Non-Domestic Rating (Designated Area) Regulations 2021

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I remind my House of my interests as a member of Kirklees Council and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

This debate on the specific share of rateable income newly generated by Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and the Teesside mayoral authority has raised some important considerations. The first is that currently around half of the income of local authorities is raised via business rates. This is either through retained business rates, which is the subject of these regulations, or by the redistribution of business rates collected locally and redistributed nationally.

In recent years the Government have made very considerable reductions in central government grants and have expected local authorities to base their expenditure on income derived in the main from council tax collection and business rate income. With the huge pressure on the most highly rated premises in our town centres, it is hardly surprising that retail outlets are closing in such large numbers. In the competition between online and physical retail, the biggest financial advantage lies with online premises, where rateable values are so much lower.

I have an example. I live in a small Victorian town, where a small shop is paying at the rate of £250 per square metre of its premises. The equivalent for an out-of-town warehouse, also in Yorkshire, which is the distribution centre of a major online shopping business, is a mere £45 per square metre. That vast disparity is at the heart of the crisis in our local high streets. This is the background to the regulations we are debating.

In a nutshell, the system is broken, as several noble Lords have detailed. The Government need to address this problem with considerable urgency and energy. It is also unfair. Designated areas are of benefit in those areas only. However, retaining those rates locally results in the national income of business rates not growing by that proportion. This in turn means that there is less to distribute across the rest of the country. Designated areas discriminate against those local authorities that, for a variety of reasons, are unable to encourage high business rate growth—including, for instance, serving an area within a national park.

What is also apparent in the need for the regulations is the narrowness of the Government’s definition of devolution. Devolution as experienced in other nations in Europe would see no need for the regulations. The Government need to let go and free up local authorities to develop their enterprising faculties. That is what this small example of a designated area is able to do. The challenge, however, with the current high levels of unemployment, is for all growth and job creation to be encouraged. How can local and mayoral authorities achieve this while they remain harnessed to the constraints of central government?

Throughout this debate, we have heard sharp criticism of the existing system and a general desire to encourage enterprise, job creation and the prosperity that follows. This scheme of designation of business rates retention in the Tees Valley mayoral authority and the Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council area is welcome for this part of the country. However, major reform is vital. My noble friend Lord German has proposed a site value rating approach, whereby land is taxed, not the enterprise on it.

I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that the Government, in considering reform of the system of business rates, are mindful of the advantages of site value rating. With those comments, I of course support the regulations and the retention of rates in that part of the north-east of the country.

Building Safety

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I declare my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, chair of Heart of Medway Housing Association and a non-executive director of MHS Homes Ltd.

Three and a half years on from the Grenfell tragedy, in which 72 people lost their lives, decisions made by the Government have left thousands of people trapped in unsafe homes and many more unable to move. The Government’s announcement has come far too late for many and is, sadly, a repeat of undelivered promises. It backtracks on a key promise that no leaseholders should have to pay for the cost of this scandal, which is not of their making. On 11 March 2020, nearly a year ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that

“all unsafe combustible cladding will be removed from every private and social residential building above 18 metres high.”—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/20; col. 291.]

But that has not happened.

The funds set up have been dogged with problems. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell the House how much of the money available has been spent so far. I believe there has been a major underestimation of this scandal—this problem—by the Government. Can the Minister tell the House how many buildings are unsafe, where they are and what danger they pose? Until the Government have credible answers to these basic questions, there will continue to be mistakes and the offering of piecemeal solutions that must be updated when they do not deliver. Can the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, update the House and guarantee that the funding provided will cover all buildings over 18 metres high?

Will the Government set up an independent task force to prioritise buildings according to risk, with powers to get the funds out of the door and the ability to go after building owners when they fail to get the work done? That has been a consistent problem that we have raised again and again. Ministers have now promised 17 times—yes, 17 times—that leaseholders will not bear the cost of fixing a problem they did not cause; these were the promises made to the innocent victims of this scandal. But the Government have betrayed their promise that leaseholders will not pay for the building safety crisis. Three and a half years on from the Grenfell Tower disaster, hundreds of thousands of people cannot sleep at night because their homes are unsafe. On top of that, the Government have decided to pile financial misery on them. This is wrong; it is an injustice, and it is unacceptable.

Can the Minister tell the House why this arbitrary 18-metre height limit means the difference between a safe home and, potentially, financial ruin? What are the terms of the loan? What will the interest be? Will leaseholders be required to pay the interest as well as the main costs? On the point that the leaseholder will not pay more than £50 a month, if they sell the property, does the loan have to be paid at that point? Does it go with the former owner, or does it stay with the current owner? We need to know where we stand. How long will the scheme run for? Will it go up by the rate of inflation each year? What will the Government do if these homes remain unsaleable? How will they ensure that freeholders take up the loans? How will the Government speed up remediation, given that the current stalemate cannot continue?

Other properties do not have dangerous cladding, but these people have been charged thousands of pounds per flat to fix other safety issues. The Government should focus on securing our economy and rebuilding after Covid, not saddling homeowners with further debt. The Government should pursue those responsible for payment and prevent leaseholders and taxpayers carrying the can. The Government have announced a levy and a tax, which I welcome, but those responsible should bear the cost. How much do the Government anticipate the levy will raise? Will they pursue others, such as the cladding manufacturers, responsible for putting the dangerous cladding on in the first place? The Government have missed every target for removing ACM cladding and 50,000 people are still living in flats wrapped in it. This is the same cladding that was found on Grenfell Tower, and thousands more have other dangerous cladding on their buildings. When will this all be removed?

What about the skyrocketing insurance costs that innocent victims are being forced to pay? Can the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, tell the House what he expects, on average, a leaseholder to pay? People cannot continue to live in unsafe, unsellable homes. Homeowners should not be faced with financial ruin—bankruptcy, even—to fix a problem they did not cause. Unfortunately, these proposals, instead of providing justice, will still leave too many people struggling and facing loans. This is a very poor Statement from the Government—they will have to come back to the table and do what they promised in the first place: ensure that no victim of this scandal will have to bear the cost of fixing a problem they were not responsible for.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the repeat of this important Statement on the Government’s response to the cladding crisis. I remind the House of my interests, recorded in the register, as a member of Kirklees Council and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I was pleased when I read the heading of the Statement, “Building Safety”, and the opening paragraph, which refers to the mission of the Secretary of State being that of “safety and fairness”. Unfortunately, the Statement then fails to live up to those laudable words. The first issue I have with it is that throughout, there is reference only to “unsafe cladding”. In fact, what has become clear, as the vast scale of the problem that the Grenfell tragedy exposed, is that the building safety failings go far beyond “unsafe cladding”. As flammable cladding is removed, in some buildings further significant construction failings are revealed: flammable insulation has been used; firebreaks have not been built into the structure as a way of slowing the spread of a fire; balconies are not made of fire-retardant material; and spandrel panels are also seen as a potential safety concern.

How do I know this? In January 2020 the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government issued guidance note 23, relating to the seven building components under review, requiring building owners and managers to take urgent action on these. The question for the Minister, therefore, is: will the additional government funding pay for all the defects revealed when the unsafe cladding is removed? If, for instance, it becomes evident that there is an absence of firebreaks, will the funding cover the costs of installing them? If not, the leaseholders will still be faced with large bills to pay for failings in the construction.

The next fundamental question that I hope the Minister can answer is: why has 18 metres been chosen as the bar above which cladding removal is funded by the Government and below which the leaseholders and tenants are required to pay? Is the 18-metre figure an historic one that needs to be reassessed? Serious fires can occur in blocks of varying heights: for instance, the fire in a block called The Cube, in Bolton, was very serious—although fortunately, there was no loss of life—but the building was lower than 18 metres.

That leads me to the question of fairness. As noble Lords will recall, this is the mission of the department in respect of building safety. Can the Minister explain how it is fair for leaseholders in blocks below 18 metres high to have to pay for remediation? I recognise that low-interest loans are available and that the currently anticipated maximum payment is £50 per month. This will, no doubt, be added to the service charge and will be one of the costs that potential buyers will consider. It will make these flats less attractive to buyers and they will almost certainly command a lower value. How is it fair to require leaseholders to pay for building remediation which is not in any way of their making?

One of the roles of government is to ensure that safety regulations are appropriate to the task and that there is an inspection regime. The Government have failed to do this, so they are partly culpable, must bear the cost and recoup it from those who share culpability.

Then there is the question of building regulations. It is alleged that some of the buildings affected by this scandal failed to comply with building regulations at the time of construction. Can the Minister confirm this and provide some estimate of the numbers involved? Where breaches of regulation are involved, will the Government require full remediation costs to be met by the developer? This is what happens with the manufacturers of cars and white goods, for example. Surely it should also apply in these instances. Does the Minister agree?

Next, I turn to the total funding package. The additional funding provided by the Government is a start, but this £5 billion needs to be put into context. During the debate on the Fire Safety Bill, the Minister confirmed that the total cost of remediation was likely to be in the region of £16 billion. Does that imply that £10 billion or more will be paid for by leaseholders through the loan scheme? Perhaps the Minister will let us know whether this is what the Government have calculated.

It is proposed to recoup some of these costs from developers by raising £200 million per annum via a tax on the sector. The cost of the minority of the remediation to be recouped from developers is pathetically small. During the last four years, the five largest developers made profits of around £16 billion, which rather puts the proposed figure into context. Will the Government reconsider the level of this tax to make it fairer?

Finally, I hope that the Government do not need to be reminded of the terrible, personal cost of the cladding scandal. For instance, Laurel and Jonathan in Manchester are seriously considering bankruptcy as the only way out of their predicament. Hayley in Leeds has already been forced into bankruptcy. In an Inside Housing survey last year, 23% of respondents said that they had considered suicide. Such is the stress of living in an unsafe home and being forced to pay huge increases in insurance and service charges. For leaseholders and tenants, this building safety crisis is not in any way of their making, yet they are expected to pay the price while those who created it are not being similarly expected to pay in any significant way. Can the Minister explain how this adheres to the department’s mission of fairness? Will he press for a review of the current proposals as more information comes to light?

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

My Lords, around £3.5 billion in direct, additional grant has been committed. This is a significant amount of money which dwarfs the £1.6 billion previously promised. More than £5 billion has been committed to support the ending of the cladding crisis. The plans go a long way towards ensuring that affordability is not an issue for any leaseholders in medium-rise properties. It also ensures that, where there is no warranty outstanding or insurance available to protect the leaseholder, the taxpayer—through the Government’s additional grant—will step up and provide the funding necessary to ensure that the cladding system is removed.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about progress. Despite Covid, we saw 50% more starts in 2020 than in any other year. Workers were on site and, by the end of the year, 95% of high-rise buildings with the same sort of cladding as at Grenfell had either started or completed remediation. We know exactly where these buildings are. The vast majority of the remaining cladding will have been removed from them by the end of this calendar year.

