Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I should first remind the Committee that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

In the House of Commons, these amended regulations took just 15 minutes to be explained and approved, and that seems to be because they are appropriate in the circumstances. The revised levy rate for Greater Manchester looks right, since the pool arrangements, as the Minister said, have ceased. It is also right that the restructuring of a few local authorities has been reflected in new, updated figures.

We should support financial relief from business rates for businesses impacted by Covid being fully compensated to local authorities, in line with previous decisions earlier in the pandemic. It is, however, clearly important that the businesses rates retention scheme works as it was intended to. I think it would be wrong to give safety-net payments to some local authorities when they are already compensated by the Government directly, and the proposals on proxy figures for the limited number of 100%-retention authorities seems appropriate.

All the amendments in this statutory instrument today are technical and sensible. But the context is one of a system of business rates that is no longer fit for purpose. It does, however, generate a huge amount of income. I am left wondering what the Government are now thinking about the future of business rates—so anything the Minister can tell us on that would be most welcome.

Finally, I read the comments of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee published on 3 February, and I think the committee was right to raise the issue of whether the public are adequately protected against fraud, given public concern about false claims in other areas of Covid support payments. This is, of course, a relief scheme, and relief schemes are part of normal local authority systems and subject to normal audit systems. However, the Minister might wish to confirm that the Government feel adequately protected, given that it is their money that is helping to fund the cost.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this instrument, which, as we have heard, makes various changes to the business rates retention scheme. As we also heard from the Minister, each change is very technical, including amendments to levy and safety-net payments, the restructuring of certain local government areas and the payment by central government of specific grants to local authorities. I will not cover any of the technical detail: the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, amply covered that and asked the questions in these areas that needed to be asked of the Minister, so I will not repeat them.

I will briefly say that Labour supports these changes. However, in the other place when the matter was discussed, some important points were raised about business rates and our high streets. The Minister may remember that yesterday, in the Statement on levelling up, I talked of the need to completely reform and replace the current system of business rates. I appreciate that the terms of the SI before us today are very narrow and that this is not the place to debate that, but I ask the Minister to take our concerns about the current system back to his department. The Government have spoken already about the need to reform the business rates system and have conducted a review, but we have seen little progress to date beyond narrow technical legislation such as that before us today. I encourage the Minister to give his department a nudge. Having said that, we are very happy to support the regulations.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for their contributions. I thank them both for raising similar issues. While this is a very narrow statutory instrument, it is probably worth saying, thinking about the future business rates is very much a matter for the Treasury. There is a recognition that future business rates need to be thought through. Obviously, there is a review and, self-evidently, there needs to be reform.

Equally, there is the issue alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on what we do about local government in the context of the income for local authorities being council tax and business rates, and business rates fundamentally needing to change to reflect the changing dynamics of our high streets. There is an intellectual debate that can be had about whether we continue to resource equalise, or whether we think about life as a race, whereby we ensure the start line is level and fair and then you get places essentially to compete and, through competition, raise the game. That is an intellectual debate that is entirely proper, not for this statutory instrument, but it one that I like engaging in with people who have a very deep knowledge of local government and care about its future. It is really hard to be fair if you have officials working formulae that only they seem to understand to determine whether a place gets x money or y money. It is job of work that, necessarily, the Secretary of State will be looking at—it is far above my pay grade—but I have been a huge advocate of ensuring that local authorities can be set free to be able to determine their own destinies, rather than being necessarily being always funded from the centre, in the relationship we have today. That is how it has always been, for over 20 years, in my time in local government—but that is not really a matter for today’s debate. I am sure that we will have many debates about this in the Chamber over the coming years.

I have something else on this as well. Local authorities are responsible for the administration of release and provide us with assurance on the use of release. These are not grants but reflect a discount on the liability of a business. Local authorities can take action against any relief that is fraudulent. Does that help the noble Lord, Lord Shipley?

Levelling Up

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, if the Statement and the paper with it are the sum total of the Government’s ambition, their legacy will be to have held back the aspirations of towns, cities and villages across the UK. Britain is the birthplace of industry and of towns, villages and cities with huge plans for their future. But over the 11 wasted years of Conservative Britain, our country has stalled.

This paper was meant to mark a turning point, but instead, we have more of the same: no new funding, no new ideas and certainly no new plan. Instead, we have 332 pages, which show just how divorced the Government are from the ambitions of the local communities that make up this country. Above all, what we needed from the Government was a strategy to bring jobs and prosperity to the places that need them most. People should not be expected to leave their home towns to build a successful career, but there are no credible solutions to end this in the paper, only recycled slogans.

The Government need to come forward with a plan to rebuild British industry—buying, making and selling more at home and giving public contracts to UK companies, both big and small. What plans do the Government have to encourage high-skilled industries to move to the areas that the IFS has determined to have the highest net loss of graduates? And how will Ministers reverse the sharp decline in people aged 16-24 studying apprenticeships?

Our town centres have the potential to once again be local hubs of growth, but since this Government came to power over a decade ago, British high streets have lost 10,000 shops, 6,000 pubs and more than 7,000 bank branches. If the Government are serious about reversing this trend, they need to completely reform and replace the system of business rates, which is burdening businesses of all sizes. The solution is not just to tackle the tax burden but to incentivise investment and provide more security to small businesses, which will themselves face the consequences of the Government’s cost of living crisis. Does the Minister accept the warning of many high street chains, which have called for the wholesale reform of business rates?

