Stronger Towns Fund

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Pinnock

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made yesterday in the other place by his right honourable friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. This supposed funding boost is extremely disappointing and will do little compared with the billions of pounds that his Government have already cut from local communities. After all the hype, I would have expected more from him and the Government. This will do little to reverse the damage that they have inflicted in each region of England.

The reason why many of our towns are struggling is a near-decade of cuts to local authority funding and to public services by the Minister’s Government. The fact is that between 2010 and 2020 councils will have lost 60p in every £1 that the Government provide for services. Can the Minister tell the House why nine of the 10 most deprived councils in England have seen cuts three times the national average? How can that be right?

The Statement says that the Government have taken deprivation into account when considering the allocation of this fund. I am very pleased that they have done that, but I am also conscious that the Minister’s right honourable friend in the other place refused to say that deprivation would be taken into account when considering the local government settlement. Can the Minister tell the House why that is the case? It is quite rightly included in this fund but not in the fair funding formula review.

The Minister mentioned Blackpool. Blackpool is one of the most deprived areas in England and has seen a cut in spending power of more than £45 million. That is more than the £40 million a year that the entire north-west of England will get from this fund. Look at the east Midlands, an area I know very well. Over seven years it will get £110 million, which is £15.71 million a year. If the Government allocate that funding evenly per local authority—I know they will not do that, but if they did—it works out at around £393,000 per year per authority.

This funding announcement is a drop in the ocean. We have seen spending cuts of £7.3 billion over the past decade because of nine years of austerity. Even if we are being favourable to the Government and to Ministers, this enticement is £5.7 billion short of the cuts that they have already inflicted.

The funding promised by the Secretary of State over the next seven years does not even get close to matching the amount of funding that regions have received from the European Union over the last seven years from the European Regional Development Fund. This package is £642 million a year short of the money that England would have received.

Also, why is £600 million unallocated? I know the Minister said that there will be some sort of bidding process, but we have had no more clarity about that. How will the money be allocated? He also mentioned other parts of the United Kingdom. Will the money be distributed through Barnett-type formulas? Will there be additional money for the other parts of the United Kingdom? What will the allocations to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland be?

This is a most disappointing announcement indeed from the Government, but unfortunately not surprising. We have such serious problems in our towns, seaside resorts, communities and high streets that we need an ambitious programme to deliver their success so that they can thrive, with proper support for jobs, transport, housing and communities. As I said, the Government have failed in this announcement.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I remind Members of my registered interests, in particular that I am a councillor in Kirklees Council in West Yorkshire. I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, but it raises far more questions than answers, so I will ask those questions in the hope and expectation of finding the answers.

The funding is described as being for towns. Could the Minister define what towns will be eligible? Are cities excluded? For example, my part of the country—West Yorkshire—contains Dewsbury, a town, eligible, and Bradford, a city, not eligible, despite the fact that their deprivation assessments will be very similar?

It seems from the Statement that the funding will be allocated to the local enterprise partnerships and the mayoral combined authorities, yet these are the very institutions that have clearly not used growth deal funding to invest in those towns; otherwise, there would be no need for this additional funding. The city region-centric approach may well be successful in bringing new jobs into cities, but my experience is that these institutions have not succeeded in reviving our towns. Yet these are the self-same institutions that will be the keepers of this small fund. Could the Minister explain the rationale for this approach? Given that the LEPs serve large populations, how can the needs of small towns feature and be understood? Local councils are much better placed to understand their communities and which ones will benefit from the relatively meagre investment, so why the LEPs?

Then there is this total failure of government thinking that devolution equals handing out funding that in some way local people can influence. The Statement refers to the Government being in charge. It says:

“We will work with local areas to explore town deals that unlock local potential”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/3/19; col. 714.]


This is no way to engage communities. Will the Minister confirm that plans for investment have to be agreed with the Government? How will residents and councillors of the towns involved be able to determine what funding programme best meets the needs of their town?

The Statement lists the aims of the funding: to create new jobs and training opportunities, and economic development. The list sounds familiar. The Single Regeneration Budget programme 25 years ago had the same aims. However, that had a budget of £5.7 billion over six years—many times larger than what is now on offer. The criticism of the SRB was that gains made in local economies were not sustainable. Have lessons been learned?

That leads me to the size of the funding pot. To take an area I know, Yorkshire and the Humber is allocated £197 million over seven years—£28 million per year for the whole region. These are some of the towns in the region that I think will meet the criteria loosely set by the Government: Dewsbury, Batley, Huddersfield, Halifax, Rotherham, Doncaster, Castleford, Pontefract, Scarborough, Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Barnsley, Selby, Goole, Bridlington, and no doubt others. They may have around £2 million a year to invest. It will do something, of course, but—to use a catchphrase—not a lot.

In the context of the massive cuts to local government funding, this is a drop in the ocean. My own council has had cuts of £183 million up to 2018, and has to make a further £40 million of cuts in the next two years, despite government claims of funding rises, which ignore rising demands—and of course, these cuts do not include the squeeze on school spending.

Another way to consider the funding is to compare it with the £1 billion granted to Northern Ireland. The exchange rate per DUP MP is £100 million. There are 54 MPs in Yorkshire and the Humber. Their exchange rate is £3.5 million. So this fund is a lollipop, a sweetener, and, as they say in Yorkshire, “summat for nowt”. I look forward to the Minister’s answers.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the Minister responds, when I spoke earlier, I should have drawn the House’s attention to my registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Grenfell Tower

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Pinnock

Monday 11th June 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier in the other place by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. I shall start where the Minister finished: as he said in the Statement, when we say “never again” we mean it, and that is absolutely paramount.

As the Minister said, the fire happened a year ago next Thursday, and the total of 72 people is the biggest loss of life in Britain due to a fire since the Second World War. Recently I watched the “Panorama” programme, which brought back the images of what happened that night. It was a truly horrific and terrible event and all our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. Every time we have a Statement on Grenfell, our thanks go out to everyone in the local community who has helped: the civil servants, the staff from the borough council and from other councils, the faith sector, the charities, and the community who have come together to help this part of north Kensington to move on and try to get lives back on track.

Having said that, here we are a year on and still more than half the Grenfell survivors are in either hotel rooms or temporary accommodation. I accept entirely that the Minister would not want to see that but it is still not a good situation to find themselves in. There are also more than 300 other tower blocks with the same unlawful cladding on them and so far only 10 have had it removed or replaced. We are not sure where we stand with the private sector, where there are even more such blocks. This is not a good place to be. It is fair to say that the residents of Grenfell Tower were failed long before the fire, and some of them clearly feel that they have been failed since. Actually, if I am right, only 82 residents out of the 209 are in permanent replacement homes, and that is just not good enough.

I believe the North Kensington Law Centre has released a document saying that even in the new homes there are defects in terms of damp and delayed repairs, while some of the tenancies that have been offered are not the same that the residents had at Grenfell Tower. I do not know if that is the case, but if it is then it really needs to be corrected; they should be offered exactly the same tenancies that they had in the tower.

Does the department now have any sort of estimate or deadline for when people will be permanently rehoused? To start with, the Prime Minister talked about getting it done in a matter of weeks, but that has been extended and extended. I know that in the last Statement the Government talked about a year’s time, but at what point do they now see everyone getting into a new home and being able to start to rebuild their lives? We do not want to be back here again in the autumn not much further forward.

On the question of the other high-rise blocks, only 10 local authority tower blocks out of more than 300 have had their cladding replaced. The Government said they would do everything it takes to “keep our people safe”, so in that sense I welcome the £400 million funding that the Minister has announced to remove the cladding. It has come from another budget but it is still welcome. I also welcome the intention to ban combustible material on the outside of tower blocks. Is that all the Government are going to do, though, or are they going to go further? There has been talk before of looking at retrofitting sprinklers in tower blocks. I do not know if the Government are thinking about those sorts of things. Where are we on the question of evacuation procedures in blocks of flats? When will we be in a position to confirm that all blocks of flats are safe?

I was pleased with the important point that the Minister made about the private blocks, which has our full support: blocks in the private sector have to be corrected as well and those costs should not be passed on to the leaseholders. I welcome that.

On the inquiry itself, the tributes to the victims and families were very moving. I wish the inquiry well as it has a very important job to do. After that there will of course be the result of the police investigation, but I will leave it there.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I remind your Lordships’ House of my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a Kirklees councillor.

Seventy-two men, women and children tragically died in the Grenfell Tower fire. Our responsibility to their memories and to those who survive is to seek the truth, secure justice and make the radical change to culture and practice so that no such fire occurs ever again.

Last week, I met representatives of Grenfell United and listened. I was struck by their quiet determination and by the inspiring leadership of their fellow survivors. They want all the facts before, during and after the disaster to be exposed to the full light of day. Then, those responsible for the decisions that enabled the fire to be so catastrophic must be brought to justice.