The main thrust of the questions was around the scope of the fund. It is important to recognise that height is a huge factor when it comes to safety and the risk to life. The higher the building, the more risk there is to the residents. People who live in buildings between 18 and 30 metres high are four times more likely to have a fire involving a fatality or the need for hospital treatment. In buildings above 30 metres, this rises to 35 times more likely. We know that height is a factor. Eighteen metres is the cut-off point for the definition of a high-rise building. This has been part of building regulations for a considerable number of years. The definition that we are using for scope is above six storeys, so The Cube would fall within the remit of a building where an application could be made to the building safety fund to remove its cladding. The threshold is six or more storeys or a height greater than 18 metres.

The long-term safety advice makes it clear that the external cladding system acts as accelerant, helping the fire to spread. This is why the government money is focused on the removal of external cladding systems. Internal compartmentation, firebreaks and fire doors are designed to stop the spread of fire. It is right that taxpayers’ money should focus on the material that accelerates the spread of fire.

The £3.5 billion and the finance scheme will together help hundreds of thousands of leaseholders. For those in medium-rise properties, it will cover a significant part of their costs. For those in high-rise buildings, there will be no cost. To date, 13,000 leaseholders in ACM buildings have been supported by the government grant scheme. Between 70,000 and 90,000 leaseholders in buildings with non-ACM cladding systems will not bear any cost. A further 150,000 leaseholders in buildings between 11 and 18 metres high will also be helped.

It is important, however, that building owners step up to the plate to support remediation where the government grant is not available. We do not expect this cost to fall entirely on leaseholders. With the ACM fund, more than 50% of owners did the right thing and ensured that the cost did not fall on leaseholders. We expect to see that with the non-ACM buildings as well. Here, warranty schemes can often still be drawn on and protect leaseholders.

It is worth looking at the cladding manufacturers. I will take that point away because, as well as the developers, they are culpable for the situation that we find ourselves in—a point that has been made by both the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. That is something that we can look at in due course.

This is a five-point plan looking at significant sums of money to support the removal of the external cladding systems. It is those systems that have accelerated the spread of fire and their removal makes it far more unlikely that Grenfell will ever happen again. We know that the future building safety regime will be focused on ensuring that the new buildings will be of far greater quality and then provide the greater confidence that is required in the housing market to ensure that it begins to function properly in future years.

Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 4th February 2021 Grand Committee

On the wider point about the reform of business rates and what we are doing today, this Bill is, I think, essentially non-controversial in what it is seeking to achieve. What will be more contentious, I suspect, is looking at the way we levy business rates or commercial taxes on business in future. This issue has been thrown into high relief by the pandemic, making more obvious the imbalance between physical high street retail, out-of-town retail and, of course, online businesses. This is an important issue, and it is clearly essential to our nation that we get the balance right; all three parts of that servicing of retail are important. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some thoughts on that. I appreciate that he cannot be precise on the approach or the timescale, but some indication of when we will address this important issue would be welcome.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I remind the Committee of my interests, as recorded in the register, as a member of Kirklees Council and a vice-chair of the Local Government Association.

The debate on these amendments has been a relatively short but, I trust, helpful for the Government. As we have heard from my noble friend Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Bourne, to cover the cross-party contributions to this debate, there are significant concerns about the timing of the assessment—or the antecedent valuation date, to give it its official title—of new rateable values. Some have experienced enormous challenges over the last year, none of which are of their making. The challenges of the pandemic have brought large parts of the hospitality and retail sectors to their knees. Now is not the time to undertake an assessment of rental values, which is in large part the basis of the valuation.

Will the Minister agree to discuss with the department the possibility of a delay to the AVD? This concern is at the heart of the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Thornhill. A six-month review would establish whether it is practicable to assess new rental values that feed into the final valuation. A delay is preferable but, failing that, a review is essential as it would highlight the difficulties of doing this while a pandemic is rife. The concerns from those of us who have had extensive local government experience is that local authority finances will be adversely impacted. Of course, the Government have given assurances that any loss of income from business rates will be fully compensated—at the moment. However, they have not, as yet, given such a commitment for when the revaluation comes live in 2023. Will the Minister provide copper-bottomed assurance that no local authority will lose income from the revaluation, and that any necessary top-ups will be provided? I look forward to the Minister’s response to these questions, which will inform any amendments to be tabled at Report.

As we discussed at Second Reading, the Government have chosen a particularly inopportune time for the revaluation of business rates. The valuation day is set for April of this year, and I urge the Minister to consider delaying the date and accepting the proposal in both these amendments. I look forward to his reply.

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

My Lords, I first point out my residential and commercial property interests as set out in the register.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for raising the points highlighted by his proposed new clause. The business rates system is unusual among taxes because its implementation is split between the Valuation Office Agency, which is an agency of HMRC, and local authorities. Many noble Lords have, like myself, experience of working in local government and know and understand how important the relationship is between the VOA, local authorities and my department in running the business rates system.

As the Committee would expect, one of the issues raised in our discussions with local government has been how revaluations impact on local government funding, so I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Thornhill, for tabling their amendment on that subject.

In relation to the provisions of this Bill, we have worked closely with the VOA to ensure that a revaluation in 2023 can be delivered on time. The antecedent valuation date of 1 April 2021 was set by a statutory instrument laid on 6 August last year, since when the VOA has been preparing for the revaluation. It has already started to collect the information it needs to value 2 million properties and is on target to complete the exercise to plan.

As I discussed at Second Reading, Clause 1 also moves back the latest date by when the draft rating list must be published before the revaluation to no later than the preceding 31 December. In practice, we expect this to be around the time of the autumn fiscal event, when the multiplier and the transitional relief scheme are also announced. That will mean that rating lists will come to local government a little later than previous revaluations, but we do not expect this to mean any delays in the process of billing or estimating business rates income.

Local government of course needs the multipliers and details of relief schemes before it can calculate liabilities, and it is only once that full package is confirmed that bills can be issued. That is the case whether we are in the year of a revaluation or not. Nevertheless, I can assure my noble friend Lord Bourne and the Committee that my officials meet representatives of local government regularly and will continue to discuss these matters with them to ensure the smooth delivery of business rates bills.

More generally, my department and the VOA are continuously looking at how we can improve consultation and closer working with local government. In recent years the VOA has introduced a data gateway under which it is able to share information about ratepayers with local authorities in order to support the billing process, and last year we made regulations empowering local authorities to provide the VOA with information on a quarterly basis about the properties that ratepayers occupy. This was introduced with the support of local government and will ensure that the VOA has up-to-date information ahead of 1 April 2021, which is the intended valuation date for the 2023 revaluation.

One specific matter we have discussed with local government is how to reflect in the local government finance system the changes in business rates income at revaluation—and I recognise that this is the matter on which the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Thornhill, seek reassurance through their amendment. The purpose of the revaluation is to ensure that business rates bills reflect the up-to-date rental value of properties.

This of course means that some ratepayers will see increases and some will see reductions as a result of the revaluation, and it follows that the business rates income for individual local authorities will fluctuate in the same way. Some local authorities will see their business rates income rise at the revaluation and others will see it fall. Between revaluations, local authorities can increase their business rates income by supporting growth and investing in their area. Their share of this type of growth is retained by them through the rates retention scheme.

In contrast, the changes we see in local authority income levels at the revaluation come mainly from the trends and variations in the wider national economy and the commercial property market. These factors are largely outside the control of individual local authorities and the Government’s view is that such changes in business rates income levels at the revaluation should not feed through into local government budgets.

Therefore, our intention—as it was at the previous revaluation in 2017—is that we will, as far as is practicable, ensure that retained rates income for individual local authorities under the business rates retention scheme is unaffected by the 2023 revaluation. For the 2017 revaluation we achieved this by adjusting the tariffs and top-ups in the scheme to reflect the change in income at the revaluation. We consulted local government on the mechanics of these adjustments from as early as the preceding summer. This was a collaborative process and one which we intend to repeat for the 2023 revaluation. This process will give local authorities the budget assurances they need regarding revaluation. As such, the timing of the revaluation and how it affects the distribution of business rates income should not impact directly on local government finances.

I hope, therefore, that I have reassured the Committee on the degree to which my department and the VOA work closely together and in partnership with local government on business rates matters, and on the steps we will take to protect local government finances at the time of the revaluation. These working relationships are important, and we are indebted to those in local government who offer their time and expertise to support us in running and improving the rating system.

I hope that, with these assurances, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Thornhill, will agree not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, how do you follow that? Jeremy Clarkson being mentioned in a debate in Grand Committee is something new to me. I congratulate my noble friend in sport—my collaborator in sport; that is probably a better way to put it. The essential point is that amateur sport, its clubs and the structure around them are a vital part of our social infrastructure. No one disagrees with that. Will the rating system be a support or a brake on this? How do you generate local money for such a universally accepted good? I congratulate the Government on giving some money to it, although not enough—not as much as it has lost—considering the changes that it will have to go through.

Anybody who has gone through pre-season training will know that it is a bit of a shock to the system. When you have had a year away from it, without playing properly, and you come back to find out that you have problems raising money as well, would you want to sit on the committee? As my noble friend in sport—to use his term again—says, it is a complicated and difficult system and people do not know how to deal with it. I must draw attention to some of the activities I have helped with, including getting the RFU a guide to local government. There were people telling me then, “It is not needed because the information provided is on 53 different websites under 42 different links, and if you understand the law it is fine.” That was the general consensus. These people are amateurs, taking part for fun—and they are giving the Government what they want: activity levels, social interaction and, very often, an informal job market.

Those things are valuable. If the Government will not accept the amendment, please will they heed those words? I hope that the Minister comes away from the debate saying that he will make greater efforts to make the various bits of government talk to each other. If the DCMS proposes something, the department of health may say, “That’s a good idea,” while the Department for Education says, “Yes, but it can’t get in the way of exam results,” and local government says, “What—us?” That seems to be about the way it goes. You can start from any of those departments and stick a couple more in there as well; I will not insult the Minister by trying to mention them all.

If we can get some idea that we are taking the problems of this vital sector seriously, it will reassure many people. Also, Members of the Committee should remember that all the structural problems they see here are the same for virtually any other volunteer sector. I could have mentioned music or any other such sector. Every time that you take on some commitment to a property for a voluntary activity, you have the same problems. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will give us an idea about the thinking here. At the moment, it seems to be a case of, “Oh yes, that’s terribly good, we should support it, but it seems to be somebody else’s problem.” Take a stand here—say it is yours.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the impact of the timing of business rate revaluations on the retail sector and, hence, the future of our town and city centres. In the first group of amendments, we discussed the timing in general terms, but my colleagues and I ask the Government to fully consider the implications of a revaluation on business profitability and survival.