As much as the paper falls short because it lacks ambition, it also relies on the broken idea that towns and villages only exist to feed off cities. So much of the narrative still relies on the notion that investing in cities is enough to spur growth in nearby towns. For example, look at how any talk of building new transport links is about bringing people from towns into core cities, rather than connecting the towns together. Look at the focus on the largest cities in each region.

No one would doubt that cities deserve the Government’s support to grow, but towns should also be seen as distinct places with proud identities, and the Government really should respect that. Towns and villages need their own industries, jobs, culture, good quality homes and high streets. They should not be the places people are expected to leave if they are to live well. So, what assessment has the Minister made of the recent findings of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, which has called for greater transparency in the awarding of levelling-up funding to towns?

Ultimately, the only way that cities, towns and villages will be able to realise their ambitions is if the Government give them the power to do so. That is why the Government need a new, place-based approach, up-ending the current settlement so that local areas have real powers and resources to make long-term investment decisions that work for their own communities.

The Statement also makes no mention of net zero, green jobs or the climate crisis, while the full White Paper dedicates just three pages exclusively to net zero—two of which are entirely picture based. The Government have failed to detail any new green economy funding beyond previous commitments. Just how serious are this Government about tackling climate change and investing in the green jobs of the future?

One theme is staggeringly absent from the Government’s paper: safety and security. People deserve to feel protected in their town, their village, their city, but the fear of violence and crime casts a shadow over millions of families. Across the UK only one in 20 crimes leads to a charge; that is half the figure since 2015. Today violent crime is at record levels, with nearly 2 million violent offences last year, and an epidemic of violence against women and girls, with only 3.3% of sexual offences leading to charges.

This is why the Government urgently need to introduce new police hubs and new neighbourhood prevention teams to tackle anti-social behaviour and put more police on the beat in local communities. Does the Minister agree that, if levelling up is to have any meaning, it must include addressing the threat of violent crime, which disproportionately impacts different areas across Britain?

I finish by drawing the Minister’s attention to the words of one of his party colleagues, the deputy leader of Shropshire Council, as reported by the BBC’s Jo Gallacher. Councillor Potter, who represents the county which witnessed the birth of the Industrial Revolution, said that the report shows that Shropshire is

“overlooked, unrecognised, taken for granted and completely undervalued”

by the Government. Those words will ring true across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, because the publication of this report shows what many already knew—that levelling up is a slogan, and behind it are only empty promises.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 7th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak on Amendment 6. I should start by saying that I am the joint owner of a leasehold property, but we got our lease extension some seven or eight years ago—outside the scope of the Bill. Also, both now and earlier the Minister has been very generous with his time in discussing the progress of the Bill. I very much thank him for that and for the great courtesy and good humour he has always shown in doing so.

Clause 8 is a duty to inform the tenant. I was very disappointed to find that the Commons, led by the Government, thought that that was an appropriate safeguard to take out of the Bill. I have listened carefully to what the Minister said by way of a substitution and I will cover that in my further remarks.

First, the Minister has accepted the evidence that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, among others, brought forward in Committee: that there really is a loophole and it needs to be tackled. The loophole is one that may be exploited by unscrupulous landlords—a minority of landlords, certainly, but ones who are well practised in being unscrupulous. It is a real-world issue. Of course, they are often aided and abetted by their in-house or tame lawyers who are helpfully acting for both parties and do not necessarily spend too long explaining what the hapless leaseholder is being invited to sign.

We hope very much that the Bill will outlaw that practice, but it will not do so immediately. The purpose of the original amendment that your Lordships sent back to the other place was to effectively freeze the imposition of any such unfair terms meanwhile. The Minister has understandably exaggerated the difficulties of Clause 8, but it actually requires that, when a tenant and landlord are about to commence negotiations, the landlord has a duty to inform the tenant of the existence of this Act and the fact that, in a short period of time, they would essentially be able to carry out their transaction for free, whereas in the intermediate period they would do so under the existing regulations, where it is commonplace for escalation clauses and so on to be built into a lease, which would then be an enduring one. There is clearly a temptation for the unscrupulous to do that. You can see the marketing pitch: “New lamps for old”—or rather “New leases for old”—an offer of a VIP lane to leasehold extension, with legal fees waived if you do it by 31 July. Unwary leaseholders could well fall for that, perhaps prompted to go for it by the knowledge that they have only, say, 20 more years on their lease, and perhaps overlooking the fact that it would essentially be free if they waited until 31 July.

I have chosen that date purely for illustration, because the fact is that the Minister has not told us when the new provisions will become operational; I hope he will be able to enlighten us on that point shortly. The window of opportunity for this unscrupulous behaviour to carry on is between now and the moment when this provision comes into force. I want to hear exactly what the Government intend to do to shut that window at the earliest possible opportunity.

What is being offered instead? Superficially, it certainly sounds very plausible, and I hope that it will turn out to be as robust as the Minister hopes it will be. I hope that it will reach every leaseholder, because what is being substituted is an intention in Clause 8 that is a transactional one that would come into play only if a particular lease was going to be extended or was thought likely to be extended, for a general one—so we have a popgun firing at every leaseholder rather than simply providing a provision for landlords to act on at a time of leasehold extension.

I am very pleased to hear about what the Minister had to say about getting in touch with legal firms and those who represent leaseholders and others. I find that a very satisfactory part of his reply.