All these issues are, of course, the subject of the Grenfell Tower inquiry and we must wait for it to hear the evidence and draw its conclusions. However, what is clear so far is the painfully slow response of the Government to the consequences of this disaster. One year on, some of the survivors are still living in hotel accommodation and have been for a whole year. There is no chance for them even to attempt to start their lives again.

From the information I was given by Grenfell United, some of the accommodation purchased by Kensington and Chelsea Council was totally inappropriate. Perhaps the Minister will comment on the information I heard that one of the survivors was allocated a basement flat with no direct access to daylight. Does he regard this as appropriate in the circumstances of what those families had already endured?

Then there is the issue of the dangerous cladding. I welcome the proposal for a ban on ACM cladding in today’s Statement and that a consultation will begin shortly. This is really positive but this cladding continues to be on many public and private buildings. It is reported in the press that 32 NHS hospitals, several hotels and at least one school, as well as 132 private sector and 208 public sector tower blocks, have this dangerous cladding. Can the Minister assure the House that all these buildings will have the cladding removed as quickly as possible so that people who live or work in them can have some improved peace of mind? Meanwhile, can the Minister explain what actions are being recommended to provide additional safety in these buildings and information as to whether those in the public sector will have compensatory government payments for all their additional costs? As many people will know, fire safety wardens are being employed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to ensure that no fire starts in these buildings and that, if one does, prompt action can be taken. This will be a huge additional cost in the social housing sector. Can the Government assure us that all buildings with this cladding have been identified, with the owners acknowledging their responsibility, and that the Government will monitor that effective remedial action has or will be taken in a timely way? If we are not careful, the curse of this cladding will continue for years to come.

On this day, our thoughts and prayers are with all those people—residents and rescuers—whose lives have been indelibly scarred by this disaster.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the Minister responds, I make clear that I am also a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Combined Authorities (Borrowing) Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Pinnock

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I draw Members’ attention to my interests in the register as a councillor in the borough of Kirklees in West Yorkshire and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

The regulation is a natural extension of the powers of the mayoral combined authorities, and in that light it is to be welcomed. The functions that will benefit from investment where the authorities choose to use the additional borrowing powers are significant and of strategic importance to the development of those combined authority areas.

I say all that because I am not criticising the fundamental issue of the borrowing powers. However, I am concerned that additional borrowing by the mayoral combined authorities will result in additional costs being passed to the constituent local authority. So will the prudential borrowing code of the constituent authorities be affected by the additional borrowing permitted under these regulations?

The direct accountability between the spending body, which is the combined authority, and the tax-raising bodies, which are the constituent local authorities, will be fairly obtuse. If these powers are extended in this way, how will local council tax payers and businesses have a clear and transparent explanation of the use of the revenues of local authorities by the combined authorities if, for instance, there is no direct benefit for that particular part of the combined authority area?

The Minister mentioned Sheffield City Region, which will be in the fortunate or unfortunate position on Friday morning of having elected a mayor who will have no powers and no resources because that agreement has yet to come to Parliament and before your Lordships’ House. It will be an interesting conundrum for the Minister and his department as to what the newly elected mayor of the Sheffield City Region—he or she—will do.

I have a final comment for the Minister. The extension of powers to the mayoral combined authorities in this way is positive, with the addendums that I have already referenced, but it begs the question as to the continuing divergence of the powers of local authorities that do not have these additional powers because they do not have combined authorities and metro mayors. That is beginning to grow. The differences are beginning to be obvious and there will be an issue that will have to be addressed by the Government in one form or another. Has the Minister any thoughts to share on that issue?

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

My Lords, I have no issue with the regulations before the House this afternoon and I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as a councillor and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

As we have heard, these regulations in effect implement agreements between the Government and the combined authorities referred to in this order to increase their borrowing powers for various functions as listed in the Explanatory Notes. The lists of additional borrowing approvals are different, as each deal is bespoke. I know that the Government like this bespoke deal arrangement, but I am of the opinion that the jury is still out on that way of working, as one person’s bespoke deal is another person’s confused muddle, with no one knowing or being clear why one authority has certain powers and another does not.

I also noted in the consultation, as referenced in the Explanatory Notes in paragraphs 8.1 to 8.26, that there are still very small numbers of people coming forward to give their views on these consultations. It might be that the numbers compare favourably with other consultations that the department has undertaken, but, if we are to give proper weight to the views of local people—and these areas have millions of people living in them—some of the numbers are derisory. We need to look at other ways of consulting people to get their views on the proposals coming forward. Having said that, I am happy to approve the regulations tonight.

Integrated Communities

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Pinnock

Thursday 15th March 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for repeating the Statement delivered yesterday in the other place by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I endorse the Minister’s comments on the disgusting “punish a Muslim” letters. I hope that the perpetrators of this evil hate crime are caught and punished. Such an act has no place in our society. The success of our communities has been their diversity. I am the son of immigrants who came here in the 1950s from Ireland to make a life for themselves. Immigrants from all over the world have contributed to our communities and make our country a much better place.

I am pleased to hear that the Government are committing money to the English for Speakers of Other Languages programme, though perhaps the Minister can comment on the figures from the House of Commons Library, which show that between 2009-10 and 2015-16, funding for such programmes fell from £220 million to £90 million. So although the new funding mentioned in the Statement is welcome, it will not replace the money that the Government previously took away.

In her report, Dame Louise Casey stated:

“The problem has not been a lack of knowledge but a failure of collective, consistent and persistent will to do something about it or give it the priority it deserves at both a national and local level”.


That is why it is disappointing that the Government have not announced a new policy but another consultation on a potential policy following a report they received in 2016. It is now March 2018.

On education, mixing with children from other backgrounds and religions throughout life is one of the best ways of preventing barriers being erected. I agree that children should not only be learning about British values, but living them as well. I very much hope that the Government’s Statement signals a new commitment; if so, I welcome what I have heard today, but they need to ensure rigorous assessment and evaluation of the pilots as other aspects of the Statement progress.

I have a few questions for the Minister, which I hope he can answer. If not, I am sure he will write to me and other Members of the House. Can he tell us what equality impact assessments on the funding have been made for the five pilot areas he outlined in the Statement? We heard about an aspiration to work with local authorities, which is very good. What role does the Minister believe they can play in this strategy? Perhaps he can outline that for the House. What discussions has he had with his ministerial colleagues in the Department for Education about the role of education and making sure that ethnic minorities can benefit here, particularly on issues such as childcare and so on, and how they can make sure that those minorities fully benefit from the programme?

I am also aware that the Minister’s right honourable friend the Communities Secretary wrote in an article in the Guardian that,

“there are too many communities that are still very segregated and therefore divided”.

I am conscious that he has been in post for two years now. Perhaps the Minister can outline what he thinks those divisions are and what has happened in the last two years to deal with some of those barriers.

As I said, I welcome the Statement and I hope that it goes the right way to solve the variety of problems here. I hope the noble Lord can answer those points, but if he cannot, I am sure he will come back to me in the normal way.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register as a councillor in West Yorkshire and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I start by endorsing the condemnation of the abhorrent letters received by many people—among them, one of my friends.

There is much to be welcomed in this Statement on the integration strategy Green Paper. The Government are at last thinking about the issues and the remedies. Before I comment on some of the main headlines in the Statement, I will draw attention to the thinking at the heart of this policy proposal. The Statement defines integrated communities as ones where,

“people—whatever their background—live, work, learn and socialise together”.

That is a sweeping statement. Within the majority white community, this is patently not the case and never has been, which is why I question that broad assertion. Perhaps what the Green Paper needs to focus on is those elements of our common life in this country that enable each individual to play a full part rather than to attempt a forced integration, which seems by its very nature to frown on differences. I support the Statement when it says that,

“a diverse society does not mean a divided society”,

but the language used to describe the current position and the changes desired is very important, and something is lacking in some parts of the Statement and the Green Paper. Will the Minister reflect on that word “integration” and on whether “cohesive communities” may better describe the aim of the proposals?

The Government have listed five relevant areas for action if our diverse communities are to be more cohesive. Some of us in leadership roles in local government took action when funding was more available. Noble Lords may be aware that I was leader of Kirklees Council— just south of Bradford, which was mentioned in the Statement—which has had its share of difficult situations emanating from communities that were not in touch with each other. We tried a number of schemes, many of which showed successful outcomes. I hope the Government may seek to introduce some of them in the listed areas. They included: school twinning, where children met together to share activities such as art and sport; cookery classes for women from different ethnic backgrounds, where they could share recipes, which was very successful; a programme of sporting activities organised by a community group, with a community cup at the end of it, which was hugely popular and successful in bringing children and young people together, mainly to play football; and an interfaith programme, which was mainly focused on schools but also open to adults, and involved visits to mosques, gurdwaras and churches.

Of course, all these additional activities need funding, and as funding disappeared, so, sadly, did the activities. But a few remain. There is an annual cricket match between Christian church leaders and Muslim imams, and interfaith activity continues, led by a Church of England bishop and a Muslim leader. These activities did much to bring people together. Can the Minister say whether the Government are seeking to promote these sorts of activities and, crucially, whether funding will be provided at adequate levels?

