Election Expenditure

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Stunell

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My noble friend raises a good point. The recent guidance by the Electoral Commission was issued before we had the judgment of the Southwark court. Certainly, the commission might see whether that guidance might be updated to help candidates and agents in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court and the Southwark case.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is vital to retain a robustly independent Electoral Commission with political input but with a majority of independent members, and that we never return to the bad old days when the rules were decided by the party which formed the Government in the House of Commons?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Yes. Before we had the Electoral Commission many of its responsibilities were discharged by the Home Office, which was, of course, run by political animals; namely, Ministers. It enhances confidence in the democratic process to have an independent commission, such as the Electoral Commission, in charge of the rules. We have no intention of departing from the principles which underpin the Electoral Commission. I think I am right in saying, as the Opposition spokesman at the time, that my party supported its establishment.

Building Regulations and Fire Safety: Government Response

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Stunell

Thursday 17th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks of both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in relation to this terrible tragedy and the need to make sure that it never occurs again.

I should start by declaring that between 2010 and 2012 I was the Minister with responsibility for building regulations.

I very much welcome the report and I welcome the Government’s endorsement of its recommendations. We share the Secretary of State’s commitment to making sure that they are brought into force as quickly as possible. In that respect, my first point is to raise with the Minister the following phrase in the Statement:

“Changing the law will take time”.


When will the primary legislation that the Secretary of State has promised be introduced? We know that there is a legislative logjam further in the system. Can the Minister give us an assurance that this legislation will vault over that logjam and reach this House and the other place in good time for an early introduction and passage through the parliamentary system?

Secondly, does the Minister recognise that in fact the Secretary of State already has powers to start the process? The Building Act 1984 was amended by the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act 2004 to provide a power requiring a nominated person to be appointed for each building project to sign off on building regulation compliance. That power is not yet in force but it would produce what the Hackitt report calls a “dutyholder”. That can be introduced now by statutory instrument and could be in force by October this year. Changing the law does not always have to take time, and I hope that the Minister will undertake to press his colleagues in the department to get on and make sure that this simple, straightforward introduction of a duty holder takes priority and does not get stuck in the legislative logjam.

The Hackitt review rightly outlined the dysfunctional and fragmented nature of the construction industry and identified a culture of cost-cutting and corner-cutting at the expense of good quality, good safety and common sense. I want the Minister to recognise that it is not just fire regulations in high-rise buildings that have been the victim of, or bypassed by, that cost-cutting, corner-cutting approach. Buying a new house in 2018 is like buying a new car was in the 1960s, with complaints very high and quality standards very low. Will the Government learn from this review and make sure not only that compliance with the right fire regulations is automatic in future but compliance with the full range of measures in building regulations, all of which are aimed at saving life, promoting the health and well-being of the buildings’ occupants, and delivering a long-term, sustainable environment?

Finally, I welcome the Government’s £400 million allocation for social housing repairs to cladding. I want to press the Minister on this, as I did the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, last week: is it not time to give a similar “pay now, recover costs later” pledge to tenants and leaseholders living in privately owned high-rise flats? Surely they are just as deserving of living in safe homes as anybody living in social housing.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I endorse the moving words of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, at the beginning of his remarks. Like him, I listened to a survivor on the “Today” programme emphasising his very strong view that we should ban the use of combustible materials. I know that, as we consult on that option, a number of professional bodies, as well as survivors, will strongly endorse that suggestion.

The noble Lord may not have had time to read the whole of the Hackitt review but there is an interesting section on resident empowerment, regular safety reviews, improved communication with residents and a duty holder —as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. It recommends that, where there is an unsatisfactory response from the freeholder, there should be an opportunity to leapfrog over the freeholder to an independent body with powers to intervene.

The noble Lord will know that £400 million has been allocated to local authorities to compensate them for the costs of remediation. Both noble Lords raised the issue of leaseholders. In many cases, the leaseholders are also the freeholders because they have used the legislation to enfranchise themselves, so it is no good telling them to get the money from the freeholder because it is a circular discussion. I was interested in the noble Lord’s suggestion that local authorities might intervene to underwrite in some way the costs of remediation. Discussions are continuing at a ministerial level about the problems facing private sector leaseholders. We hope that, where it is possible, freeholders will follow the example of Barratt, which has, I think, undertaken in one case to pay for remediation itself and not pass the cost on to leaseholders. Where practical, we would encourage other freeholders to do the same.

The noble Lord asked whether the recommendations could apply beyond high-rise buildings. Many recommendations—on changing the culture and on ownership of risk, for example—apply to the wider construction industry and not just to high rise. There is read-across there.

The Government place a high priority on public safety, and the legislation involved is quite extensive. Dame Judith suggests establishing a new body—the joint competent authority or JCA—combining powers from the Health and Safety Executive and building standards departments. There are other legislative changes also. We want to consult and we want to get it right. The Secretary of State will make a progress report before the Summer Recess and again in the autumn on how we are taking forward the legislative consequences from this report.

I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said towards the end of his remarks. The culture should filter through not just to fire safety but to the whole range of building regulations. Dame Judith wants what she calls an outcomes-based strategy—where people assume responsibility for risks and do not shield themselves behind prescriptive solutions and try to game them, to use her words.

