Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, on leading this important debate and I compliment her on her excellent introduction to the Bill. Similarly, I pay tribute to the honourable Member for Bath, who introduced this Bill in the other place, where it enjoyed cross-party support and the full support of the Government. I also thank noble Lords who have contributed to today’s Second Reading debate. It is with great pleasure that I reaffirm the Government’s support for the Bill.

As the House is well aware, the harassment of workers remains all too common. The Government’s own experimental survey uncovered completely unacceptable levels of sexual harassment, and the recent review of the Metropolitan Police by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, shows how harassment and discrimination can be baked into a system. The testimony and the data make it clear that mistreatment of women is a feature of the toxic culture that we have seen revealed in her report. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, for giving us more information on this issue and bringing it into sharp relief today.

The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, set out the details of the Bill’s two main measures, and I want to take the opportunity to reiterate their importance. The third-party harassment protection and employer duty represent a significant strengthening of protections for those affected by harassment at work. What is more, they will not only raise awareness of the nature of harassment but motivate employers to prioritise the prevention of workplace harassment and, ultimately, improve workplace practices and culture.

I will touch on the Bill’s interaction with free speech, and the government amendment made on Report in the other place. Let me be clear: we have listened not just here to Members today but to those outside this House. We understand that there are real concerns about constraints on free speech and how our laws can have a chilling effect on the ability of people to speak their minds and voice their opinions.

The Bill is about the harassment of workers, and it is right, particularly in light of the review by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, that employers take their responsibilities seriously and crack down on harassment and discrimination. Those who seek to harass people at work will not be tolerated.

However, freedom of speech is a vital pillar of our society, and I reassure all noble Lords that the Bill will not inhibit free speech. As well as casual conversations, no one wants to prevent rigorous discussion or intellectual debate, which are crucial to progress in this country. It is for these reasons that we amended Clause 1 to make clear that, while employers will be expected to take action against workplace harassment under the Bill, this should fall short of prohibiting the appropriate conversations of others. That was never the intention of the Bill, and it is now clear on the face of it. We have also specified the conditions which must all be met in order to trigger the amendment, to provide full clarity.

Some of the concerns expressed are about the “what if” questions. It is right that we test and rigorously examine the scope of the Bill, but legislators can go only so far in predicting and accounting for every scenario. The amendment we have put in place signals to employers where their ceiling of action should be, and the Government trust that they are best placed to assess how to implement the law according to the business within which they operate.

The implementation of the Bill will be supported by guidance from the Government and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The Government have committed to support the EHRC in developing a statutory code of practice on workplace harassment, which will be published as the measures in the Bill come into force, one year after Royal Assent.

We have had assurances from the EHRC that it agrees that the measures in the Bill are a necessary and proportionate means of preventing unlawful harassment and are compatible with freedom of expression. The EHRC has also reassured us that its new statutory code of practice on workplace harassment will guide tribunals to consider the reasonable foreseeability of harassment occurring when determining employer liability.

The EHRC is rightly independent of government and, as such, it is up to it to determine the contents of the code, following consultation. The code will then be considered by the Secretary of State and, if approved, laid before Parliament. But, in the first instance, we will encourage the EHRC to ensure it clarifies the following points. Here I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that it will include Clause 1 as well as Clause 2.

First, while employers will be expected to take action against workplace harassment under the Bill, this action should fall short of prohibiting the appropriate conversations of others. Secondly, employers will be expected to take only steps that are considered reasonable in their specific circumstances, meaning that the implementation of preventive measures should take into account known risk factors, as well as the size of the organisation and the resources of employers. Lastly, employers are not expected to take extreme or unreasonable steps to prevent the harassment of their employees, including the cancellation or refusal of bookings for lawful events, or hiring “banter bouncers” to actively police conversations in their establishments.

We will also encourage the EHRC to provide examples which are industry specific, such as guidance for venues that host speakers and entertainers, or workplaces which require frequent interaction with third parties.

What is more, the Government will also publish detailed guidance for employers about the kinds of steps they should be taking to prevent harassment in the workplace. This will improve employers’ ability to engage with their existing duties in this area, and help them to ensure that they have taken “all reasonable steps” to prevent harassment. I hope that that answers the points made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Blake and Lady Burt of Solihull. I can provide assurances today that the equality hub will monitor the impact of the Bill, including the amendment, to ensure it is accurately interpreted and implemented according to the spirit of these reforms. The Government will formally review the measures after five years—that was another issue that both noble Baronesses brought up.

Relatedly, I understand that concerns have also been raised about the requirement on employers to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent workplace harassment—this was brought up by a number of noble Lords. It is important to note that the concept of “all reasonable steps” has been in the Equality Act since its inception in the context of employers’ liability, and that it is well understood by employers and employment tribunals; this is nothing new. What is “reasonable” in any particular context is a question of fact for the tribunal. Factors including the work environment, the size of the organisation and known risk factors, as well as cost and practicality, are all relevant considerations.

What constitutes “all reasonable steps” is not currently defined in law and we do not intend to do so, as this would remove the flexibility to take a proportional approach based on the individual circumstances of the workplace. The alternative would be to set out a list of “all reasonable steps” by workplace context, which would mean creating an extremely complex system that might still not account for every workplace context and certainly would not be exhaustive. While it would therefore be undesirable to define “all reasonable steps”, the Bill as amended now makes clear to employers that, in certain cases, this should not include shutting down conversations or preventing the expression of opinion—in other words, setting a ceiling on what can be considered a “reasonable step” for an employer to take to avoid legal liability for workplace harassment. Both the EHRC’s code of practice and the Government’s guidance will provide further clarity for employers as to what “all reasonable steps” means for them, in addition to the range of existing guidance which is already available for employers in this area, including the EHRC’s current employment code of practice.

I now turn to a few other things—well, more than a few, I think—brought up by noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Hannan asked whether we had exhausted non-legislative options to tackle workplace harassment. There is already a wide range of guidance available on workplace harassment, such as the EHRC’s employment code of practice I just mentioned. However, as we have heard today, workplace harassment remains a persistent problem in this country, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, outlined. In particular, the Presidents Club scandal that has been mentioned more than once shows exactly where this country’s legislation fails to protect vulnerable workers: without the Bill, we know that workers have no protection from third-party harassment, other than the good will of their employer, and this is just not right.

The noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Lords, Lord Strathcarron and Lord Moylan, brought up the issue of free speech. I make it clear that the Government appreciate the concerns about free speech. It is a cornerstone of British values and it will only be strengthened, in my opinion, by the Bill. The Bill, though, concerns an employer’s liability only for workplace harassment, not for trivial upset. With all cases of harassment under the Equality Act 2010, courts and tribunals will be required to balance competing rights on the facts of that particular case, including the rights of freedom of expression and of academic freedom, against the right not to be offended, in deciding whether a person has been harassed.

My noble friend Lord Leicester brought up the issue of burden to businesses. We do not believe that compliance with the Bill needs to be onerous. I should be clear that there is no expectation that employers will be able to stop all harassment ever occurring in their organisation—that would be impossible. Instead, the Bill requires employers to take “all reasonable steps” to try to prevent the harassment happening in the first place.

My noble friends Lord Strathcarron and Lord Leicester asked for an example of how the amendment made to Clause 1 in the other place balances free speech and workplace harassment. It may be that the employment tribunal finds that harassment related to race has occurred where an employee overhears a conversation between two other employees concerning the treatment of immigrants. The employer can show that it has taken all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment by having in place an effective anti-harassment policy. The effect of the amendment is that the policy does not need to include the prohibition of conversations about controversial topics in order for an employer to avoid liability. It is about balance and, from the debate so far, I think noble Lords are misunderstanding the balance that the Government want to achieve in this.

My noble friend Lord Leicester brought up the issue of employers being held for employee hypersensitivity. I can understand the concerns that this Bill will lead to employers being held accountable for merely minor offensive comments made in their workplace, or facing excessive employment tribunal claims from hypersensitive employees. I strongly reassure noble Lords that we are not aware of any evidence that this is the case under the existing employer liability for employee-on-employee harassment, and there is no indication that this will occur as a result of this Bill.

My noble friend Lord Leicester also brought up the burden on the hospitality industry. The Government are clear that compliance with the Bill does not need to be onerous, as I have said. Under current legislation, employers are already expected to take all reasonable steps to prevent workplace harassment to avoid legal liability. Employers in the hospitality industry will be experienced in dealing with incidents of harassment carried out by customers and making those judgment calls in their workplace about the most appropriate steps to take to prevent the harassment and abuse of their employees.

My noble friends Lord Leicester and Lord Moylan brought up liability for third parties, saying that it should arise only in relation to sexual harassment. It has never been the case that liability for third-party harassment applied only in relation to sexual harassment. The third-party harassment provisions that were originally in the Equality Act applied to all forms of harassment. When considering the reinstatement of these provisions in their 2019 consultation, the Government made it clear that the options discussed would apply equally to all forms of harassment under the Equality Act 2010, not just sexual harassment. The fact that the general theme of the consultation was about sexual harassment will not detract from that.

My noble friend Lord Moylan asked about subcontractors, particularly in relation to the Presidents Club. I am sure that the Bill does not extend to the genuinely self-employed, as they do not fall within the definition of “employment” under the Act, but the Bill therefore covers subcontractors and agency workers. The people employed for the Presidents Club were probably in that group of people, but we would have to check.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Without referring specifically to the Presidents Club dinner, because none of us knows the actual facts of that, I ask in general terms whether, for a large banquet served by persons supplied by a silver service, the liable employer—given that they are not employed—would be the silver service company, the organisers of the banquet or indeed the owners of the premises, which might be an hotel, in which the banquet took place.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will not answer my noble friend, as I do not have a degree in employment law, but I will ensure that I find the answer for him and put a copy in the Library.

My noble friend Lord Moylan also asked why there are so many conditions in the Commons amendment. I understand that a number of conditions all need to be met for the amendment introduced in the other place to be triggered.