I would say that a couple of press releases in the ordinary course of business are unlikely to be very effective. The Minister might perhaps like to emphasise how this communications plan will take place. Is there a budget for it? Is it a real-life thing or just a piece of ministerial gloss? I know that the Minister does not go in for ministerial gloss, but I would like an assurance that we will see a real effort made to make sure that this is closed.

When exactly will it be closed? Clause 26(2) says that this will come into force

“on such day as the Secretary of State”

determines. Is that soon, shortly, in the summer, this year, next year, sometime or never? The longer the window stays open—the longer the gap between now and when the Bill’s provisions come into force—the more the risk and the more difficulty there is.

So I would like to hear an assurance from the Minister. Can he give us a date on which this provision will come into force so that we can hold him accountable? Perhaps he could also comment on whether we will get the second leasehold Bill, which he spoke of frequently, in the forthcoming Queen’s Speech? I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in respect of this and will listen carefully. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have not previously spoken in the debates on this Bill, but I will be brief. I start by thanking noble Lords who have done a lot of work to improve this much-needed legislation. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is a welcome reminder that the Bill lacks any obligation for landlords to alert leaseholders in advance of changes relating to ground rents and leasehold extensions. We fully support the noble Lord’s amendment, which seems to be an entirely proportionate measure and in no way presents an obstacle to the core provisions of the Bill.

The Government have been unable to bring forward any safeguards to address this specific power imbalance at the expense of leaseholders. Without it, we believe that the legislation remains flawed. The relationship between leaseholders and landlords should be defined by the principle of transparency and accountability—as, in fact, the Minister agreed in his opening remarks—but this is simply not possible without provisions such as these. So I ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to provide further assurances that have not previously been forthcoming to allay the concerns from across the House.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am not sure whether we have moved all the amendments up to Amendment 9—because then I can wind up, so to speak. I can appreciate the—

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by saying that we welcome the Bill, which will bring about the long-awaited changes to the building safety regime following Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review. I also thank my noble friend Lord Kennedy for the huge amount of work he has done on the Bill so far.

As the Minister reminded us, we must not forget why Dame Judith’s review and this legislation are so very important. He reminded us that in June 2017, 72 men, women and children lost their lives in an inferno fuelled by the highly combustible cladding system that had been installed on the outside of their tower block. We should remember that that tower block was also compromised by a range of other fire safety defects.

Four and a half years on from the Grenfell Tower fire, thousands of residents across the country continue to live in a state of constant fear over the safety of their homes and the cost of putting right past failures. Although we welcome the Bill and the recent promised government amendments, we have concerns that without further changes to provisions affecting leaseholders, it will still fall short of meeting the objective of learning all the lessons of the Grenfell Tower fire and fail completely to restore public confidence in our building system.

I will outline our concerns to the Minister and I hope that his response will provide further positive reasons as to why we can look forward to government action on the outstanding concerns. First, we believe that the Bill’s definition of “higher-risk buildings” could be strengthened to take into account the vulnerability of residents. The Minister mentioned the fact that the Government have modified the definition of higher-risk buildings to now include care homes and hospitals that meet an 18-metre height threshold. However, that still excludes often vulnerable people living in buildings below that threshold from access to vital protections under the new regulatory system. We believe that all supported accommodation should be included, regardless of its height.

I now turn to funding protections for leaseholders. Does the Minister agree that leaseholders in all affected buildings, regardless of their height, should be protected from covering any costs related to past regulatory failings, and that should include cladding and non- cladding fire safety defects? That protection should be retrospectively extended to leaseholders who have already made significant out-of-pocket investments in remediation works. The Government and the housing and development industries must be prepared to fund, in full, both cladding and non-cladding remediation works. As it stands, the Bill simply does not go far enough to address these issues.

We strongly agree with the Minister that developers must be held to account and I was pleased to hear him say that if this does not happen, law will be brought in to ensure that it does. So I would be interested to hear from him more about how that would take place. The Minister recognised that not all of industry has stepped up. How are the Government going to ensure that industry, right across the board, will play its part and pay the funds that it has been asked to? How will the Government continue to play their part and supply the funds that are needed? The Minister rightly said that a lot of money has been promised but this is a huge issue, with many residents very much out of pocket.

We need to make sure that the twin objectives of fixing the building safety crisis and delivering new and improved social housing can be delivered simultaneously through the Bill. Concerns have been raised that the housing building funds could be plundered. Could I please have some assurance from the Minister in that area?

I mentioned that all remediation costs should be covered retrospectively. Can the Minister advise leaseholders as to how they are expected to go about reclaiming those costs? When will the Government publish their promised amendments to provide concrete assurances to leaseholders that they will not be liable for those remediation costs? Will we be seeing those amendments in Committee?

The provisions of the Defective Premises Act currently stipulate that a leaseholder can make a legal claim for compensation if their dwelling is unfit for habitation, as long as the claim is made within six years of the building being constructed. We welcome the amendment made in the Commons that extends that eligibility period from six to 30 years and that claims can now be made for defects arising from refurbishment works. Another crucial change is that leaseholders will be able to make claims retrospectively if their claims fall within the eligibility period. However, we have concerns that the cost and time implications of making a legal claim against developers will prevent many leaseholders from benefiting from this measure. Will the Minister think about what the Government could do to clarify this because it would be helpful if, in the first instance, they said that they expected building owners and freeholders to make a claim as they are more likely to have the capacity to do so than individual leaseholders? That expectation would also reflect the legal duty for building owners to prove that they have carried out their due diligence on finding all possible sources of funding that do not rely on leaseholders paying.