I will draw attention to two areas in the Statement, the first of which is language. People who are unable to be fluent in English are at a disadvantage, and their lives are more isolated and restricted. The Government of course made the decision that support for the teaching of English as a second language was no longer needed, and slashed the funding. How schools manage to be effective in the classroom when the children are not able to speak, let alone read or write, English is a marvel to me. ESOL spending must be increased, and be sufficient to meet needs. Perhaps the Minister may be able to commit to that extent of new funding.

The other area I want to focus on is low skills—a critical factor both for white boys and young men and for those from minority ethnic backgrounds. In Bradford, this is the source of much of the inter-community distrust. FE colleges have a key role to play in enabling young people to acquire relevant skills so they can join in and have employment, which gives them some hope for their future.

There is much that must be done if the aim of the Green Paper is to be achieved. I welcome the integration and innovation fund, as long as it is adequate to meet the need. Unless it is, integrated communities will remain a distant prospect, with all the risks that that leaves behind.

National Planning Policy Framework

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Pinnock

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for repeating the Statement delivered in the other place yesterday. I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interests as a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. It is a disappointing Statement, not in all of what it proposes to do but in how timid the proposals are and with the wrong focus.

Since 2010 the number of rough sleepers in England has trebled to almost 5,000 last year. The number of households living in temporary accommodation has risen almost continuously since 2010. The latest figures had 79,000 households in temporary accommodation, including 121,000 children, as I have referred to in this House before. Wage-to-mortgage differentials are making owning your own home, as the Statement says, only a dream. The ratio of wages to affordable rents in many parts of England means that in reality these are unaffordable for most people. Some of the measures in the consultation may make a difference but, as with all the Government do in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, it is too little, too slow and the actions never quite meet the rhetoric.

It is regrettable that, despite all of us agreeing that there is a housing crisis and that we need to build more homes, council housing and the contribution that additional council housing could make are not mentioned at all in the Statement. There is one reference to,

“in the social or private sector”,

in the concluding remarks. The solution to the housing crisis will not be found just within the planning process or with developers—affordable homes that in large parts of the country are unaffordable for most people, or increased permitted development rights, which further exclude the local community from the planning process and other measures. We need to allow local authorities to build council homes and housing associations to build more homes on social rents. It will make a real difference to the housing crisis; where people are on benefits it will help reduce the Government’s housing benefit bill; it will help take the heat out of the market; and it will contribute to delivering the improvements to housing that we all want to see in terms of the numbers and the quality of the homes built, with appropriate infrastructure.

Planning departments have taken a huge cut in recent years and the increase in fees that has been allowed is welcome but it is still not enough. Again, I have called many times for full cost recovery on fees. I have suggested that the Government should find one council to pilot full cost recovery but so far they have refused to do that. There are still more than 400,000 approved planning permissions where not even one brick has been laid. I agree very much with the comments of the Local Government Association chair, the noble Lord, Lord Porter of Spalding, who said:

“If we want more houses, we have to build them, not plan them”.


Can the Minister explain why his friend in the other place, the Secretary of State, returned money earmarked for affordable housing to the Treasury? We have a broken housing market, as the Government keep reminding us, so why is the department not making every effort to spend every single penny to build the homes we need? If one area cannot use the money why can it not be used elsewhere? Can the Minister tell the House what work the department has done to see where money could be spent quickly if it is returned from other areas?

Can the Minister give us some idea of the timescale once the consultation has finished? There are a number of consultations going on in the department at the moment—for example, on letting agents’ fees and electrical safety checks—which I have raised regularly. At some point will we get some real, concrete action? It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us.

With regard to achieving sustainable development, I warmly welcome the comments about protecting ancient woodland and veteran trees. That is very good. But can the Minister say a bit more about how the Government propose that we really do achieve sustainable development, particularly with those authorities that are under delivering on housing in their own areas?

The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, is in her place. I recall our discussions about plan-making last year. Can the Minister comment on plan-making and permitted development—is there a conflict there? If we are increasing permitted development rights in local areas and a local plan has been agreed, is there a conflict? Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.

We all agree that we need to deliver high-quality homes. I am very conscious that Governments of all persuasions made some terrible mistakes in the 1960s and 1970s in the quality of the homes they built. I do not want to see us build homes that are not of good quality and in years to come our successors have to deal with another problem with the quality of housing we have in our communities.

It is not in the Statement but the consultation includes the viability of town centres. We need our communities to be sustainable in terms of infrastructure, and town centres are really important. Can the Minister say a little bit about that? It is not just the planning; issues such as business rates are also important.

Finally, the consultation also talks about sustainable transport. Transport needs to be built into communities as well. I am conscious that we have a number of new towns. Ebbsfleet is one; I have asked a number of questions about that recently. There is some more work to be done to make sure that these new towns succeed.

I will leave my comments there and look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interests as a councillor in the local borough of Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The consultation document that the Government have issued details new changes and collates existing measures into an amended NPPF. The details will obviously be the subject of detailed debate at a later date. Today, we have the headlines of the general thrust of government policy on the planning process and housebuilding.

Over the past few days, the media have been full of rhetoric and what I regard as the unedifying spectacle of the Government in full blame-game mode. The blame is on local planning authorities for failing to allocate sufficient land and be efficient in the planning process; the blame is on developers for failing to build allocated sites. But planning for housebuilding depends on three key players: government, the local planning authorities and developers. All need to work together if housebuilding is to achieve the targets rightly set by government. Resorting to a blame game does nothing but create a negative atmosphere.

The Government must consider and be transparent about their role in the planning process. When local authorities develop their strategic plans, it is with clear expectations of housing numbers and site allocations set by government. Once this plan is signed off by councils, it is then inspected for soundness by a government-appointed planning inspector who can, and often does, recommend changes to the plan—recommendations which are difficult to refuse. So despite the rhetoric, it is the Government who are setting the broad requirements and enabling the loss of green-belt land. Can I suggest to the Minister that some clarity of leadership in these matters would be more effective than exhortations and blame? Constructive leadership from government would be more effective in getting the minority of local authorities that have not succeeded in fulfilling government expectations to do so.

Moreover, despite their protestations, evidence shows that developers do land bank, waiting for prices and consumer confidence to rise. Developers are reluctant to build low-cost housing because profit margins are lower—thus not building all the house types in the numbers that are needed. None of this will change without government policy changes, so I welcome the proposal for an investigation into land banking, as long as it leads to actions that restrict it.

If this country is to provide an adequate supply of housing to meet individual needs, more fundamental changes are needed than are being proposed. Perhaps the Minister can respond to some of these issues. First, there is pressure on the south-east because the Government do not have an economic regional policy that draws investment away from the south-east. Developing one would be a significant aid to housing policy. Secondly, that word “affordable” should be abandoned in relation to housing. It is misleading because affordable is what it is not: it is just not as expensive. Thirdly, the National Planning Policy Framework should be amended to enable councils to specify in their strategic plans different housing types on each site allocation: for example—there is some reference to this in the consultation document—housing for older and disabled people. Councils must be encouraged to take responsibility for building homes for social rent. These changes are sadly missing from the consultation. Exhortations to use brownfield sites will fall on deaf ears if the Government fail to provide support for the remediation of sites which are severely contaminated—I speak from bitter experience in my own area.

Finally, perhaps the Minister will be able to explain the Government’s financial commitment to enabling development through providing funding for essential infrastructure. I am not referring to the infrastructure fund. Currently, government policy appears to be to pass on the infrastructure costs of the development that the Government want either to the developers via the community infrastructure levy and Section 106 funding or to local people through a new tax, the infrastructure tariff that I read is part of the proposals. Will the Government change their tune away from the destructive blame game to purposeful leadership so that we can get the housing that this country and its people need in the places that they need it in a sustainable way that does not take away precious green belt land?

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Pinnock

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 6th December 2017 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth. I draw the House’s attention to my interests as a local councillor in Lewisham and vice-president of the Local Government Association. As he said, we had a very fruitful meeting after I tabled my amendment at Report. I was very happy to withdraw that, and I am very pleased with what the Minister has brought back today. As he says, it has enabled the Government to put the dates in the Bill. If they want at some future point to extend the scheme, they can, without the need for primary legislation. It is a very sensible move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my register of interests as a councillor in Kirklees and as another vice-president of the Local Government Association. As we discussed on Report, we agree with and support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. We thank the Minister for his very helpful meetings on the Bill. I have certainly explored a number of issues, although I have not got very far, and I do not intend to let them go. There is a growing need to think about the accessibility and affordability of broadband and mobile networks for people less well off than the majority, when they are going to rely on them for access to public services and other important aspects of their lives. That issue will not go away, and I hope Ministers will take that point away and think about it.

As for the amendments, we will obviously support them.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2017

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Pinnock

Wednesday 6th December 2017 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I draw attention to my registered interests as a councillor in Kirklees and as one of the many vice-presidents of the Local Government Association. As a local councillor and someone who is interested in planning, I welcome the 20% increase in fees across all types of planning application, although it has been a long time coming.