I think that is everything. If I have not answered everyone’s questions, I will look in Hansard and make sure that I get a written answer to everyone. At the same time, if noble Lords still have concerns about the Bill and its contents, I would be more than happy to discuss it further with officials. I am happy for anyone to get in touch with me—we will put something in the diary.

I end by underscoring the cross-party support that the Bill enjoyed in the other place, where speakers from all walks of life appealed to this House to maintain that collaborative spirit. So it is with particular determination that I now commend the Bill to the House. The Government are proud to back it and wish it safe passage through its remaining stages.

Leasehold Reform

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I refer the House to my registered interests and the fact that I am a leaseholder.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State set out in the Commons his intention to bring the outdated and feudal leasehold system to an end. The Government wish to extend the benefits of freehold ownership to more home owners. That is why we have committed to end the sale of new leasehold houses and to reinvigorate commonhold so that it can finally be a genuine alternative to leasehold. We will bring forward further reforms later in this Parliament.

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

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. The residential leasehold system is not fit for purpose. The Government need to make significant progress in this Parliament, as they promised. We are running out of time, and the purpose of my Question today is to seek absolute clarity. Will the Bill we are going to get in the next Session of Parliament abolish residential leasehold as a tenure? The answer is either yes or no.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Leasehold—the noble Lord is not getting a yes or no—is increasingly seen as an outdated form of home ownership and, as I said, the Secretary of State has set out his intention to bring this outdated and feudal tenure to an end. I cannot set out the precise details of the future plan at this stage. However, the Government are committed to creating a fair and just housing system that works for everyone, and we are taking forward a comprehensive programme of reform to end unfair practices in the home ownership market by reinvigorating commonhold, which will also give developers and buyers of flats a genuine alternative to leasehold.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, these are difficult times for leaseholders. Many face high service charges as a result of the cladding scandal, while others, as my noble friend just said, are exploited by a minority of freeholders, and there is uncertainty in the market while we await the Government’s reforms. Can my noble friend do more to publicise the existence of a free, independent advisory service for leaseholders, which is supported by her department, and can she give an assurance that it will have the resources and skills to meet demand?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think my noble friend is probably talking about LEASE, which is a government-sponsored arm’s-length body. The Government provide £1.9 million of funding every year so that leaseholders and park home owners can get free information and advice. We recognise that these people face some parallel complexities and lack of control over some of their properties. We are looking at LEASE—a new chair is being recruited at the moment—and we are looking for it to be a little more impactful, customer friendly and cost effective into the future, as well as leading important work to ensure that the voices of leaseholders and park home owners are listened to.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the future legislation will take careful consideration of issues relating to retirement homes and villages?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am sorry—somebody was talking behind me. Can the noble Baroness please repeat that?

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My question was about ensuring that the future legislation will take into consideration retirement villages and communities.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Absolutely. It is extremely important; if the noble Baroness was in the Chamber last night she would have heard us talking about the planning system as well, making it clear that with an ageing population we need to consider homes of all types for older people in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, have Ministers noted the large number of leasehold ground rent investments on property auction sites, as landlords, aware of potential changes in the law affecting valuations, offload their leasehold ground rent investments? Innocent non-professional buyers, ignorant of potential changes in the law, are now buying them—caveat emptor—placing themselves at risk of substantial loss. Should government not consider secondary legislation which would alert an innocent market to the dangers of buying these leasehold ground rent investments?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Lord brings up a very interesting point. I will take it back to the department and we will discuss it further. These are the sorts of issues that LEASE will be helping potential buyers work their way through.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, since there is a considerable challenge in the housing market, arising partly from Grenfell and the related programme, and there is a shortage of homes at every single level, is this not a case where His Majesty’s Government need to move with speed but also with thoroughness before we take any action?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. Leaseholder issues are complex and contain a lot of legal issues that need to be dealt with. Therefore, we need to take our time, and we are doing so, but the government manifesto says that we will deal with this issue within this Parliament, and we intend to do so.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that freeholders have been empowered to impose the costs of any litigation that has been initiated by an aggrieved leaseholder upon that leaseholder. When will that extraordinary anomaly in British law be corrected?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The Government recognise that the existing statutory requirements do not go far enough to enable leaseholders to identify and challenge those unfair costs. We believe that leaseholders should not be subject to unfair legal costs and should be able to claim them from their landlords, and we are taking action to address that.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, in 2020 the Law Commission recommended commonhold ownership as an option. I thought the Minister committed to that in her Answer. Can she tell us how the Government see this proceeding, and is it one of the principal options that the Government are looking at?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The Government are looking at all options but, as the Secretary of State has said on a number of occasions, we are looking at commonhold.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the only potential benefit I can see is inserting restrictions on non-conforming developments, which the leasehold system provides. It is a good start to call the system outdated and feudal, but can non-conforming developments be prevented by other means, such as the planning system?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The planning system will have to be looked into, but I can say that, interestingly, through the recent rent Act, new builds are now no longer or are very rarely leasehold—they are now freehold—so the developers themselves are looking at this. It is more complex in flats and with multiple occupancy, but in terms of houses very few leasehold properties are available.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My noble friend the Minister will be aware that in many cases the freeholder is a local authority. Can she advise us on what conversations her department has had with local authorities across the country, or representative bodies of local authorities, to make sure that they make it easier for leaseholders to acquire their properties?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will write to the noble Lord with all the details of those conversations. They are being had, but I will give him more information when I write.

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

My Lords, can I just draw the Minister’s attention to some of the excellent Private Members’ Bills, including my own, which seek to address some of the issues that the Minister herself wants to address?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I certainly hope that we get our Bill in before the noble Lord’s.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, community land trusts, co-housing schemes and co-operatives offer different models focused on building community, delivering for the common good rather than focusing on individual profit. Will the Government look into how they can strongly support these creative, innovative models of housing?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The Government do support those forms of housing. We will continue to do so and will look into how we can support them more in the future.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

I hope I have given a good summary of what noble Lords have said. It has been a very interesting debate and we retain our concerns about the centralising tendency of this planning section of the Bill. I hope the Minister has heard the strength of feeling in the Committee on these matters and I look forward to hearing her comments.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this might take a little bit of time. It was quite an in-depth and complicated group of amendments. I want to try and give it as much time as I can. I will go through Hansard, but if I miss anything out, I ask noble Lords to come back to me and I will make sure they get a Written Answer as soon as possible.

I want to start where the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, started: why are we having a national development management policy in legislation? Why are we having this change? The case is fivefold. First, it will do what a number of noble Lords have said that it will not do—it will do completely the opposite. It will help local authorities produce swifter, slimmer plans by removing the need to set out generic issues of national importance. It will make those plans more locally relevant and easier for communities and other users to digest and to get involved in developing, through consultation and communications with local communities.

It will be easier for applicants to align their proposals with national and local policy requirements and, where they wish, to go beyond them. We expect that this will be particularly valuable for SMEs. It will provide greater assurances that important policy safeguards which apply nationally or to significant parts of England, such as protections for areas at risk of flooding, policy on climate change and policy to protect the green belt, will be upheld in statutory weight and applied quickly across the country, including when any changes are made. It will mean that this framework of common national policies can guide decisions, even if the local plan is significantly out of date and cannot be relied on. For example, where there is no up-to-date local plan, it will ensure that the national protections for things safeguarded solely through the planning policy—local wildlife sites, for example—have clear statutory status equivalent to an up-to-date plan. I hope that gives some context for what I am going to go through in relation to the amendments.

Amendment 183 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, seeks to require local authorities to review and update their development plan at least every five years. I reassure noble Lords that we recognise that if local plans are to be effective, they must be kept up to date. Currently, plans must be reviewed to assess whether they need updating at least once every five years and should then be updated as and when necessary. The Government made it clear in the policy paper published alongside the Bill introduction in May 2022 that we intend to require through regulation that authorities commence an update of their local plan every five years. They do not consider it; they do it. Although I fully understand the spirit of the amendment, these procedural matters have traditionally been addressed via regulations and it is our intention to maintain this approach. Consequently, we cannot support this amendment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, mentioned the right to be heard, or not heard, in an inquiry. No right of appearance at an examination applies only to the strategic-level spatial development strategies. This is already a well-established practice and the only spatial development strategy that exists at the moment is the London plan. That one is very specific.

I turn to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham’s Amendments 184A and 187B, which aim to ensure that decisions on planning applications are taken in line with an up-to-date plan, which is defined as one less than five years old. As previously mentioned, we know that, for local plans to be effective, they must be kept up to date. Currently, plans must be reviewed to assess whether they need updating every five years, and they should then be updated as necessary. As I said, we will replace the current review requirement, which is a source of confusion and argument, with a new, clearer requirement in regulation for authorities to commence an update of their local plan every five years. However, it is important that we do not create in law a cliff edge that forces important aspects of plans to be out of date for decision-making purposes just because they are more than five years old. This would, for example, very considerably weaken green-belt protections.

I make it clear to noble Lords that we are retaining the current provision that gives precedence to the most up-to-date development plan policy, should conflicts occur. For example, where the local plan is out of date but a more recently approved neighbourhood plan is in place, the latter would take precedence, which I think is good. I fully understand the intention behind these amendments—they would certainly focus authorities’ minds on plan-making—but I believe that our legislation and policy provisions for keeping plans up to date strike a better balance. As a result, we do not feel we can support these amendments.

My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham also asked what happens if a local authority does not produce a local plan. The Bill retains and updates local plan intervention powers, which have been an important safety net to enable the Secretary of State to take action in certain circumstances in order to ensure that communities can benefit from a plan-led approach to growth.

My noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord Young of Cookham asked about local plans and whether government reforms would close what was referred to as a “loophole”. We intend to introduce this requirement for local authorities to commence the update of their local plans at least every five years, which will close that loophole in the future.

The question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on the important issue of the five-year housing supply, probably relates to this group. To incentivise plan production further and ensure that newly produced plans are not undermined, we have made clear our intention to remove the requirements for local authorities to maintain a rolling five-year supply of deliverable land for housing where their plan is up to date—that is, adopted within the past five years. So, carrot and stick.

