to find a workable way forward, and are happy to do that in discussion in this House. I beg to move.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Whitty and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I regret that I was not able to speak at Second Reading, owing to other commitments. I associate myself with the noble Lord’s question about costs in relation to the new company.

I also have another question: will this new company be able to raise money in a way that the Highways Agency is not currently able to do? That would of course potentially enable important infrastructure investments to go ahead even in times of stringency. I also associate myself with the comments about the A303, having lived off the A303 all my life and having seen probably 50 years’ worth of proposals for Stonehenge—none of which has so far come to fruition.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I support the proposal that Clause 1 should not stand part of the Bill, as it queries whether the clause—which is the whole proposition here—is sufficiently coherent and clear as to what it intends to do. As a Roads Minister, I was responsible for at least one of the proposals for the A303 and remember that we talked to everybody in the community, including several different sets of druids, and told them that the Stonehenge tunnel would be built. However, as I said at Second Reading, no sod has yet been turned and all they have done is close one road.

I understand the Government’s intention to create a steadier position through having a slightly more arm’s-length relationship, but this is half-baked. It is neither fish nor fowl. This will be a company that is wholly owned by the Government and which—to address the point that has just been made—cannot raise its own money. The Minister has made that clear to me, both in writing and in person. I thought the main advantage of having the hive-off would be that the body could raise its own funds, even if subject to broader controls from the Treasury, but the Minister makes it clear in her letter that its situation will be no different to the current one of the Highways Agency. That seems to undermine the main advantage of establishing an arm’s-length body. The Government’s proposal incurs all the costs, all the confusion and all this great legislation in the Bill and all the schedules attached to it, but it does not, of itself, provide the funding, the strategic intent or the independence from Government and, crucially, from the Treasury. It will not avoid what has been a stop-go process for the past 30 years.

If the Government were proposing a new corporation that was properly set up and run and which, although still owned by the Government, had its own structural basis and accountability, as well as the ability to finance its activities in various different ways, I could see that there would be a significant advantage. With this halfway house, which is not even a halfway house, I see very few advantages. Therefore, I think that the Government would be more sensible to leave the Highways Agency where it is, give the agency more money and give that over a longer period of time—if that is the Government’s priority—and, if necessary, think up a fuller, clearer, more comprehensive proposition for what kind of highways organisation we need in this land. The answer to that might well be in the territory that my noble friend Lord Davies referred to, because what we perhaps actually need is a transport infrastructure company rather than one that deals with simply 2% of our roads.

If we were to do that, we could start to deliver the investment required for a genuinely integrated transport policy, whereas the Bill, as I am afraid I have said before, seems to be about changing the names on the doors without changing much else.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about cross-modal being an important issue. There is a later amendment on the need for co-operation, on which I am sure we will agree. I have some concerns about the notion of duty in that context, because duties impose rights and that can lead to problems. I am also not sure that rail is necessarily the model for road. I always think that when you are looking at a regulatory framework, judgments need to be made in respect of the sector that you are looking at. You need to be careful that they work for that sector, and circumstances are different.

That leads me to my main point. I am always concerned about perverse effects. The clause that is the subject of Amendment 13 could have some quite perverse effects, particularly if it were introduced in this form. Duties, effectively, are like legislation and will give rights, and rights can then generate judicial review, and you could have arguments about whether particular things are sustainable or not. You could then make this process a lot more complicated and expensive, and it would not produce the better agency that is the purpose of the Bill. Will my noble friend comment on this aspect of the proposed amendment?

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 40 in this group on precisely the subject of the duty to co-operate. This very much builds on the Localism Act, under which local authorities have a duty to co-operate with each other. I understand that part of the department’s argument on this will be that the new company—the present Highways Agency—is already a traffic authority and a highway authority and is therefore covered by the Localism Act’s provisions. I am not sure whether that is entirely clear. If it is, then some of the objections that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, referred to would have to apply to the Localism Act as well. If that is the case, can we somehow cross-refer to it?

The Highways Agency has only 2.4% of the road mileage of the country. All of its roads create traffic for the local network and all of the local network piles out on to the motorway at various points. Sometimes the most congested areas of the motorway are congested largely because it is being used as a local road by people for just two exits. There is an important need for the Highways Agency and the traffic authorities to co-operate and that needs to be reflected in the Bill.

