Local Government Finance
Marie Rimmer Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Life in my constituency is tough for many families. Too many live with the daily consequences of poverty, ill health and insecurity. Many people are vulnerable, and the impact can be soul-destroying. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for her work at Christmas time. She was the one who really started our campaign, and I pay tribute to her.
Healthy life expectancy in Knowsley is 50, and in St Helens, which is most of my constituency, it is 57, for both men and women—it was a shock when I read those figures. The call for significant healthcare support is tremendous, and starts much earlier than in some other places, but in St Helens housing and social care is integrated, which has helped with that increasing demand.
Many children do not benefit from the excitement of dance classes, gymnastics, trips out or holidays. Sadly, many are lured into county lines and drug taking. Many of our children need special educational provision, and some wait for a special and unique service. The cost can be enormous, and provision is rare and very often not local. Those children lose out, and their families watch and worry while they wait for the solution to arrive.
Revenue support grants are always complex, mysterious and hard to nail down. Added to that, 14 years of austerity did not help. St Helens borough council lost £127 million. We were capped in the poll tax, and we had to put the rates up by 2%—I was the leader of the council at the time. We were one of 21 areas that were capped. We had to deliver over £10 million overnight or we would have been surcharged. We had three months to deliver a new plan. We were very poor in St Helens.
Our councils are struggling to meet statutory responsibility in social care and SEND provision, not because of inefficiency in the councils but because the funding bears no resemblance to the actual needs of the people on the ground and the lives that they have to put up with. There are ever-growing numbers of people with complex needs, higher costs and a lack of provision. Two thirds of council funding in St Helens is spent on adult social care and children. We lost £127 million from Government, so we have either £9 million or £11 million left—that is what we have.
I have always said that we need a settlement that addresses the real pressures on health and disability, and provides care, attention, safeguarding and protection for the vulnerable, the aged, the abused and children in need. The council gets very little income from the Government now, so money has to be raised from council tax. More and more efficiencies have had to be made, but we could not get more efficient councils than those in Knowsley and St Helens. I go to the council meetings—I have been a councillor at St Helens for 39 years and I praise what I see in Knowsley. Those councils are so efficient and so focused on the people of the area. They are good employers, but they are not focused on the people who work for the councils but on how they can serve and care for local people.
Due to the deprivation of our area and the lack of assets that can be sold, which other councils have, we can raise only a fraction of the amount that councils in the south-east, London and the cities can raise. There is very little we can raise, so everything depends on council tax and our ability to be more efficient in new and different ways—what the council manages to do is ingenious.
The settlement that we were first presented with, which we consulted on, seemed fair and good, but I have to say that when the provisional announcement was made just before Christmas, I was horrified. Housing had been included in the index of multiple deprivation, but we are not suffering from that deprivation in Knowsley and St Helens. I am not saying that it should not be there, but it should certainly not be there with the weighting that it has. That is where our money went; it went down from the first figure that we were consulted on just like that. St Helens would have been high and dry, but I will not go into the details.
I have got the figures on what the impact would be for Knowsley, which are the same figures as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley. I knew that St Helens would be bad, but I could not get the figures. My hon. Friend went off and started the work, and we did what we could to get this going.
Although this is called “fair funding”, it is not fair funding, because we are all different. I have listened to what Members said about people living in rural districts, and I have sympathy. We need to have a system that really looks at what costs are the highest and what is needed. No one can criticise the people who have this extra funding now, but it will not be there forever.
Following sustained lobbying, we have 90% off our high-needs deficit. That is the deficit that we have on SEND provision. Knowsley’s high-needs deficit is tremendous—far greater than that of St Helens—so that will and does help. What goes on is just wonderful.
We will get £14.7 million through the recovery grant over the three years, but that does not resolve the problem, because it is not part of the formula. We will have to commence straight away looking at what we are going to do, because we would have been much worse off than we were already. That is just one council; I know that there will be others like it, so we need to look at that issue.
I pay tribute to Ministers for the work that has gone on, as well as local authorities, chambers and finance departments. I also pay tribute to MPs and councillors for the work that they have done. It cannot have been pleasant for them to see what they saw. Having looked at this matter, I know that they have recognised things, but we will need to look again at fair funding in the future.
I sincerely thank all those who have been involved in coming to help for some of the worst affected boroughs in the country. I can assure hon. Members that this has not been party political. We do not think like that—I certainly do not, and I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Knowsley and for Bootle (Peter Dowd) do not either. Our Benches are full of former council leaders from our area who have done this for many years. I have been in local government and Parliament for 48 years, so I know what I am talking about—I see what I am talking about—and it is not made up.
I will support this measure tonight, but that does not mean an end to the lobbying; we will obviously start again. I am sure that Ministers will listen to what other people have said. Maybe there needs to be flexing here and there, but we need to recognise the needs of each area. We cannot leave them to deprivation and deny their needs.