However, I note with some concern that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, did not refer to the fact that the resultant gain in income will cover only around half of the current deficit in financing the planning applications processed by the local planning authority. Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum draws attention to this. It says that,

“the Government is seeking to reduce the funding gap, and estimate that some £80m additional fee income will be raised annually”.

I also note that the Minister referred to an annual increase of £75 million. The paragraph goes on to state:

“Therefore, although the fee increase will help to address some of this shortfall, even taking this additional income into account, authorities’ costs will overall still be higher than the fee charged”.


We continue to say that the Government are expecting hard-pressed council tax payers to subsidise developers. Given that the interesting figure of 0.25% of planning costs is what the planning fee represents, it seems that we ought to be asking developers to pay the full cost of the planning application. My rough guess is that it would mean a 40% increase. It is not acceptable for council tax payers to continue to subsidise development, and the developers who will make considerable profits out of the projects they undertake.

I noted the new type of planning known as “planning in principle” referred to by the Minister. When I read it, it seemed to be outline planning consent, and I would like to understand what the difference is. In the explanation it talks about there being none of the detail but perhaps only access and considering the principle of building on a certain site. I take that to be outline planning consent and I should therefore like to know what the difference is.

The Minister went on to refer to the opportunity of a further 20% increase in planning fees which would be dependent on local planning authorities delivering on housebuilding targets. This is a bit of a punishment for those authorities that grant planning consent for applications in a timely way but then find that developers sit on them for years and keep coming back with requests for time extensions on their permissions. I cite my own ward in Kirklees, where we have 600 planning consents—that is just one ward, not a whole authority—waiting for development. No doubt my council would not qualify for the further 20%, regardless of the fact that it had granted all these planning permissions.

Perhaps it is because I am new to all this, but I want to comment on this business of the Government undertaking to define planning application fees. Planning permissions and the whole planning process are a local planning authority matter and I believe that planning fees ought to be determined by local government. I do not understand why central government wants to keep such a tight hold on this. If there was more freedom for local planning authorities to determine fees, I am sure that they would introduce innovative processes and be a bit more business-like. If you wanted to attract more development, maybe you would cut fees for development that was within the local authority’s strategic vision. I am not sure why central government has to keep a tight hold of planning fees. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that.

With those comments, in totality I welcome the increase in fees. Local taxpayers have subsidised development for far too long. I look forward to a further 20%, so that they do not subsidise it at all.

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

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, to the Chair, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. I draw the Committee’s attention to my registered interests as a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I welcome the measure as far as it goes, in that it increases the fees that local authorities charge for planning applications. That is welcome, as are the fees for the new categories. The 20% increase will make a difference, but council tax payers will still be subsidising the planning process. As has been mentioned many times, that is regrettable. In paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Notes, that seems to have been accepted, although I do not think that these proposals go far enough. As the Explanatory Notes say, the last increase was in 2012, which highlights a problem—that is five years ago and costs have gone up since. I accept the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, made in asking why the Government are still setting these fees nationally. If they are going to carry on doing that they should look at some way of inflation-proofing this, otherwise we will be sitting here in another five or six years’ time agreeing the fees again. Costs increase all the time for local authorities and waiting five years is far too long. As the noble Baroness said, these matters should be dealt with by local authorities, which will set fees connected to their areas.

The Explanatory Notes also mention applications for permission in principle. A new figure is being proposed, but the fee is set lower than it is for present applications. The justification is that less work will be involved, so you do not need a bigger fee. But of course the fee we have now does not cover it. There is a new fee to be charged but, again, it will not cover the cost of even that work. That is odd logic, unless you always want to set the fees at a lower level than the cost so you always have the council tax payer subsidising the payment process. I would have thought that we would want to get out of that at some point—if not today, certainly in the future. Having said that, I welcome the increase. It is going in the right direction.

We will be talking about pilots later but I have suggested before that perhaps at least one council in the whole of England should do a pilot on full costs recovery. I cannot see the harm of just trying it. At the end of the day it may not work, but if we could find one place to volunteer to do that it would give the Government useful information about whether that is something we could do. I have called for it, as have colleagues. Perhaps we should do that. Having said that, I am happy to support the regulations, as far as they go.

Grenfell Recovery Taskforce

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Pinnock

Monday 6th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my interests in the register as an elected councillor for the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in the other place. I also pay tribute again to the public sector officials—from the police, the fire service and the ambulance service to the NHS and local and national government—along with the faith groups, the charity and voluntary sectors, and the community in North Kensington, for the way that they have all supported families as they recover from this appalling tragedy.

As I have mentioned before, within the public sector there is not one group of heroes and then another group of workers that deserves to be attacked. That is unfair. I remind the House of the treatment of firefighters by the Foreign Secretary when he was the Mayor of London, which is a case in point. Some of the comments he made when he was mayor are shameful. He should apologise for what he said about these heroes, but all we get from him in this area is silence. He is not a politician usually noted for being quiet; he is usually very happy to give his views on a range of subjects, but strangely not on this one. I say again: come on, Boris Johnson MP, your apology to the firefighters of the London Fire Brigade for your ill-informed and hurtful comments is long overdue.

The people of North Kensington were failed by those elected to serve them. Therefore, the change of leadership in the authority is welcome, and I wish the leadership well in the important work that they are doing. The former chief executive of my own borough, Barry Quirk, has been installed as the new permanent chief executive of Kensington and Chelsea Council. He will provide much-needed stability and leadership for the council staff. He is a very able man and the council has chosen wisely in this respect.

The report of the recovery task force highlights some serious problems that need to be overcome. At some point, consideration will have to be given as to whether this authority can continue in its present form. That is not a decision for today or next week, but Ministers must keep it under review and not take it off the table. What we cannot have happen is that as the authority fades from our attention, the old ways, habits and failures return. If the structure is beyond saving then other options will need to be considered to ensure that all residents of the borough are properly served. The governance arrangements are of concern to us all. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell me whether the new leadership has offered a seat or two in the cabinet to the opposition. I have mentioned that a number of times before and it would be a welcome step.

I take the point about the frequency of meetings of the ministerial recovery group and the pressure that it brings, and agree that it should be reduced. However, it is welcome that the council will remain very much in the sight of the department. Will the Minister tell us what the department has done specifically to help the new chief executive bolster the capacity and capability of the senior staff team? There are some very able people working in his department and elsewhere in local government, in London and across the country. What support has his department given to the authority to aid this work?

I fully understand that we want to give people time to be rehoused in a permanent place rather than having to move again. However, as the Minister said and as the report highlights, the pace is slow. What analysis has the department undertaken to see why this is the case? If it has not done any work on this, why not? What are the barriers to rehousing people permanently and what has the department done to remove them? Can he give the House an example in this respect? I do not believe that people want to carry on living in hotel rooms for any longer than is necessary.

I agree that there is a greater need for more empathy, emotional intelligence and humanity as we move forward. It is just a tragedy and a terrible indictment that when it is the richest borough of one of the richest cities in the world, and in the fifth-richest country in the world, a Minister in 2017 has to come to the Dispatch Box and say so.

Just because you are less fortunate, because you are poor or because you live in a council property does not mean that you should have fewer rights, be less respected or have your views taken into account any less. But that is what the local community has clearly felt and experienced in Kensington and Chelsea, which is shameful. I am pleased that the task force will remain in place for the foreseeable future and that nothing is to be taken off the table. I join with the Minister in thanking the task force and specifically the four expert members for their work and comprehensive report. There is serious work to be done to support the victims and the local community on the long road to recovery. I wish everyone well in that task. They have my full support and gratitude for the work they are doing.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my entry in the register of interests as an elected councillor in the borough of Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I welcome today’s Statement on the interim report of the task force. However, I draw attention to one of the four priorities that were set by the Secretary of State for the work of the task force—that it would,

“ensure that all the immediate housing needs resulting from the fires are fully and promptly addressed by RBKC”.

But we have heard today in the Statement and the interim report that the number who have been permanently rehoused is pitifully low. Four months after the dreadful fire at Grenfell, only 26 of 204 families have been rehoused permanently and 130 are still in emergency bed and breakfast accommodation. I find that disgraceful and a tragedy; I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us why those figures are so low. The full report also asks for an immediate strategy and agreed targets for rehousing. It would be good to hear from him whether that has been done, whether targets have been set and what they are. That is the most important feature of the aftermath of this dreadful fire.

The second point that I would draw attention to is that the report, I am pleased to say, makes no immediate recommendation about the future of the tenant management organisation. Fears have been expressed in the media by residents that disbanding the TMO would lead to avoidance of effective scrutiny of its actions or inactions, and the avoidance of potential prosecutions. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case? Will the TMO remain in place until the report of the Prime Minister’s inquiry and for any consequences of that inquiry?

