Fire Safety and Cladding

Debate between Robert Neill and Steve Reed

Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Reed]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I completely agree: the leaseholders seem to be the innocent party in all this. They certainly should not be forced to bear the cost, the stress or the worry of having flammable cladding on the place in which they live.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

It is very clear—the Government have made this clear—that leaseholders should not be left footing the bill. When the developer is also the freeholder, as was the case in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and is prepared, because of the potential reputational damage, to step up to the mark, the problem is resolved. However, as he will know from experience, a difficulty arises when the freehold is sold on, often to a trust company or a financial institution. Unlike a firm of developers, such a body will not be trying to sell houses to the public and is not subject to any reputational pressures, and will use very common clauses in their leases to pass back to their leaseholders any cost that, say, the local authority or Government push on to them. Do we not need a legal mechanism to override that, which is difficult to do with leases, or, in such cases, to compensate leaseholders directly so that they do not lose out? It has to be one or the other.

[Mr Reed]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I know that he is fighting very hard on behalf of his residents who are living in these circumstances, and he makes a point with which I agree. That is at the heart of our problem with the Government’s response. The Government can say what they like in support of leaseholders, but if they do not act, they are not actually helping them and, unfortunately, a moral obligation is not enforceable in court. We need a legal means of redress for people who have been damaged.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reed]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. As the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) will know, residents in Northpoint Tower in Bromley face bills of up to £70,000 each. People simply cannot afford that, and the stress they suffer from receiving that bill and knowing that, unless they find a way to pay it, they will be left living in a block with potentially flammable cladding on, is simply unacceptable.

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again and for mentioning the problem at Northpoint. There is a certain insecurity about the risk of human error at the very least with a waking watch, but the difficulty is compounded by the cash flow impact. Most of these leaseholder groups will have a sinking fund that has been set up over the years, but that is quickly dissipated by the cost of the waking watch. In the case of my constituents, there is an enforcement notice running out in April. They could have the waking watch until then, which will exhaust all the reserves and will mean further calls on funds from people who often have mortgages, because they are often first-time buyers, and who effectively cannot raise any more money because the flats are currently valueless. It is a Catch-22: the money is exhausted, and they have no means of raising any more.

[Mr Reed]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; he makes an important point well. The other course of action that would normally be open to a homeowner—selling their home—is not open, because their homes are unsellable. Nobody will buy a flat in a block that has flammable cladding strapped to the outside of it. Whatever the Minister tells us, if we speak to people living in these blocks, they say that they feel abandoned by a Government who told them in the aftermath of Grenfell that everything would be done to keep them safe. They do not feel that they have been kept safe, and they manifestly have not been.

Grenfell Tower

Debate between Robert Neill and Steve Reed

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Just a year ago, following the tragic and horrific fire at Grenfell, the Prime Minister promised to

“do whatever it takes to keep people safe”.

Nearly a year later, every piece of failed safety regulation and every piece of flawed guidance that was in place before Grenfell is still there. That is not acceptable.

Although it is welcome that the Government have belatedly found the funding to help with the remedial works on social housing blocks, they have offered precious little to people living in privately owned blocks. I want to focus on the plight of leaseholders, who feel that the Government have abandoned them and hung them out to dry.

Let us consider briefly why this cladding is on buildings in the first place. Following the deadly Lakanal House fire in 2009, when six lives were lost, an inquest was held. It reported to the Government in 2013. The coroner told the Government that the fire safety regulations were confusing, not fit for purpose and needed to be revised, but the Government did nothing. The same ACM cladding with a polyethylene core continued to be put up on residential buildings. It was put on Grenfell in 2016, and Grenfell went up in flames 2017 with such lethal and tragic consequences.

If the Government had acted on the coroner’s advice after Lakanal, people would never have died in Grenfell Tower. The cladding is on buildings because the Government did nothing to correct the flawed regulations when they were told they were a problem. The moral duty to act was on the Government, but instead of accepting that, the previous Secretary of State made an art form of palming off the blame on anybody else. In this Chamber, he said that it was the responsibility of developers, freeholders, managing agents and insurers, even though there is no proven legal obligation on any of those people to pay for the removal of cladding. The two first-tier housing tribunals found leaseholders responsible for the costs. However, the previous Secretary of State said that he wanted no costs to be passed on to leaseholders, yet he took no action to ensure that. Leaseholders have been left living in unsaleable homes, fearful for their safety, and in fear of unaffordable debt that is often more than they earn in a year.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Constituents in Bromley and Chislehurst have exactly the same problem. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as was mentioned earlier in the debate, the difficulty is that there is no mechanism for enforcing a moral duty and no means whereby leaseholders can get recompense? Should the Government consider some emergency funding comparable with the help that is being given to those in publicly owned blocks?