Graham Stuart
I do not remember the specifics of that, but I can say that, whereas the last Labour Government doubled council tax despite it being regressive, that did not happen under the Conservatives, whatever introductions there were. Those taxes were held down, because that is what conservatives do. They recognise that it is better to leave money in the pockets of people to make their own decisions, not take it away from them.
Families across the East Riding are now asking a very simple question, because they know that promises do not pay bills. How will this local government finance settlement, and the £200 council tax bombshell that follows it, help them cope? Let us be clear about what is happening: the Chancellor underfunds, councils are squeezed, council tax rises, and families pay. Council tax is, as many Labour Members have said, regressive. The lower the income, the heavier the burden. The smaller the home, the sharper the hit. At the very moment that household budgets are tightest, this Government tighten them further.
Nowhere is that clearer than in social care. In the first Budget since Labour came into office, the Chancellor allocated over £20 billion to health. Why did they not recognise that so many of the problems in the NHS actually come from the failure of funding in social care? It could so easily within the same spending envelope have eased the pressure on the NHS by better funding social care so that to keep those who are ready to leave hospital from occupying the beds that they do—they have for the past few years, and they do today.
The Government did not put sufficient additional money into social care, and in Beverley and Holderness, with an ageing population and rising adult care needs, that imbalance matters. Instead of funding care properly at source, Ministers shift the cost on to council tax payers—and then they claim that they have fixed it.
I saw the real-world cost of squeezed council budgets when I visited Sunk Island last month. On Sunk Island Road and Brick Road, residents endure patch upon patch of repairs that are never truly repaired. They are paying more yet still waiting for lasting fixes. This is the pattern: more tax, less certainty, higher bills, patchwork results.
Government should strengthen communities, not squeeze them, so I ask the Minister: when families are stretched to breaking point, why is this Government’s answer yet another bills hike? In Beverley and Holderness, the only change that this Government appear to deliver is the small change left in people’s pockets after the Chancellor has emptied them.
Ms Rimmer
What can councillors do to fund the statutory duties? People were given much better in the past, but we have to ration the services. They are quality services, and the integrated health has helped us with our social care. I do not want to go into party things, but the fact is that, under the Conservatives, St Helens lost £127 million a year from the support grant. We were left with something like £9 million or £11 million from the Government—that is all it was.
The only way councils can get the funds to provide services is from the Government and income to the councils. Where should we get the funds from? We have no assets to sell, and we get very little. Yes, we have low-paid jobs, so it is a hike, but what we should be doing is taking it from the broadest shoulders; they should be bearing the burden. It is inappropriate and incompatible that the people on the lowest pay the biggest proportion of their incomes on the necessities of life, while others have mansions—some people have a cottage and nothing else. We do not all have a mansion in London, so we need to look at wealth.
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady, who always speaks passionately and with deep knowledge of her community. As she says, she does not make unnecessary party political points.
The one thing that unites the House, including the Government Front Bench, is a recognition that the funding system is broken. I spent many years campaigning, across different funding pots, on the distribution. Everyone looks at the quantum, but they do not look at the distribution. It is easy to get into a world of complexity, and the number of people who turn up for meetings on distribution gets very small, but it is actually critical. We need a new funding settlement, and how we deliver that, given the political realities, is to go in early and hard. Unfortunately, this Government have not done that. They are delaying and delaying, and as their political potency weakens, it becomes harder and harder to deliver. It is a bit like the police reorganisation we touched on earlier today. It is unlikely to happen in the dribs and drabs of a Government who are struggling.
We need a long-term settlement that is based on need. There is no perfect assessment of that, but what we have is complexity, as we heard in the brilliant speech from the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on the Lib Dem Benches earlier. The system has elements about how many pubs there are and what some level of cost was in 1991 and all sorts of other things. The truth is that, in this most fundamental set of services—my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) rightly identified 800 of them—for the constituents in the deprived areas of the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) and in mine, nobody can see the transparency. Perhaps we should look on the Back Benches initially for a cross-party view on building a fairer funding system.
There is one more thing, and I do not know why no one has talked about it very much in my 21 years in this place. The fact that a £200,000 house in Beverley pays a lot more council tax than a £2 million flat in central London is absurd, and very rarely does anybody mention it. We need to fix things, but if we cannot fix something as absolutely inexcusable as that—and, collectively, we have not—it is no wonder the public are looking at us so askance.
I would be happy to talk to the hon. Members for St Helens South and Whiston and for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and others to see where we can make some common ground on having a more rational system, because at the end of all this, the complexity and lack of transparency end up in social failure. As the hon. Lady rightly and passionately says, it is those who are the most vulnerable and the least able who pay the highest price, and whether that is in her part of the world or in mine, that is not acceptable. We have all come here to make it a better place, and one of the things we need to fix is this.