However, in view of the environmental and safety aspects, there is also a need to co-operate with the safety authorities and with the Environment Agency, which is concerned with emissions, air pollution, water run-off and so forth. The HSE’s duties on the roads will relate only to employee drivers, but it does have some, and there must therefore be a cross-over.

We have briefly mentioned the interface with Wales. Obviously, at the far end of the network there is interface with Scotland as well, and there needs to be some co-operation with the devolved Administrations. I also referred to the police and traffic commissioners because, in practice, a lot of the traffic management of the Highways Agency is conducted by the police. Therefore, the police should have at least some mention here, although I am not entirely clear whether the duty to co-operate under the Localism Act actually covers police authorities as well. In one sense, even if it does, we should cross-refer to it.

Water Bill

Debate between Lord Whitty and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 6th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, rather late in the day we are approaching a rather important issue, which concerns the powers of Ofwat to reopen a price review within five years if circumstances change or if information received from companies on their performance raises serious issues. Considering Ofwat’s role in a more dynamic market, this seems very important.

At present, we set the price maxima for five years. Companies can reopen the five-year settlement if circumstances change; for example, if they need to expend more capital than was allowed for in the price review, they can go back in. Thames Water went back in to see Ofwat about additional money for the super-sewer. It was knocked back by Ofwat but it had the right to ask. I imagine that companies do not do it more often because if the company reopens the price settlement, Ofwat has the right to reopen it as well. It is not a big feature but I am arguing that there should be an equivalence.

Ofwat does not have the power to initiate a reopening. It uses informal powers, and has been quite successful in negotiating with some companies over the current five-year period for reductions in prices because of changed circumstances—mainly reflecting the fact that the cost of capital was significantly less in practice than had been allowed for when the price review was concluded. In reality, as my noble friend Lord Hanworth has pointed out more than once, that allowance for capital has permitted a significant degree of profit enhancement and dividend enhancement by companies, and it is important that Ofwat keeps an eye on this.

Amendment 137 would allow Ofwat to reopen the settlement if it thought that the way in which it was operating was no long appropriate to the economic circumstances, or that the company’s own behaviour gave it cause to reopen it because the terms of the settlement were no longer appropriate. Amendment 146 would provide some background for this. It would require water undertakers to provide information to Ofwat on a regular, annual basis on their financial affairs. This could be dealt with separately from the other amendment, but we have grouped them together for these purposes and there is an interrelationship. If this is a different provision from the very detailed cost breakdown that Ofwat now requires from companies in advance of the price review every five years, and if we move to a more competitive market, the details of that form of regulation may not have to be so onerous over time.

This amendment looks at how companies perform during the price period. It will provide a big picture of how the financial operation as a whole is working out. As we have constantly reiterated, there is a problem in this industry of a vertically integrated regional monopoly, with higher levels of gearing, dividends—they have been at over 90% of income over the past few years—and rates of return on assets, in a relatively low-risk industry, paying relatively low levels of taxation. There are issues about the totality of the finances of the sector that a regulator ought to be free to query. It certainly should have information on it. Your Lordships may have heard a recent programme about this on the BBC’s “File on 4”. I did not agree with all of it, but it pointed out, for example, that some of these companies have at least seven levels of executive decisions before reaching the real decision-makers at ownership level. That applied to Thames Water in particular.

It is important that Ofwat can challenge the way in which these companies conduct their financial affairs. Amendment 146 would provide it with the information for doing so and Amendment 137 would allow it to reopen the price settlement if it saw that there were serious and endemic concerns about the way in which a company was operating, or about changes in the cost of capital or the level of corporate internal transfer pricing and so forth. It is important that Ofwat understands the total system and it is important that it has the ability to reopen the settlement. Of late, water companies have received fairly bad publicity because of their overall financial structure. At the moment, the regulatory system cannot really address that and does not have the information needed in order to address it. This is a gap in Ofwat’s powers that needs to be filled. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, we should look very carefully at this proposal for an increase in regulation. Water and sewerage are long-term matters and the great need is to have investment in resilience, with the right and proper regulatory framework. Ofwat seems to have got tougher in recent times. It is right to have a five-year timescale or we will not get the investment that is needed for resilience. The entrepreneurs involved will assume that if profits go up, perhaps because they have improved efficiency, they will immediately get a call from Ofwat reopening the five-year settlement, triggered perhaps by articles in tabloid newspapers—the sort of thing that will not be good for investment in this vital industry.