For many small businesses, business rates are a significant overhead, along with the rent for the property. As my noble friend Lord Stunell reminded us, the Government’s original intention was to have a revaluation assessment in 2019, but this was moved because of negative forces affecting retailers. That negative impact has not gone away, as he said. We support the relief provided by the Government as part of their Covid response, but these are very uncertain times. This Bill proposes to push back the date on which the multiplier is announced from the September to the December prior to the new valuations coming live—in this instance, it means an announcement in December 2022. This will give businesses just three months to analyse the implications for them of the new rates bill they will be paying from April 2023. The amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stunell would enable the Government to consider the consequences of the new valuation for particular business sectors and particular regions before the multiplier was determined. An impact assessment would have to consider all the angles of the proposal and would throw light on the effect of the revaluation. It is a positive amendment which would help the Government get to a fair outcome in the revaluation of business rates.

As the Minister will know, in 1990, when the system was created, the multiplier was 34.8%. In 2020, that had risen to 51.2% for large businesses and just under 50% for small businesses. The multiplier is a crucial factor in the final business rate bill. The consumer prices index is the relevant figure used for the multiplier. Does the Minister think it is now time to reconsider the level of the multiplier? I suspect that the answer to my question will be that we should wait for the business rate review that the Government constantly promise. That will give no comfort to businesses, who will know from this Bill that they are expected to pay business rates under this outmoded scheme for at least another five years. There is obviously an effect on the profitability of individual businesses, but there is also the cumulative effect on town and city centres. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, reminded us, one in 10 shops currently lies empty.

The revaluation is just one of the uncertainties that businesses are having to grapple with. The town centre funds and high-street funds that the Government have announced are all well and good, but they just paper over the cracks while the main issues affecting business survival are largely ignored in policy definition and implementation.

My noble friend Lord Addington and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, have raised an issue close to their hearts: the effect of business rates on amateur sports clubs. Both were right to do so and made the case with knowledge, experience, and powerful arguments which we fully support. Every community will have an amateur sporting activity at its heart, one that provides enjoyment and an opportunity to develop skills and teamwork through physical activity. They are vital ingredients of a healthy community. I urge the Minister to take note of the arguments made and come to Report with a proposal for action to help amateur sports clubs. I look forward to his response on all the points made.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments allows us to consider the impact of the 2023 revaluation on rates bills, the multiplier and, specifically, our high streets, town centres and amateur sports clubs. Understandably the Committee, businesses and all ratepayers would like to know how the 2023 revaluation will affect rates bills. However, it will be some time before we know that. The carrying out of a business rate revaluation is a significant exercise which requires the careful application of the considerable expertise within the Valuation Office Agency. The two-year gap between the date on which valuations will be based, 1 April this year, and the date on which the next revaluation will be implemented, 1 April 2023, is necessary to ensure accurate rateable values. For this reason, we will not know the result of the revaluation until much later, in 2022. The Government will not therefore be in a position to make an assessment of the next revaluation in respect of any specific sector or the rating list as a whole within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, as is sought by some of these amendments.

However, I can say that, once enacted, the Bill will ensure that business rate bills from 1 April 2023 will be based on rental values as of 1 April 2021. This means that the business rates due on properties based on our high streets and in our town centres or in the leisure sector will be up to date and better reflect the impact of the pandemic.

Certainly, an important part of rates bills when we reach the 2023 revaluation will be the level of the business rate multiplier. It may help the Committee if I explain more about the process of setting the multipliers for 2023-24. As with all years, we are required to finalise the multipliers as soon as reasonably practicable after the local government finance report has been approved, normally in February. For example, at the last revaluation in 2017, the multipliers were confirmed on 9 March. Therefore, we expect to finalise the multipliers for 2023-24 in late February or early March 2023. In contrast, the new rating lists will not be compiled until 1 April 2023. Therefore, it would not be possible to publish the assessment sought in the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, before the multiplier was confirmed but after the list had been compiled.

Nevertheless, I appreciate of course that noble Lords and businesses will want to understand the impact of the revaluation as early as possible and before the multipliers are confirmed. In practice, we will announce provisional multipliers and the transitional relief scheme much earlier in the process, at the time of the autumn fiscal event.

It is our intention at the same time to publish the entire draft rating list. This means that, as well as being able to see the sectoral or regional impact of the revaluation, individual ratepayers, be they on the high street or in the sports sector, will be able to check their own rateable value and calculate their own rates bill. This will give an overall picture of the revaluation and allow ratepayers several months’ warning of their new rates bills.

I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that the process of setting the multipliers is controlled largely by rules in legislation. We are required to make an adjustment to the multipliers for 2023-24 to offset the estimated change in total rateable value due to the revaluation after allowing for inflation and forecasted future appeals. It is that adjustment which drives the level of the multipliers in 2023-24.

We cannot by law set multipliers higher than that calculated from the adjustment. The Chancellor may by order set a lower multiplier, however. Noble Lords will understand that that is a fiscal matter decided by the Treasury as part of the normal Budget process, balancing the pressures on businesses with the need to fund vital local services, but I assure the Committee that the Government will have full regard to the impact of the revaluation before deciding whether to exercise that power and set a lower multiplier.

Our town and city centres are important hubs of our communities, and I am proud of the steps that the Government have taken to support this crucial part of our economy. While this Bill represents a postponing of the next revaluation, I know from the comments made at Second Reading that noble Lords appreciate that this is a step taken in the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic. However, as I have said, once we reach 2023, the new rateable values will better reflect the impact of the pandemic on rental values in locations such as the high street.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

4: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Impact of timing of business rates revaluations: high street and online businesses
(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Government must carry out a review of the impact of this Act on local high streets.(2) The review under subsection (1) must make an assessment of the impact of the timing of business rates revaluations on high street businesses and their ability to compete with businesses operating mainly or wholly online.(3) The Government must lay a copy of the review under subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require an impact assessment of the timing of rates revaluations on local high streets, particularly looking at the impact on their ability to compete with businesses that operate online.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the purpose of Amendment 4, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shipley, is to open up a debate about the revolution taking place in the retail sector. It is a revolution that is being accelerated as a consequence of the pandemic, which has resulted in the non-food retail sector being in shutdown for many months, with a very large transfer of shopping to online retailers. Retail analysts suggest that this significant change in shopping habits is here to stay.

Recent reports on the retail sector make the same points. Bill Grimsey, in his report in 2018, described the effect of business rates on the retail sector as “malevolent” and one that hinders growth. Business rates are, of course, just one inhibiting factor that affects the vibrancy of the physical high street. However, it is like a weather vane, indicating that all is not well with the retail elements of our town centres.

The array of shopping giants that have closed in recent years is a health warning that the Government do not appear to be heeding. Toys “R” Us, Maplin, Poundworld and others closed their doors in 2018. This year, a staple of the high street, Debenhams, is finally closing its physical presence on the high street. The Arcadia Group, which includes a string of well-known brands in many towns, is in administration. There seems little prospect of any of them reopening their shop doors; the businesses will simply go online.

The combination of closures is a large hit on many towns, as those businesses provided both an attractive shopping experience and business rates income for local authorities. The Government really do have to address this with some urgency. The problem is well known: physical retailers have financial overheads that their online equivalents do not.

The comparison of overheads in terms of business rates is stark. In my own town of Cleckheaton in West Yorkshire, an average-sized shop on the main street with 30 square metres of floor space is paying at the rate of £250 per square metre, resulting in a rates bill of around £3,750 per annum. A large Amazon warehouse adjacent to a nearby town in Yorkshire has 40,000 square metres of floor space. The rate per square metre for this giant in the retail sector is £45 per square metre. This results in a business rates bill of £900,000 per annum. If Amazon, as an example—there are others—were required to pay at the same rate as this smallish shop in a small town centre in West Yorkshire, its rates bill on this warehouse alone would be £5 million per annum. That is why attempts to save our high street will fail unless this hugely unfair advantage enjoyed by online retailers is addressed—hence the amendment from the Liberal Democrats.

The very least that the Government should do is to review the impact on local high streets and assess whether the new revaluations harm even further the ability of the retail sector to compete successfully with online businesses. We cannot, like the myth of Canute, hold back the tide of change in shopping habits. However, what the Government can and should do is provide a level playing field for retailers. This is not a problem that can be kicked down the high street in the hope that the sticking plasters of high-street and town funds from the Government will stem the demise of town centres; nor is there an easy solution, but then Governments are elected to deal with difficult problems.

There is an urgency in finding a solution, as I have indicated. Will the Minister provide any certainty for high-street retailers that the Government accept that a revolution in retail habits has to be accompanied by a revolution in business rates? I look forward very much to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Thurlow (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for tabling this amendment, together with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley.

There is no doubt that an impact assessment of the new valuations on the high street is worthwhile and important. It is actually vital. We have already seen the change in the high street referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. The former retail parades that once flourished now see nail bars, estate agents, coffee shops and charity shops proliferate. I am delighted, of course, for the charity shops and their sector, but please understand that many of these shops are paying a 20% rates bill and are there because their landlords heave a sigh of relief that they have found someone to relieve them of the burden of the empty premises rates that would be applied after they have lost their traditional tenant.

Our high streets and shopping centres are the focus of local communities. Social health and welfare to some extent depend on them. We cannot afford to lose them because of unrealistic operating costs. I was very pleased when the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, referred just now to the Government’s recognition of the importance of vibrant town centres. The health of those centres lies in the gift of the Government, right now, and in their ability to construct fairness in the apportionment of the NDR burden.

This amendment includes reference to the ability of high streets to compete with online. It is an often-discussed subject, and the urgency of rebalancing the rates burden could not be more pressing. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned Amazon. I saw in today’s Times an appalling reference—appalling to me, anyway— that £1 in every £20 spent on retail is spent through Amazon. I assume this was a reference to last year, or to the last accounting year.

Amazon, of course, is a giant, but there are hundreds of online retail businesses and we are right in the midst of a massive societal transfer of shopping habits from the traditional shop or store in or out of town, in or out of a covered shopping centre, to online. Covid, of course, has forced that rate of change to accelerate faster than it otherwise would—but it was a concern many years ago.

There are numerous constructive proposals to recoup a fairer contribution from the online sector to the tax base. To equitably rebalance the transfer of sales between online and the high street may require a 40% reduction in the high street burden. That is a huge reduction. I am afraid that the Treasury cannot expect revenue neutrality by simply transferring this across to other commercial sectors. The slack is just not there, particularly if we have to take a reduction from the office sector as well. Logistics, industrial and warehousing will not fill the gap. That is a real worry and a concern. Local authority funding has been referred to already, but I am afraid that it is something that needs addressing.