Chinese Embassy Development
Marie Rimmer Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate that the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks were written before he listened to my response, but I could not have been clearer about the fact that no decision has been made on this case and no application is yet before the Department—[Interruption.] It was a question. He is pre-empting a decision that has not been made, on a case that is not before the Department. I have been very clear that, should any further representations be made that raise material planning considerations—they may, in this case, relate to safety and national security—before a decision is made, these will be taken into account. But again, as I said to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), on matters of security it would not be appropriate for me to comment. On specific issues such as cables, it would not be appropriate for me to comment. Planning Ministers have a quasi-judicial role in the planning process and, as I have said, the case is not yet before the Department.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I am sure that the Minister can understand the sensitivity of how we all feel about this. China has a track record of aggressive state-backed espionage. Surely this country cannot afford to make a massive underestimation of the risk, should this go ahead as expected. Experts warn that there could be the foreign leverage of signals, interception and monitoring of sensitive Government and corporate communications. To what extent can individuals make representations, because everyone is extremely concerned that such a massive and historic building was sold some years ago? This is pre-empted. This is how China works: it plans years ahead. We cannot not say anything in this House; we must comment on what we see. Please, understand that we must.
Matthew Pennycook
I do understand the strength of feeling conveyed by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members when it comes to the People’s Republic of China. The Government are taking a consistent, long-term and strategic approach to managing the UK’s relations with China, rooted in the national interest. We will always protect our national security and keep the country safe, but those are separate issues from this specific planning application. I understand why she does so, but she tempts me to speculate—again, as I have said—on a decision that has not been made, on a case that is not yet before the Department.
Draft Business and Planning Act 2020 (Pavement Licences) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Marie Rimmer Excerpts(2 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dehenna Davison
There was me thinking that we had agreement and that it was going to be nice, chilled session today. On the first core point about the Government’s support for high streets, I need to put on the record some of the incredible support the Government put in place throughout the pandemic, and before and since. Let us talk about additional support on business rates, the furlough scheme, the future high streets fund, the towns fund, the levelling-up fund, the high street rental auctions that are coming into play soon to help with vacant units, the high streets taskforce, the roll-out of high-speed broadband—
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Would the Minister speak a little slower? I am profoundly deaf, and I am struggling to hear and make out what she is saying.
The Chair
That is all right, but it is entirely for the Minister to determine how she wishes to speak.
Leasehold Reform
Marie Rimmer Excerpts(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
The Levelling Up Secretary described leasehold as “feudal” and in need of reform. I am sure that every Member on the Opposition Benches—along with millions of exploited leaseholders—agrees with him, and there is huge cross-party support. Let us not forget the impact of increased interest rates on mortgage repayments. How many of the same people are also affected by leasehold?
It has been said numerous times today, but almost every country in the world apart from Britain has either reformed or abolished this archaic model. There are estimated to be almost 6 million leasehold homes in the UK. It is a system that denies millions of people true home ownership. Some have to pay a couple of hundred pounds for the right to change the curtains or a carpet, and, if they receive permission, have to notify the freeholder so they can be inspected. Can you believe that? In your own home! We pride ourselves as a nation of homeowners and aspirational homeowners, yet leaseholds deny people the ability to fully complete that ambition.
The question is this: why have the Government not done more? Who owns the land and these properties? Who do leasehold payments go to and who are they donating to? It is about time that that was investigated. We do not need to wait. Let us start investigating what is going on and why the Government are not doing anything.
As a representative of a constituency with many new houses, I am concerned that the proportion of new build houses sold as leasehold rose from 7% in 1995 to a peak of 15% in 2016. Thousands more people have been trapped in leasehold arrangements over the past two decades. Those arrangements are often mis-sold: developers recommend solicitors to speed up the process and they do it at a discount. But where were the mortgage lenders? What were they doing? Where was their duty of care in passing loans to buy such properties? Did they not know it was a risk, or do they have something to gain from that risk if there is a mortgage foreclosure? How much is going on to look into why that happened, where it happened and who was involved? People are now denied basic rights over their own homes.
Despite the changes in July 2022 to restrict ground rents on new houses and flats to a peppercorn rate, the Government ignored Labour calls to extend the protections to existing leasehold properties. Leaseholds should not be sold anymore. They are absolutely not fit for purpose. Legislating for new houses is of course essential, yet just as essential is legislating retrospectively to help people already caught up in the leasehold scandal. Many people buying their homes in St Helens and Knowsley have been caught up in this scandal—many people. In 2017, the Government said they would work with the Law Commission to support existing leaseholders. The Government committed to making extending the leasehold
“easier, faster, fairer and cheaper.”
Only in January this year, the Levelling Up Secretary claimed that the commitment to abolish the “feudal system” of leaseholds still stood, yet neither of those things happened.