[Mr Reed]

The hon. Gentleman makes the legal point much more eloquently than I could. I hope that the Secretary of State will listen to that.

Here is a proposal for what the Government might do. First, they should fund the removal and replacement of flammable cladding on all residential blocks on which it is found, whether in the private or public sector. We simply cannot leave leaseholders living in limbo, their lives on hold for years while these issues are dragged through the courts at a snail’s pace. If it turns out that developers, freeholders or whoever are legally liable, the Government can then claim the money back. My guess is that it will turn out that the Government are liable for failing to correct guidance and regulations that they knew were flawed for years before this happened.

The Government’s first priority must be the protection of human life. We cannot allow any more Grenfells. It is not acceptable just to leave this cladding on buildings in which people are living. This dangerous cladding must be taken down, wherever it is found. No more delays, no more Grenfells; let us get this cladding taken down.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords]

Debate between Robert Neill and Steve Reed

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Reed]

I am not going to name individual LEPs at this stage in the debate. If the Minister talks to LEPs, he will find that they agree with my view. I used to sit on the board of a LEP until three years ago. They have access to much smaller budgets than RDAs could have and to far too many small funding pots. The model is too fragmented and too short term. I suggest that he speaks to some of the LEPs if he does not think that there is room for improvement along those lines, because I think he will hear from them what he has been hearing from me this afternoon. What the LEPs are looking for and what they need is longer-term horizons if they are to act more strategically. The Government need to understand the need for more local decision making and fewer centrally imposed constraints, and making these changes to LEPs would be a step forward in allowing that to happen.

England’s local government finance settlement is one of the most centralised anywhere in the world. Councils lack the freedom they need to innovate to the maximum and to spend as much as they would like on local priorities. Even London, which is currently more devolved than anywhere else in the country, is reliant on central Government for three quarters of its funding. That compares with figures of just 30% in New York and 25% in Berlin. London is a world city and it is competing with other world cities that have much more control over their own destinies. London does not need to be kept on such a tight leash, and nor do the other cities and regions across the United Kingdom that also hope to grow their roles in the future.

The Communities and Local Government Committee concluded that local authorities in England have limited control over local taxation and, as a consequence, rely by comparison disproportionately on central Government funding. New clause 24 does not prescribe a particular settlement, but calls on the Secretary of State to publish a framework for further devolution of fiscal powers that is in keeping with the approach that the Government have taken throughout this Bill including, but not limited to, setting and re-evaluating local tax rates banding and discounts. We would like the Government at least to consider allowing councils to add additional council tax bands at the top and the bottom of the scale. That would allow for very large properties to be charged more and for smaller properties to be charged less, which is a move towards a more progressive model of taxation.

I have some experience in this area. Before I came to this House, I was leader of Lambeth council. We froze council tax for six years after taking over from a Tory-Liberal Democrat administration that had pushed up council tax by 24% in a single year. The Government need not worry about profligate Tory or Lib Dem councils behaving in that way, because they are accountable to their local electorate. However, that should not be used as an excuse to prevent more localisation together with a fair equalisation mechanism operating across the country. I hope that we will hear more about that during the autumn statement in just a few weeks’ time. The Bill strikes me as another appropriate place to be putting in some of those measures to drive forward the devolution agenda and the ability of local councils to ensure that they have the resources that they need to exercise fully the powers that they will increasingly be acquiring.

The Government can and should go further. They are devolving some of the powers, but little of the money. Devolution without the resources to make it work is not ambitious devolution; it is devolution where the Secretary of State remains the puppet master pulling all the strings, too often afraid to let go.

On new clause 34, we welcome the fact that new sub-national transport bodies must consult adjoining authorities before making a proposal. On transport, the Government have recognised that the devolution of powers to combined authorities concerns neighbouring authorities that are not part of those combined authorities, but are affected by their decisions. I am thinking about areas such as Plymouth in relation to Cornwall, Chesterfield in relation to Sheffield, and Warrington in relation to Greater Manchester. This is an important principle, but it extends to other areas beyond transport.

Decisions made over health, for example, could have an impact on neighbouring populations. I am thinking about proposals for hospital closures, new hospitals, and reconfiguration of regional or strategic health services. Decisions over Sunday trading could also have an effect should those plans go ahead—of course I hope that they will not.

New clause 36 would ensure that regard is given to neighbouring authorities affected by devolution deals. It would be on the same principle as the Government’s new clause 34, so I cannot imagine what objection the Government might have to it. If we want to build support for devolution and not to fuel resentment, this clause needs to be included, and we intend to test the will of the Committee on it by pressing it to a vote.

Finally, let me turn to new clause 39 on environmental considerations. This new clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to set out guidance on how co-operation between combined authorities can be strengthened to mitigate environmental problems and develop green infrastructure. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has carried out an assessment of the current devolution proposals and found that there is an appetite among local councils for greater co-operation on environmental priorities.