I move now to noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendment 185, which tests the Government’s rationale for inserting “strongly” into the new decision-making test for planning applications. This is an important reform that seeks to provide greater certainty in decision-making, so I welcome the opportunity to explain our logic behind the change. Clause 86 reforms decision-making to strengthen the role of the development plan in practice. This includes strategic plans such as the London plan, as well as local plans and neighbourhood plans. Planning application decisions would be able to depart from the development plan and any national development management policies only where

“material considerations strongly indicate otherwise”.

It would no longer be enough for those other considerations merely to “indicate” otherwise.

Simply put, this will support the plan-led system by making it harder for planning decisions not to accord with the development plan and the national development management policies. The bar for developers will be higher if they wish to argue at appeal that their proposals should still gain planning permission even though they do not accord with the development plan and the relevant national development management policies. As a result, the changes are likely to reduce the number of planning appeals that local authorities face and the number of unanticipated developments that communities face on their doorsteps.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sorry; I do not want to try the Minister’s patience, but we are not understanding how the various things sit together—the NPPF and the NDMPs. It is not quite clear to me how that will work, and it will make life very difficult for planning inspectors. We have talked before about a meeting to explain some of this in more detail, and that would be extremely helpful to those of us who are considering the Bill closely. If we could get a better understanding of that, it would be very helpful.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am really happy to do that, because it is complex; there are a lot of acronyms and what have you. I do not think that this is the time of night to be discussing detail, so I am happy to put together a meeting as soon as possible, and we will go through it in detail.

I turn now to Amendment 189, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, which would allow Parliament to make national development management policies itself. Like national planning policy made at present through the National Planning Policy Framework, national development management policies will serve a broad purpose and will sit alongside policies in locally produced plans as a starting point in considering the suitability of development proposals. They will carry forward the role that successive Governments have played since the 1940s in setting high-level national policy that influences plans and decisions. This is a key function of government, which would be undermined by the creation of a dual-power system, as this amendment seeks to do. An effective planning system cannot be achieved if Ministers and Parliament could create contradictory policies by both having the vires to do so. Such a role for Parliament in planning has not been previously proposed, and I am afraid that it is not one that we can support.

Amendment 190, also in the name of the noble Baroness, would impose a legislative restriction on setting fixed standards through national development management policies, while retaining an ability for those policies to set floors which could be exceeded. Unlike building regulations, national planning policies are not used to set specific standards in most cases. Nevertheless, I understand the concern behind the amendment: that national development could, potentially, be used to constrain what locally produced plans are able to do.

The question about how national development management policies are to be used is one that we have consulted on recently. Through that, we were clear that our intention is that they will address planning considerations that apply regularly in decision-making across the country, such as general policies for conserving heritage assets and preventing inappropriate development, including on belts and in areas of high flood risk—the types of policy already contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. Our consultation also said that we were minded to retain the scope for optional technical standards to be set locally through plans so that local planning authorities can go above minimum building standards. The responses to the consultation are being assessed at present, as noble Lords know.

More broadly, it is important that we do not impose restrictions on the national development management policies, which could prevent sensible use of them. It may be appropriate to set absolute standards in one or two instances for reasons of consistency or to prevent harm—for example, in relation to pollution limits. This is best addressed through policy on a case-by-case basis rather than blanket restrictions in legislation. For these reasons, we do not think it necessary or appropriate to impose specific requirements or limitations of the sort that this amendment would entail, so I hope the noble Baroness will understand that we are not able to support it.

I move to Amendment 191, which seeks to probe the direction and modification powers of the Secretary of State to revoke and modify national development management policies. The power to revoke and modify the policies is bound by the same requirements as those to make them, including those on consultation. We recognise that, once the first suite of those policies is published, there must also be a clear legal framework for modifying and revoking them. Like the National Planning Policy Framework, national development management policies will need to evolve over time, reflecting new government priorities and changing economic, social and environmental challenges, as well as trends in planning practice. That is why the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to revoke and modify these policies; without this power, they would become too rigid and potentially ineffective.

However, I would like to reassure noble Lords that the power to revoke and modify the policies will not be used lightly. It is not a mechanism to remove long-standing national planning policies, such as protecting the green belt or tackling flood risk. We want to see consultation, engagement and debate across the sector about potential changes to the policies, in the same way as happens now with the National Planning Policy Framework. Given that any revocation and modification must follow the same procedural requirements as the creation of the new national development management policies, we feel that this amendment is unnecessary and, therefore, not one we can support.

I turn to Amendments 191A and 191B in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, which seek to change the requirements for making national development management policies so that they more clearly mirror those for national policy statements. National policy statements are used to set out the policy for nationally significant infrastructure projects—planning decisions that are made by Ministers. National development management policies will serve a broader purpose than this and will sit alongside policies in locally produced plans when local decision-makers consider the suitability of development proposals. As previously mentioned, they will carry forward the role that successive Governments have played since the 1940s in setting high-level national policy that influences plans and decisions.

Clause 87 already imposes an obligation on the Secretary of State to ensure that consultation and participation take place as appropriate, and our recent consultation on the future of the NPPF and the NDMP confirms that public consultation will be carried out before they are designated.

The requirements in this Bill set out that the Secretary of State must explicitly consider public consultation when determining what consultation is appropriate. This is similar to the approach for national policy statements, which also require consultation as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate, although they do not include explicit consideration of “public” consultation as in the existing clause.

I acknowledge that the existing clause uses the phrase “if any” in relation to consultation. It includes this as there may be rare occasions where it would be appropriate not to consult on a draft national development management policy, such as if urgent changes are needed in the national interest. For example, during the pandemic, the Secretary of State was able to issue an urgent Written Ministerial Statement in July 2020 to temporarily change national planning policy so that theatres, concert halls and live music performance venues could be given a degree of protection where they were temporarily vacant due to Covid-19 business disruption.

The changes that we discussed earlier to the decision-making test in Clause 86, which strengthen the weight given to the development plan over material considerations, mean that such a policy would have had significantly less weight in planning decisions today, unless it was made a national development management policy.

I hope I have reassured noble Lords that we have developed a proportionate framework for creating national development management policies, and explained why we have taken a different approach from that for national policy statements, meaning that we do not feel able to accept this amendment.

Amendment 196, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny of national development management policies within 120 days of the Bill’s passage. As I have set out, the Bill makes appropriate provision for consultation, which is reinforced by the clear commitment in our recent consultation that we will consult on these policies. Against this backdrop, we believe that a legal obligation to publish a strategy for consultation is unnecessary, and so this is an amendment that we feel unable to support.

I turn next to Amendment 194, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, which would require the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to publish annual reports reflecting the cost of producing and maintaining national development management policies and any support given to local planning authorities. I reassure the noble Baroness that national development management policies will not create a new financial burden for local planning authorities or central government. The cost of producing national development management policies as a function of the Secretary of State will fall to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. We expect that the cost of preparing and maintaining national development management policies—in Civil Service resource and specialist expertise—will be similar to that for producing and maintaining the National Planning Policy Framework. We will also ensure that the Planning Advisory Service, which my department funds, provides local planning authorities with training and support to help manage the practical transition to using national development management policies when they are making decisions.

Against these upfront costs, local planning authorities will financially benefit from national development management policies, as they will not need to develop or justify these policies themselves when their plans are examined by the Planning Inspectorate. As our impact assessment makes clear, national development management policies will provide greater certainty to developers and communities, potentially providing significant savings for businesses. Our impact assessment estimates that the benefits of increasing certainty in the planning system due to the measures in the Bill will be just over £2.8 billion over a 10-year appraisal period. For the reasons that I have set out, while I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment, it is not one that I am able to support.

Amendment 216, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and Amendment 220, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would remove the requirement for local plans to be consistent with national development management policies and prevent such a requirement in regulations. These amendments would fundamentally diminish the ability of our reforms to make local plans easier to prepare and to create more certainty for applicants, communities and local planning authorities. Through the Bill we are strengthening the role of the development plan in decision-making by changing Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 so that planning applications must be decided in accordance with the development plan and the national development management policies unless material considerations strongly indicate otherwise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I hope my noble friend will forgive me for interrupting. I understand the point she is making about Amendment 216, and why she is resisting removing the idea that local plans must not be inconsistent with national development management policies, but it also says, “or (in substance) repeat”.

I am trying to understand. Let us take the chapter in the NPPF on green belt. The first part is about plan-making for the green belt, and the second part is about proposals coming forward within green belt land and the criteria that should be applied as to whether or not an application would be accepted. On that latter part, is my noble friend saying that the local plan cannot repeat that—that it must therefore refer to it but not repeat it? Is that the point she is making?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The whole idea of moving national policies away from local policies is that we do not have to repeat them. I will reflect on what my noble friend says about how it is referred if an area has a particular issue with something such as the green belt and come back to him, because I think he has a point.

Amendment 221, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, seeks to require older people’s housing needs assessments to be included in the evidence for local plans and would require local authorities to consider the needs for older people’s housing when preparing such plans. While I entirely understand the sentiment behind this amendment, the proposed approach is not needed. National policy already sets strong expectations, and we recently consulted on strengthening this further. The existing National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community, including older people, should be assessed and reflected in planning policies. In 2019, we also published guidance to help local authorities implement the policies that can deliver on this expectation.

I also make it clear to noble Lords that, to further improve the diversity of housing options available to older people and to boost the supply of specialist elderly accommodation, we have proposed to strengthen the existing policy by adding a specific expectation that, when ensuring the needs of older people are met, particular regard is given to retirement housing, housing with care and care homes. We know these are important types of housing that can help support our ageing population.

Furthermore, there is already a provision in the Bill that sets out that the Secretary of State must issue guidance for local planning authorities on how their local plan and any supplementary plans, taken as a whole, should address housing needs that result from old age or disability. These are strong legislative and policy safeguards which should ensure that the needs of older people are taken fully into account. For that reason, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Best, will understand why we do not support this amendment.

I note that there is a question from my noble friend Lord Young and the noble Lord, Lord Best, on the task force. I will go back to the department and ask for an update. I can assure noble Lords that I will give them one in the next couple of days—certainly before Recess or Report.