The Law Commission proposals would give people the right to extend their lease to 990 years, with zero ground rent at any time. That would place the vast majority of a home’s value in the hands of a leaseholder. That was considered to be a fair outcome in a country such as ours that wants to inspire homeownership, so why has the Secretary of State suddenly changed his mind and decided that people should no longer have the right to fully own their own home? Why?
The Prime Minister often says that it is not words, but outcomes that matter. Well, leasehold is causing millions of families unnecessary stress and hardship. The Government have promised for years to solve this crisis and even made a manifesto commitment to do so. I urge the Levelling Up Secretary and the Government to stick by their promise. Get rid of these feudal laws and bring British home ownership into the 21st century. I also remind the Prime Minister of his commitment to a Government of honesty, transparency and integrity. Well, let us see that outcomes matter. Let us start by finding the truth behind this scandal that affects so many millions of families. It is about time for honesty, transparency and integrity. Outcomes matter, Prime Minister.
Merseyside: Funding of Local Authorities
Marie Rimmer Excerpts(4 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) on securing this much-needed debate.
Merseyside’s wealth is its people. They are warm and generous, with a tremendous sense of humour. Most of all, we are supportive of each other. I am glad to see so many of my Merseyside colleagues here. I have the honour and privilege of representing two local authorities in Merseyside: St Helens, the home of glass and, of course, of my beloved Saints; and Knowsley, the home of the historic towns of Prescot and Whiston.
Knowsley and St Helens have an impressive track record of delivering regeneration. They have both delivered projects to raise the aspirations of our communities and, ultimately, improve life chances. Both areas are full of proud people who want the best for their community, yet both areas have had their budgets eviscerated over the past decade of austerity, which has continued into the ’20s. We hear the budget cut figures so much that their consequences can be lost, but it is right that we hear them, and I am pleased that Members have covered them so adequately today.
The decade of austerity was destructive to our communities, yet it is about more than the cuts; it is about the communities and their needs, local authorities’ legal duties to protect and to provide care, and the consequences of the cuts and the vicious cycles they create. The Government have massively reduced central grants to local councils. The idea was for local authorities to become self-sufficient. Councils were expected to raise council tax and retain business rates to cover the cuts. The Government were repeatedly warned about the consequences that that would have. It may work in wealthier parts of the country, but it does not work everywhere.
Knowsley and St Helens are second and 22nd respectively on the 2019 list of most deprived local authorities. Less well-off areas do not raise as much council tax or business rates as wealthier ones. The consequences have caused even greater hardship for communities that still have not recovered from the massive loss of manufacturing jobs. Areas that have been left behind are being pushed further adrift. It is a vicious cycle that is hard to escape. The wealthier areas that generate more income stay ahead, while areas such as mine are not given the investment to catch up. I am not sure how that complies with the so-called levelling-up agenda. Forcing local authorities to bid for scraps that are a fraction of the budgets that they have had cut is not good enough.
The regional imbalances that we have are quite simply a stain on our country. We are more geographically unequal than any other rich country. How is it that Germany, a country that was divided in two for the majority of my life, the eastern part of which was under the yoke of communism for decades, is today a more equal country? It is an embarrassment that requires a serious plan to fix.
St Helens, Knowsley and other areas in need are not asking for a handout; we are asking for fairness. We want to become more self-sufficient, like the wealthier parts of our country. The Government must help us to achieve that by supporting local authorities with fair funding. That means funding based on needs—for care in particular. Deprivation needs to be included in funding distribution formulas. Our country’s regional imbalances can no longer be ignored; they need to be addressed now, before they become irreversible. I call on the Government to get down to addressing the needs of the people of this country.
Holocaust Memorial Day
Marie Rimmer Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I am truly humbled to speak in this debate today. I wish to pay tribute to and thank all speakers who have shared their family experiences and, in the case of the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), their own experiences.
Bill, a constituent of mine and fellow parishioner who I went to church with, once asked to have a few words with me. He was one of those that walked into Belsen. He said, “There isn’t enough being said about it, Marie. I am worried that people will forget.” His wife was with him, with tears flowing down her cheeks. He said he could never, ever forget what they found when they walked into Belsen—the horrors and the inhumanity that the poor people there had been treated with. Bill never slept a single night without remembering horror stories and having nightmares. I said, “Let’s have a word with Father Martin”, the priest. He said, “Oh, I can’t do that.” I said, “Come on Bill—you owe it to those people that you found.” We had a word with Martin and said, “Can we have a mass and some talk about Belsen? It would perhaps help Bill if he shared some of his experiences.” We did that. Bill was so humbled but so thankful that he had done it. Bill is now at peace and resting. His wife said how he had never, ever slept one night in peace.