The duty to co-operate is not currently strong enough, and local planning can fail to take into consideration the ability of the community to build a positive vision for the local environment. Such changes would strengthen and improve this Bill. I am interested to hear the Government’s position on them when the Minister has an opportunity to respond.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I commend the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) on the sentiments of his speech, if not entirely on the detail, because many of us have some sympathy for the need for further fiscal devolution and will be interested to see what form that can eventually take. With no disrespect to those broader issues, I shall refer to new clause 38, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd) and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and which relates specifically to enabling devolution to joint committees in London. That might sound technical, but it is actually important. I stress that new clause 38 is signed by the three of us on a cross-party basis. In fact, it is supported by the all-party parliamentary group for London, by London Councils on a cross-party basis and by the Mayor of London. So this is a London ask to the Government.

New clause 38 essentially relates to the fact that, as certainly I and a number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House said on Second Reading, it is sometimes thought that devolution in London is a job done. Well, it is not; more remains to be done on devolution in London. The Government recognise that fact—potential means of devolution to the Mayor and to London boroughs have already been discussed—but the purpose of new clause 38 is to probe the Government’s thinking a little, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response on precisely what legislative framework is required to achieve devolution to the Mayor and to London boroughs, either for all of London in some cases or specifically, as would be allowed under these proposals, to parts of London.

We have been talking about the various devolution deals. I was delighted to hear two of them announced today. Of course, they are important and they rightly vary from place to place. Well, the same applies to London. By its very nature and size, London is infinitely bigger than any other city and any other potential devolution deal. For that reason and because of its nature and complexity—although with the directly elected Mayor and the Greater London Authority, it was the first to have a form of devolution of the kind that the Government envisage, which we welcome being rolled out elsewhere—it has different governance arrangements. In particular, we must recognise the role of the 32 London boroughs—far more than in any other proposed combined mayoral authority—as well as that of the London Assembly.

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend makes an entirely fair point, and I recognise his long experience in local government and his interest in the matter throughout his time in the House. It is perfectly true that we must look at the situation in the shire counties, particularly where two-tier arrangements apply. I very much hope that we will see county devolution deals as well, because the strategic counties of England are potentially just as much economic drivers as our great cities, but we will need tailored governance arrangements to recognise the two-tier nature, which differs in its competence from that within the London boroughs or the metropolitan authorities.

[Mr Steve Reed]

May I associate myself with the very welcome proposals being made by my fellow co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for London? Given the complexity of London’s governance, it will be difficult for further devolution to happen if such proposals are not accepted by the Government. I endorse the view that is being expressed, and I hope that the Government will listen to it as a means to promote further sensible devolution in London.

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the new clause. It is not intended to be the definitive text, but I hope the Minister will take heart from the fact that any text brought forward by the Government is likely to enjoy cross-party support and is unlikely to impede the progress of the Bill, but will enhance the opportunity for devolution deals within London as a whole.

“Councillors on the Frontline”

Debate between Robert Neill and Steve Reed

Thursday 5th September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Robert Neill]

That is a perfectly fair point, and it applies right across government. I do not go as far as one council leader, with whom I served at one time, who said that his committee chairmen—we call them cabinet members now—were not doing their job if their officers and directors were not scared of them. I would not recommend such an approach, but there has to be a proper degree of distance; I think all of us would recognise that, because sometimes we have to make it clear that there is a dividing line of responsibility, and about where decisions are ultimately taken.

[Mr Reed]

I am grateful that we are benefiting from the hon. Gentleman’s vast experience of many levels and of several roles in local government. However, does he recognise my experience from a number of peer reviews of other authorities that I had the privilege to participate in? One of the reasons that some councils become unresponsive to the needs of their citizens is that they are too officer-led, and if the elected members are not around enough to ensure that the officers are responding to residents, they are not able to carry out their job. Some of the points that he is making would encourage elected members to be around less rather than more, and therefore they would be unable to make the difference that residents want.

[Robert Neill]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s proposition, but maybe not with his final conclusion, for several reasons. First, I am firmly of the view that the best councils are member-led and that good officers respond more effectively to strong member leadership, so having such strong leadership is in everybody’s interests. Secondly, however, that does not mean that we must have a massive professionalisation. I have already made the point that often there are differences in roles, for example, in London boroughs such as the ones with which he and I are best acquainted. There is the world of difference between the commitment of the leader and the cabinet, and that of a back-bench—let us say “frontline”—ward member. We have to recognise those distinctions and that is why a sensible, locally set form of allowances is a better means of going down that route, rather than moving towards some kind of quasi-salary, because those allowances can reflect particular circumstances.