We also welcome the Bill’s changes to the fire safety order, mentioned by the Minister, which introduce the duty for fire risk assessments to be completed by competent professional, and the improvements to residents’ access to safety information about their buildings. However, it is unclear whether this duty for responsible persons to share fire safety information extends to prospective residents and residents who are not leaseholders but tenants in a building. If the Minister could clarify that, I would be very grateful. This clause could be strengthened by clarifying that responsible persons must proactively share fire safety information, including fire risk assessments in full, with prospective and current residents, including both leaseholders and tenants.

I turn briefly back to the area of most concern to leaseholders: the funding of the cost of cladding remediation and building safety. The Labour Party has been clear in debates both in this House and in the other place that leaseholders should not have to pay to fix this crisis. The Minister confirmed that this is the Government’s point of view as well. Overall responsibility for funding building safety work has to lie ultimately with the Government to ensure that this happens.

It is also clear that industry has played a role in making decisions that have compromised the safety of buildings and has a part to play in shouldering the burden of costs. The Minister spoke about the recent announcement by the Secretary of State, which we very much welcomed, about the Government aiming to recover costs from developers for cladding remediation. But, as has been asked before, how does this help leaseholders who live in buildings with non-cladding-related defects, who also face excessive charges to make their homes safe? The Bill must protect all leaseholders facing costs for fire safety defects that they did not cause.

We recognise the Government’s efforts to increase the building safety fund, but unfortunately the amount allocated is still not enough. Can the Minister reassure this House that the funding shortfall will not lead to a “first come, first served” allocation? This may mean that building owners with less experience of managing large refurbishment and construction projects will lose out, as it could take them longer to get together the information and evidence necessary to properly complete an application to the fund. This could include buildings where leaseholders exercise their right to manage, for example, or where there are projects with additional complications.

The Government need to find a solution that can make all homes safe, regardless of height, without passing on the burden of cost to leaseholders. The residential property developer tax and the building safety levy are very welcome, but will the Government ensure that the right measures are in place to prevent any unintended loss of affordable housing through lower Section 106 commitments?

The cost of waking watch has been a huge concern for many people, and I was pleased to hear the Minister talk about this. It is really good that in December the Government announced a £30 million waking watch relief fund and that this has now been increased. However, the fund still fails to reimburse leaseholders who have already paid out for interim waking watch costs and does not consider those who continue to need a waking watch as well as a fire alarm. Can this be looked at again?

To answer all these outstanding concerns, Labour has called on the Government to establish a new building works agency. This single body, which would be accountable to Ministers, would decide what works are necessary and commission and pay for them, then sign off the building as safe at the end of the process. The building works agency would work closely with local authorities and fire chiefs, who have been gathering data and are well placed to know how to manage projects locally. It would also have the legal powers to pursue those responsible through the courts if necessary. Keeping people safe in their own homes should not be a political issue, so will the Minister at least consider this very practical suggestion, given in good faith from the Opposition Benches? Will he work with both Labour and other noble Lords as the Bill goes forward to Committee so that we can continue to address concerns and improve this important piece of legislation?

In closing, I put on record my huge respect for the survivors and the bereaved of the Grenfell Tower fire and for the wider Grenfell Tower community, who continue to seek not only justice for their families and neighbours but wider change to ensure that everyone is safe in their own home. I know the Minister has worked hard to bring forward this legislation and I thank him for his diligence, yet there are still improvements that could be made. I offer him our full support in making a good Bill even better.

I look forward to listening to the debate today, and in particular to the valedictory speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. I wish him well for the future.

Building Safety

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, before I begin, I would like to pay tribute to my colleague Jack Dromey. Jack was a fearless campaigner for equality and justice, and always stood up for those without a voice. We will miss him.

Moving to the Statement, the Grenfell Tower fire was, as we all know, a dreadful and shocking tragedy which killed 72 men, women and children and ruined the lives of many others. One of the outcomes from this tragedy has been the knowledge that thousands of homes in hundreds of high and medium-rise blocks have deficiencies in their construction.

We are more than four years on from Grenfell, and hundreds of thousands of people are still living in dangerous blocks, while many flat owners have been left with spiralling costs for insurance and service charges. People have been facing huge bills and have endured enormous stress. The Government’s announcement of new statutory protection for leaseholders is therefore welcome confirmation that developers, not leaseholders, should pay to make homes safe. We should also recognise that this is only the start of the solution.

The Government’s plan currently seems to cover only the cost of cladding replacement, which makes up a small fraction of the building safety work required, because remediation work is not just about combustible cladding but about missing cavity barriers, firebreaks and fire doors, for example. A significant number of buildings have both cladding and non-cladding defects.

I understand from the Minister that the Government have withdrawn the consolidated advice note that left thousands of leaseholders in low-rise buildings unable to move home. This is significant progress, but there remains a gaping hole in the Government’s proposals. Leaseholders will still face ruinous costs to repair many non-cladding defects. I ask the Minister why the Government are not properly and completely supporting residents who have been hit with these huge costs, through no fault of their own.

We welcome the Government’s change in tone, so that leaseholders in buildings of between 11 metres and 18.5 metres will no longer be expected to take out personal loans to cover the cost of the work. Instead, the Government are focused on securing up to £4 billion towards the costs from developers. However, leaseholders are concerned about how the Government will force the developers to pay and experts have questioned whether £4 billion will be sufficient to cover cladding in buildings under 18.5 metres.