The holocaust is the greatest evil that mankind has ever inflicted. It was a systematic butchery of Jews, Gypsies, Roma, homosexuals, people with disabilities, and whoever else the Nazis believed were undesirable. In the grand scheme of things, it was not that long ago that this evil occurred. Many people are still alive today who survived the barbaric concentration camps. As someone born just after the war, I am always struck by how recent the holocaust still feels. During my childhood, more and more of the harrowing details and images became public. I can still remember learning about it for the first time and wondering how such evil could ever have existed. That is why it is so important to always remember how recent it was. Today we sometimes question how such evil could have occurred in the past, yet after the war people wondered how this evil could have occurred then. The 1930s and ’40s had television, music on the radio, and free elections with women able to vote. We are not talking about a historical event that occurred in the dark ages; it happened in the modern era. That is why, when we say “Never again,” we must mean it, and we must act on it. We have to guard against antisemitism and all forms of hatred that can fester wherever they exist.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge)—one of the bravest women I know, and my very dear friend—for securing this debate. We must never forget the holocaust; it is the starkest, darkest and gravest reminder of what happens when evil, hate and prejudice are allowed to grow, and why we must stop it.
Building Safety Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Marie Rimmer Excerpts(4 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
What material factors would be considered appropriate to reconsider this situation? What would be necessary to re-examine or develop this further? Are the Government waiting for incidents to happen? Risk is supposed to be based on hazards and the likelihood of them materialising. Risk assessments are supposed to avoid materialisation, but that is not how the Bill is drafted.
Eddie Hughes
I understand the passion with which the hon. Lady makes her case, but I simply do not accept that point. We have been highly proportionate. Dame Judith Hackitt is well respected in this field. We have taken her advice and that of the Building Research Establishment—experts in the field—into consideration. The Building Safety Regulator will be responsible, through the Health and Safety Executive, for monitoring ongoing situations and therefore will be well placed to make recommendations to the Secretary of State should new evidence come to light. We are alive to the issue, and the Bill responds to it.
Eddie Hughes
That is correct. In those circumstances, that could be an individual’s home and we are not in the business of legislating to that extent. The idea of the Bill and proportionality is that it covers properties in multiple occupation.
The Chair
Order. The Minister has finished so we will leave it at that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 68 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69
Meaning of “Accountable Person” Etc
Eddie Hughes
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to wait for another day to hear about the resident engagement strategy. That is an exciting episode that we will discuss in detail later in the Bill. I look forward to engagements on that.
I explained some of the information that will be displayed on the certificate but I think the pre-eminent role of that is to ensure that residents know who is responsible for building safety within their building. The certificate will identify the principal accountable persons so that residents know where the line of responsibility lies. That is why it is important that such information is displayed prominently in the building.
Eddie Hughes
That question goes to the heart of how the Bill will change responsibility in the future. It will be important that the information is displayed, and if it is not—and we will talk about resident engagement later in the Bill, but I will touch on it briefly now—residents will now know who is responsible. As part of that process, there will have to be a complaints procedure through which they can escalate their complaints. A well-informed bunch of residents in a property will understand what provision should be made for them and how they can be helped to be apprised of building safety. If that is not done, the opportunity to make a complaint and escalate appropriately and perhaps ultimately to the Building Safety Regulator, if necessary, will be one of the things that we will talk about later. The hon. Lady is right. It is imperative that residents have access to that information and, when it is not provided, they have a route to escalate a complaint about its absence.
Ms Rimmer
The Committee has talked about the culture in the building industry and how there has been a lack of trust. At its core the Bill is about changing that culture and bringing about safety. The issue is in training people, ensuring that they keep that training up, quantity and compliance. We must ensure that the procedures on which people are trained are adhered to consistently. That must be part of the arrangements. We should be really concerned about that—I am not saying that we are not—and ensure that that happens. The culture of the people working in the industry is vital.
Eddie Hughes
One of the great things about the Committee is the agreement we have had at several points on matters of great concern. It is important that this is not a tick-box exercise. It is not, “I submit information to you. You tick a few boxes and give me a certificate. I put it on the wall, and everybody feels that we live in a safer place.” Since the Bill has been talked about, we are already seeing that culture change.
To cross-reference that with regard to the social housing White Paper—my other responsibility—we need to put tenants at the heart of everything that we do. This is not an academic or legislative exercise for a bunch of people in the room to figure out the best way to do things and trust that that will be done in the future. The hon. Lady is completely right that we need to change the culture, bringing tenants and residents with us, and I think that the Bill will serve that purpose.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 74 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 75 to 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 78
Duty to appoint building safety manager
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Ms Rimmer
Is the certificate transferrable within an organisation to individuals? Would the Health and Safety Executive have some responsibility to ensure that if a new manager came along in the future, or a new accountable person, they would be up to the skills required to qualify for the original certificate?