The third issue that I raise is not referenced in the report, which is strange. It is the consequences of the fire and the impact on those families in the adjacent tower blocks. For example, what action is being taken to have the fire hazard panels replaced? What government contribution will be made towards their replacement?

Lastly, the final recommendation in the interim report talks about the awful consequences of having the burnt tower remaining in place. It recommends:

“Covering the Tower: Management of the site is not currently the responsibility of RBKC. Nevertheless we would strongly recommend that those responsible for it accelerate covering the Tower. It is reprehensible that it has remained uncovered for so long”.


It then gives a timetable for it to be done by December 2017—in six weeks’ time, perhaps. That is unfortunately not mentioned in the Secretary of State’s Statement, but it is an important step towards a healing process and I urge the Minister, if he is not able to reply this afternoon, to give us a written response.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Pinnock

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 24th October 2017 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I have wondered from the outset of the Bill’s proceedings why companies with billion-pound turnovers require business rate relief, as stated in the Explanatory Notes, of £60 million over a five-year period to provide an incentive for laying fibre to provide fast broadband. My amendment relates to concerns about the lack of focus for the expenditure of public funds. When, as is the case, resources are extremely limited, it is important that they are spent in the most effective way. In this instance, the focus should be on providing incentives where broadband speeds are already poor.

At the last Budget in 2016, the Chancellor emphasised the importance of fibre-to-property broadband to meet future needs, especially of businesses, where improving broadband speeds is probably the single, and simplest, change that will improve this country’s lagging productivity. A report in August of this year assessed that the UK was behind 30 other countries in accessibility to fast broadband. The Government’s current assessment is that 90% of properties have access to fast broadband; however, this figure includes properties that are 1 kilometre distant from the cabinet—not the Cabinet but the street cabinet—and consequently have barely a connection at all.

The Bill simply gives an incentive for broadband providers, both large and small, to lay fibre. The major companies have billion-pound turnovers, so the question has to be asked whether an incentive at the level provided for in the Bill will be significant. Obviously, it will make a difference for smaller providers but the Bill does not distinguish between large and small providers. The Bill makes no requirement for companies to focus on laying new fibre where broadband speeds are currently below the Government’s standard of 10 megabits per second, where the need is greatest.

Hence the amendment, which will limit the business rate relief to laying fibre where broadband speeds are already poor. I have deliberately not made the distinction between rural and urban, as some rural areas such as Cornwall have already benefited from EU investment in improved broadband access, while some urban areas have very poor broadband speeds. Even in London, some areas such as parts of Southwark suffer from having below 10 megabits per second.

I should like to explore further a concern that the largest provider of fibre, BT, has a business plan based on laying cable to the cabinet in the street and not to the premises. From there to the premises the link will be by copper, which in itself degenerates the speed. The further the premises are from the cabinet, the worse the broadband speed. At 300 metres distant, the broadband speed is not much improved from the old copper connections. As I said earlier, at 1 kilometre the connection is barely accessible. A further factor that results in broadband speeds reducing, even with fibre, is the number of properties connected to the cabinet. None of these issues is addressed in the Bill.

My final concern, which is admittedly outwith the Bill, is the cost to families and individuals of accessing broadband. Fibre cable can be laid to provide access but if the cost is prohibitive, some families will not be able to access the better-quality broadband. Since it is becoming, in my view, one of the utilities—like water, electricity and fuel provision—it is really important that we start thinking about how all families are able to afford broadband. I put this into the equation to ask the Government whether they will, at some point, be willing to address that increasingly significant concern. My amendment would encourage the Government to focus public funds on incentives that will make areas with poor connectivity see significant improvements. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer the Committee to my registered interests as a local councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I support Amendments 1, 5 and 11 in this group, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. They highlight some real problems for communities—be they urban or rural—which suffer from poor connectivity, and there has been no real incentive to improve the situation for them by improving speeds. The amendments add the condition that, for the relief to apply, it has to be focused on areas within a local authority where the average broadband speed is 10 megabits per second or less. I think I am right when I say that about 93% of homes and businesses in the UK are able to receive superfast broadband, but it is the copper version. The Bill is generally welcomed.

The noble Baroness is right to focus her amendments on areas with poor connectivity. There is a good argument for this as reliefs provide an incentive to do something that a business might otherwise not want to or be keen to do. The view may be taken that it is not economically beneficial, or something else could be more beneficial. The noble Baroness raises the important issue of how to ensure that those parts of England and Wales, urban and rural, which suffer from poor connectivity can benefit from the relief provided to companies. Otherwise, such areas run the risk of falling further behind. We can all agree that the benefits that fibre can bring could be enormous for all parts of the UK.

Can the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, respond to the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, as we do not want to see parts of the country falling further behind? How can we ensure that this relief, welcome though it is, actually benefits those areas with the worst connectivity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendments 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 are all in my name and form group two in our deliberations. This group seeks to address one of the principal concerns expressed by people and smaller companies in the industry: that the way the Bill is written does not provide enough protection from companies ripping out old fibre and laying new fibre solely to benefit from the relief, which would pay for itself in less than two years. I think that was one of the points the noble Baroness, Lady Harding of Winscombe, made at Second Reading after her discussion with colleagues and people in the industry. I am convinced that there is a real risk of this happening, which would be absolute madness and not what the relief was intended for. It would, in effect, become a subsidy for old networks. Can the Minister address this particular point: how will we ensure this does not happen?

My amendments seek to prevent this in three ways. They would put in the Bill the words,

“must include the condition that new fibre is part of the hereditament”.

They would add a subsection that would put in the Bill the meaning of “new fibre” and what would not be covered by this relief. They would go further to address the point that laying, affixing, flying or attaching should not be solely to gain relief. Amendment 9 makes the specific point that the relief should not be there just to “replicate existing” telecoms structures. The Bill is about providing business relief to encourage and to speed up additional fibre telecommunications infrastructure.

There may be other ways to do what I seek here, but the Bill as drafted has people in the industry concerned. They are unhappy with the protections that the Bill affords at present, or fails to afford. The purpose of these amendments is to raise the issue with the Minister, and to get a response and, I hope, a commitment from the Government that these issues will be looked at seriously. Further, would he be prepared to meet me and representatives of the industry between now and Report? That would be helpful, because it is a serious problem. Somehow the Government, either with these amendments or by regulation, have to address these points further. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock]

My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, because he, like I did in previous amendments, seeks to focus the relief provided in the Bill on those places and areas that need it most. He is asking to put in safeguards to prevent some companies deliberately laying cable with no purpose and to ensure that what is done on rate relief achieves the outcome the Government seek, which is to provide more domestic premises and businesses with fast broadband connectivity. I look forward to the response from the Minister—I am not sure which one, perhaps it will be a double act. The questions that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has raised are important and need an answer.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)]

My Lords, on this occasion I am genuinely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for raising this matter. I am not always grateful to him for raising matters but I am today. I am grateful also to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her comments. We have a shared interest here, in that I cannot believe that anybody wants to see gaming in the system.

Concerns about gaming in the proposed rate relief for new fibre were raised by a small number of operators in August, when we first shared with them our proposals for the draft regulations. As the noble Lord has said, my noble friend Lady Harding raised this issue at Second Reading. I think she went on to say that she was not by any means convinced that there would be gaming but she raised it as a concern, so we share an interest in ensuring that there is not gaming.

Other operators have told us that they do not believe there is scope for gaming and support the proposed scheme. Nevertheless, we take this matter seriously and have been investigating these claims. Overall, our initial view is that it is unlikely gaming will be used in this tax relief. As I have said, we continue to discuss this with the sector and we are still gathering evidence.

However, if it will help the Committee, I will explain in a little detail why concerns as to gaming have arisen, why we believe such gaming is unlikely, in practice, and how I propose to deal with the matter between now and Report. What is being seen as the potential risk of gaming comes from the line we propose to draw in regulations as to when the relief should apply. New fibre installed after 1 April 2017 will receive the relief. However, some operators will choose instead to use existing fibre optic cable which was installed prior to 1 April 2017 but has not yet been activated. This is known as dark fibre. The objective of the measure in the Bill is to support investment in new fibre broadband infrastructure. Therefore, previous investment in existing fibre, including dark fibre, is not considered to be new fibre, has not been incentivised by this measure and will be outside the relief.

We have heard concerns that the proposed different treatment in the relief scheme of new fibre, which gets the relief, and dark fibre, which does not, could lead to some gaming in the system. It has been suggested that telecom operators may replace or duplicate existing dark fibre with new fibre merely to secure the rate relief. It has also been suggested that some operators may install new fibre in existing locations to gain a competitive advantage over existing operators in that location, merely because of the rate relief.

To understand this better we are investigating the costs and operational implications of installing new fibre into existing infrastructure, such as ducts. By comparing these costs to the potential saving on business rates from the new fibre relief we can identify where, in principle, the scope for gaming exists. To help us with that work we have held discussions with telecom companies regarding this matter and are now considering evidence provided by one operator, Gamma Telecom, which I mentioned at Second Reading. The consultation on the draft regulations runs until 21 November, and during this time we would like to hear views from other operators regarding the risk of gaming. This work is at an early stage and noble Lords will understand that some of the data we are using in this study is commercially confidential.

