Local Government Finance

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

There are, understandably, many criticisms of council tax. It is accepted that it is a fairly regressive tax in terms of the relationship between the ability of a household to pay versus a property’s value, but in the end it is a reliable tax that is understood by the taxpaying public. The framework of council tax will be maintained, in the same way as business rates, but that does not mean that we cannot do more to make it fairer. The best way to make it fairer in this settlement is for the Government to play their part. What we have seen over the past 14 years is that, despite an acceleration in council tax increases, councils have still found themselves impoverished: they cannot raise enough money locally, whatever they do, to fund the demand for local public services. We clearly see the role of the Government as an equaliser to the system. Taking into account the ability to raise tax at a local level, by providing a top-up the Government can ensure that every area gets decent local public services, and we can begin to get some fairness into the system. I take my hon. Friend’s point entirely, however, and I look forward to the work of the all-party parliamentary group.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I echo the call for a replacement for the council tax system. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches have called for that for years. Please will the Minister and the Government consider bringing forward plans that retain the power for local councils to decide levels of taxation, but make it a much more progressive model of taxation?

[Jim McMahon]

I cannot commit to that today. What I can do is to commit, from a political point of view, that the Government are willing to work cross-party and through APPGs to understand the weight of the issue and the potential solutions. I will be honest, though: we need to manage expectations on whether we can get consensus in this place on a new form of council tax or local property tax, but that does not mean we are not willing to listen to arguments.

New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill

Luke Taylor Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

I pay tribute to my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for so boldly taking up this cause. His so-named sunshine Bill, which to my mind reflects his own disposition so brightly—as though it was his own glowing cranium—[Laughter.]

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I may only speculate what it was that attracted my hon. Friend to discuss a Bill regarding the promotion of shiny surfaces atop well-built structures—we can only guess. Does he agree that as this Bill moves forward, it is absolutely essential that the Government work across parties to build a consensus, including all those experts and those passionate in this subject, and to work together to ensure that it is successfully delivered for the betterment of all our residents?

[Cameron Thomas]

My hon. Friend has so eloquently put across the pragmatism that we can enjoy from Liberal Democrats in working across parties for the benefit of our constituents, and I thank him for that.

This undertaking by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham has been brought up consistently on doorsteps across the Tewkesbury constituency in recent years. Widely considered to be a blindingly obvious antidote to rising energy bills and the phasing out of fossil fuels, people have tended to ask, with an exasperated tone, why on earth new homes are not built with solar panels by mandate. As my hon. Friend has described, the public roundly support such measures, with one poll registering 70% support. Whether or not the New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill goes to a vote today, I hope that the Government will recognise the alignment with their environmental pledges and that they will take the ball and run with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for bringing this sunshine to the Chamber today.

The horrific wildfires raging in California and the recent flooding that we saw provide yet more reminders that urgent action is needed to tackle the climate and nature emergency. I am proud that, under this Labour Government, the UK is once again showing climate leadership. We know that we cannot tackle the housing crisis without tackling the climate crisis. Nor can we achieve our core growth mission or increase living standards without acknowledging the huge impact of climate change.

The built environment is responsible for 40% of emissions, and decarbonising our housing stock is essential. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on ClimateTech, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race), I was pleased to attend a recent event in Parliament, where we met start-ups working on innovative solutions to decarbonise the built environment. The Government’s steadfast commitment to this agenda and to policies such as Great British Energy and the warm homes plan were warmly welcomed by the businesses I met.

Turning to my constituency, I want to share an example of how a local business can use the expansion of rooftop solar and of low-carbon heating and energy generation to help our Government achieve their mission of stimulating economic growth and raising living standards in all parts of the country. I recently visited a former Marks and Spencer on Mostyn street in Llandudno, which the owners are transforming into a massive indoor entertainment centre. That is exactly the kind of development that places such as Llandudno need. The owners have installed a huge solar array, which will save the business £32,000 a year and about 25 tonnes of carbon. For me, the most exciting part of that development is that the installation was part-funded by the local authority and done by a local business. We do not want just the cleaner, cheaper energy that rooftop solar will provide; we also want the jobs.

[Luke Taylor]

My hon. Friend speaks about precisely the jobs that the Bill would generate. I declare an interest in that between speeches I have been emailing to arrange the installation of a solar array on my home in the next couple of weeks. Although I will not benefit from the reduction in the cost of installation and of the panels themselves that the Bill would provide by boosting the market and demand for those skills, does she agree that the economic benefit and the skills brought to our residents are another incredibly positive reason why we should back the measures in the Bill and ensure they are implemented as soon as possible?

[Claire Hughes]

I absolutely agree, and that is why we need to get this right, not just on rooftop solar but on the skills for retrofitting and in low-carbon heating in general. A lot of work needs to be done to ensure that businesses have the skills so that we can expand and do what we need with this whole agenda.