Eddie Hughes
That is an interesting point. As I said, we need to ensure that the building safety regulator is kept informed and they will be able to determine that the new building safety manager appointed meets the criteria set out in the Bill. Effectively, if someone operates as a building safety manager and complies with the criteria set out in the Bill, a change in personnel should not matter because the competence level will be maintained and assured.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 78 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 79 to 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 83
Assessment of building safety risks
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Eddie Hughes
The independent review recommended the introduction of a safety case regime for high-rise residential buildings to drive culture change and improve the understanding and management of fire and structural safety risks, delivering safer buildings for residents. We are delivering on this recommendation. The introduction of this regime will change the way in which building owners demonstrate how they are managing building safety risks.
Safety case regimes have been successful in improving safety standards and reducing incidents in a number of sectors. Under this approach, accountable persons will not be able to rest on the assumption that merely following prescribed standards will result in safe outcomes. They must produce and maintain documented assurance to demonstrate that they are meeting the duties placed on them.
Safety case reports, which will be assessed by the Building Safety Regulator, are a tool that help to offer this assurance. The report must focus on the unique risks and arrangements in place at each higher-risk building and should justify why the safety arrangements that accountable persons are taking are appropriate and sufficient for managing the risks present. We will set out in secondary legislation the form and minimum content required for a safety case report. This will provide clarity on the areas that should be covered.
The HSE, as the shadow regulator, is leading a work programme with industry that will deliver simple guidance to help those with duties under the new regime comply with these new requirements.
The safety case regime is a dynamic and continuous process. A safety case report must remain relevant and be revised to reflect the risks present and how the building is being managed if and when circumstances change. Safety case reports will be assessed by the Building Safety Regulator, including as part of the building assessment certification process. On assessment, the regulator may use its powers of direction to require that further safety measures be implemented if they consider that accountable persons do not have sufficient arrangements already in place.
The process of developing the safety case report will improve safety by ensuring a systemic review and assessment of hazards and their associated risks and the control measures either required or being employed to eliminate or reduce them. The Health and Safety Executive has vast experience and expertise in delivering regulatory oversight for safety case regimes and working collaboratively with stakeholders. We will ensure the right environment is in place to deliver holistic management of building safety risks, so that residents are, and feel, safe in their homes.
The independent review recommended that the duty holder for occupied higher-risk buildings be required to present their safety case to the regulator at regular intervals, to demonstrate that building safety risks are being managed. Clause 86 provides the framework by which this process will be delivered. On completion of a safety case report, and at any time when the report is revised thereafter, the principal accountable person must notify the regulator. As noted, the regulator will assess the safety case report as part of the building assessment certification process, but it may also undertake a further assessment if that is deemed necessary. The report must be submitted if such a request is made. The knowledge that there has been a review by the regulator of the safety arrangements in place in their building will provide reassurance to residents that their buildings are safe to occupy. These arrangements will ensure that the regulator is able to maintain oversight and deliver its functions effectively.
Ms Rimmer
The Bill is already setting criteria for the building safety case report, inasmuch as it refers to 18 metres or seven storeys. Beneath that, a building does not comply, so how or where do we get the building safety manager’s freedom to do a personal risk assessment of a building that is below seven storeys or 18 metres? Can the Minister quantify or qualify how they are going to be able to do their job, or is this one of the “developments” that we are looking for to change the criteria, to bring buildings below that measurement in?
Eddie Hughes
I think there is a terrible possibility that I may not have completely understood the case the hon. Lady was making. The point about the assessment is that it will be a live assessment of the risks in a particular building and then the mitigating factors that will be introduced in order to minimise those risks. With regard to the prescription of building height set out in previous clauses, that simply determines which buildings are in scope. If we assume that a building is in scope, that the legislation applies and that the principal accountable person needs to submit their building case to the regulator in order for it to be assessed, that will be bespoke and determined by individual building requirements.
Building Safety Bill (Tenth sitting)
Marie Rimmer Excerpts(4 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christopher Pincher
Over the next few weeks and months we will assess all potential organisations that might undertake that role. They will need to demonstrate expertise and capability, to determine whether they can meet the high standards set by any prospective building control insurance scheme. We will pursue an answer to that question over the next several weeks and months. I will be happy to update the House as we progress through that process.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Sadly, the construction industry does not enjoy a lot of confidence, which is no surprise, mainly because of the fires we have had. Professional indemnity is very difficult to get; far more questions are being asked to obtain it. The Association of British Insurers has been very involved with the Government and is broadly very supportive of the Bill—it is the right step and will improve the building industry and commercial and residential premises. However, the ABI has made a number of significant comments about using modern methods of construction
“to ensure these buildings are built and maintained in a way which enables them to access affordable insurance for the lifetime of the property.”