Our initial findings are that in the vast majority of cases—perhaps covering more than 99% of the telecom network—it will not be financially viable for operators to install new fibre merely to gain the relief. In those cases, the cost of purchasing the fibre and the labour costs associated with opening existing ducts—putting the fibre through those ducts and then connecting the fibre—exceeds the saving from business rates. In those situations it will be cheaper to use existing dark fibre, so gaming would not occur. Our focus, therefore, is on smaller networks where the business rates paid in respect of each kilometre of network are higher than for larger networks. The potential for making a saving in business rates is therefore also higher.

We are looking closely at the circumstances in which new fibre may be installed in existing smaller networks and exploring more of the costs associated with accessing existing ducts. These circumstances account for a very small fraction of the telecoms network—probably less than 1%. That said, I cannot see why 1% should be ignored and if there is evidence of the possibility of gaming, I would want to ensure that we act. But even if there are circumstances where, in principle, the rates saving exceeds the costs, it does not necessarily follow that, in practice, gaming is viable. For example, it may not be possible to add new fibre to ducts which are already in use, while switching from one fibre to another may cause interruption or disruption to the customer, which may be especially unacceptable for business customers and unattractive to the operator. But, as I have said, we agree with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that we do not want a tax system that is open to gaming in the way that has been suggested. If from our work with the sector we conclude that gaming is likely, I assure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that we would consider how to amend the draft regulations to prevent it.

The amendments we are considering would move the definition of new fibre into the Bill. This would in fact significantly limit our ability to tackle any gaming. The approach in the Bill of defining in regulations the meaning of new fibre gives us the scope to first identify the circumstances in which gaming might arise before we devise the solution. It allows us to ensure that any solution is practical and to respond quickly to any future circumstances where gaming might arise.

Moving on to the practical points put by the noble Lord and echoed by the noble Baroness about meeting the sector, as I have indicated, I intend to meet Gamma between now and Report, which will probably be towards the end of November. I will certainly keep the House—including the noble Lord and the noble Baroness—informed about how the discussions are going. I would be happy to include them in the thrust of what is happening, and expect to act on any concerns about gaming which indicate that this issue needs addressing. As I say, we are as keen as they are to tackle any potential gaming. I hope with that assurance and the guarantee that I will keep the noble Lord and the noble Baroness involved with what is happening, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I will be brief, as we have rehearsed some of the points made earlier. Amendment 14 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, puts a requirement on the Secretary of State to lay a report before both Houses of Parliament. A similar amendment was tabled in the other place to get the Government to make an assessment of the operation of the relief proposed under this Bill. The amendments list, in paragraphs (a) to (e) in subsection (2) of the proposed new clause, the areas that the report should cover. I hope that the Minister can address the concerns raised by the amendment. It seeks to ensure, among other things, that the issues we have been discussing today and in previous debates do not arise. It would be a major disappointment if we failed to address these concerns and also failed to take any measures to keep ourselves informed about the effect of the relief and how it is working.

I like to base my decisions on evidence. As I said, I was at a meeting today on a completely different matter, where, after many years down the line, we have not got a mechanism to change things. I hope we can get a positive response. I do not accept that having a report to Parliament, whether next year or in 24 months’ time, in itself creates great problems for business in terms of uncertainty. We are in very uncertain times on a whole range of issues, and I am sure businesses would be much happier with other things. I am sure the point can be made for the moment, but I do not accept the inference made. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock]

As I have put my name to this amendment, clearly I support it. The specific parts of this amendment that I would like the Government to consider are paragraphs (a) and (e) of subsection (2). The first is the impact of the relief upon the level of local authority income raised and the second is, importantly, the mechanism for the distribution of the relief, whether it is going to be a speedy one and how carefully it can be calculated. I can see quite a lot of room for dispute about the cabling, such as which part of local authority boundaries it crosses and so on. What we would like is an assurance that there will be an appeal mechanism for local authorities if the distribution of the relief is not what they anticipate. The reporting would enable that to happen.

Property Agents: Registration

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Pinnock

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

So here is another announcement on housing from the Government, who are going to seek evidence on addressing unfair and unreasonable abuses in service charges affecting leaseholders and private rented sector tenants. What is frustrating is that in the Government’s own Statement, they refer to the problems that we are all aware of and which need to be urgently addressed. After they collect their evidence, we need to see some real action from the Government.

The call for evidence lasts for six weeks, which gets us to the beginning of December, when the Government will want to reflect on the evidence received. Can the noble Lord tell the House when he expects concrete action that benefits leaseholders and tenants living in the private rented sector—the second biggest housing tenure—as a result of today’s announcement? The Government have form here. On page 61, the housing White Paper, issued in February 2017, refers at paragraphs 4.31 and 4.32 to,

“A fairer deal for renters and leaseholders”.


On page 62, under a section entitled, “Leaseholders”, paragraphs 4.36, 4.37 and 4.38 refer to the issues, stating:

“We will … consult on a range of measures to tackle all unfair and unreasonable abuses of leasehold”.


What have the Government been doing for the last eight months? They are just reannouncing what they announced in the White Paper.

I recall the debates on client money protection during the passage of the Housing and Planning Act. Following those debates, a working group was set up, co-chaired by my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill. Their consultation closed in October 2016 and their report was published on 27 March this year. The very next day, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, announced at the Dispatch Box that the Government were going ahead with a mandatory scheme of client money protection—since then, absolutely nothing.

Then we have the ban on lettings agents’ fees, such as inventory fees, tenancy review fees and agents’ admin fees. The ban was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Autumn Statement 2016. Then it appeared in the housing White Paper, published in February 2017, in paragraph 4.32 on page 61. Then it appeared as a pledge in the Conservative Party general election manifesto, and was again announced in the Queen’s Speech on 19 June. But since then, absolutely nothing.

Then, we have mandatory electrical safety checks in the private rented sector, on which there were a series of debates during the passing of the Housing and Planning Act. A review took place, concluding in December 2016, and the report from the review group, which was sent to the Minister earlier this year, was crystal clear: it recommended five-yearly mandatory electrical safety checks in the private rented sector. The checks are again referred to in the housing White Paper, where, on page 62, paragraph 4.34, the Government state that they will set out their next steps shortly. That was eight months ago and since then, absolutely nothing.

Despite reviews, announcements, pledges and commitments, no meaningful progress has been made on any of these three measures. This Conservative Government could certainly not be accused of acting in haste when it comes to bringing in measures to provide private sector tenants with further protections from rogue letting agents, rogue landlords and rip-off fees, much-needed safety measures, and measures to protect leaseholders from unfair and unreasonable abuses. I am very disappointed with the Government’s inaction and, although I like and respect the noble Lord very much, he is just reannouncing a previously announced pledge, when what is needed is action to deal with a range of serious problems in the private rented sector and leasehold sector, which has just stalled in the department.

As I said earlier, the Government have form here. When they are under pressure, they announce reviews and consultations, and kick matters into the long grass to avoid facing up to the issues that need to be addressed. The noble Lord and the Government are failing leaseholders and they are failing private sector tenants. Serious issues need to be addressed, and they have to do much better and sort them out.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has accurately listed the failings of the Government in attempting to reform the housing sector, particularly for private sector tenants and leaseholders. It is very sad to see the Minister come here with good intentions which are then not carried out by the Government. As today’s Statement demonstrates, there is a long-overdue need for serious protection for tenants. Indeed, some of the poorest families in this country rely on private sector rents for their homes. Those same people are being fleeced by others who have no regard for the welfare of their tenants. That, of course, is not representative of the entire market but there is a growing number of those sorts of landlords and management companies.

Having said that, I welcome the consultation, which has been a long time coming. I want to address two issues. First, the Statement refers to leaseholds. We all know that there has been a growing trend in property development for new builds to be sold as leasehold and for the buyer, for whatever reason—there has been quite a lot of publicity about this—to find out, often too late and to his or her considerable cost, that they have signed not a freehold purchase but a leasehold purchase. I urge the Government to move quickly to fulfil the commitment they have already made to prevent this unjustifiable burden falling on the house buyer.

The service charge is another element which affects private sector home buyers. In my area a new development has an open grass area that has not been reverted to the local authority to maintain but to a management company. The home owners in that development have had huge difficulties getting any maintenance of the shared open areas. I have first-hand knowledge of that, albeit in a small way. These people can fight their corner but, for many private sector tenants, service charges cause considerable anxiety. These people may often be on short-term tenancies and can find those tenancies ended without any redress if they raise questions about the service charges imposed on them.

I assume that the Minister will have read the consultation and therefore will be able to reassure the House that evidence will be sought on transparency over service charges and on accountability and redress, and that action will follow. If I was a private tenant, I would want to know that those three elements will be addressed. I would go further: there needs to be a right in law for a tenant to withdraw payment for a charge that is proven to be unacceptable or unjustifiable without the threat of eviction or the tenancy being brought to an end in any way. I have not read the consultation but perhaps the Minister will be able to help us on that.