The Secretary of State said that he will begin negotiations with those responsible and resort to increased taxation if they fail, but reports have suggested that the Chancellor could block this. Documents from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, say that no new Treasury funding will be available to pay for this extra work; that the cost of the extra cladding removal must not exceed £4 billion; and that, if Mr Gove is unsuccessful in persuading or compelling developers to pay for the costs, they must be paid from existing housing budgets and

“safety should be prioritised over supply”.

I ask the Minister if there has been an assessment of what this would mean for the Government’s housebuilding programme. If the Government are serious about making developers pay, they should also take steps to make sure this never happens again. In the past four years, at least 70 schools and 25 hospitals and care homes have been built using potentially dangerous material, yet the Government still have not responded to a consultation on a ban on combustible materials, which closed over a year ago. I ask the Minister when we can expect to see the response.

Leaseholders are the innocent victims of this scandal and they need the Government to act as quickly as possible to resolve the situation, but remediation has been painfully slow. The Government continue to publish monthly updates on the progress of ACM cladding remediation, which do not include non-ACM buildings. Does the Minister agree that being transparent about the progress to make homes safe is vital to restore leaseholders’ trust? According to Labour analysis, at the current rate, it will take until 2026 for cladding to be removed from all social housing blocks and until 2024 from private blocks. Will the Government put forward a timescale to complete the remediation of all dangerous buildings?

Yesterday, the Secretary of State confirmed that he will meet Labour’s call for new clauses in the Building Safety Bill, when it comes to this House, to protect leaseholders. I ask the Minister to work with the Opposition Benches and other interested parties, so that we get these amendments right. Can he confirm that time will be allowed for proper scrutiny? I assure the Minister that, when the Building Safety Bill comes to this House, we will welcome the opportunity to work with him to achieve the much-needed improvements in this area.

The Statement before us has new measures that the Opposition welcome and genuinely want to see succeed, but the Government also need a clear plan to make developers pay for the works or leaseholders will continue to be stuck in limbo—stuck in their unsafe homes, unable to sell up and move on. People expect to live safely in their homes and I look forward to the Minister’s response to the ongoing concerns.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I start by paying tribute to the cladding campaigners, whose extraordinary persistence in conducting a fact-based, solutions-offered campaign is largely responsible for the content of the Statement today. Their efforts on behalf of blameless leaseholders and tenants are a worthy memorial to the tragic victims of the Grenfell Tower fire.

The words of the Secretary of State are welcome. He says that the Government have to take a “share of responsibility”, that manufacturers have “shown insufficient contrition”, that those who profited will “pay the price” and that leaseholders are “blameless”. These are all quotations from the Statement and I welcome them.

On the face of it, the Government are responding to the fire safety and cladding crisis with bold proposals. However, the most important of these are more aspirational than concrete. The aim—to extract £4 billion from the companies that developed the buildings to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from blocks of between 11 and 18.5 metres—is based on the polluter pays principle. Can the Minister explain how this will be achieved?

Special purpose vehicles and shell companies are devices that have been used to ring-fence the parent company from liability. Will the Government nevertheless expect the parent company to pay up? Then there are the distant freeholders, not based in this country. How do the Government anticipate extracting funding from them? Will action be taken to prevent construction and development companies ring-fencing their liabilities to prevent losses from parent companies?

Then there are the backstop arrangements to raise £4 billion, which seem rather confused to me. Will the Minister clarify whether further taxation of construction funds will follow if the requisite funding is not raised? The letter from the Treasury seems to suggest that, if all else fails, departmental funding will have to be used. Is that right? Will it be taken from the £12 billion set aside in the department’s funding to support affordable and social housing? If so, I am not sure I would be able to support it.

My next question is this: the £4 billion is to remove flammable cladding only. We know that a major element of the remediation costs is in the lack of firebreaks and compartmentation. Who do the Government expect will put these right? I appreciate that the Statement includes a commitment to create a 30-year period of limited liability, during which leaseholders could sue, although this would be a David and Goliath contest.

Then there is the question of timing, which is crucial. Leaseholders already have bills for remediation, many of which are in the tens of thousands of pounds. The date by which they must be paid is April this year. Time is running out. I understand that the Government rightly wish to protect leaseholders from forfeiture and eviction, but what about bankruptcy? Will that protection be in place by April? If not, I fear leaseholders may still find themselves at the mercy of the unscrupulous.

The whole area of social housing barely gets a mention. Those social housing providers that are raising capital to remedy defects are doing so at the expense of new homes being built or existing homes being improved. Can the Minister describe the plan for the social housing sector?

Finally, can the Minister assure us that sufficient funding will be made available if the costs rise above £4 billion? I appreciate that I have posed many questions. If the Minister is not able to provide full answers, will he please provide a written response?

Despite all the questions, I am pleased that the Secretary of State has been so forthright in this Statement and has taken a very large step forward in addressing the plight of the thousands of leaseholders and tenants who have lived for four years in fear and anxiety, and who must not pay a penny piece to put right the wrongs of others.