I hope I have said enough to enable the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, to withdraw her Amendment 183 and for the other amendments in this group not to be moved when reached.

Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Lords Chamber

One reason I particularly wanted to draw attention to this is that there have unfortunately been numerous SIs from Defra over the past couple of years where there have been errors that have needed to be corrected, which has meant that the SIs have then come back to us. This is not an isolated incident across government. Apart from the problems and difficulties that a faulty piece of legislation can cause, the Government keep saying that they are short of parliamentary time. If they got the legislation right in the first place, perhaps we could all work better and more efficiently.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for securing this important debate to discuss the Building Safety (Leasehold Protections) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023. I also pay tribute to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its careful consideration of the regulations and to the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords who have contributed to this discussion.

As noble Lords will know, the regulations correct an error in a previous instrument to ensure that, when assessing liability for the costs of remediating relevant defects, the consideration of the net worth of a landlord group for the purpose of the contribution condition includes parent and sister companies, as originally intended.

The department does not collect data on leaseholders who are liable to pay for the remediation of historical safety defects, not least because it is not a centralised process. We have, however, been made aware by leaseholders and, indeed, parliamentarians, of a very small number of cases where landlords state that they did not believe they met the contribution condition because of this unfortunate and unintended error. As I say, to date these cases are small in number, but of course we must say sorry to those people, because it will affect them, however few they are.

Due to the caps for qualifying leaseholders in relation to non-cladding remediation and interim measures, the maximum amount such qualifying leaseholders could have been charged is limited to £1,000—or £1,500 in Greater London—over the past year. Landlords are already required to produce a new landlord certificate which complies with these regulations in specified circumstances, including within four weeks of becoming aware of a relevant defect not covered by a previous certificate.

I wanted to make sure your Lordships were aware that the Building Safety Act already includes anti-avoidance and enforcement provisions to ensure that those who are liable to pay do so, and, where it is just and equitable, that costs incurred for historical safety remediation may be recovered. Remediation contribution orders allow interested persons—including local authorities, fire and rescue services and leaseholders—to apply to the First-tier Tribunal, as we heard, for an order requiring a landlord, developer or associated company to make payments in connection with remediation costs. Applications to the First-tier Tribunal for a remediation contribution order cost £100.

The department is clear that any opportunities to avoid the protections needed to be closed off swiftly, and that is what these regulations have done. Although it may be possible to give retrospective provision in law—as the protections in the Building Safety Act do—there is a general presumption not to apply new law retrospectively, and the department does not believe it would be proportionate to do so in this case. The Government therefore have no plans to introduce retrospective provision through primary legislation.

The department has published extensive guidance on the GOV.UK website to explain the leaseholder protections, including information relating to remediation contribution orders. Those affected who write to the department—and I encourage any noble Lord who knows of anyone who is worried about this to tell them to come to the department—will be informed of their options and directed to the guidance to help them to make an informed decision. Of course, each case is different, and leaseholders may wish to consider seeking legal advice before pursuing avenues of recompense.

LEASE—the leasehold advisory service—is providing free support and guidance to leaseholders who face costs for historic safety defects, and officials in my department continue to look at new ways to raise awareness of the leaseholder protection provisions to all leaseholders. These regulations are being issued free of charge to all known recipients of the 2022 regulations, and I put on record my assurance that the department will update GOV.UK guidance to further raise awareness of available redress options, with notifications sent to those who have signed up for them.

The circumstances surrounding the leaseholder protection legislation introduced last summer—particularly the speed of its preparation—were highly unusual, but necessary to ensure that leaseholders were afforded the financial protections under the Building Safety Act without delay. As my honourable friend the Building Safety Minister, Lee Rowley MP, said in his letter to the committee, we are confident that we can rely on the department’s processes that have long been in place, but which were abbreviated last summer, to ensure that, as far as possible, such mistakes will be avoided in the future.

I should like to deal with a couple of further questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred several times to developers and their related companies. I point out that these regulations refer to landlords; that is, building owners. The mistake has no effect on the liability on developers.

I have answered the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, in that we think that this is a very small number. Of course, if anybody knows of any such person, we will give them the support they might need to ensure they get the redress they should have. I hope I have answered all your Lordships’ questions. As ever, I will happily follow up in writing on anything I have not covered, and I am very happy to meet with any noble Lords to discuss this issue further.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing forward the debate today. We can all agree that qualifying leaseholders should be protected from the costs of historical safety remediation. This legislation is important in ensuring that landlords’ groups that meet the contribution condition must meet the full costs of both non-cladding remediation and interim measures. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her Motion.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for their support.

The right reverend Prelate has been at the heart of this issue for the six years since the awful Grenfell tragedy; he knows first hand, as he said, the devastating impact it has had on leaseholders. Perhaps I am wrong in saying this, but it was almost the last straw, in that all of us across the House had tried so hard to get the Building Safety Act to provide legislative ways of delivering remedies for leaseholders, and at that moment when everything should have been put right as far as possible—there are omissions that I still intend to pursue—an error crept in. Even then, where things were put right, innocent leaseholders were at the mercy of landlords who wanted to pass on the costs to them. The Minister has said that it is a small number but actually, we have no idea whether it is small or large, and the Government should find out.

I am grateful to the Minister for apologising for the error on behalf of the Government. I accept that it crept in inadvertently, but apologies do not pay bills. Leaseholders have had enormous bills of up to £10,000 from the cascade cap, which they would be required to pay. I am disappointed with the Minister’s response, both to my regret Motion—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The £10,000 would have been over 10 years, and we have stopped it at the end of the first year, so the maximum that would have been required was £1,000. I just wanted to clarify that. I would not want it to be £10,000.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister for pointing that out. I will see what the legislation says.

I am very disappointed with her response and the response to the request by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which also made a very strong statement that the Government ought to find out how many leaseholders were affected and provide them with information and support. This is a government error, albeit one made inadvertently. The Government ought to be leading the way in showing that if errors are made, efforts are made to put them right. Currently, no efforts are being made to put this right. Therefore, I want to underline my considerable concern that the Government are not intending to take any action, and I would like to test the opinion of the House.

Higher-Risk Buildings (Key Building Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 23 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 14 March.

Motion agreed.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 20th March 2023 Lords Chamber

In conclusion, toxic air is killing, or contributing to the deaths of, many thousands of people in the UK every year, and the Conservative Government have not tackled the problem yet—we had much debate about this during the passage of the Environment Act. While this is a matter for the Mayor of London, during his leadership he has taken action to tackle killer air pollution and to put the health of residents first. I am sure that noble Lords have worked out by now that we do not support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. But we think it important to point out that, alongside the existing ULEZ, the mayor has supported Londoners, micro-businesses and charities to scrap or retrofit their non-compliant vehicles, so funds are available for the extension. We now need action from government and mayors across the country to do everything they can to stop the air pollution that is causing so much harm.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 176, tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan, would change the local consents required for traffic emission road-charging schemes to be introduced, and apply these new requirements retrospectively. I reassure the Committee that this amendment is not necessary for regions outside London as it maintains the status quo. In London, the amendment as drafted could remove established devolved powers from an elected mayor and as we have discussed in Committee, this is not our intention for devolution.

In London, under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 the mayor has the authority to create a new road scheme that charges users, or vary one, so long as doing so will directly or indirectly facilitate the achievement of the policies and proposals in the mayor’s transport strategy. As drafted, this amendment could be in conflict with the Greater London Authority Act, and it would potentially create legal uncertainty and conflict between the mayor and the London borough councils.

The Department for Transport has not made statements in support of the ULEZ: Transport Ministers have been completely clear that this has been a matter for the mayor to decide. I understand that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has been engaging and will continue to engage with MPs whose constituents may be impacted by the proposed ULEZ expansion.

Outside London, charging schemes have been introduced for addressing congestion issues, improving air quality and raising funds for investment in new transport infrastructure and improving transport quality. The Transport Act 2000 already sets out how road-charging schemes can be introduced. In combined authority areas, these powers are held between the combined authority and the local traffic authorities—that is, the constituent authorities of the CA. Therefore, outside London local authorities are already required to introduce schemes and existing legislation already delivers what this amendment seeks to achieve.

Additionally, the amendment would require the reconfirmation of a number of existing charging schemes and it would allow any local authority unilaterally to revoke them. These schemes have been introduced and agreed locally and, where they cover multiple local authorities, agreed jointly. Decisions on whether to amend or revoke these schemes would therefore also be made jointly, as the powers in the Transport Act 2000 already ensure. I nevertheless recognise how important this issue is not only to my noble friend but to many others, and not just in London. I am happy to meet with him to discuss these matters further.

Amendment 178B, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan, seeks to lower the threshold for amending the Mayor of London’s final draft budget from two-thirds of assembly members present and voting to a simple majority. While the amendment would undoubtedly strengthen the power of the London Assembly and mirror the voting threshold applied at earlier stages of the assembly’s consideration of the mayor’s annual budget, it must also be balanced against the benefits of the current strong mayoral model in London. I agree with my noble friend that it is crucial in any of these systems that we have strong audit and scrutiny. That is why the Bill strengthens both audit and scrutiny committees in these new authorities.

I recognise my noble friend’s interest in and experience of London governance matters and I would be pleased, as I say, to engage with him not only on his earlier amendments but these. Perhaps we might review the operation of London’s devolution settlement separately from the Committee’s consideration of the Bill, and I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment at this time.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for what was a very valuable debate and I shall briefly go through those who spoke.

The noble Lord, Lord Tope, put his finger on it by saying that this is really a question that will not go away: about the balance of powers in areas that have strong regional government—combined authorities, metropolitan mayors and so forth—with the local councils, the constituent councils. As my noble friend the Minister made clear, those arrangements differ in different parts of the country, but we have to learn lessons from them and apply those lessons in an evolving way to existing structures; we cannot just dig our heels in and say that what was good in 1999 is good for ever. We have to be able to improve things; we understood that. On the question of subsection (2), I had a strong sense, listening to the noble Lord, that we were actually in violent agreement, but I am going to speak to him afterwards to discover if there is a difference between us and what can be done to reconcile our understanding of the boundary issue.