I support the amendment. The health of the high street cannot wait for the results of the fundamental review that was discussed at Second Reading and has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh. I was very grateful for that, but the issue is too pressing.

My principal concern remains the difficulty of assessing rental value in these most uncertain times. I do not think that it will be possible. Appeals may descend into chaos. Certainly, I predict long delays. Rental values will have to be assessed post Covid, not in eight weeks’ time. A short-term arrangement will be necessary for the non-domestic ratepayers on the high street and in the retail sector to cope with the transfer to online, and I hope that the Minister will be able to make some constructive comments to help give comfort to all of us who are concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for a further opportunity to speak about our high streets. As I outlined when we debated the second group of amendments today, we will not know the impact of the revaluation on rates bills until later in 2022, so it would not be possible to produce now the report outlined in the amendment we are discussing. However, we can be sure that, once we publish draft rateable values alongside the multiplier and the transitional relief scheme later in 2022, ratepayers will be able to see precisely how revaluation will affect their rates bills.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised an important point about online businesses compared to those that operate on the high street. Businesses which sell mainly or wholly online do not avoid business rates. They may also operate shops—many high street retailers also sell online—and they will require significant warehouse and distribution facilities, often in high-value locations. Nevertheless, business rates are a tax on the use of property and the rates bill is based on the value of the property. It follows that business models that occupy less property and perhaps operate from less valuable locations will pay less in business rates.

Property taxes have several key advantages over other forms of business taxation: they are relatively efficient to collect, they provide a relatively stable source of revenue to local government that helps ensure the provision of essential public services, and they provide relative certainty for ratepayers from one year to the next. However, there is undoubtedly a click-and-collect revolution, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. The Treasury’s fundamental review of business rates is considering alternatives taxes, including a potential online sales tax. The review will need to consider matters such as the economic impacts of such a tax and assess the concerns and risks that have been raised in the call for evidence.

Supporting the high street is a priority for us. In this year alone, no retailer on the high street is paying business rates. With the assurance that the matter of online business is being considered as part of the fundamental review and the updating of rateable values to better reflect the impact of the pandemic which will come from the 2023 revaluation, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, can agree to withdraw their amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contribution to this short but very important debate. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, has stressed again the nigh impossibility of assessing rental values in the current climate. I hope the Minister will discuss with his department how rental values are to be assessed while the pandemic is rife.

My noble friend Lord Shipley reminded the Government of the potential of an online tax to create a level playing field for all retailers. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his support. All noble Lords who have spoken have emphasised the urgency of responding to the situation facing our high street retailers. A revolutionary reform is needed. How much longer are online businesses to escape a fair assessment, compared with physical retailers? I am pleased that the Minister has just said that the Government are considering online taxes in the business rates reform, but I remind him that town centres cannot wait much longer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

West Yorkshire Combined Authority (Election of Mayor and Functions) Order 2021

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I have a direct interest in this matter as a councillor in Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

As we have heard, there are five constituent councils in West Yorkshire, representing 2.5 million people. Again, as we have heard, it is the only region with three cities: Bradford, Wakefield and Leeds. It has not been easy for the councils to give their agreement to this deal. There were only 4,400 responses to the consultation, which is hardly representative, and three of the constituent councils failed to achieve unanimity on the deal.

There is a healthy degree of scepticism in West Yorkshire about the mayoral model. This is compounded by the ability of the mayor to appoint both a political adviser, paid from the public purse, and a deputy mayor for policing—again, a political appointee paid from the public purse. Yorkshire residents are rightly suspicious of mayors’ ability to add to their council tax bills and of the lack of ongoing, direct accountability for their decisions. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee highlighted the fact that

“operational efficiencies … could lead to reduced costs”.

However, it concluded that the MHCLG was not able to provide evidence to support that assertion. I wonder whether the Minister will be able to do so.

This agreement is hailed as devolution but it falls at the first hurdle. The agreement that was originally reached has been undermined unilaterally by the Government at the very last minute. As the Minister has said, strategic planning powers and powers for a strategic infrastructure tariff have been removed from the agreed deal by the Government on the whimsy that they may be compromised by a government planning Bill. So much for devolution. The Government have cocked a collective snook at West Yorkshire; the Covid vaccine supply debacle has just compounded that sentiment.

As for funding, the promise of £1.1 billion over 30 years is not guaranteed; £38 million a year is all the extra that is provided for. Given that the five councils have had more than £500 million cut from their spending every year, this puts the financial offer into a proper perspective. However, on the basis that half a loaf is better than none at all, I am willing to accept this instrument.

Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 18th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I draw Members’ attention to my relevant interests as set out in the register: as a councillor in Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the Minister for providing time last week for a discussion about these Bills.

We have had a wide-ranging and well-informed debate on both the Bills being considered. Both have in-principle support from Members on my Benches. As many noble Lords have said, the provision of publicly accessible public toilets is essential for many people, but my noble friend Lady Thomas has made a powerful case for the need for more accessible toilets to serve the specific needs of those with disabilities. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide an answer to her question about a government database of public needs. That would be of immense value, especially to those with particular needs.

That is amplified by a report from the Royal Society for Public Health published in 2019. It made a very strong case for a review of the number of accessible public toilets. The royal society investigated public toilets and discovered the number that have been closed by local authorities as a consequence of the severe cuts to public funding, the potential health impact of a lack of public toilets, as others have referenced, and the fact that many people plan their days out according to the accessibility, or not, of public loos.

My noble friend Lady Randerson spoke strongly and firmly in favour of equality of provision for women and talked about the long queues that we women have all experienced on a regular basis. Perhaps the Minister will be able to provide a positive response to her plea.

The same Royal Society for Public Health report also said that in 2018 there were no public toilets at all funded and maintained by local authorities in 37 council areas. That is of course a consequence of the years of significant cuts to local government funding, and this Bill is a bit like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

My noble friend Lord Wallace has raised the difficulties faced by tour groups visiting the world heritage site of Saltaire in the Bradford City Council area, where there are currently no public toilets for the coachloads that arrive. If only the Government could address the lack of public toilets and enable councils, through specific grants, to build them once more.

If the Government believe that public toilets are so important that they deserve special treatment in the form of this rate relief to help ensure their future, they should consider how the provision of publicly maintained toilets can be incentivised. For example, public toilets in town halls and libraries should be offered the same business rates relief, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, argued. I hope the Minister will be able to show how a system of apportionment can be devised that will achieve this end.

All speakers today have accepted the need for the provision of publicly funded, publicly owned toilets. I hope the Minister will be willing to consider extending the Bill to encompass more public toilets and, in particular, more fully accessible public toilets.

The headline of the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill, which concerns the timing of the revaluation of rates to be paid by businesses, is the introduction of new rates from April 2023. However, that means that the revaluation will be based on rental values as of April 2021. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who is an expert in this field, has helpfully exposed considerable failings in the current system. Can the Minister confirm that the assessment date for rateable values is subject to decision by a statutory instrument? If so, can he give the House any idea of the timing of such a statutory instrument?

A delay in assessing and then introducing new rateable values is understandable. However, this is tinkering at the edges, while our town centres are in deep trouble. As my noble friends, Lord Shipley, Lady Thornhill and Lady Bowles have pointed out, there is a desperate and urgent need for wholesale reform of the business rates system. There are two fundamental reasons for radical reform, as many noble Lords have referenced during this debate. First, the current system is based on an out-of-date concept of business being dependent on well-located property. In the retail sector, Amazon and hundreds of other such businesses have blown that idea out of the water. The growth of digital-only businesses adds to that argument. Secondly, income from business rates forms a large part of the spending of local government. Loss of business rates income, due to the move away from the high street, has a consequence for the funding available for local council services. Fewer shops means less income from business rates, and this is at a time when there is a growing demand for services due to the pandemic.

Businesses are naturally deeply concerned about the outcome of the next revaluation. My noble friend Lord Stunell made a strong case for the extension of the Covid rate relief, as there is a huge danger for retailers that there will be a gap between the ending of the Covid rate relief and the introduction of the new rateable values. I hope that the Minister can respond to this threat. I urge him to have particular concern for those towns across the country that were struggling even prior to the pandemic.

We on these Benches support these Bills in principle, but we know that there is scope for improvements, which we will bring as amendments in Committee on both Bills.

Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

I draw the attention of the House to my interests as a member of Kirklees Council and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

This annual announcement of the funding package for vital local government services is never given the attention it merits. In the last year, it has become ever more apparent how dependent our communities are on the services provided by local councils. In March, it was local councils that ensured that nearly all rough sleepers were placed in accommodation. Contact tracing by local council officers has been over 90% successful, as compared with the approximately 60% success rate for the private sector, which has had vast resources to do the task. It is local councils that have encouraged and enabled hundreds of thousands of local volunteers to support their communities by befriending the lonely, and that have provided food and meals for families on the breadline and have continued to provide essential services, carried out by unsung heroes—the key workers in waste collection, social care and children’s services, to name just three.

The Public Services Committee of your Lordships’ House has reported that, in the nation’s efforts to combat the pandemic, it was locally delivered services, provided by local councils and the voluntary sector, that were able to rise effectively to the challenge and respond to new demands in very different circumstances. On behalf of Liberal Democrats in this House, I express thanks for the amazing effort and leadership of councillors and council staff across the country.

That is the context of this funding settlement. It is, then, disappointing to read that those sterling efforts are not to be rewarded by the provision of funding that will enable councils to provide the additional services that their communities will need in the months and years ahead. For example, all predictions are that there will be a considerable rise in unemployment and business closures.

The funding settlement has a top-line figure of an increase in spending of 4.5% in what is described as “core spending power”. However, this is predicated on councils increasing council tax by the maximum amount permitted by the Government before triggering a local referendum. Unpacking this top-line increase reveals that 85% of the increase in funding comes from council tax payers—hard-pressed council tax payers. There will be a 2% council tax increase and, on top of that, a 3% increase in the social care precept, resulting in an expectation by the Government that council tax payers must pay an additional 5% this coming year.

Since the social care precept was first introduced by this Government, it has resulted in council tax payers being required to pay 15% more, over and above the 2% maximum allowed. For an average band D council tax payer, the extra imposed by this could mean a further £260 each year. Do the Government intend to pile the pressure on council tax payers every year via this social care precept? Can the Minister let the House know when proposals for social care funding reform will be published?