Lastly, the rogue landlords register, which has been agreed, is secret and is held by councils. Councils know who these rogue landlords are. If we are truly protecting tenants, we ought to follow up on the pleas from this side of the House that that register be made open and transparent so that tenants can see before they sign an agreement whether or not their landlord is on that list. I look forward to reading the document and to the Minister’s response.

Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2017

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Pinnock

Monday 11th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my interests as a councillor on Kirklees Council and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for raising these important issues and for describing them in such great detail that we are able to have a good debate.

The regret Motion draws attention to the difficulties that businesses and local authorities have with the current appeal system against valuations. What is more regrettable, in my view, is that a root-and-branch reform of the business rates system is still awaited, despite widespread support for the necessity for a major change in the way in which business property is taxed. The business rating system, which started in Elizabethan England—under the first Elizabeth—was consolidated in 1988 but has failed to reflect the significant changes in the way in which businesses operate, the premises they use and their location, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. The consequences of a failed system are compounded by the inadequacies of the current appeals process.

The matter is made worse by the extended time between valuations, which has resulted in a significant impact on many businesses which saw their rates rise dramatically. It is difficult for many small businesses, particularly in the retail sector, to plan or readily absorb such increases. It is hardly surprising that more than 1 million businesses have challenged their business rates bills since 2010. The Government’s response has been to impose significant changes to the appeals system with the intention of reducing the number of appeals. They have made it more difficult and put restrictions in the way.

On the other side of the balancing act, local government increasingly relies on business rate income to fund services. The appeals system that existed prior to the April 2017 changes often resulted in many months passing before the appeal was decided. As we heard, this resulted in local government having to set aside £2.5 billion to cover the risks of appeals as local authorities are required to fund half the cost of backdated refunds. This is a very inefficient use of scarce public resources. That has been brought into sharp relief as government grants for local services continue to suffer very deep cuts. Setting aside desperately needed funds to cover the risks of appeals is, in the circumstances, totally unacceptable.

We have a dilemma: businesses need a fairer method of business property valuation and taxation, and local government, which is in receipt of the business rate income, desperately needs to avoid having to set aside significant funding to cover risks of successful appeals. Meanwhile, the appeal system that is devised is seen by many businesses to lack fairness and transparency. Something needs to, and should, change.

The difficulty for businesses, especially SMEs, is that there appears to them to be a lack of clarity as to how valuations are determined, and how these compare with similar businesses in the same location and with those in different parts of the country. Businesses have traditionally resorted to the appeal process in very large numbers, as we have heard. The Government’s decision to impose the new system has inevitably led to scrutiny highlighting the consequent inequities.

It is therefore not surprising that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee received evidence that,

“the current proposal as to grounds of appeal is unlawful and inadequately drafted”,

and continues by pointing to the fact that the Government have abandoned the principle that the rating list be accurate, rather than have a reasonable valuation as the Government wish. With all due respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who knows much more about interpretation of those two words than I, it seems that the use of those words can lead only to legal challenge and more delay for all concerned—for the businesses appealing their valuations and for local government, which requires the income to provide services for local residents.

All this is the consequence of bolting a more restrictive appeal system on to the business rates framework, which is itself outmoded and broken. The way forward is for the Government to consider a fundamental reform of the business rates valuation system. Perhaps the Minister will be able to indicate whether there is any likelihood of that happening. Not to do so will lead only to increasing disquiet in the business sector and in local government. Both want and need a transparent and obviously fair system.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, before I make my remarks I shall make a number of declarations of interest. Obviously, I am a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I also declare that I am a member of the Co-op, which has a number of convenience stores around the country, and I am a member of CAMRA, the Campaign for Real Ale, an organisation that has been campaigning about business rates, as has the All-Party Beer Group, which I am also a member of.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for tabling the regret Motion. As noble Lords have heard, the noble Earl speaks with great authority on these matters. It is very good that he brought this to your Lordships’ attention so we can have a debate and get a response from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. As I said, the noble Earl is extremely knowledgeable. We are very grateful to him. We have seen his expertise in this debate.

I say right at the start that I agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that we need a root-and-branch reform of business rates. In some ways the problems we have heard about are a symptom of the fact we do not have that root-and-branch reform. We are just tinkering with the system and it needs to be dealt with properly.

As we have heard, these two SIs relate to the introduction of the new rating lists, containing the updated rateable values on the basis of which business rates are charged; and the amended appeals process known as check, challenge, appeal or CCA. As the noble Earl has told the House, these SIs were first laid on 17 March. They were intended to come into effect on 1 April. That is an unusually short period between laying regulations and their coming into force. I will come back to that later. The noble Earl tabled his regret Motion. The general election intervened and Parliament was dissolved. Of course, we could not bring these instruments back until Parliament resumed. The noble Earl did that.

There has been considerable press coverage of the new rating lists and appeals. It is fair to say it has not all been positive. We need to look at it very carefully. As we have heard, businesses are very worried about the action the Government are taking in this respect. Claims made by the Government that this is an improved and fairer system are certainly questionable. We have heard a number of contributions from noble Lords that support that. Some businesses are certainly very unhappy with the new system.

The problem is that the entire tax base has not been reviewed at all. The noble Earl raised the question of what business rates are for. As we have heard, they are of course to provide council services. We need to look at that. In many respects they provide services, as does council tax. They have been very welcome in recent years because council tax has not risen very much but, as we have heard, that has not been the case in respect of business rates, which have gone up year on year by quite significant amounts. That is causing problems for businesses.

Many years ago—a very long time ago now—I worked in retail. You have your fixed costs, rent, rates, other utility costs and stuff, then you have your business, you trade and you look to make profit. These constant rises make that difficult because you cannot always be passing them on to your customers. That is a significant problem that the Government need to address. These changes appeared to be only cosmetic and do not raise the important issues we heard earlier on.

The noble Earl raised the issue of check, challenge, appeal, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, will respond. The noble Earl’s points were also raised by the Association of Convenience Stores. As we have heard, it represents 35,000 convenience stores. These small businesses are particularly affected by these things. It is disturbing that we have heard about problems with the website. It is not the first website from a Government or a government agency that has had some problems, but we have heard the following from members of the association. The portal often crashes during working hours, requiring ratepayers to manage the case at impractical times. Presumably that means that they are doing it in the middle of the night. That is not very good. Details about properties, previous appeals and digital certificates are not assessable. Ratepayers cannot search or filter claims or properties, which costs time for retailers with a large property portfolio. Retailers report poor customer support when facing problems with the portal. Ratepayers must manually appoint an agent to each property and cannot do it in bulk for their property estate. Those seem quite shocking. You would hope that any modern-day portal would get those things sorted out—they are pretty basic—but it clearly has not. Given that this is a government agency, it is not good enough. I can certainly see a business being very frustrated by the whole process. I hope that the Minister will tell us what the Government are going to do about it, because it is totally unacceptable for businesses to have to suffer those problems.

Grenfell Tower: Rehousing Update

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Pinnock

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made by the Housing Minister earlier today in the other place. I draw to the attention of the House my registered interests: I am a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

It is accepted that the response by Kensington and Chelsea Council fell far short of what would have been expected. I thank and pay tribute to all those public sector workers who have come to the aid of the victims and their families and the wider community. They are drawn from London councils, the wider local government sector, the police, the NHS, the fire service and officials from central government, along with the voluntary sector and faith communities. Their contribution in supporting the residents and the wider community has been remarkable, humbling and invaluable. I thank them all for all that they have done and continue to do.

The new leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council, Councillor Elizabeth Campbell, has rightly given a fulsome apology for the abject failure of that local authority in the immediate aftermath of the disaster. She has an important job to do in getting the council back on its feet and serving the community as intended. It is important that the new leader works with all members of the authority and specifically involves the leader of the opposition, Councillor Robert Atkinson, and quickly gains the trust and respect of the local community, working with them closely.

I have read the Written Ministerial Statement issued by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and welcome the decision taken to appoint an independent recovery task force to advise the council on the longer-term recovery needs. I am pleased that this body is reporting directly to the Secretary of State and can advise him of any further action that needs to be taken as it sets about its job of supporting the local authority. However, it cannot act as commissioners can, which would have been the best option, and will need to be kept under review. However, what has been decided is progress and moves on from the “keeping an eye on the council” approach we had earlier.

More work urgently needs to be done on progressing the provision of new homes to the families. As we have been told, only three families have moved to a new temporary home and 11 more have been offered somewhere they feel able to accept, out of the 158 families that have been identified as in need of rehousing. If there was an offer for me and my noble friend Lord Beecham to see examples of the housing available, we would certainly like to take it up. I agree that even the suggestion that a victim could be made homeless if they do not accept an offer of housing is completely unacceptable. If anyone has information about such actions, could the noble Lord explain where they should go and who they should speak to if they feel pressurised? Such people are, of course, traumatised and frightened.