I was a little surprised to read what is again a fascinating little tit-bit in one of the appendices of the report, about the growth of special responsibility allowances. Sometimes, they are not unreasonable to reflect things. Sometimes, however, I have had a suspicion that there has been a degree of what we might term “grade inflation” in the number of special responsibility allowances that are awarded. I notice that, according to the report, something like 53% of councillors have some kind of special responsibility allowances. I wonder what that would translate into here—300-plus Front Benchers of one kind or another in this House. I do not know, though; occasionally I suppose I could see attractions to that. Again, however, I think we understand that it is a question of getting a sensible balance and not abusing what is an important system.

I will just say one other thing that shows that I do not entirely follow Opposition Members. This Government should be judged not necessarily on words but on deeds, and the real thing that makes people decide to be a councillor and to stay a councillor is a belief that the job makes a difference. The issues that we talk about and how we recruit people are terribly important. My party is putting in work. I particularly want to mention the work done by the Be a Councillor campaign, which is a cross-party Local Government Association initiative; the work that we have done in the Conservative party through Women2Win and other groups; and the work of my friend, Councillor Clare Whelan, who is a former colleague of the hon. Member for Croydon North and who was recently appointed an Officer of the British Empire for her work on improving diversity in local government. All those things are important, but the key point is that people become councillors because they think that giving up their time to go and be there is worth while, because they think that their decision can make a difference to their community and the place where they live.

That is the key point and I believe that the Government firmly pass the test, because what we have done—in actions—is give, where there was not one before, a legal power of general competence: to remove what I think we would all agree now were overly prescriptive targets; to remove the comprehensive area assessment; to phase out ring-fencing; to change the approach to planning, neighbourhood planning and so on; to remove predetermination, which I think we all agree was a fetter on democratic accountability by councillors; and to remove what had become an over-intrusive standards board, although I have said in Westminster Hall before that we need to watch to ensure that that is not recreated through the back door. All those are positive, devolutionist and decentralist actions by the Government.

In defence of Ministers—both past and present—it is perfectly consistent to say that, although we believe in localism and we hand power back, that does not mean that Ministers—or Opposition Front Benchers for that matter, as national politicians too—are obliged to take a Trappist vow of silence. It would be objectionable if a Minister said, “I am not going to allow you to take that decision”, but that is not the case; that is not what we are saying. We are allowing local government to take more decisions, but if a local authority of any political persuasion makes a flawed decision, it must run the risk of criticism by Ministers or Opposition Front Benchers, just like anyone else in public life. I do not think it is at all fair to criticise Ministers on that account; it is the deeds, not the words, by which they should be judged.

[Mr Reed]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so generous with his time. I commend the Government for what they did on abolishing much of the ring-fencing. That was one of the very best things that this Government have done, and it has made it easier in very difficult circumstances—circumstances that are partly the fault of this Government—to manage the reduction in resources. However, is the hon. Gentleman advocating—as I do—that the Government should now move on from that and adopt a much more thoroughgoing, total place model that looks at all the public resources being spent in a particular locality and at how those can be de-ring-fenced and made accountable to the local authority, also allowing local communities to have a bigger say over what those resources are spent on?

[Robert Neill]

I have always advocated a move towards greater pooling and collaboration on budgets, and of course the Secretary of State—both now and throughout his time in government—has done a great deal of work in pushing forward community budgets, which is part of the means of piloting exactly that approach. I think we can do more and believe that, regardless of political persuasion, we should all recognise that this is an ongoing process.

By its nature, government in this country, historically, has tended to be quite centrist and we have to move away from that, gradually. The Government have already done a lot in that direction. Successor community budget pilots will open up real opportunities to demonstrate, across Government, that this can work. However, I say, as somebody who served as a member of a strategic health authority, that we have to take on board that not all the partner agencies, to use the current fashionable term, with which local government has to work in matters such as health—I digress slightly to mention the return of public health powers to local government, which is another significant devolutionary measure that this Government have put through—have the same culture of democratic accountability and transparency as local government. It will be a real fight for those of us who identify with local government, as a sector, to ensure that our standards are applied in these new arrangements, not those of—let us say—rather more bureaucratically obscure approaches to the world. All of us in local government need to take on that fight, but there are real opportunities if we win it.

This is a positive debate. I welcome the Select Committee Chairman’s giving us the opportunity to discuss this subject. Even if we do not agree about some matters, the commitment to local government across the House is clear, and that is important.

I was impressed by the methodology set out in the report. The idea of speed dating fascinated me. A councillor attended a constituency surgery in Chislehurst with me and we went to the local pub afterwards, just to compare notes and check that we had everything in order. We were congratulating ourselves on what we thought was our good name and face recognition, until I noticed that we were sitting at a table above which was a sign that read “Over-40s speed dating tonight”. I hope that the methodology has not caused too many difficulties for the Select Committee. It is a worthwhile report. If someone does not have a sense of humour, they should not go into local government.