It is welcome that the Government have recognised the cost pressures on councils as a result of Covid. Those cost pressures come in the form of lost income for, for example, leisure services teams, but there are additional costs in tackling the pandemic. Unfortunately, the Government appear to be willing to fund only 75% of the losses, which simply puts even greater pressure on service delivery at a time when this is needed as never before. The consequences are, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has just said, inevitable job losses in local government and a reduction in vital services at a time when they are needed as never before.

If the Government’s levelling-up agenda is to be meaningful, it has to include enabling local government to extend its services—for instance, in the regeneration of local economies and improving skills to open up better-paid opportunities for local people. Can the Minister give any assurances to the House that the Government’s thinking on the levelling-up agenda includes a substantial and properly funded role for local government?

Of course, fundamental reform of local government funding and business rates is the basis of a secure future for local government when the role of public services, locally determined and delivered, has been never clearer. Therefore, can the Minister tell the House when the fair funding reform for local government is to be published and determined, and when business rates reform is to be tackled? I look forward to his answers to those questions.

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

My Lords, unfortunately I do not have the ability to declare an interest in local government as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, despite 16 years as a local councillor, six years as council leader in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, and four years in City Hall as Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime, but that gives me the ability to talk with some confidence about why I think this settlement by the Government is particularly generous at this time.

Even when you unpack the numbers, as has been done by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the reality is that there is a headline increase in core spending power of 4.5% but we see not a single reduction in grant income. Indeed, in some areas the grant income has increased considerably. Of course, if local town halls want to maximise their core spending power, they have a choice in how much they increase council tax. This coming financial year is not disproportionately different from the previous one in assuming increases of 2% in council tax and 3% for adult social care, as compared with 2% in the previous financial year, but, as a balancing item, that is a choice for council leaders and their Cabinets up and down the country to take, with, in some cases, elections looming. They have a choice in how much they increase council tax for their residents.

The Government have honoured their commitment to support local government through the pandemic. I too pay tribute to the amazing work of people in our town halls, providing services on the front line at a particularly difficult time. I commend them, and I agree with both previous speakers that they have played a phenomenal role in this pandemic. Long may that continue. As we have heard, the Government join both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness in supporting the work of people throughout the country delivering local services to their local communities.

So far the Government have provided—I am sorry to hesitate, but I am not seeing too well at the moment—£6.2 billion in support specifically to meet the pressures of the pandemic. Sorry, I got that figure wrong; it is £7.2 billion. I can add an extra billion for you: there has been £7.2 billion in support through the pandemic. As mentioned in the other place, the estimate of what local councils have spent is £4.4 billion. My maths is not terribly good, but that is less than the £7.2 billion given to councils. Frankly, that is putting our arms round town halls and supporting them through those inevitable pressures during a pandemic.

It is estimated, rightly, by local government itself, that that expenditure will increase and hit £6.2 billion. But again, within this settlement is £1.55 billion for Covid-related pressures. That shows a tremendous commitment from the Government, and tremendous work by my right honourable friend Robert Jenrick in negotiating with the Treasury for a great settlement for local government, and one that honours the support needed for our town halls.

It is fair to say that we face tough times. The economy has contracted, and people may be unable to pay their council tax. I can declare an interest as a council tax payer, and as a director of a business that pays business rates. Yes, businesses are struggling, and people are struggling to pay their bills. But covering 75p in the pound, without knowing the downside, is a pretty good deal from the Treasury, rather than the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, described it.

There is the same commitment to ending rough sleeping, and a 60% increase in funding. There is also the same commitment to people with no recourse to public funds. The derogation for London has been widened to the rest of the country, which is commendable. We have also told local town hall leaders that they have the discretion to support people without recourse to public funds who are not EEA nationals, as they see fit. That is the leadership we need to see in our town halls.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that we need to think about council tax, and about balancing council tax and grants. I will say more about that later, because I want to save some of my ammunition for speakers to come.

Leaseholders and Cladding

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government do accept that leaseholders are victims in this situation. We recognise that the £1.6 billion of public funding that has been put up so far to pay for the costs of cladding remediation go some way to protecting leaseholders from the costs they face. We also recognise that this public funding does not absolve the industry from taking responsibility.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests in the register. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, just said about the growing public concern over this issue. The Health and Safety Executive gave evidence to the House of Commons scrutiny committee on the building safety Bill, which includes some clauses on cladding and fire safety of buildings. It said in the committee’s report that leaseholders should not

“have to worry about the cost of fixing historic safety defects in their buildings that they did not cause.”

Does the Minister agree with the Government’s own Health and Safety Executive?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, with the greatest respect, the bill for remediation of historic cladding defects cannot simply be passed to the taxpayer. We expect developers, investors and building owners who have the means to cover remediation costs themselves to do so without passing on costs to leaseholders.

Fire Safety Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

3rd reading & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 24th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for his engagement with myself and the House in general as we have considered the Fire Safety Bill. The noble Lord engaged with Members of all parties and none in his friendly, engaging style. I very much appreciate that; it is the only way to do business in this House. I think the noble Lord will have a long career on those Benches, and I wish him well there. The Bill goes back to the other place in a much better state than it arrived here in. Important amendments have been passed. I hope the Government will reflect carefully on those amendments and not just seek to overturn them in the other place.

It was good that the noble Lord again confirmed that the Government are committed to implementing the first phase of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry report. I am delighted to hear that, and we have passed amendments to facilitate that. I will say to the noble Lord and the Government that it is ridiculous that the Government keep voting against the pledges they make at the Dispatch Box and had in their manifesto. I hope they will take that on board in the other place. Surely it is right that a public register of fire risk assessments is available and kept up to date.

Finally, we must end the leasehold and tenant cladding scandal. These are the innocent victims; they must not bear the costs. The costs must be borne by the people who built the building—the warranty provider, the guarantors and the people who signed the buildings off as being fit for purpose—not by the poor tenants and leaseholders. All the amendments agreed by the House have gone to the Commons. I hope they will do the right thing in the other place and not just oppose them and send them back. I thank everybody who engaged in this Bill.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this short, two-clause Bill has provoked considerable interest across the House, which is surprising, as it is a Bill that seeks to remedy some of the system failures that led to the appalling tragedy at Grenfell Tower. I join in the thanks to the Minister for arranging meetings with those of us who wished, through amendments, to improve the Bill. I thank him very much for listening to the concerns we raised.

The Bill, as amended, provides greater protection for residents by implementing some of the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry phase 1 report and requiring fire risk assessments to be made publicly available for potential residents. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry is, little by little, exposing the building practices that resulted in flammable cladding being attached to Grenfell Tower—and many other buildings across the country—with such tragic consequences.

Currently, there is a crisis involving people across the country who are in constant fear and anxiety because they are living in flats that are encased in flammable cladding. Currently, it is the leaseholders and tenants who are expected to pay towards the costs of making their homes safe. However, we have passed an amendment to stop that outrageous practice. They have been sold homes that were deemed to be safe but are not, because of building failures. The cost of putting those failures right must not be theirs. The amendment we passed on Report puts that principle into the Bill.

Since Report, I have had many emails and messages from desperate and distraught residents of these flats. Some are being asked to pay way over £40,000 towards the costs of putting these cladding and other building failures right. It is not fair and it is not just. I hope the Government will be able to accept the principle set out in the amendment. I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply.

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

My Lords, it is a great privilege to be invited to make some concluding remarks on the Bill on behalf of the Cross Benches, especially as I was not able to participate in the initial stages. We have covered a huge range of issues, such as those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, on electrical safety, and those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and others, focusing on safety assessments and the perils of the deregulatory approach under permitted development rights. We have ranged from fire doors to liability issues and, of course, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the effect on the innocent who are blighted by the costs of remediating cladding systems.

As a technician, first and foremost, I am particularly grateful for how some of my own points were received. With Dame Judith Hackitt’s report ringing in our ears, even as we debated the Bill the ongoing inquiry under Sir Martin Moore-Bick reminded us of the construction culture that we need to address, along with the reputational challenges that have been the hallmark of what has come out post Grenfell. We must never forget the effect on those who were directly affected by that terrible tragedy. I pay tribute to the Labour Front Bench for constantly reminding us of the need for the Bill. I thank the Bill team and the Minister for keeping us on the critical path—expediting things at this stage is clearly an expression of our common wish.

Of course, some matters will now need to be reconsidered by the Commons, so it may not be the last we hear of this: the Bill needed improvements and I hope that, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the Commons will take due regard of the careful and considered points that have been raised in this House. Given the legacy of issues that have got us here, it is a tough call, demanding courage and a firm steer from the Government, and I hope the Bill will underpin that process.

Towns Fund

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con) [V]]

I am very sorry about my diction. Can you hear me better now? I hope so. I was saying that the top 40 towns were chosen for town deals and that Ministers used their local knowledge to conduct a qualitative assessment when picking the remaining 61 towns. A deals process, rather than an open competition, was used, as many previously left-behind towns lacked the capacity to bid. In that sense, the process was very clear and fair in relation to the basis for allocating the considerable amount of money involved.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I have relevant interests, as set out in the register, and I also welcome the towns fund. however, it is not quite correct that, as the Minister has just said, the top 40 towns, as assessed by the criteria, were chosen for the money in the towns fund. There were many towns in the highest-priority category that were not selected. Can the Minister explain why they were rejected? What can I tell their local representatives about why they are failing to meet the eye of the Minister when they meet the criteria?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con) [V]]

I want to make clear that the process was driven by officials using an evidence-based methodology. The top 40 high-priority towns were chosen for town deals. For the remaining 61 towns, there was ministerial involvement but using a process designed by officials in my department. I add that I am delighted that Dewsbury in the borough of Kirklees has been selected to develop proposals for a town deal. My department is looking forward to receiving its town investment plan early next year.

Fire Safety Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

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

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

My Lords, although I certainly agree with the thrust of Amendment 5, it is Amendment 6, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that I really wish to address.

Many of my years in the property profession have been spent in survey inspections, with a spell in estate agency and mortgage valuations and brief periods in block management, and I have spent a good deal of time on the forensic identification of defects. Therefore, I feel reasonably well qualified to support the noble Baroness, and I thank her for raising this important issue, which affects the residential sector. Rightly, she referred to the indirect effect of the Grenfell tragedy. That is a matter on which I have been in constant contact with the Chartered Association of Building Engineers, of which I am a patron and which has been very helpful in identifying various matters in respect of the Bill.