That leads me on to a disturbing report of which I was given details this morning. I was told that, in the immediate aftermath of the fire, the TMO provided space at a premises for an art therapy group to work with young children from Grenfell Tower who were traumatised by the fire. It had been working with the children—who had experienced a horrific tragedy—but sometime later the TMO contacted the group and said that it needed the keys back as it wanted to resume the letting of the premises. The group asked for more time to carry on working but, on arriving at the premises for the next session, it was unable to gain access because the locks had been changed, leaving the art therapists and the children standing outside. Will the noble Lord urgently investigate what happened here, because that is not the action of an organisation or individual who has any compassion, empathy and respect for the victims or, frankly, any understanding of what has happened? It is a truly appalling action by those in authority and an example of why further interventions may be necessary.

This tragedy should never have happened. Everything must be done to make sure it never happens again, to do right by the victims and their families, to treat them with care and respect, and to give them the support they deserve and the answers they need.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for keeping the House so well informed about the consequences of this disastrous and tragic fire. Although shamefully delayed, I am encouraged that the Government are now recognising the scale of the disaster, which, as the Minister himself has said, was wholly avoidable. It is also positive that the council leader of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has resigned, as called for last week by several Members of your Lordships’ House. I am pleased that the newly elected leader has acknowledged the council’s failings, which clears the way for others to step in and provide it with the support it obviously needs. The Government have announced how they intend to do that through the task force.

The Grenfell residents who survived the fire have lost their homes through no fault of their own. It is therefore right that the wishes of the residents in seeking new accommodation are paramount, so that they can begin to settle into new homes. They must be given time and support in making their decisions. Many families will wish to remain in the area, which is the one they know, so that their children can continue to attend the same school and families can remain with the local general practitioner. Will this be the case? The Minister seemed to confirm that in the Statement, but it is not clear what kind of distances residents will be expected to travel in order to retain their links, and perhaps will rely on even more given the tragedy they have been through. What is the distance or length of time for travel the Government consider is acceptable to residents from their new accommodation to schools, GPs and so on?

I want also to ask about ongoing mental health support, in particular for all the children who have been through this awful experience. If residents choose to move well away from Grenfell Tower, as I can imagine some may well wish to do, how will support move with those families? It would be awful if people move, perhaps even away from London, but still need support to get through this difficult time. Given the reason for rehousing, is the Minister able to reassure residents that every new unit of accommodation on offer will have been given a thorough fire safety check before anyone is asked to consider moving? It is the kind of reassurance that I would seek if I had been through even part of what the Grenfell residents have experienced.

Finally, I understand that yesterday the Secretary of State at DCLG, when speaking to the Local Government Association, claimed that as a result of the Grenfell Tower fire there was a crisis of trust in local government as a whole. I would say to the Minister that the crisis of trust is in only one council—the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. A comparison that I would draw to his attention is that of the amazing response by Manchester City Council to the terrorist attack earlier this year. Equally in that case, there were many casualties and the need to co-ordinate an instant response. As a country, we will not learn the lessons from this tragedy if the Government or anyone else attempts to put the blame on a single institution. Across government, local government and public services in general, we all need to learn the lessons so that this awful and avoidable tragedy can never be repeated.

Update on the Grenfell Tower Fire and Fire Safety

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Pinnock

Monday 26th June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my interests, specifically as a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for repeating the Statement made in the other place by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families of this terrible tragedy at Grenfell Tower, and with our emergency services, which responded so bravely and quickly to the unfolding disaster. Their actions saved countless lives. The whole nation owes these heroes a debt of gratitude.

The Prime Minister acknowledged that the response by Kensington and Chelsea Council was not good enough and a firm grip on the situation needed to be taken. The response by charities, faith organisations, businesses and local residents has rightly been praised and I pay tribute to them all. They add to the shame with which the response of Kensington and Chelsea council is viewed by everybody. I find it staggering that the council leader did not resign immediately. He should resign without further delay. The chief executive of Lewisham, Barry Quirk, has taken over as the chief executive of Kensington and Chelsea council. He is a public sector manager with years of experience and will get a grip of the situation quickly. The command centre is under the joint leadership of John Barradell, the chief executive of the Corporation of London, and Eleanor Kelly, the chief executive of Southwark council. Both are experienced public sector managers. Eleanor Kelly is known to me, and she will do an excellent job, I am sure, with the chief executive of the Corporation of London.

I have no intention of speculating on matters that are best left to the police and the inquiry. I have confidence that robust work will be undertaken, and where criminal activity is found to have taken place, prosecutions to the full extent of the law will be brought. But lessons have to be learned and things have to change. I hope that we never again hear the nonsense that we have heard in the past about red tape and health and safety regulations. It is clear that, rather than having too much regulation, there has in this case been a catastrophic failure. Regulations were either not good enough or were not followed and applied thoroughly and properly.

The checks on tower blocks throughout the UK need to continue as quickly as possible. I pay tribute to the residents of Camden who have been affected by the right decision to evacuate their blocks, which are deemed by the authorities to be unsafe, and to the leadership shown by the leader of Camden council, Councillor Georgia Gould, who has been there on the ground speaking to residents. It would be welcomed by the whole House if we were given further details of the work being undertaken by the Government Property Unit to oversee checks on wider public sector buildings.

Cladding is not the whole story. That is clear from the Lakanal House and Shirley Towers fires, as the respective coroners’ reports show. Can the noble Lord tell the House what plans the Government have to provide up-front funding to local authorities to take recladding measures, the installation of sprinkler systems or other fire precaution measures rather than the after-event funding through the Bellwin scheme? I welcome the independent advisory panel that is being set up, but the Statement repeated by the noble Lord seems to suggest that the system is at the point of collapse, and urgent action must be taken. We need to do that quickly.

Last Thursday, the Prime Minister said,

“we simply have not given enough attention to social housing”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/6/17; col. 169.]

I would suggest that the Government have given plenty of the wrong attention to social housing. Schemes such as the National Tenant Voice have been scrapped. The social homes build is down from 37,000 to 1,000, and Homes and Communities Agency funding for the Decent Homes programme has been ended. What we need now from the noble Lord is a commitment to do everything to ensure that the Prime Minister’s promise is not just empty words and that we will see a complete change of course by the Government in support of funding for social housing so that we have truly affordable homes in this country.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I start by declaring my interests as a councillor elected in Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I join with what has already been said in tribute to both the fantastic work of the emergency services on the night and to the ongoing support that has now been put in place by a combination of charities, faith groups, community groups and finally—although too late—the Government and local government. I have three major areas of concern following the Grenfell Tower fire.

The first area is that of care for the victims of the fire. The initial co-ordination of this huge and probably preventable catastrophe was a fiasco. As I said in this House last Thursday, accountability in the political process is absolutely vital if we are to retain trust between those who are elected and those who are represented. I called for the leader of the council in Kensington and Chelsea to take responsibility for the fact that 79 people have died in a council building on his watch. I cannot believe that a leader elsewhere in the country would not have resigned by that point. I repeat my call of last Thursday and I trust that some Members on the government side will talk to the leader and urge him to take responsibility.

A second element in the area of care for the victims is the co-ordination of ongoing support for them. I understand that the Government are implementing the Bellwin scheme, which provides recompense to councils and other authorities for the emergency costs of the work they do. That is positive, but I am concerned about the work that they ought to be doing to support the children who have been involved in this awful trauma. They are a particular concern of mine because of my interests. Are their welfare and ongoing education needs going to be well supported for a very long time, because that is probably what they will need?

My second major area of concern is that of prevention, referred to by the Minister in the Statement. What we absolutely must ensure is that there are no other buildings where further loss of life could take place. My understanding is that all building materials have to be passed by the British Board of Agrément, which determines whether the materials are fit for purpose and how they can be used. I have not heard in any of the statements in either this House or the other place whether this is the case for the materials referred to by the Minister; that is, the aluminium cladding. I would welcome an answer to that point.

The second element in the area of prevention is that I am particularly concerned about schools. I am a governor of a school which should be opening in September. It is being built through the government scheme. As I speak it is being clad and does not have a sprinkler system because the requirement for such systems in schools has been removed. No doubt the Minister will not be able to respond, but a number of schools are currently being built around the country. Will they have sprinkler systems put in and will the cladding be checked?

My third area of concern is that of costs. We have heard that the emergency costs are to be covered by the Bellwin scheme, but we expect that cladding which fails the checks will have to be replaced. Who is going to pay for that? If there are some 600 tower blocks, numerous schools and some hospitals which did fulfil the building regulations but latterly discover that the cladding material is combustible, who will fund the enormous cost of recladding those buildings? I doubt whether cash-strapped local authorities will be in a position to fund replacement cladding, and similarly I doubt whether the NHS will be able to meet the cost of recladding buildings. It is not responsible in the sense that, if the building regulations were complied with, in my view the costs ought to be met by the Government.