Building Regulations: Sanitary Provision

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 5th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right that there has been a long-standing decline in public toilet provision. In fact, I got the department to produce up-to-date statistics that chart that decline, which went from 6,916 to 6,391 between 1994 and 2000, and fell further, to 4,486, in 2018, according to the most recent statistics. I will share the statistics in writing with the noble Baroness. Clearly, the Act she refers to is one way of improving the situation, through providing rates relief, and she will be well aware of the changing places programme, through which my department has provided £30 million for local authorities to encourage the building of further provision.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Further to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, during debates on the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill, to which she referred, Ministers agreed that steps should be taken to encourage making new public toilets accessible for people with disabilities. Have the Government estimated how many new public toilets have opened since the passing of the Act, and what proportion of these toilets are considered to be accessible?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, to respond to that very sensible question, it is not in the gift of central government to control the number of toilets, but what we can do is provide funds to encourage further provision, as we have done with the changing places fund, and provide tax relief, as we did with the Act that was mentioned. Indeed, a lot of other legislation—I could go through a list—places a duty on workplaces to provide accessible toilets. I am happy to write to the noble Baroness if we have those statistics to hand, because it would be useful to see whether this has had an impact.

UK Community Renewal Fund

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

With regard to union, it was very clear that we wanted to fund all four nations. That criterion was set from the outset. In addition, we wanted to raise all boats and strengthen the economic resilience of particular areas, which were banded A, B and C. I have been through this methodology and found it to be robust. What is more, the previous Secretary of State published the methodology and the current Secretary of State published the model. What more transparency could you ask for?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The Minister may well think little of the analysis of the Centre for Inequality and Levelling Up, but surely he thinks it important that the most deserving communities get the support that they need for levelling up. The Centre for Inequality and Levelling Up also asks for close monitoring of who is benefiting from the current tranche of bids. What monitoring arrangements have the Government put in place to ensure that the right communities get the funding that they deserve?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

As a local authority leader for some of the most deprived parts of the country, I used to look at the index of multiple deprivation very carefully. The borough that I led for six years had some of the most deprived communities, so I understand that, but the purpose of this fund was not to identify those most deprived communities. It focused on what was going to lift economies and therefore provide job opportunities and enable us to thrive us a nation. That was its purpose.

Smoke-free Pavements

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, any government Minister needs to be aware of when they are being lobbied. It is important to understand where the information is coming from and whether there is a prejudicial interest. It is also important that we in government work across departments to make the right decisions at the right time.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

According to Keep Britain Tidy, cigarette butts are the most littered item. They also have the highest levels of toxicity and are the least recovered, leaching into the ground and into our water systems. What are the Government doing to ensure that the tobacco industry pays towards the costs of cleaning them up and driving down such pollution?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am not sure that that question is directed entirely at my department —my noble friend probably knows more about this than me—but I am happy to write to the noble Baroness specifically on what we are doing in that regard.

Fire Safety and Cladding

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

As I have said, the Department for Education has conducted an exercise in which buildings have been reviewed and measures have been taken to ensure that those buildings are safe. I speak as somebody who has two children at school, and I understand that schools go through their fire drill, have fire doors, know where all the children are and are very focused on the notion of fire safety. I am more than happy to have a think about the point the hon. Gentleman makes. As I say, we constantly keep these things under review, and the vehicle for that will be the review of approved document B in the building regulations in all circumstances.

I am not saying no, but the hon. Gentleman would expect us to have a proportionate response that minimises the threat of fire in all circumstances. If we were to extend his thinking, we might say that we do not actually want anybody in a wooden building. A single-storey wooden building—a mobile classroom or whatever it might be—is an issue that we need to think about. [Interruption.] I understand, but that is why height matters. The particular height of 18 metres has been selected by the expert panel.

As I have said, I am happy to keep that under review, and my mind remains open. The hon. Gentleman would expect me, I hope, to be constructive in such a way. None of us has an interest in there being fire casualties; we all have an interest in getting this right. My objection to the tone of some of his speech was that he should not infer that we do not care. Indeed, there is a huge amount of effort to get this right, both politically and on the part of the remarkably hard-working and dedicated civil servants in the Department. That is why we have a comprehensive work programme, with lots of calls for evidence. A number of groups are meeting to discuss the various issues and early adopters are moving towards a new building regulations system. As I have said, it is quite obvious that the Grenfell tragedy lifted a big flat rock on a system that has not been working for many years, and our commitment is absolutely to get that right.

My understanding is that phenolic foam is covered by the ban. However, I will commission a report from the Department to give me a quick review of the points raised by the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) to satisfy myself about our approach on that particular issue. I recognise his point about the potential toxicity of fumes that may occur, whatever the height of the building. We ought to have a look at that, and I am more than happy to do so.

This is a major programme of work—now slightly more major, given the undertakings I have made to do some more work—but it is one that befits the challenge we face. It ensures that everyone with a stake in keeping people safe plays their part, and it is the programme we need to rebuild public trust and to deliver meaningful and lasting change. I believe that this is the best tribute we can offer to those who lost their lives at Grenfell Tower and those who are left behind.

Once again, let me thank the hon. Member for Croydon North for securing this valuable debate. I want to assure him and everybody in the House that this Government are determined to learn the lessons of Grenfell Tower and to ensure that nothing like it can ever happen again.

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to correct today’s record. Earlier, when the motion on private Members’ Bills was being discussed in a point of order, the hon. Member for Chichester said that amendment (b) had been proposed by the Labour spokesperson for the environment, which is, of course, me. I was quite surprised to hear that, as it was not something that I had done. I just want to set the record straight to confirm that it was the Labour spokesperson for communities who had put forward amendment (b) to the motion on private Members’ Bills.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and for giving me prior notice of it. I think that she did try to contact the hon. Member for—I think—Chichester. [Interruption.] Sorry, Christchurch. The hon. Lady has contacted the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and she has, obviously, put the record straight.