I was very grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I give some credit to the Green Party here as an example of what can be achieved by a more democratic scrutiny of the mayor’s budget. Only a few weeks ago, in consideration of the mayor’s budget the Green Party put forward in the assembly a costed amendment that would have required the mayor to introduce lavatories at up to 70 London stations. It got a majority in the London assembly; it was supported by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats; of course, it fell. Having a majority is not enough in this sort of democracy. There is something very strange about that; however, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her support.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, was right to point out that the weakness of process and the rushing of air quality measures is provoking a backlash and cynicism among the voters. She also expressed very well the genuine and real suffering of those who face the prospect of the current proposed ULEZ scheme in London. I have to be honest: what I would expect if this amendment were passed is not that boroughs would actually block a mayoral scheme to introduce a ULEZ; they would moderate it, because they too are interested in better air quality, and so are local people. They would have their say, so it would be introduced in a slower and more manageable way, with more local consensus and better support for those who are in need of making what can be a very expensive transition.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, drew on a very long experience of local government again to put her finger on the question of the democratic deficit. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, made it abundantly clear that the Labour Party stands four-square behind the Labour mayor’s proposal to impose a ULEZ on outer London; there was not one word of criticism.

She mentioned the estimate of 4,000 premature deaths in London. I do not dispute that figure, but it is difficult to know what it means: is a premature death 10 years before you would have died or a week before? These are difficult figures to interpret, but that figure I regard as reliable and I am not disputing it in any way. However, I want to point out is that when I was deputy chairman of Transport for London—a post that came to an end in 2016—and on the board, the figure was also 4,000. The measures are introduced—the local traffic neighbourhoods, the ULEZes—but the estimated figure never changes. So is it really doing any good?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I will comment briefly on the three amendments in this group, starting with Amendment 511 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, about capital finance controls in local government. All I would say is that every local authority is required to have an external audit by a professional audit company to undergo a thorough inspection of its finances. It seems to me that the easiest way round this issue is to extend the requirement of the external audit to include a detailed investigation of any capital financing arrangements. That would reduce or eliminate all the additional requirements in the Bill and put the requirement on the external audit company to do a thorough audit of the council’s finances. If problems are exposed, the issues can then be resolved. This would mean that other local authorities which behave prudently are not caught up in the fairly strict regime that is being proposed.

Turning briefly to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, I totally support his Amendment 177 on improving standards of consultation for public bodies, particularly local authorities. There ought to be—I am sure there is—a standard for consultations that every public body, particularly local authorities, ought to adhere to.

On business improvement districts, I say that it is shocking to me that they could be established without full consultation and understanding by local residents. I would say, just as a point of history really, that our local councils used to have a big voice from local business. Businesses used to want to be elected to serve on their local council, where their voices could be heard and they could influence decisions that were made. Sadly, that tradition has disappeared, and there are fewer and fewer businesspeople who seek election to local authorities. This has led to the use of another way of trying to engage businesses in improving small areas such as this by giving them powers through the business improvement districts. So, yet again, these districts bypass local democracy, which is why I support the proposals in Amendment 178.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Northbrook for moving Amendment 177. I cannot respond on specific local authorities, as he may realise, but I think that noble Lords have had a good discussion about said local authorities.

Statutory frameworks and clear rules for consultation already exist in some service areas, such as planning, and provide guidance on the required length and scope of consultation. There is a statutory publicity code, which is clear that all local authority communications must be objective and even-handed. Councils can carry out non-statutory consultations to allow residents to shape local decisions and plans. Greater involvement for local people can only be a good thing, and local authorities should be free to adapt their approach based on local need and requirements for these non-statutory consultations. A requirement for all consultations to be carried out by third parties would impose additional costs on local authorities, which might encourage less consultation and engagement, rather than more. I hope that, in the light of this explanation, my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment and not press his other amendments in this group.

Amendment 178 concerns business improvement districts—or BIDs, as they are often called. It is best practice for a BID to promote its actions so that levy payers and the community can see what is being achieved. Many BIDs keep an up-to-date website and engage regularly via social media to discuss their work. BIDs are intended to be business-led, business-funded organisations. It is right that the businesses that will be required to fund the BID make the decisions on whether there should be consultations.

My noble friend Lord Northbrook asked about local authorities on BID boards. There are local authorities on BID boards in Birmingham, Bristol, London and Newcastle, as well as in other places.

Regarding the review of BID arrangements, as I have said, the legislation does not preclude residents and members of the community from being consulted on a BID proposal or represented on a BID board. Many authorities are on BID boards in their local areas. We are not looking to review business improvement districts; in fact, we are looking closely at work that is being done on community improvement districts, which include community groups, local people and businesses. That work is being run by Power to Change, and we are keeping a close eye on the pilots and following them with interest.

Amendment 511, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would apply across the Bill and would require the Secretary of State to give local authorities advance notice where provisions creating new responsibilities for them are to be commenced. In any circumstances, those gaining new responsibilities should be aware of them in good time. However, we do not consider that this amendment is needed. As I hope has been clear from our responses earlier in the debate, the Government entirely agree on the importance of collaboration with local authorities for our reforms to be successful. We are already working with local authorities on many of our reforms and will continue to do so. I can therefore confirm that the Government have no intention of introducing responsibilities for local authorities without the appropriate preparation, including supporting them both to understand those responsibilities and to manage any transition. In many cases, this work will include further consultation with local authorities and others to shape regulations and inform supporting guidance.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked a couple of questions. I will look at those and give her a written answer. I hope that noble Lords will withdraw or not press their amendments.

Housing: Conditions in Rented Sector

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent steps they have taken to improve housing conditions for both social housing and privately rented properties.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

The Government set out their ambition in the levelling-up White Paper to reduce the number of non-decent rented homes by 50% by 2030, with the biggest improvement in the lowest-performing areas. We are making progress in the social rented sector by introducing a new proactive consumer regulation regime through the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill. In the private rented sector, for the first time, we consulted on applying a minimum quality standard and we remain committed to reviewing the decent homes standard.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

From the latest English Housing Survey, the private sector has the highest proportion of non-decent homes, at 23%, whereas the figure is 10% in the social housing sector. While we had the White Paper, A Fairer Private Rented Sector, last year, we are still waiting on a renters reform Bill, which would introduce a decent home standard for the private rented sector, as well as ending no-fault evictions—something promised one way or another since 2019. When will the Minister, her department and the Government get a grip and take some meaningful action to prevent a repeat of the tragic experience that Awaab Ishak and his family faced in Rochdale? I note that the Government have introduced Awaab’s law in the social housing sector, but why are they neglecting the situation in the private housing sector?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We are fully committed to delivering a package of reforms that deliver our manifesto commitment to abolish no-fault Section 21 evictions, strengthen private sector renting and support both tenants and good landlords. The reforms are a once in a generation opportunity for change, and it is important that we get it right. Legislation on private rented sector reform remains a top priority for this Government and we will bring forward a renters reform Bill as soon as we can within this Parliament.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, further to the noble Lord’s Question, most private landlords keep their properties in a good condition, but a minority do not. In those cases, where the tenant complains to the local council about a dangerous property, that tenant can be protected from what is called “retaliatory eviction”, so long as the council serves an improvement notice on the landlord. However, this is happening in only about a quarter of such cases, meaning that three-quarters of tenants are exposed to eviction under Section 21. What can my noble friend do to ensure that more local authorities give tenants the protection that they are entitled to?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right: local councils are responsible for enforcing standards in the private rented sector and have a duty to take action where they find hazards at the most dangerous category 1 level. The Secretary of State has asked all local housing authorities to do everything in their power to improve the conditions for tenants and to have particular regard to high-score category 2 damp and mould hazards when enforcing current standards. The Secretary of State has also asked councils to provide an assessment of damp and mould issues particularly affecting private rented housing in their area. The department is currently analysing their responses to determine what needs to be done to address the issues raised by my noble friend.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, has the Minister’s department had a chance to look at the recommendation from the Affordable Housing Commission for a national housing conversion fund that would finance local housing associations to acquire from private landlords properties that need a lot of attention? This would increase the amount of safe, affordable, secure social housing at the same time as improving the property, ending or reducing fuel poverty and having an impact on climate change as well. Is this a real bargain for government?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I have not got an answer on that specific report, but I can say that this Government are investing £11.5 billion in new, good, affordable housing, £8.6 billion of which had already been allocated. So we are looking at more good housing and, at the same time, we are challenging to ensure that those responsible for social housing in particular are making sure that those houses are in good condition.

[Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a landlord and a former renter. I am all in favour of a decent homes standard, but when will the Government introduce regulation of letting and managing agents? Some of these agencies are real cowboys. They deal in millions of pounds and they are completely unregulated. When will the Government stop dithering and introduce regulation?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not have a timescale for the introduction, but we are looking at this issue. We have found that some of these sectors are self-regulating much better than they were, but we will continue to keep an eye on this issue and forward it to legislation if necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, what additional consideration is being given to the millions of pensioners, many living in poorly heated social housing and rented property conditions, who, despite existing support schemes and fearful of escalating bills, appear unwilling to turn up the heat and too often suffer in silence? Despite the excellent work of charities such as Age Concern, should not further support be given to targeting this vulnerable group with sensitive advice and even government-sponsored visitor support programmes, perhaps through a multiplicity of agencies?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Lord brings up a very important point. As he knows, the Government have put £37 billion into supporting all households through this difficult economic time. Specifically for older people, what I have been doing, personally, as a Minister for Faith, is talking to faith and community leaders about doing exactly this—ensuring that older people, particularly, and disabled people, know what they are entitled to, making sure that they get it and also stopping some of the fear that is happening. I also thank the many warm hubs this winter that have been opening their doors in churches and community centres in order to look after these people and make sure they know what they are entitled to.