Finally, to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, we are considering whether any of the current powers could be used to take forward Dame Judith’s vision. I think I put the Building Act 1984 on the statute book in an earlier capacity, and I am delighted to learn that those powers are still relevant. We are inviting people to contact us with views on how we implement the review, which will include using existing powers where they are available.

Carillion

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Stunell

Monday 15th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. The collapse of the second-largest construction company in the country and a major provider of public services across the country is cause for concern and regret, not least for those employed by that company and those who depend on it because they are part of a long supply chain in many different industries, particularly the construction industry. The official receiver has been appointed and the Statement says that one of his duties will be to hold an inquiry. Can the Minister say something about the status of staff and employees working on public sector service provision and those working on private sector contracts? What is their future? What do the Government intend to do to protect them?

There is, of course, anger on the part of many of those working for and with the company that the warning signs were not quickly followed up by the Government after the alert in July—not least that a Crown representative was not appointed when good practice and ministerial guidelines say that that should have happened. I hope that the Minister will say something about that. If the official receiver’s inquiry does not cover such issues, I will certainly join the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in calling for a wider inquiry.

In view of Carillion’s role in delivering numerous large-scale infrastructure projects, what are the implications of its collapse on those projects and their timetables, and what impact may it have on the Government’s industrial strategy? We should bear in mind that construction and construction training were key elements of that strategy and that many apprentices are employed not just by Carillion but by those in the supply chain, whose continuing apprenticeships are clearly at risk. Can the Minister help us on that? What are Ministers doing to minimise damage to public services and the capacity of the construction industry? Subcontractors face a very difficult time. It is one thing to say that contracts can be transferred to their partners—for instance, on HS2—but what about the backlog of unpaid bills that Carillion will owe them? Will that be coughed up by their new partners? Is that part of the deal that was arranged when the partnerships were set up, or is it more likely that the subcontractors will be expected to bear the loss?

Finally, what does the Minister have to say about the governance of that company and the way that the warning signs were there? Even the chairman has some form from times past. What exactly do the Government believe is the right governance structure for a major contractor for public services so that in future there will be protection for the public, for employees and for the country?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to both noble Lords for their interventions, and of course I understand the anxiety shared, I think, on all sides of the House, about the future for the employees and for those in receipt of the services provided by Carillion. To put it into perspective, if one looks at the current live contracts held by Carillion, roughly one-third were let before 2010, roughly one-third were let between 2010 and 2015, and roughly one-third were let between 2015 and now.

On the point about taxpayers’ money being at risk, as a matter of principle, money is transferred from the Government to contractors in return for work that has been undertaken. Looking ahead at the money we are going to pay for services, it would have been paid to Carillion for the relevant services, and obviously it will now be paid through the official receiver. The Government will look to the official receiver to sell off, if that is his decision, those profitable operations to get some resources in.

Reference was made to the statutory obligations of the receiver to look at the conduct of the company. I understand that the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs in another place has already announced that it will make an inquiry. The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee may also take an interest in this—that is a response to the point made by the spokesman for the Opposition as to how the Government will be held to account; there is a variety of means by which that can happen.

On contingency plans, before Christmas the Government made local authorities, academy trusts and others aware of the financial problems confronting Carillion and advised them to put in place contingency arrangements. From what I have heard so far today, most of the contingency arrangements are working satisfactorily—although, as I said, there may continue to be some difficulties.

As regards the loss, obviously the shareholders have been wiped out and the banks advanced substantial sums of money to Carillion, so the primary losers here will be, as I said, the shareholders, the banks, and any others who have lent money to Carillion.

On pay and conditions, I understand that for the time being they remain the same; the official receiver will continue to pay and employ them. There is a distinction to be made at some point between those carrying out public sector work and those doing private sector work for Carillion—a point raised by the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. On contracts held by Carillion not with the Government but with private sector companies, I understand that the official receiver is allowing a period of up to two days for those companies to decide whether they want to take over the contracts. So far as the public sector contracts are concerned, as I said, the Government’s top priority is continuity of service. The official receiver will continue to make resources available to fund the public services.

The noble Lord asked about terms and conditions. I am very reluctant to give an off-the-cuff reply about whether TUPE and similar things will apply, and I hope that he will understand if I take advice on that rather than try to answer it.

On the pension fund, I think that there are 14 schemes under the Carillion umbrella, some of which may be in surplus and others of which are not. The Pension Protection Fund will carry out an assessment. If the schemes are not viable, they will be taken in-house by the PPF, together with the assets of the scheme. Those already receiving their pension will continue to get it. Those who are yet to retire will get, I think, 90% of their entitlement, subject to a cap of somewhere around £35,000.

On the supply chain, it is important that the subcontractors continue to turn up. The official receiver has the necessary resources to continue to pay them.

On the question of apprenticeships, I understand that the CITB, the Construction Industry Training Board, is aware of the issue and will try to find other companies to take on those apprentices who have been displaced by Carillion or the subcontractors, and indeed those who are hoping to take up employment with them.

I think that I have answered most of the questions that I am able to. I am conscious that I have not answered all of them but my right honourable friend will keep the House of Commons updated on developments as the official receiver starts to go about his work, and I am sure that that applies to your Lordships’ House as well.