Question put and agreed to.

Rail Services: Cumbria

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of rail services in Cumbria.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. I will try to make my speech a little shorter than it would have been, to allow time for the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), who shares my deep concerns on this issue.

The Lakes line, between Oxenholme and Windermere in my constituency, may be only a short, 12-mile stretch of railway, but when it comes to significance, it punches far above its length. The Lake district is in its first full year of being a world heritage site, meaning many thousands more tourists, at least, visiting our part of the world. The Lakes line is essential to those visitors accessing the astounding natural beauty of the national park and surrounding areas and the wonderful tourism industry that provides such a breadth of experiences for locals and visitors alike. Our tourism industry generates £3 billion a year, supports 60,000 jobs and is vital to our local economy, but the Lakes line service is not only used by tourists. It is also a key part of the lives of many locals. It is used by hundreds of commuting schoolchildren and workers and is a means of accessing vital services—or at least that is how it used to be. Over the past few months, that has all changed.

When 200 of us walked in protest along the length of the Lakes line 10 days ago, what had been a bustling line was deserted. There were no people at the stations and no trains on the tracks. And let us not fall into the trap of believing that the new timetables are entirely to blame for this catastrophe. Services on the Furness line and the Lakes line have been consistently failing and regularly cancelled ever since Northern took over the two lines in April 2016. This April alone saw 160 cancellations just on the Lakes line. By itself, that substandard provision would be totally unacceptable, but Northern has taken underperformance to new heights.

Like so many others in Cumbria, I was horrified to hear Northern’s announcement on Monday 4 June that all trains on the Lakes line were to be completely suspended—a train line with no trains. The Northern franchise is huge, covering all the local and commuter services in the north-east, Yorkshire and almost all the north-west of England, yet since the introduction of Northern’s interim timetable on 11 June, one in five of all the cancellations on the entire huge network has been on the relatively small Lakes line. Indeed, it is the only line in the country on which services have been completely suspended. That is beyond unsatisfactory; it is completely unacceptable.

However, Northern has not stopped there. We learned on Friday that Arriva Northern had extended the suspension by a further two weeks, to 2 July. That was possible only because the Government had rubber-stamped its request to extend that appalling suspension. A spokesperson for the Department for Transport said that it did not object to that “operational decision”, despite the fact that the Secretary of State himself had assured me that he was

“not prepared to accept more than the current two weeks”

and that he had been

“clear to Arriva that doing this over the long term is simply unacceptable”.—[Official Report, 4 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 58.]

Those are the Secretary of State’s own words, on the record, from the statement in the House of Commons on 4 June—words that he repeated to me and the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness when we met him that evening. It sounds very much to me, and to many of us, as though the Secretary of State said one thing to the House on that Monday and in practice did the opposite on Friday.

This calamity could not have come at a worse time. The cancellations have occurred during the Easter holidays and through the May half-term, and they are now hitting the local economy during the early summer season. There are fears that the substandard or non-existent provision could stretch into the summer holidays.

Let me gently remind the Minister that we are not a dispensable backwater. After London, we are Britain’s second biggest visitor destination. Our contribution to the UK economy is huge and our contribution to the broader British brand is unrivalled. The lack of trains has already had a catastrophic impact on the people of Cumbria, and the toll that it will inevitably take on the local economy could be enormous. Over the past few weeks, local young people taking their A-level and GCSE exams have found themselves stranded or late to school. People have missed hospital appointments and benefits assessments, while others have been regularly late to work. One woman I spoke to is having to move house from Staveley to Kendal just so that her kids can get to and from school every day and she is not blighted by the worry of her 12-year-old child being stranded in town and unable to get home.

Northern has not only failed to do its job, but completely undermined local confidence in this stretch of railway. My constituents are voting with their feet, and the sight of deserted train platforms along the line is now all too familiar. The replacement bus services are barely used by locals at all. Tourists use the service only because they see no alternative.

However, Northern’s utter failure to do its job and provide adequate train services in Cumbria is not limited to the Lakes line. Over the past few months, the Lakes, Furness and Cumbrian coast lines have all experienced shocking services.

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

There are also concerns about staffing levels at Northern. It is short of train crew to cover the new Cumbrian Coast timetable, and the Northern control centres are so overstretched that the routes in Cumbria seem to have fallen right to the bottom of its list of priorities. Over the past month, there have been daily cancellations of trains through Workington, including the last train of the day, which is a huge inconvenience and runs the risk of stranding people miles away from home, with no idea of how to get back. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the situation is simply unsustainable and that Northern is badly letting down thousands of people on a daily basis?

[Tim Farron]

I completely agree with everything that the hon. Lady has said. It feels to me very much as though all the lines in Cumbria are afterthoughts for Northern, given its huge empire. Many of the staffing problems would have been completely foreseeable and predictable by competent management who were planning for the future and had Cumbria’s interests at heart, so the hon. Lady is absolutely right to say what she has said.

As I said, over the past few months the Lakes, Furness and Cumbrian Coast lines have all experienced shocking services. My constituents who use the stations at Arnside, Grange-over-Sands, Kents Bank and Cark have experienced service equally dreadful to that experienced by those who use Oxenholme, Kendal, Burneside, Staveley and Windermere. That is not the result of accidental oversight; it has been caused by a series of appalling decisions by both Northern and the Government.