As the noble Baroness said, the effect on the residential market for flats in particular, and over a very broad spectrum by age and type, is now apparent. This has affected security for mortgage lending, exacerbated by the prospect of large and, as the noble Baroness said, unquantified remediation bills. Some sort of game of pass the parcel seems to be in train as to who will end up picking up those bills. It affects buildings insurance cover and premiums, and interim measures such as “waking watch” are racking up huge costs. These and the likely shortfall, as I see it, in the provision for remediation made by the Government—welcome though that is, but nevertheless there is a shortfall as against the widening scope of the buildings that might ultimately be affected—have seriously affected the ability to sell flats. It is not clear that this is in any way confined to high rise, as I am increasingly aware, as one of my children attempts to sell a flat in a four-storey modern and, I believe, conventionally constructed block.

A few days ago, a lady emailed me to say that she is a resident of a sister block to the one in Worcester Park which burned down last year. She is completely stuck with a currently worthless asset and no apparent movement on remediation. The latest Sunday Times carried an article about this, graphically illustrating the issues and defects that have been found to be present in a number of remaining identical buildings that are still standing.

Before this gets yet more problematic and starts affecting potentially a far wider range of properties than at present, the Government need to use their powers and influence to get all the interested parties round a table—constructers, lenders, insurers—and point out, as the noble Baroness said, the reputational as well as economic and social damage that needs to be contained beyond the issue of direct liability and who shoulders that, and require their active co-operation to resolve this in a constructive manner and not leave vulnerable homeowners, to put it bluntly, hung out to dry.

I appreciate the criticism of the EWS1 form, but it came about because of a particular need to do with mortgage lending. It is now being required for a much wider range of purposes, for which it was never intended. Why? Because it was the only tool available. The Government could step into this obvious void and make sure that some other form of certification solution was provided. But they, or somebody else, would have to take responsibility for that, and I realise that that is an issue. Meanwhile, the potential liabilities make it ever less likely that those without specific accreditation to do the necessary inspections will be willing to undertake such work and, indeed, they may not be able to get professional indemnity insurance either.

The Government need to get ahead of the curve here. If these measures are rushed into effect with full force immediately and without additional steps, there will be more serious disruption and collateral damage to come. I suggest there be a phased and managed approach aimed at containing the ill effects, restoring trust and confidence, above all, in the measures being put in place and limiting financial loss while dealing, most importantly, with the most pressing issues where residents’ safety is at the greatest peril. None of this is without risk; nor is the normal “Not my responsibility, guvnor” liability-passing response appropriate in these abnormal times, given the number of national issues we face and the effect on the wider economy.

This means temporary but probably arbitrary cut-offs, probably in height terms—11 metres may be the right figure for blocks of flats—perhaps with certain other definitions, then dealing with those and drawing the net more widely later on and inevitably, as one will, picking up legacy issues from older regulatory sign-offs on the way. Some sort of lower-tier interim certification, which the noble Baroness referred to, perhaps by a non-specialist, would enable low-risk properties to escape the contagion that might otherwise engulf the sector. I wonder if this is what the Minister will propose in Amendment 7. I will listen with great interest to his response.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interests, as recorded in the register, as a councillor in Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I turn first to Amendment 6, through which the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has raised concerns about the inclusion of all multi-occupied domestic premises within the scope of the Bill. The issues raised relate to leaseholders who find that they are, in effect, unable to move as their property is within the scope of the Bill and, therefore, that the fire risk exists but is not quantified. The later amendment in my name explores these issues in more detail.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, spoke on behalf of the Minister and confirmed that the Government intend that all multi-occupational buildings are within the scope of the Bill and the fire safety order 2005. He also argued in Committee that the height of a building is only one factor in assessing fire risk, and others have given recent examples of fires in such buildings that support that argument. The issue, then, is about prioritisation, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has so expertly explained, and what actions the Government are able to take to minimise the impact on properties deemed low priority and, therefore, presumably of lower risk. It is that issue that the Minister needs to clarify. Will the Government bring forward regulations or guidance to demonstrate the criteria to be used to fire assess properties? Can these be used by leaseholders to demonstrate low risk, and thus release their property from being frozen out of the housing market? I look forward to the Minister’s response to these concerns.

The other amendment in this group, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raises issues about consultation. It lists consultees, as a very similar amendment did in Committee. My colleagues and I are always in favour of the widest possible consultation on any issue. However, there is an inherent risk in a list that becomes exclusive while intending to be inclusive. The list of consultees is one which we would expect, however, to be involved in all relevant consultations. As my noble friend Lord Shipley said, the list is inherently sensible, so I hope the Minister will be able to accept such a list. Again, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for raising the issue of engagement to make sure the right groups and organisations are consulted on any changes or clarifications to the types of premises that fall within the scope of the fire safety order. The Government have given this matter further consideration since Committee stage. I support the noble Lord’s aim of ensuring that the widest range of groups are given an opportunity to comment. It is sensible to seek views from all groups impacted by any future changes, which is why Clause 2 of the Fire Safety Bill provides a requirement to consult anyone appropriate, which is likely to include all the parties highlighted in the amendment.

Robust policy-making can be achieved only by reaching out to all sections of the fire sector and other interested parties, such as responsible persons and residents, not by relying solely on the expertise of certain groups. To be clear, of course we will consult with the National Fire Chiefs Council but equally, we will consult with the Fire Brigades Union and with tenants’ and residents’ associations.

The Government are committed to considering the most appropriate means of conducting any future consultation before making any regulations—regulations which Parliament would have an opportunity to scrutinise, should it so wish. It remains the case that the specified list as presented identifies groups whose role, name or function may change over time, potentially creating the need for future primary legislative changes or making such provision ineffective. However, the Bill as drafted safeguards against this while ensuring that relevant groups are not excluded. I want to assure your Lordships’ House that we recognise the importance of consulting relevant stakeholders, but the wording of Clause 2 already allows us to do just that, without the need to be prescriptive in the way the noble Lord’s amendment suggests.

I turn now to the very important consumer issues raised by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. I had a meeting with my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Shinkwin, and I am very happy to commit to a further meeting before the introduction of the building safety Bill. These are huge consumer issues, and I praise my noble friend for being a champion of the consumer. We recognise that many leaseholders’ properties have been valued at zero, they are waiting for remediation of their properties and they are unable to remortgage or to move. They are effectively trapped, and the Government recognise that that is a considerable issue for them. We also recognise that the costs of historic building safety and fire safety remediation will be considerably more than the £1.6 billion already committed. It is important to address that in a way that is affordable to leaseholders, and there are only certain ways of doing that. We will make announcements on that in due course.

Equally, we recognise that the pace of remediation is important. I have talked to many people in the social housing sector about the fact that they have probably overspent on waking watch. I am very pleased that we provided guidance on waking watch, the cost of which is exorbitantly high; it can be replaced by a fire alarm system within six or seven weeks, which reduces some of the costs of interim measures. I draw the attention of those using waking watch for extended periods to the most recent guidance from the National Fire Chiefs Council and the work on waking watch costs. I am very happy to commit to a further meeting.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, has withdrawn from speaking to this group of amendments so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, these government amendments, as described, seek to clarify what evidence of culpability, in relation to compliance with the regulations, is required. The very fact that government amendments have been tabled to the Bill at this late stage shows the importance and value of the scrutiny work of this House.

As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has just said, a risk-based approach is essential to ensuring that high-risk buildings are prioritised and to calming financial sector fears. The timing of the publication of the guidance to which the Minister has referred is vital if the implementation of the changes in the Bill, and the guidance, are to take effect as soon as possible. These are important additions to the Bill, and we support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Stunell. There have been—and still are—legislative opportunities for the Government to act. When the Minister sums up, I hope that he will urgently clarify the Government’s plans.

As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, said in introducing this group, progress has been disappointingly slow. He went on to say that it is “beyond belief” that, three years after the Grenfell fire, action is so slow. He is absolutely right. The general public will become increasingly worried by the deeply disturbing revelations of the Grenfell inquiry.

This amendment seeks to implement recommendations made in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry phase 1 report. Surely that is the right thing to do as a matter of urgency. This new clause would clarify the duties of an owner or manager in relation to a building with two or more sets of accommodation to provide information on its construction to a local fire and rescue service. Secondly, it would introduce annual inspections of individual flat doors. This is an essential change, given recent experience and the growth of our knowledge about the state of so many entrance doors. This clause would also require monthly inspections, and for evacuation and fire safety instructions to be shared with the building’s residents. What on earth can be wrong with these proposals?

There is nothing in this amendment which should be surprising or problematic. Frankly, the general public would expect nothing else. If the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, decides to press this matter to a vote, I shall certainly support him.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is fundamental to the effective implementation of the principles of this Bill. The role of the responsible person is one of the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry phase 1 report which was published more than a year ago. I quote from the recommendations in the report:

“No plans of the internal layout of the building were available to”


the London Fire Brigade

“until the later stages of the fire … It should be a simple matter for the owners or managers of high-rise buildings to provide their local fire and rescue services with current versions of such plans. I therefore recommend that the owner and manager of every high-rise residential building”—[Inaudible.]

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am afraid that we are having a little trouble with the noble Baroness’s connection. If she turns off her camera, perhaps that will help with the audio feed.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

The report continued:

“I therefore recommend that the owner and manager of every high-rise residential building be required by law:


a. to provide their local fire and rescue services with up-to-date plans in both paper and electronic form of every floor of the building identifying the location of key fire safety systems;


b. to ensure that the building contains a premises information box, the contents of which must include a copy of the up-to-date floor plans and information about the nature of any lift intended for use by the fire and rescue services.”


So last year, the Grenfell inquiry report asked for the speedy introduction of these recommendations. A year later, we are waiting.

I know that the Government have stated a firm commitment to implementing the recommendations of the inquiry, and the amendment seeks to rectify this absence of government legislative action. As my noble friend Lord Stunell so wisely said, we all agree that this action needs to be taken and we are all impatient for it to be put in place.

The Government said that this was a high priority. However, even the building safety Bill is silent on the matter. How then can we be assured that it is a high priority for them? Here we have an opportunity to show intent, as a consequence of that tragic fire at Grenfell, to ensure that others do not endure what Grenfell residents endured. If the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, pushes this amendment to a vote, we on this side will vote in support of this vital change.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, the Grenfell Tower fire was a tragedy of epic proportions. It was the largest loss of life in a residential fire since the Second World War. We have to recognise that a lot has happened and that a lot of actions have been taken by the Government since that event over three years ago.

The Government took early and decisive action to announce an independent Grenfell Tower inquiry. They took decisive action to start the Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety, led by Dame Judith Hackitt, and they took decisive action to establish the building safety programme. The Government took decisive action in setting up a comprehensive aluminium composite material—ACM—remediation programme. They took decisive action in setting up an independent expert panel to provide advice to government and building owners. They took decisive action in providing £600 million to help with the remediation of ACM high-rises. They took decisive action in providing a further £1 billion to remediate high-rises with other forms of flammable cladding. They took decisive action to ban combustible cladding on buildings within the scope of the ban. The Government took decisive action in introducing a protection board.