It has also called on the Government to develop
“a publicly accessible database of buildings developed using Modern Methods of Construction which provides information on the materials used, methods of construction and relevant standards or certification”
and to mandate
“the installation of high integrity fire alarms in all new developments to address the high number”—
Ms Rimmer
I do not consider that the Bill will address all the insurance problems. I am concerned that we may end up in a situation where we do not get the buildings done, because of the insurance problem. I do not believe that we can do everything in the timescale to enable the construction of the homes that we need—
The Chair
Order. Can I say gently that we have not had much deliberation in this Committee, so I am loth to shut this down, but rather than making a long intervention, the hon. Lady should make a speech. I am sure the Minister will answer your points equally well whether you make a speech or an intervention. We cannot have interventions of that length. I assume the hon. Lady is finished.
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the hon. Lady. I understand the point that she makes, which does bear 30 seconds of explanation. We are working with the modern methods of construction expert Mark Farmer to find ways of standardising the modern methods of construction sector. The off-site construction standards mechanisms that have been developed over the last few years to respond to that new marketplace give lenders and insurers adequate protections and assurances. Her point speaks to the wider issue that, in an evolving building terrain, where new methods of construction are being constantly developed, it is right that we have a flexible building safety regime to respond to those concerns. That is one of the reasons why, rather than placing lots of regulations and requirements in the Bill, we are using secondary legislation and regulations to respond to that evolving terrain. I think that modern methods of construction will be one of the areas in which the terrain responds.
Ms Rimmer
I should not apologise, because I need to make a point. There is too much dependence on secondary legislation, and we do not have sight of it. When will it be introduced? I like to make informed decisions, but I am not able to when there is this constant reference to future regulations and secondary legislation. When I get to read about the regulations, it says that they are subject to or delegated to statutory instruments, so I am going from the Bill to secondary legislation and then to statutory instruments. Will they be affirmative or negative? I do not feel in a position where I am able to make an informed decision.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I would say, somewhat reflecting what Justin Bates said in evidence a couple of weeks ago, that we could put a great deal in the Bill—in primary legislation—but that would make the law exceptionally unwieldy and unresponsive to the developing terrain of building assurance, building safety and methods of construction. As Mr Bates pointed out, it would also mean that we would have to sit here from now until some time in 2022 for line-by-line consideration of the clauses in the primary legislation. Secondary legislation allows us to be flexible and respond to the changing terrain, while also giving Parliament an appropriate degree of scrutiny and control.
Building Safety Bill (Seventh sitting)
Marie Rimmer Excerpts(4 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christopher Pincher
The Building Safety Regulator will charge fees in the normal way, and there will be a mechanism to levy that charge on an identified party. It will be the identified party’s responsibility to pay in the normal way. The fees are consistent with the sorts of fees that are paid through other regulatory mechanisms that local authorities, for example, employ, too. That comes with the caveat that we want to ensure that full-cost recovery is achieved by the Building Safety Regulator, so the charges will rather depend what the costs are. I trust that if there are charges for additional regulatory activity on the part of the Building Safety Regulator, it is in the interests of the identified parties not to cause that additional regulatory activity. That is another means of ensuring that everybody behaves appropriately.
Clause 27, alongside clause 56, provides the legal basis for the charging of fees by the Building Safety Regulator. It enables the Secretary of State to make regulations authorising the Building Safety Regulator to charge fees and recover charges from those it regulates.
Christopher Pincher
As I wish to maintain my 100% record of interventions, I will give way on this occasion.
Christopher Pincher
We will discuss the building safety charge in later clauses. I will make it absolutely clear at that point how appropriate costs may be passed on to leaseholders, what the caps are and what it is not appropriate to pass on, such as the examples I am giving here.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the hon. Lady.
The clause enables regulations to be drafted to allow fees to be charged for the Building Safety Regulator’s general functions in part 2 of this Bill, its functions regulating the higher-risk buildings in occupation and its functions under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The Government’s approach will ensure that fees and charges are appropriate. In line with the principles set out in “Managing Public Money”, the Building Safety Regulator will not make a profit on fees and charges for its regulatory activities. They are merely a means of cost recovery.
Setting out fees in secondary rather than primary legislation and allowing the Building Safety Regulator to put certain details in a charging scheme will ensure that fees can change over time. I hope that helps to address the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw asked.
Initially, the Building Safety Regulator will have to use assumptions to develop fees, but once set up it is standard practice for a public body setting a fee for cost recovery to recalculate fees based on actual experience. This allows the regulator to learn from experience and change the way it charges fees over time to ensure they are both effective in recovering the appropriate amount of money, and proportionate and fair to those charged. Making provision for fees in regulations allows for regular scrutiny of proposed charges through consultation and, importantly, by Parliament. To deliver the recommendations of the independent review and put the Building Safety Regulator on a firm financial footing, we expect that the regulator will charge the accountable person for regulating their actions under part 4.