There seem to be three main failings that must be identified and fixed. First, the Government’s choice to cancel electrification of the Lakes line last year has very clearly contributed to the mess that we are in today. Northern took on the line on the understanding—this is the only excuse I will allow the company—that it would soon be running electric trains, and it planned and ordered on that basis. Because of the Government’s decision to cancel electrification, on the basis of inaccurate figures that must now be revisited, Northern were forced quickly to borrow from Scotland old diesel trains that their drivers were not trained to run.

Secondly, the Government awarded the Lakes line and Furness line franchises to Arriva Northern from April 2016. This was an unfolding disaster from day one, given the removal of good services from TransPennine and the introduction of substandard stock and service from Northern. The Minister should undo that mistake today and take the Furness and Lakes lines off Northern. It has clearly breached the terms of its contract: it is contracted to run trains and it has failed to do so.

Thirdly, we have seen incompetence from Northern and inertia from the Government. The fact that no statement was made to Parliament on the crisis until 4 June, despite months of poor performance and despite many of us raising the matter in the weeks and months beforehand—I raised it at Prime Minister’s questions and at Transport questions weeks before it came to the House of the Government’s own volition—leaves many of us questioning the Government’s commitment to those of us in the far north-west.

When the Secretary of State did finally make a statement to the House, it was in part to explain that he had permitted Northern not only to cancel trains, but to cancel an entire line for what turned out to be a month. That cancellation is as unprecedented as it is unacceptable.

In the last few days, a number of us have chosen to prove that we could and would do what the Government and Northern rail could or would not. On Sunday, thanks to the Lakes line rail user group, West Coast Railways and many other volunteers, we began a temporary and limited, but reliable and glorious, service on the Lakes line. The Lakelander has been successfully running on that line for the last four days, and it has kept to time.

Many in Government and the rail industry have helped us—they know who they are, and they probably would not thank me if I named them—but many have not been so helpful. As we have gone through the process of reintroducing trains to England’s most picturesque railway line, we have seen from the inside the lack of co-ordination and can-do spirit in some parts of Government and the rail industry. Never have I seen so much buck-passing or excuse-making as I have in the last few days. Despite that, we now have a limited but excellent service on the Lakes line—a heritage operator on a commuter route.

I do not need to tell hon. Members that that is not a long-term solution, so I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm what action he plans to take. Will he remove the Lakes and Furness lines from Northern as a matter of urgency and run those services directly from the Department until a suitable operator can be identified with the necessary resources, competence and commitment that those two superb lines deserve? The Secretary of State told me and the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness that he would look at that option two weeks ago, so what progress have the Government made?

Will the Minister look again at the case for the electrification of the Lakes line? We now know that the Secretary of State cancelled the electrification last year based on figures that were ludicrously inaccurate. The model that he threw out was based on a service with trains running on at least two tracks, at 125 mph and at intervals of less than two minutes. I respectfully remind the Minister that a brief look at the Lakes line demonstrates that we require none of those things. As a result of using that inaccurate model, it was assumed that the electrification would cost more than double what it would cost to electrify the line in reality. Given the enormous damage done to the reputation of the Lakes line by Northern and the Government, does the Minister agree that the best way to show ongoing commitment to it would be to keep the Government’s initial promise to electrify the line?

Will the Minister fulfil the promise made to me by the Secretary of State in yesterday’s debate to ensure funding to support a marketing campaign to repair and boost the reputation of the Lakes line and of the wider Cumbrian economy? I have forwarded a formal bid for that package to him. I am grateful to Cumbria Tourism, which I asked to draft that proposal and which came up with an excellent bid. I understand that the Minister spoke to the chief executive of Cumbria Tourism this morning, and I am grateful to him for that, so I hope that he will be able to announce today that he will endorse that bid.

Given the chaos on our railways, will the Minister clarify his and the Secretary of State’s powers? On the east coast main line, it appears that the Government have the power to remove a franchise from an operator because the shareholders deem it unprofitable. However, Northern, which has demonstrated an inability to run a basic train service, still retains its franchise. Why has the Secretary of State not intervened? Is it because he does not have the power? In that case, when will the Government seek such powers from Parliament? I, for one, would be happy to vote to grant them. Or is it that he has those powers but has chosen not to use them, in which case he has quite some explaining to do to the people of Cumbria?

It appears that the Government are prepared to take a line away from a rail company when shareholders are losing money, but when passengers are left stranded and are forced to miss work and school, they simply look the other way. That raises the question: what is the purpose of the railways? Are they a public service that underpins our economy, or simply an opportunity for private profit at public expense?

In arranging the Lakes line temporary shuttle service over the last few days, it has become clear that when there is a commitment to a railway line, a passion to serve local people and a determination to succeed, anything is possible. The question is: is the Northern franchise not simply too big and too unwieldy for its own good? Would it not be better for the Cumbrian lines to be taken out of the franchise altogether and run as a micro-franchise so that the people who run our lines are also the people who are committed to them?

I was walking with my children along the old railway line at Sandside between Milnthorpe and Arnside last week. We talked about what had happened to that old line—why it had been closed, the tracks removed and the viaduct dismantled. The Beeching axe fell more than half a century ago on lines that the industry had given up on. It is painfully clear to all of us that Northern has given up on Cumbria. For the sake of everyone who relies on the Lakes and Furness lines, from local students and commuters to our millions of visitors, I call on the Minister to give Northern its marching orders. The travellers of Cumbria are at the end of their tether and, frankly, so am I.