I accept that the pace of remediation has been slow, but I point to the progress that has been made this year in particular. This was a year when we had a global pandemic with two national lockdowns, and nevertheless we have seen a considerably greater number of on-site starts in those buildings—high-rises with the same cladding as Grenfell—and we are on track to see that around 90% of buildings will either have had the cladding removed or people will be on-site to complete that in a matter of months. That is real progress. This is cross-party; I thank Mayor Burnham, and Mayor Khan in London, but also the local authority leaders for their work to make sure that there has been real pace in the remediation this year. It is not easy to continue these construction programmes in that sort of environment.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for the amendment on the duties of an owner or manager. It is important that we discuss this amendment given the attention it has already received in the other place and in Committee in your Lordships’ House. I know that the noble Lord and other noble Lords have strong views on this issue and wish to see the Grenfell inquiry’s recommendations implemented as soon as possible. I share that intention. However, the Government do not consider that this amendment provides the most effective means of giving effect to the inquiry’s recommendations.

I hope to reassure the noble Lord that our shared objective can be achieved without the need for his amendments, which may in fact work against the swiftest possible implementation of the recommendations. I reiterate, as I said in my all-Peers letter and in Committee in your Lordships’ House, that the Government are, and always have been, committed to implementing and, where appropriate, legislating for the inquiry’s recommendations. This was a manifesto commitment and I am determined to ensure that we deliver on it.

I will set out our approach on this issue. It is right that we consulted before making regulations to deliver the Grenfell recommendations. As I set out in Committee, this was not solely because we have a statutory duty to do so—but we do, and this amendment is not in keeping with that duty. It also reflects Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s own view on the need to ensure broad support for recommendations and an understanding of the practical issues associated with implementing them. Our 12-week public consultation, which closed on 12 October, is allowing us to do just that. I am pleased to say that over 200 responses were received. It is important that we consider carefully those responses before finalising the precise policy detail to implement these new duties. Due consideration has to be given to the views of those who have submitted a response to the consultation.

I will highlight an example of that. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord prescribes a minimum set period for checks of both fire doors and lifts. As we consider our responses to the consultation, other approaches may be suggested that may provide more practical and proportionate options which are no less effective. The amendment may hinder our ability to deliver what may be a better solution for the safety of residents. I hope that is not the noble Lord’s intention, but I ask him to reflect on that fact. Understanding and acting on the consultation responses will ultimately help us to produce better, informed legislation, which we will deliver through regulations under the fire safety order as soon as possible after the Bill is commenced.

I reiterate that this amendment is not necessary and will not speed up the legislative process. It requires us to make regulations to amend the fire safety order to introduce new duties on the face of the order, but we consider that we already have the ability to implement such new duties through the power in Article 24 to make regulations, which we plan to use to implement a number of the Grenfell inquiry recommendations. Our intention is to introduce these regulations as soon as possible after the Bill is commenced.

I am also concerned about the impact of the misleading media coverage—even in recent media coverage written by Pippa Crerar that quotes the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark—after this amendment was voted on in the Commons on the Grenfell community’s faith in our commitment to deliver the Grenfell recommendations. I reassure the Grenfell community that the Government remain absolutely steadfast to their manifesto commitment to implement the inquiry’s recommendations.

I think that all noble Lords are seeking the same thing—the swift implementation of the Grenfell inquiry’s recommendations—and that is what the Government are committed to. While I understand the spirit of the amendment, it will not do that and may risk undermining our efforts. As such, I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, between them my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, have shown how complex this situation is and why we need much greater clarity to ensure that such premises as are referred to in this amendment are covered by the fire safety order and everything that flows from it.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I have considerable anxiety at the way in which the Airbnb model has mushroomed—Airbnb itself and other less identifiable organisations and individuals. Flats in both private and social housing have effectively become short-term let premises, with a continuous rotation of people moving in and out. I have, in other contexts, frequently in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who raises this frequently, been concerned for wider reasons, such as the effects on the housing market, environmental concerns. But in this context, there is also a safety concern.

The leaseholders, who are normally the owners of these flats, have quite frequently decided to make a business out of them. In terms of social housing, it has quite often been the people who have inherited what were once right-to-buy flats, or have bought them and turned them into a business. I have queried on previous occasions whether that is strictly legitimate, and quite what the role of the tax authorities is in this area, but in this context we are talking about safety. I am aware that in some of those flats, the leaseholders, sometimes in conjunction with the organisers of short-term lets, have changed the format of those flats—in effect dividing them up, increasing the number of bedrooms and, in some cases, knocking down walls and changing layouts, thereby compromising firewalls. More frequently, to allow for multi-occupancy, and in some cases for such things as disco equipment—because some of these flats are used not so much for tourist families but for parties and worse—the electrical systems are altered to cater for that clientele.

The requirements that would normally be on the owners to inform the occupants of the safety provisions and evacuation procedures, and to provide for detection instruments—smoke alarms, et cetera—are not observed in the often radical conversion to a different purpose than that of being a family home. If such premises can be seriously and dangerously subdivided, then there is a real risk here.

We have to be clear whose responsibility it is. In most cases, the responsibility is on the leaseholder, or it may be on whoever is supposed to inform the occupants of the safety provisions. Either way, if, for example, you are in a large block and a few of the flats in it are let by Airbnb or similar, you are a danger to the rest of the occupants. It is once again necessary, irrespective of the form of tenure, to ensure that all temporary as well as permanent inhabitants are made safe and do not impact on the safety of other families and occupants in neighbouring flats. It may be complex, but the outcome and intention are clear. We need clarity, consistency and to make sure that such premises are safe and covered by the legislation.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raised important concerns about the application of fire safety legislation to properties that are, in part or in whole, let as holiday lets. It was unfortunate that the Government were not able to return on Report with a comprehensive response in the form of a government amendment, which would have accepted that there is confusion about the applicability of the legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has rightly raised these concerns again. What must not happen is that the growing sector of short-term lets falls into a grey area of the legislation, and that the Government wait for a serious fire incident to accept that omissions need to be closed.

The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, has provided expert legal advice on this matter, which demonstrates that there is a gap in the legislation. It is complicated, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, explained. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, raised further concerns about potential subdivisions of dwellings. However, the amendment proposes a way forward to close a gap that all noble Lords agree exists in the fire safety extent of the current and proposed legislation. I will listen carefully to what the Minister says in reply and I hope that he seizes the opportunity to put this matter right. I look forward to his response.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Mendelsohn, for raising again this important issue—the treatment of short-term accommodation and holiday lettings under the fire safety order—just as they did in Committee. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Like them, I want to ensure that anybody staying in short-term or holiday accommodation is assured that their premises fall within the scope of fire safety legislation, and that there is a requirement on the owner to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that they are safe from the risk of fire during their stay.

The noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Mendelsohn, mentioned the Do You Have Paying Guests? guidance that the Government issued. That was published in 2008 and is being updated, not least—as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said—because of the growth of this type of short-term letting that we have seen since then. As part of that update, we have consulted many in the tourism sector, including Airbnb and similar platforms. It might reassure noble Lords to know that Airbnb has provided advice to its hosts in the past, including a leaflet that was drafted in partnership with the National Fire Chiefs Council, giving tips for those who use that platform on how to comply.

Turning to the law, the fire safety order applies to non-domestic premises. The responsible person for each premises is required to undertake a fire risk assessment and put in place adequate and appropriate precautions to manage the risk of fire to those lawfully on the premises. The question here is whether domestic premises, when let through peer-to-peer online platforms or similar means, continue to be domestic premises. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for sharing the legal advice that he cited in Committee and again today on this point.

Richard Matthews QC submits that, if they are let as holiday accommodation, domestic premises do not necessarily cease to be domestic premises. A fire safety order would therefore not apply. As I explained in Committee, we had a different interpretation of the definition of domestic premises in Article 2 of the fire safety order but, as we said we would, we have taken the points raised by noble Lords and Mr Matthews on board and carefully considered them. To that end, the Home Office sought further legal advice, which acknowledges the points made by Mr Matthews and noble Lords that this is a complex issue with some legal ambiguity. That we are having this debate makes that point forcefully.

I hope I reassure noble Lords by setting out that the ambiguity is not a matter of arguing that either all or none of the premises are within the scope of the fire safety order, but that they must be considered case by case. I agree that ambiguity on such an important issue as this is not helpful. We want to ensure that fire safety legislation is clear, robust and properly protects the public. It is clear that further consideration of the points that noble Lords have raised is needed to ensure that the fire safety order captures the various types of premises let through peer-to-peer or similar platforms in a workable, practical and fair way.

Given the complexity of that undertaking, we do not believe that this Bill is the right vehicle through which to resolve it. It will, quite rightly, require consultation with interested parties, in both the fire safety and the tourism sectors. Doing that would delay the passage of the Bill, but we agree with noble Lords that that work needs to be done and I am happy to commit to undertaking it. I hope that noble Lords who have spoken today will continue to work with us as we do that, and that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, feels able to withdraw his amendment as a result of that reassurance.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

10: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Public register of fire risk assessments
(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision for a register of fire risk assessments made under article 9 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) (risk assessment). (2) Those regulations must provide that the register is—(a) publicly available, and(b) kept up-to-date.(3) Regulations under this section are—(a) to be made by statutory instrument; and(b) subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would enable prospective and current renters, leaseholders and owners to check the fire safety status of their home, by accessing a public register similar to the EPC register.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 10, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shipley, seeks to establish the provision, in law, of a public register of fire risk assessments. I will speak also to Amendment 11 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stunell, which seeks to establish a public register of fire risk assessors. Amendment 12 in this group, in the name of my noble friend Lord Stunell, is on permitted developments. My noble friend will be speaking about this in detail. I say at the outset that the Liberal Democrats support the Bill wholeheartedly but feel that there are opportunities for improvement, some of which are within the amendments in this group.

I thank the Minister very much for the opportunities that he has provided to discuss these and other amendments. They have been very useful, and we have been able to talk around some of the issues raised.

I turn to Amendment 10. Energy performance certificates are mandatory and open for potential home- owners to view. EPCs are now an accepted part of house buying and renting, and that requirement is having a significant impact on home energy improvements. Why, then, cannot the same process be used for an issue that can literally be one of life and death?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I may recapitulate. We return to Amendment 10. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is now on the line and very much in presence. I call on her to make her remarks and to indicate whether she intends to press her amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

I thank noble Lords for that brief wait while technical glitches were sorted out, and I thank everyone who has contributed to our debate on these important issues of public transparency and accountability in terms of fire safety. I especially thank my noble friend Lord Stunell for his knowledgeable and powerful argument, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his expert input. I assure him that I totally accept the detailed points that he raised and, if we have an opportunity for this amendment regarding public registers for assessments, I am sure that they will be properly considered, and in detail.