We need to ensure that local businesses benefit from the jobs and supply chain opportunities that the expansion of low-carbon heating and rooftop solar would provide, because tackling climate change and increasing living standards go hand in hand. It is critical that we get this right across the piece.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I will be as quick as I can, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am extremely grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question, because that was a failure of regulation. The crucial point is this. In other safety-critical industries, such as the civil aviation, rail and marine sectors, there is no ban on the private sector being selected to perform inspections. Employees of airlines, of aircraft manufacturers and of aircraft engine manufacturers perform the inspections, but they are independently regulated, overseen and certified by the Civil Aviation Authority. The fact that they are employed by the airlines or by commercial interests does not make them incapable of objective judgment. The whole aviation sector flies incredibly safely on the basis of aircraft being inspected not by Government inspectors or public employees, but by the private sector.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

My experience in the aviation industry includes overseeing and being part of the record-keeping process for inspections. Does the hon. Member agree that the requirement to record and store all successful and unsuccessful testing results would resolve some of the issues that we saw in the Grenfell disaster, where unsuccessful test results were hidden and not made accessible to the public?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I completely agree. The record keeping of airlines, air engine manufacturers and aircraft maintenance companies has to be absolutely meticulous. It is inspected by the CAA, but the information originally comes from inspections conducted by people who are employed by the private sector. I think the hon. Gentleman agrees that we need to tackle the regulation, not indulge in shorthand for saying that anybody making a profit must be guilty. I abhor the idea of people making a profit at the expense of safety, but that is not what happens in other industries.

The success of independent accident investigation and safety investigation branches in other sectors speaks for itself. Aviation and rail safety has much fuller public confidence and a lower accident rate under such models, delivering safety improvements faster, more effectively and at lower cost than traditional public inquiries. Reforming building control would ensure that all inspectorates operate under consistent and rigorous oversight, regardless of whether they are in the public or private sectors.

Our proposals are not just about learning from the Grenfell tragedy, but about preventing the next disaster. The inquiry shows the systemic failures in building safety and regulation that led to an avoidable tragedy. I regret to have to warn the House that if we do not get this right, and do not finish working on what the inquiry has presented to us and fill in the gaps, there will one day be another Grenfell, just as Grenfell was a repeat of earlier safety failures. We have an obligation to get this right finally for the Grenfell community, for the memory of those who died and for future communities. The Government now have the opportunity to follow up the inquiry, to build on its findings and to put in place institutional arrangements that will embed learning and safety improvement in residential building management in a comprehensive safety system that matches those of other safety-critical industries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I associate myself with the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister, who did well to capture the tragedy that we all experienced so many years ago. The tragedy of Grenfell Tower will forever remain in our collective memory. On the devastating night of 14 June 2017, 72 lives were lost and many more were impacted forever. The events of that night left a deep wound in London’s history, physically and mentally. I extend my deepest sympathies to the victims, the families and all those affected. The fire changed their lives in unimaginable ways.

Seven years on, justice for the victims is painfully overdue, yet thousands in the UK still live in buildings wrapped in dangerous flammable cladding. Of the nearly 5,000 buildings identified as having dangerous cladding, less than half have begun work and only a third have completed it. Between 4,000 and 7,000 buildings are still unidentified, highlighting the absolute failure of the last Government to get a grip on the crisis. That failure leaves an alarming number of buildings and residents still at risk. Just days before the publication of the final report in August, a fire broke out at a tower block in Dagenham. Thankfully, there were no fatalities, but more than 200 firefighters battled flames that spread rapidly due to non-compliant cladding.

These unsafe buildings are ticking time bombs. Residents in London live in constant fear of another disaster. Across London, including in my constituency of Sutton and Cheam, tower blocks still possess non-compliant cladding, which could pose a serious risk to residents. The previous Government mandated that local authorities must make these buildings safe; however, crucially, they provided no funding to support that, at a time when local authorities were already facing severe underfunding. As a result, millions of pounds were added to council housing revenue accounts as an unplanned financial burden. Worse, Government assistance through various schemes was exclusively directed towards leaseholders, leaving local authorities and tenants without support.

Although I welcome this new Government’s commitment to the replacement of all flammable cladding by 2029, urgency is of the utmost importance. It is essential that all dangerous cladding is removed as soon as possible and that leaseholders should not be required to pay a penny towards these necessary safety improvements. This work is as a result of the failure of builders, product manufacturers and regulators to ensure that the buildings that residents live in are safe. The report is utterly damning on the failures of the industry and the criminal negligence as a result of the failed safety tests that were hidden. The industry focused on contrivance and profiteering, instead of residents’ safety. We must all work to ensure that the mistakes of the past are never repeated. Another Grenfell must never happen. This tragedy will always serve as a stark reminder of the devastating consequence of neglecting safety and justice for local authority residents. Justice for the victims of Grenfell means a commitment to immediate action to implement the 58 recommendations of the phase 2 report. That is not just for them, but for every community still at risk.