[The Lord Bishop of Exeter]

My Lords, there is an important rural dimension to this issue. In north Devon, the vast majority of privately rented property has been turned into Airbnb, creating a crisis in rural housing. Does the Minister think that the ability of local authorities to levy council tax is sufficiently robust to tackle this problem? If not, what plans do His Majesty’s Government have to legislate to address this problem, which is escalating every day?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate. If he looks at the LUR Bill, he will see that we are dealing with this exact problem at the moment. It will probably be debated next week in this Chamber and I look forward to being able to tell him further about what we are going to do.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, I do not think it is a discourtesy to the House; it is part of the process and we will be discussing it further, I am sure, on Tuesday, when the Commons amendments come back to the House on the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Does the noble Baroness agree that, in those cases where the only realistic way of having a house in appalling condition repaired is to sue the landlord, including social landlords, in the county courts, it is completely unconscionable that tenants should have to wait between a year and 18 months for those cases to be heard? What are the Government going to do to deal with the backlog in the county courts?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill that we were talking about earlier will deal with a lot of that problem, particularly with Awaab’s law that has entered that Bill in the Commons. There will be clear timescales, first, for housing providers to respond to tenants, and, secondly, for any serious safety defects in housing to also be dealt with in a good timescale.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness will agree that housing associations are very keen to do more to regenerate existing housing but are unable to do so without additional government funding. Will she confirm that the Government will look to maximise the use of the existing funding through the affordable homes programme to support housing-led regeneration right across the country?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, it is the responsibility of social housing providers to maintain their properties, and that includes regeneration, but we have found a £30 million fund to help Greater Manchester and the West Midlands and we will be looking at what more we can do for the sector.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for curtailing the previous Question with seven seconds to go. Hopefully, I will be more benevolent to him in the future.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I completely understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, has brought her concerns forward. This is clearly a really important issue in Yorkshire, where she lives. I also think it draws to your Lordships’ attention that much in the Bill is perhaps not as straightforward as it would appear at first glance, and that things affect different areas in different ways. Perhaps the Government should look again at some parts of the Bill where there will be different impacts from those perhaps originally envisaged. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, has drawn attention to one of these areas.

The noble Baroness mentioned the National Fire Chiefs Council. This is an opportunity to put on record the National Fire Chiefs Council’s response to the Government’s recent review of police and crime commissioners, as that puts it in the context of these clauses and our discussions about how the Bill relates to fire services and PCCs. The Government’s review looked at fire services, policing, governance and voluntary and community organisations. There were certain specifics relating to fire. The Government said that they would further look at:

“Consulting on whether to mandate the transfer of fire and rescue functions to the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner model across England where boundaries are coterminous, unless there is an option to transfer fire governance directly to an elected Mayor … Legislating to create operational independence for Chief Fire Officers and to clearly separate and delineate strategic and operational planning for fire and rescue … Considering options to clarify the legal entities within the PFCC model.”


They stated that

“the Government is clear that further reform of fire and rescue is required in order to respond to the recommendations from Phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, the Kerslake Review and to build on the findings from Sir Thomas Winsor’s State of Fire and Rescue Report”.

Any reform would

“focus on three key areas: people; professionalism; and governance”.

In response, the National Fire Chiefs Council said

“if fire services are governed by a Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner (PFCC)”—

we already know that some already are—

“it is imperative CFOs roles are safeguarded and have the same standing as a Chief Constable. Currently, Chief Constables … act as the employer and have operational independence. The same operational positioning for CFOs is vital, together with”

a wider status sitting alongside police forces. We know that fire services are driven by risk and risk factors; they are not as demand-led as police forces, and a number of key operational, organisational and cultural differences sit between the two services. When working with them, we need different approaches; there are different functions, and a different kind of political understanding needs to come with that.

We only need to look back over the last couple of years to see the response to the pandemic and how fire services were able to adapt quickly to the frequent challenges which emerged. However, it also showed that there are some areas that need reform to ensure that the public continue to receive the outstanding response they expect. We know that the public have huge respect and support for our fire services.

We must not forget the role of the fire services to serve communities, putting them first while reducing risk and saving lives. We must not lose sight of that when making reforms, because any reform that happens will be a pretty major undertaking and will need to be resourced appropriately. If changes come from the Bill to the way fire services are managed, we must not lose resources, and they must be carried out in a consistent, joined-up manner.

There also has to be proper clarity around the political leadership. How will that operate? With appropriate political oversight, CFOs will be well placed to deliver the operational running of services, using strong data and the evidence they need. However, if we are moving in the direction that the Bill is suggesting, there must be a democratic mandate, good governance, accountability and robust political decision-making, otherwise there is a risk of undermining the community’s trust in those services, which is critical.

We also need clear lines of responsibility, and we should have national guidance and standards on this for all forces, PCCs and fire services to follow. Any strategic direction of budgets has to be properly evidence-based, with clearly defined roles for the people who are part of those services.

To conclude, one of the things we are concerned about, which came across in the earlier contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, is the confusion presented by so many different models, both those which currently exist and those which will be expanded by the proposals in the Bill. So clarity going forward is critical.

I turn, very briefly, to Amendment 122A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. He is absolutely right to be concerned about the fact that the Secretary of State in this part of the Bill is basically being allowed to do whatever they like. The whole Bill has been pitched as devolving power, but this is centralising power, and it goes against the spirit of what we felt the Bill proposed to be. We need proper checks and balances on any powers given to PCCs and the Secretary of State, so we completely support the noble Lord’s amendment. Any Secretary of State should not be able to amend, revoke or repeal at a whim.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the ability of combined county authority mayors to take on fire and rescue functions. On issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond—it is very nice to see her; we miss her in the House—Clause 32 enables the mayor of a combined county authority to exercise fire and rescue functions in the same way that a mayor of a combined authority can. We have seen this already in Greater Manchester, where the mayor has taken on the police and crime commissioner role and fire and rescue functions.

This allows public safety functions to be taken as a package where there is a local desire for this—we are not imposing it—and boundaries are co-terminous. It is worth noting that this is a choice for the local area, allowing the decision to be taken at the most local level, in line with the principle of localism. We are also keen to ensure that, whenever possible, the functions of combined authorities and combined county authorities should be the same. This starts to answer the noble Baroness opposite: we are trying to simplify things; we are not trying to add different complications. We are trying to make the combined authorities and combined county authorities—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister. She has said that the decision will be made only if it is supported democratically. Yet Clause 33(4)(b) says that

“at least two thirds of the constituent members of the CCA”

can indicate that

“they disagree with the proposal for the regulations to be made”,

and Clause 33(5) says that the mayor, in providing a report to the Secretary of State, must give their response to those same proposals. I thought that democracy was about winning the argument, not finding a way around it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The Secretary of State would have an independent review of the decision and would make a decision taking all that into account.

We are also keen, as I say, to make sure that those combined authorities and combined county authorities operate in the same way to ensure this consistent approach to devolving these functions to mayors, whether they are leading a combined authority or a combined county authority. This clause achieves that for the exercise of fire and rescue functions by replicating the existing provisions in the 2009 Act.

I turn to issues raised by the noble Baroness regarding Clause 33. The single-employer model is just one option available to combined county authority mayors with both police and crime and fire and rescue authority functions, allowing the area’s chief constable to run both operational services. A mayor of a CCA could seek to utilise the model if they felt that doing so would deliver a more effective service. To go back to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, if we are talking about fire and rescue and police and crime, an effective service is one that keeps people safe; that is their job and I suggest that, if it is effective, that is exactly what they are doing.

As far as York and North Yorkshire are concerned, the fire and rescue service and the police and crime functions are, as the noble Baroness said, already adjoined, but without the use of a single employer. That has not been taken into account in York and North Yorkshire, and there is no reason to think that the mayor will do that. At the moment, the combined authority still has to go through parliamentary approval, so that will be something for local people in the future.

Clause 33 sets out the process required for the mayor of a combined county authority to request fire and rescue functions. The clause is an important part of the procedure to be followed when fire and rescue functions have been conferred on a combined county authority mayor as part of the single-employer model. It ensures that there is sufficient scrutiny from both constituent councils of the CCA and the public because it requires the mayor to provide a report setting out an assessment of the benefits of the conferral and a summary of the public consultation carried out, along with a specific summary of representations from the constituent members of the CCA and the mayoral response to them.

This clause also contains further scrutiny to make sure that any proposal will deliver more effective services for an area. The Secretary of State has to obtain and publish an independent assessment of a proposal from a combined county authority mayor if two-thirds or more of the constituent members of the CCA oppose the transfer. The Secretary of State will then agree to transfer the functions only if they consider that doing so is in the interests of public safety for that area.

Removing the clause would remove key conditions for fire and rescue functions to be transferred to the mayor of a combined county authority and could therefore potentially lead to proposals going forward that have not been subject to either sufficient consultation or robust assessment. This in turn could lead to an ineffective implementation of the model and inconsistent application of it between areas.

I move on to issues the noble Baroness raised regarding Clause 34. This clause enables the Secretary of State to make provisions relating to the administrative operation of fire and rescue services, should a combined county authority mayor request these functions and transfer them to their chief constable to carry out on their behalf under the single-employer model. The clause is necessary because it enables there to be a scheme to transfer property, rights and liabilities as part of implementing the single-employer model. It also allows the chief constable to appoint staff as part of delegating their fire and rescue functions, subject to the necessary and important restrictions on who can carry out these responsibilities so that operational independence between policing and fire is maintained.

Removing this clause would make it very difficult for the chief constable to carry out their functions under the single-employer model, because they would not have access to key assets or be able to effectively resource their delivery. This would therefore lead to an ineffective implementation of the model and would hinder its day-to-day operation in a way that could ultimately impact on the successful delivery of these public safety functions for the area concerned.

On the issues raised by the noble Baroness on Clause 35, this clause sets out safeguards governing the exercise of fire and rescue functions where the single-employer model is being operated. These include a requirement on the chief constable to make sure that they secure good value for money, and an obligation on the CCA mayor to hold those exercising functions under the model to account. This clause is another important part of the process and procedure to be followed when these functions have been conferred on the mayor as part of the single-employer model. Where possible, the processes for handling the functions available to be conferred on combined county authority mayors are the same as those for combined authority mayors and subject to the same requirements.