I listened carefully to the Minister and I thank him for being so clear in his response to these amendments. I heard him accept the need for, and principle of, transparency in supporting fire safety. Unfortunately, he was unable to go on to say that the Government would accept a register of fire safety assessments so that people can see the issues relating to the properties they live in. He said that householders could ask for fire assessments, but they would have to be on request. I reflected that that would not work well for the residents of Grenfell, who repeatedly raised issues of fire safety and were unable to be heard. A public register would have given huge strength to the concerns that they raised.

Given that the Minister has, unfortunately, been unable to give me an assurance that the Government will provide for a public register for fire safety assessments, I should like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

13: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Prohibition on passing remediation costs on to leaseholders and tenants
(1) The owner of a building may not pass the costs of any remedial work attributable to the provisions of this Act on to leaseholders or tenants of that building.(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a leaseholder who is also the owner or part owner of the freehold of the building.”Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this new Clause is to prevent freeholders passing on remediation costs to leaseholders and tenants, such as through demands for one-off payments or increases in service or other charges.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, many tenants and leaseholders in blocks with cladding that is now known to be a serious fire hazard find themselves in a very bleak place indeed. This amendment seeks to address that. Leaseholders have purchased flats in good faith with building surveys, mortgage insurance and building warranties in place. They have done the right thing. Now, through no fault of their own, they are being threatened with additional service charges of several hundred pounds each month to pay for the so-called waking watch, a 24/7 in-person lookout for potential fires. On top of that, they are being asked to fund the considerable costs of remediation work to remove the dangerous cladding and replace it with a safer system. Figures I have seen for some of this work run to tens of thousands of pounds. How are leaseholders, who already have a hefty mortgage, supposed to afford, say, an additional £40,000 bill for the remediation work?

During the debate on an earlier amendment, the Minister referred to leaseholders being asked to pay only affordable costs. I am very disappointed if that reflects the Government’s thinking. Leaseholders should not be asked to pay towards remediation of problems that are not of their making in any way. The question that then arises is: who was responsible for including these dangerous cladding panels in the first place? The construction companies surely have some responsibility. The warranties that were provided on the building should surely cover errors made during construction. The people who do not have any responsibility are those currently being asked to pay the bills. This is not just and not right, and we have an opportunity today to take the first step towards removing the anguish and anxiety faced by homeowners and tenants in this position.

I thank the Minister for making time available for a very useful discussion of this issue, and I accept that the scale of the problem is very large and that the cost of remediation works will run to tens of billions of pounds. I also accept that the Government have made some attempt to relieve the financial pressure on homeowners by providing a £1.6 billion fund towards the costs. However, I suspect that that is just a small portion of the total cost. Perhaps the Minister can indicate the scale of the problem.

I bring us back to the basic question: who should take responsibility? Just yesterday, during the Grenfell inquiry, evidence was given by one of the suppliers of the cladding system about the misinformation provided to win the contract. Evidence has been provided that the Building Research Establishment had already shown the high flammability of these cladding systems. The Grenfell inquiry phase 1 report stated that

“there was compelling evidence that the external walls … failed to comply with Requirement B4(1) of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010, in that they did not adequately resist the spread of the fire having regard to height, use and position of the building. On the contrary, they actively promoted it.”

Clear evidence, then, of culpability during construction or refurbishment at Grenfell. Of course, we do not know if this is the case elsewhere, but we have sufficient information to demonstrate that those who pay for this extensive remediation must not be the tenants and leaseholders.

We on these Benches feel very strongly that there is a just and moral case for leaseholders and tenants not to be required to contribute to any of the costs. I will listen carefully to what the Minister has to say but if the Government do not accept the amendment, I will feel it necessary to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Shipley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I listened to the Secretary of State on the “Today” programme this morning, in which I heard him say that the cost of removal and remediation of dangerous cladding from residential buildings should be as affordable as possible for lease- holders. This afternoon is an opportunity for the Minister to make clear what this means. I understand that builders and freeholders may have responsibilities in meetings such costs, but where a leaseholder is not a freeholder, why should they have a responsibility to pay out?

The uncertainty for so many leaseholders who are stuck trying to sell their properties or are worried about their possible financial exposure needs swift resolution. The amendment would protect leaseholders who are not freeholders, and tenants, from extra costs, be they single or staggered lump sums, increases in service charges or increases in rents. The responsibility for making safe a building with a fire risk should not lie with the leaseholders or tenants. The amendment would make it clear that it is unreasonable to expect them to be responsible for those costs when they are the ones exposed to risk through no fault of their own. I hope the Minister will agree that this amendment, which would protect leaseholders and tenants, is justified.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for their Amendment 13 on remediation costs. I often think that we need to apply a Daily Mail test to discover whether the opinion of the House will be tested. We have had an article in the Mirror from Pippa Crerar indicating one Division, and an article on this amendment from a different Mirror journalist—the online political editor. So I am not surprised that there will be a test of the opinion of the House.

I want to make clear the sincerity of our view that we need to understand the scale of the problem. Removing the cladding is like unpeeling an orange. You then find greater defects: the internal compartmentation issues, the missing firebreaks, and the issues around fire doors and wooden balconies. These historic structural defects will involve a colossal sum of money. We do not know how much; there are estimates and there are guesstimates, but we accept that there is a significant job of work to be done to deal with the historic defects that have accrued over many, many years.

As the Minister with responsibility for building—as well as fire—safety, I am regularly in contact with leaseholders hit with high bills for remediation to help make their homes safer. I fully understand the anxiety and distress that these people are going through. These are people who have done the right thing, investing their hard-earned savings into a home for themselves and their families, yet now many of them are facing unaffordable bills. I fully understand the intention behind this amendment, and I want to assure noble Lords that we are working very hard in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to improve the situation that people find themselves in.

Finally, we have already committed £1.6 billion to fund the removal and replacement of unsafe cladding on high-rise residential buildings, and we have been putting pressure on building owners to step up to the plate, as well as using warranties and recovering costs from contractors for incorrect or poor work.

However, I can assure noble Lords that we want to go further to protect people from unaffordable costs. Noble Lords will be aware that we published the draft building safety Bill on 20 July 2020. This includes important public safety measures; the Government are committed to progressing the Bill as quickly as possible so that reforms can be implemented in a timely manner. The Bill will be introduced to Parliament once the Government have considered the scrutiny committee’s recommendations.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is committed to updating our position on remediation costs when the building safety Bill returns to Parliament. Michael Wade, senior adviser to MHCLG, is accelerating work with leaseholders and the financial sector to identify financing solutions that protect leaseholders from unaffordable costs while ensuring that the bill does not fall entirely on taxpayers. We have had regular meetings with leaseholder groups, on this and a range of other issues, since the draft Bill was published.

While I support the underlying intention to protect leaseholders and have gone on the record today saying so, this amendment falls down in three main areas, which might make the problem worse rather than better.

First, the safety of residents in their homes is of the highest priority. This is the intention behind today’s Bill and all the Government’s wider work on building safety. There is a range of options for meeting the costs of safety-critical remediation work, which will be appropriate in different circumstances. It would be irresponsible to close off one of the potential routes to funding these works. This amendment risks leaving a building with known fire risks in a position where the work is not taken forward.

Secondly, this new clause would stop all remediation costs from being passed on to leaseholders. For example, service and maintenance charges would at present meet the cost of safety work required as a result of routine wear and tear, such as worn fire door closers. These costs would now fall to building owners—who are, in many cases, also not responsible for original building defects, as they did not build the property—rather than being determined by the terms of the lease.

Thirdly, the fire safety order is not the appropriate legislative framework to resolve remediation costs. The primary focus of the fire safety order is to place duties on any person who has some level of control in a premises—the responsible person or the dutyholder—to ensure that they identify the fire safety risks for the buildings they are responsible for and, if necessary, put in place general fire precautions. As I have said, we are looking to the building safety Bill to address the issues raised in this amendment.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his comment about orphan liability. He underlined the point that we need to keep the options open. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, for his comment about construction warranties. Typically, the market leader is the NHBC. I met the council very recently and, effectively, that is only a 10-year protection: two years for defects, with eight years insurance-based. While we are looking at ways of increasing the compliance period to align with the 10 years, it would be possible through other legislative means to extend the period, because I do not see why someone who has put their life savings into a home has such minimal protection when they purchase a property. I buy a pair of tweezers to take the hair out of my ears and they have a lifetime guarantee. When someone puts their entire savings into a home, they deserve protection over time. That is something we as a Government need to look to do, and will do in due course. This is not the moment to resolve this particular issue, but it is well noted.

I ask that your Lordships’ House recognises the complexity of this policy area, which cannot be solved through this amendment, and considers the assurances I have given today. For the reasons set out in my response, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. This is about saving thousands of householders from crippling debts when none of the fault for this awful situation is of their making: none of it. I accept what the Minister has said; this is a problem that is hugely costly and complex. However, Governments regularly—daily, probably—have to find solutions to complex and costly issues, and this is one. I trust that the Minister can find a fair and just solution to it.

I again thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, in particular for sharing his expertise in this matter. He has rightly pointed out that this is a difficult, complicated and knotty problem, but the principle must be right: somewhere in government legislation we need the principle to be accepted that these leaseholders and tenants have, in good faith, bought a flat, or are tenants or residents of a flat, and that these problems have arisen through no fault of their own. They should not, as my noble friend Lord Stunell said, be held to ransom for these problems when it is not their issue. They have every right to expect, as my noble friend said, to have bought a home that is safe, when they have all the guarantees and insurances in place.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who spoke about flats that are worthless and residents who are being penalised through no fault of their own. I thank the Minister for his reply, and I know that this is difficult. What I want him to do is to accept that the principle we are putting forward is the fair and just one. It is no good, to my mind, saying that nobody is going to expect house owners to have to pay anything more than is affordable, whatever that means. Worse still came from the lips of the Minister when he said that what is happening is that, when they take off the cladding, they are revealing and exposing further terrible defects. Frankly, that makes matters worse and the principle of what the amendment proposes more just.

I fully understand the Government’s intention to try and find a fair way to pay for this. My view, and the view of my colleagues, is that the costs should not fall on those who in good faith have bought their home and, through no fault of their own, are in this terrible and difficult situation. Good intentions are okay but the path to hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions. In this regard, good intentions are not sufficient. We need the principle to be accepted that none of the costs of the remediation of poor building works or poor standards and fire hazards should fall on leaseholders or tenants. Given that I have not had a sufficient reassurance from the Minister, I wish to test the opinion of the House.