We will have an opportunity to debate all the issues about which costs the accountable person should fairly be capable of passing on to leaseholders when we come to part 4. However, I will briefly reassure the Committee that part 4 of the Bill ensures that any costs associated with enforcement action by the Building Safety Regulator or resulting from any negligent or unlawful act by the accountable person cannot be passed on to leaseholders through the building safety charge, so the potential costs we are talking about in the clause cannot be passed on to a leaseholder in that way.
That safeguard provides a financial incentive for the accountable person to do the right thing, as I indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, because the accountable person will bear the Building Safety Regulator’s costs when it has to tackle serious failures. The Government are working closely with the Health and Safety Executive to develop these proposals, building on its strong track record of successfully delivering cost recovery regimes—a track record that dates back to 1975, so it has some 46 years of experience.
The Health and Safety Executive rightly aims for the Building Safety Regulator to become a world leader in its field and to share best practice and expertise with international partners on a commercial basis. That is another means by which some funds can be raised. Subsection (6) enables the Secretary of State to approve commercial charging by the Building Safety Regulator. This power will be used only with the consent of the Secretary of State and in line with Government guidance on charging.
We believe the clause is vital to ensuring that the Building Safety Regulator has the funding required to enable it to do its critical work, that the accountable parties do the right thing and that any costs associated with these clauses are not passed on to leaseholders or residents through the building safety charge. I commend the clause and the amendments to the Committee.
Building Safety Bill (Sixth sitting)
Marie Rimmer Excerpts(4 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shaun Bailey
I welcome the aims of the clause, in combination with other clauses. It is right that the regulator is able to review competences. As we heard in the evidence sessions, the one thing we are trying to fight here is the race to the bottom in standards and in how people behave in the industry more broadly.
On the point that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale made, we heard interesting evidence about building inspectors and what they are doing. I found that interesting because my training and background is as a lawyer, and we were always taught that, irrespective of the client that instructed us, we still had an ultimate responsibility for the administration of justice. It was slightly concerning to hear that evidence, because it felt at times that there was not that overarching responsibility. I am hopeful that we can perhaps re-embed that through clause 6.
Irrespective of the debate that we might have about building inspectors and how they operate, and whether the local authority model or the private model works, there is a broader discussion here about where the fiduciary duty will go. Hopefully, clause 6, in establishing that review—that committee—and allowing the BSR to do that can start those discussions again and really look the industry in the eye and say, “What are you doing?” As I say, the evidence we heard was, at times, quite shocking. I am hopeful that clause 6, combined with other clauses, will enable us to have that broad-brush conversation and to review the industry, in order to ensure we have something that works for the safety of residents living in these developments and a gloves-off discussion about how that operates. I welcome this clause, Mr Davies, and it has my full support.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. The National Fire Chiefs Council talked about the need for building control independence. We know that things have gone wrong in the past and that there is scope for that to happen in the future with the private sector being involved, as highlighted in Dame Judith Hackitt’s report. In its written evidence, the NFCC wrote:
“While there is ample evidence that private sector participation in building control can bring efficiencies, if not implemented correctly such a delegation of regulatory mandate can come with significant unintended consequences.”
I do not believe it is intended to have those consequences but that is what has been said. It continued:
“A 2018 report by the World Bank found private sector participation in construction regulation in 93 out of 190 economies. The report concluded that, for such an arrangement to work as intended, the public sector should regulate private third-party professionals and firms and reported that in 76% of economies that make use of third-party inspectors, regulations explicitly require the independence of third-party inspectors; they should have no financial interests in the project and should not be related to the investor or builder.
The report concluded that private sector participation should be accompanied by appropriate safeguards that favour the public interest over private profits.”
That is the nub of this. The evidence goes on:
“We believe that the change to remove the ability for clients to choose their own regulator, is necessary to apply to the whole of the built environment.”
And that point was made by the World Bank.
I ask the Minister to consider these points.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the Committee for its consideration. The point of this clause and of the Building Safety Regulator in it is to drive up competence standards across the building control sector, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West said. We want to see that happen and we believe it can happen. Taken as a whole, we believe that that is exactly what the Bill will achieve. Dame Judith Hackitt was right to recognise some of the problems that the building control system faces, spread as it is, in particular the lack of a level playing field between the different statutory and non-statutory processes, which can lead to a degree of complexity in the system.
As a result of the Bill and its clauses, not just clause 6, we believe we address that problem. We have worked with the whole building control sector to draw up these proposals, both public and private, which have widespread support. I call on the Committee to support the clause in order to help the position of the Building Safety Regulator, and to put that regulator at the heart of the industry and the building control profession competence, to be a key influencer and driver for better competence, regulation and standards. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Proposals and consultation relating to regulations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.