Removing the clause would mean that the single-employer model would work less well in practice because important safeguards on the exercise of fire and rescue functions under the model would be lost. This in turn would lead to ineffective implementation of the model and inconsistent application of it between areas.

I turn to issues raised by the noble Baroness in relation to Clause 36. This clause enables the Secretary of State by regulation to make provisions corresponding to Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 dealing with complaints and conduct matters. This clause is an optional power to be used when these functions have been conferred on a combined county authority mayor as part of implementing the single-employer model. It specifically relates to complaint and conduct matters for members of a police force and their civilian staff or members of staff transferred to a chief constable or appointed by them where they are exercising functions under the single-employer model.

Removing the clause would mean that the methods for dealing with complaints and conduct matters could not be specified for those carrying out functions under the single-employer model where a combined county authority mayor has decided to use it to exercise their police and crime and fire and rescue functions. Without this clause, it would be much more difficult for any complaints and conduct matters to be handled consistently and efficiently, thereby hindering the effective implementation and day-to-day operation of the single-employer model.

Clause 37 allows the Secretary of State to transfer the application of fire and rescue provisions under Section 32 to specified persons where regulations have transferred these functions to the chief constable of the area. Removing this clause would mean that the Secretary of State would not be able to make further provisions applying a fire and rescue enactment or new corresponding provisions in relation to chief constables to whom fire and rescue functions have been delegated as part of the use of the single-employer model. As such, removing this clause would hinder the effective implementation of the single-employer model.

Amendment 122A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, relates to powers under Clause 38.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I have listened very carefully both to the speeches that were made regarding the power of fire and rescue and police being together and the noble Baroness’s answers. I assume the purpose of this is not just an administrative difference but actually to improve the services of fire and police to people where this merger happens. Has the Minister looked at the four areas where this has happened, and His Majesty’s inspector of fire and police? Do those areas actually have a better service, an average service or a worse service than the national average?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I cannot answer the noble Lord in detail, but I will look into it and make sure he has those comparisons and knows what they are.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I can help the noble Baroness: having looked at the comparisons, I can say that they are actually below the national average. So, what is the purpose of going through this huge administrative issue if it does not improve the services to people on the ground?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Because this is localism. If local areas want to take on those responsibilities, the Government have been listening to local authorities and combined authorities and listening to the fact that they want to take these on. The fact that there are only a few of these combined police and crime responsibilities and fire and rescue responsibilities—at the moment, there are not very many—means that it is quite difficult to tell, but we need to keep an eye on it, obviously, and I will come back to that in a minute under Amendment 122A.

The Secretary of State has power under this clause, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, to apply legislation relating to police and crime commissioners in relation to combined county authority mayors where the single-employer model—that is, the ability to make the chief constable the single operational head of both the police force and the fire and rescue service—has been engaged. Clause 38(4) provides a power to amend, revoke or repeal legislation consequential on that power. This is important because of exactly what the noble Lord opposite said: this is the power that could be used if any area has implemented the single-employer model but the chief constable is failing to manage the F&RS effectively. The Secretary of State may wish to revoke the implementation of the single-employer model and use this provision to do so. I think this is the power we have put in to ensure that exactly what the noble Lord opposite says need not happen.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her response, which I am not sure entirely clarifies the situation. What she seems to be saying is that the Bill introduces a new scheme whose outcome is so uncertain that we need an extra provision for it to be changed if it goes wrong. That is in light of what my noble friend has just said, which is that the four actual examples that exist at the moment have all performed below average. So, in that sense, her caution about having such a power is perhaps quite sound, but does that not rather indicate that the model itself should not go ahead in this form until the Government are satisfied that it will achieve the objectives of improved performance, or at least not deteriorating performance, before she proceeds?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I do not think we will not know exactly until we try it, but there will always be this power to say that, if those local people are not getting the service they require, the Secretary of State can revoke.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

I think I am right on this, although the noble Baroness might correct me. I got through the first 38 clauses and I think this was the first time I saw this particular revocation and amendment power being given to the Secretary of State. I believe that would have the effect of that amendment being made without any further reference to Parliament, other than through a set of regulations that we cannot amend—so its absence would simply mean that, should something need to be corrected, it would come back to Parliament. Is that interpretation correct?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, it is a power for the Secretary of State.

The amendment seeks to remove the power of the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments to such legislation. The effect would be that the Secretary of State could still apply police and crime commissioner legislation in relation to a combined county authority mayor or chief constable but could not make any necessary consequential amendments to reflect a change of circumstances. This limitation is undesirable and would result in flawed and inconsistent legislation in this area.

Finally, I will address the issues raised by the noble Baroness on Clause 38. This clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations applying legislation that relates to a police and crime commissioner to a combined county authority mayor or a chief constable where the combined county authority mayor has adopted the single-employer model. Removing the clause would hinder the effective full implementation of the single-employer model because it would mean that the Secretary of State could not make further regulations applying local policing enactments or new corresponding provisions in relation to mayors of combined county authorities who have implemented the model.

I hope that my explanation will reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord of the importance of this group of clauses to the effective conferral of fire and rescue functions on combined county authority mayors, specifically on those opting to use the single-employer model to exercise these functions, and will therefore enable her to withdraw her opposition to them standing part of the Bill.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments. All the clauses stand together, so I need to read Hansard carefully and go through her comments on each clause. I believe there was some contradiction in what she said, so it is important that I am quite clear going forward that I have understood absolutely what has been said this afternoon. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I will withdraw my opposition at this point to the clauses standing part, but we will come back to this on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not disagree that audit is required. We debated that earlier on the Bill. The authorities mentioned are Conservative authorities, as in Northampton, where my good friends in Corby lost their council because of the actions of a council of another political persuasion. That is a political point, which I probably should not make here.

A proper consideration of the role of further fiscal powers, with full engagement of local government— I am not suggesting that this is done to us because it would go against all the principles that we are talking about—could provide the basis for an empowered, innovative and dynamic shift for CCAs and their constituent members, sitting alongside the completion of the fair funding review, which has been outstanding for years now and which we have discussed previously.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 128 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley, relates to the potential fiscal powers of combined county authorities, although we were slowly moving into a debate on English devolution, which we should leave for another time.

As set out in the levelling-up White Paper, level 3 devolution deal areas can look to finance local initiatives for residents and businesses. These include regeneration through a mayoral precept on council tax, and supplements on business rates. The Government are already considering putting powers in the hands of local people through greater fiscal freedoms and are exploring this further fiscal devolution, initially through the trail-blazer devolution deals with Greater Manchester and the West Midlands combined authorities. Negotiations are ongoing and progressing well. It says in my notes that they are expected to conclude in early 2023, so I assume that it will be very soon.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

131: Schedule 4, page 266, line 6, at end insert—
“Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (c. 56)
A1 In section 69(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (interpretation), in the definition of “local authority”, after “section 103 of that Act” insert “, a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.Trustee Investments Act 1961 (c. 62)
A2 In section 11(4)(a) of the Trustee Investments Act 1961 (local authority investment schemes), after “section 103 of that Act” insert “, a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.Local Government (Records) Act 1962 (c. 56)
A3 The Local Government (Records) Act 1962 is amended as follows.A4 In section 2(6) (acquisition and deposit of records), after “section 103 of that Act” insert “, to a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.A5 In section 8(1) (interpretation), in the definition of “local authority”, after “section 103 of that Act” insert “, or a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (c. 88)
A6 In section 28(5)(a) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (retention or resumption of land required for public purposes), after “section 103 of that Act,” insert “any combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.Transport Act 1968 (c. 73)
A7 The Transport Act 1968 is amended as follows.A8 (1) Section 9 (Areas, Authorities and Executives) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1)—(a) in paragraph (a)(i), after “a combined authority area” insert “or a combined county authority area”;(b) after paragraph (ab) insert—“(ac) any reference to a “combined county authority” is to an authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 for an area which is or includes a metropolitan county;(ad) any reference to a “combined county authority area” is to an area for which a combined county authority is established;”;(c) in paragraph (b), after sub-paragraph (ia) insert—“(iaa) in relation to a combined county authority area, the combined county authority;”.(3) In subsection (2), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”. (4) In subsection (3), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.(5) In subsection (5) for “or a combined authority area” substitute “a combined authority area or a combined county authority area”.A9 In section 9A (general functions of Authorities and Executives), in each of subsections (3), (5), (6)(a) and (b), (7) and (8), after “combined authority area” insert “, combined county authority area”.A10 (1) Section 10 (general powers of Executives) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.(3) In subsection (3), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.(4) In subsection (5), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.A11 In section 10A(1) (further powers of Executives), for “or combined authority area” substitute “, combined authority area or combined county authority area”.A12 In section 12(1) (borrowing powers of Executive), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.A13 In section 14(1) (accounts of Executive), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.A14 (1) Section 15 (further functions of Authority) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.(3) In subsection (6), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.A15 In section 16(1) (annual report by Authority and Executive), after “combined authority area” insert “, combined county authority area”.A16 (1) Section 20 (special duty with respect to railway passengers) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.(3) In subsection (2A), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.A17 (1) Section 23 (consents of, or directions, by Minister) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.(3) In subsection (2), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.(4) In subsection (3), after “a combined authority area” insert “, a combined county authority area”.A18 In section 56(6) (assistance by Minister or local authority towards expenditure on public transport), after paragraph (bc) insert—“(bd) a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;”A19 (1) Schedule 5 (Passenger Transport Executives) is amended as follows.(2) In Part 2, in paragraph 2, after “the combined authority area”, in both places it occurs, insert “, the combined county authority area”.(3) In Part 3, in paragraph 11, after “a combined authority area”, insert “, a combined county authority area”.Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969 (c. 2)
A20 In section 1(3) of the Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969 (provision for grants), for “and a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act” substitute “, a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act and a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023”.Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 (c. 57)
A21 In section 3(2)(b) of the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 (employers exempted from insurance), after “section 103 of that Act,” insert “a combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 (c. 39)
A22 In section 1(4) of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 (provision for grants), in the definition of “local authority”, after “section 103 of that Act,” insert “any combined county authority established under section 7(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023,”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts various consequential amendments relating to the provisions about combined county authorities in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

So while we could argue the relative merits of part of this amendment, it is again disappointing that, in setting out the Bill, we could not be more ambitious in addressing issues that are critical to overall devolution. It is rather a shame and a missed opportunity that the Bill did not include those vital issues.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 157, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to enable each local authority to choose its own voting system. In doing so, the

“local authority must have regard to the benefits of reinvigorating local democracy in its area.”

We agree that a vigorous local democracy is vital; however, we take a different view as to how this will be best provided for.

First, we are clear on the merits of first past the post as a robust and secure way of electing representatives. It is well understood by voters and provides for strong, clear local accountability. It ensures a clear link between elected representatives and those who vote for them, in a manner that other voting systems may not. For those reasons, we have provided that, from this May’s elections, first past the post will also apply in voting for local authority and combined authority elected mayors, and for police and crime commissioners.

Secondly, we do not believe it would be right for the voting system to be a matter of local choice for particular councils. It is important that the voting system be clearly understood by electors and that they have confidence in it. Having different systems for neighbouring areas risks confusing electors, and any such confusion risks weakening public confidence in the electoral process.

A council being able to choose its voting system would also risk political manipulation. For example, the current controlling group on a council could seek to choose a system that it believes would favour it. While I accept that there could be various safeguards to mitigate that risk, I do not consider that it could be entirely removed.

Elections are the foundations of local democracy, which is central to our values and our being a free society; we should protect and nurture it. I recognise that all noble Lords in this Committee share that view, but I am afraid that what this amendment envisages would in practice be the kind of tinkering with the foundations of local democracy that I am clear we should avoid.

Finally, there are already relevant provisions in place under the local government and public health Act 2007 which enable district councils to change their scheme of elections. Those councils electing by thirds, where a third of council seats are up for re-election in each of three out of every four years, can move to whole-council elections, where all council seats are re-elected at once, every four years, and some councils currently holding whole-council elections, which formerly elected by thirds, can resolve to revert to electing by thirds.

Perhaps more importantly, experience has shown the merits of whole-council elections: facilitating stable, strategic local leadership, and delivering a clear programme for which the council can be held to account by the electorate. We encourage those councils still not holding whole-council elections to consider using the powers which Parliament has given them to switch to such elections. We would not wish to see councils which have not previously done so moving to elections by thirds.

Before I finish, I will just remind noble Lords that we had a referendum on changing first past the post in 2011, and 67.9% of the population voted against any change.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Would the Minister acknowledge that that was not giving the public the choice of a proportional representation voting system, where the seats would match votes?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

But it was about a change in the type of election and there was a very clear result against it. I consider that to be a very clear result in support of first past the post.

Therefore, although I appreciate the intentions behind this amendment, for all of those reasons I hope I have said enough to enable the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to withdraw her Amendment 157.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate so that we can explore the issue, because it is a sort of twin part of fiscal devolution. This is not an arcane debate for election geeks; it is really important if we are going to renew our local democracy. The amendment is not asking very much; it is simply asking for local authorities to be allowed—there is an example of control from Whitehall—to choose their own voting system.

My noble friend Lord Stunell raised two important issues about first past the post. If electors feel that the outcome of an election is a foregone conclusion, they do not bother to vote. You can see that in turnouts across the country. It leads to apathy and cynicism, which are the last emotions that we need to see in our voters when we know that we need to reinvigorate our local democracy. Change is going to be important if we are going to narrow inequalities, which is what this levelling-up Bill should be all about. However, change can be divisive, so if you have a broader representation of views and hear more voices, you have a better chance of drawing people together to agree to a change—not cutting down trees in the middle of the night, which is apparently what happened in Tory-run Plymouth council.

I will just say one or two things about the response from the Minister. I thank her for replying and claiming that first past the post is the only one that allows the link with electors. So what are the Government doing then allowing Northern Ireland to use STV, Scotland to use STV for its local elections and Wales to use different systems? If it is so bad and does not make a link, what is going on here? Local government is powerful in those countries, and we need to make it powerful here.

My last point is that the Minister, if I heard her right, said that if we introduce a system where local authorities can choose which voting system they wish to use, the current political makeup of a council would choose a system that suited them. But the whole point of a more proportional system is that you cannot do that. It is up to the voters to choose. Putting the power in the hands of the voters seems a jolly good idea. With that, I look forward to trying to change the Minister’s mind and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th March 2023 Lords Chamber

I entirely endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, said about the tension—if not outright conflict—between the different layers of planning and what takes priority over what. I have an amendment later on to say that, if this way forward is adopted, we should make an exception for those neighbourhood plans that are in the process of being signed off in referendums and endorsed by their district councils. If the Government insist that those which are 99% finished have to go back and be ripped up because Clause 92 and the national development management plans take priority, they will completely crush the neighbourhood plan movement and undo all the good work they have done so far.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, before I respond to the amendments in this group, I want to say that the Government recognise that parish councils have an important role in improving the quality of life and well-being of their communities. They have a close understanding of what their communities want and can design and procure the services which best meet those needs. They are vital to levelling up. I just wanted to add that before turning to these amendments covering parishes and neighbourhoods.

On Amendment 159, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, the fact that there is no provision in current legislation for a sanction to suspend a councillor was a deliberate policy decision at the time of the Localism Act 2011 to differentiate it from the previous Standards Board regime. That regime was considered to have allowed politically motivated and vexatious complaints. The Government’s position on this remains substantially unchanged, as referenced in our response to the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s review of local government ethical standards.

This clause to suspend a parish councillor found to have breached their code of conduct would introduce inconsistency in the local authority standards regime across the other tiers of local government. On the rare occasions when councillors display poor behaviour, local authorities have options to issue sanctions on parish councillors. Councillors can be barred from committees or representative roles and may be publicly criticised.

I turn to Amendment 160, also tabled by the noble Baroness. This Government are keen to ensure that local communities are well represented in local authorities and that all levels of local government are supported to create thriving local democracies. While I thank her for raising this amendment, it would result in unknown but likely significant costs and pressures on the modest finances of many parish councils. For that reason, the Government resist the amendment.

Turning to Amendment 161, tabled by the noble Baroness, as set out in the levelling-up White Paper the Government are committed to undertaking the neighbourhood governance review as one of the six drivers of levelling up. The review will make it easier for local people and community groups to come together to set local priorities and shape the future of their neighbourhoods. The Government are taking the appropriate steps to deliver the review within the next financial year, 2023-24, and will ensure that a programme with a bold new approach to community empowerment is put in place. The success of this will require the collaboration of all partners in local government and civil society, as well as central government.

Turning to Amendment 162, tabled by the noble Baroness, the Government recognise the important role that town and parish councils play in their communities. Parish councils have the power to raise funds through precept, which they can ask their local billing authority to collect through the council tax system. There are around 10,000 parish councils in England, and I am sure noble Lords will agree that it would be disproportionately bureaucratic for central government to give funding to all of them directly. It is much better for them to raise that funding locally, according to the needs of their local communities. As for bids for certain grants, PCs can always work with other local authorities and their partners in an area for funds, including such funds as the LURB’s.

Amendment 163 is important to government. The intention of the Local Government Act 1894 was to provide a clear separation between parochial church councils and the newly created civil parishes. While it does not allow parish councils directly to contribute to the maintaining or improving of church buildings, other powers, as has been said, such as the Local Government Act 1972, allow parish councils to contribute to the upkeep of such buildings if it is deemed to be in their local communities’ interest. Section 19 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 enables parish councils to provide assistance in respect of buildings used for public meetings or for recreational facilities.

We are aware that there are different interpretations of the laws surrounding this issue which have not been tested in the courts. As independent bodies, it is for parishes to decide what works best for them in their local communities and to ensure they act within the relevant legislation, taking legal advice where appropriate. If the noble Baroness will forgive me, I will not go further into this issue at this time because I look forward to debating it much more fully when the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Cormack and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol are before the Committee. For the time being, however, I note the intention behind the noble Baroness’s amendment.

Turning to Amendment 164, tabled by the noble Baroness, the definition in the Localism Act 2011 of local authorities covers a parish council and enables such a council to do anything an individual might do, apart from that which is prohibited, obviously. The intention of the 2011 Act is to give local authorities confidence in their legal capacity to act for both their communities and in their own financial interests, in addition to providing them with more freedoms to innovate and work with others to run services and manage assets for the benefit of the local communities they serve. Parish councils vary in their ability and capacity to take on the enhanced roles and responsibilities of an authority with the general power of competence.

To make it clear to noble Lords, the general power of competence includes the council clerk having completed a course in local administration and two-thirds of the councillors having been elected. These are not easy things, they but are sensible when it comes to a general power of competence. The 2011 Act therefore makes extension of powers to parish councils conditional.

Regarding the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, about Clause 92, before a neighbourhood plan or development order can be put to a referendum, the local planning authority must be satisfied that it complies with certain legislative tests known as “basic conditions”. The purpose of Clause 92 is to update the existing list of basic conditions to ensure that neighbourhood development plans and orders complement the reforms to the wider development plans framework and meet future environmental assessment requirements.

More broadly, and to make the position clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and others, the Bill will strengthen neighbourhood planning. In future, decisions on planning applications will be able to depart from plans, including neighbourhood plans, only if there is a strong reason to do so. In addition to neighbourhood plans, as we have heard, communities will also be able to prepare neighbourhood priority statements, making it easier and quicker for them to determine the priorities and preferences for their local areas. These will feed into the local plan process and the local planning authority will also be required to consider them.

Clause 92(1) removes the historic inclusion of paragraph (e) under paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which stated that a neighbourhood development order must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the local authority’s development plan. It replaces paragraph (e) with paragraph (ea), which makes it clear that a neighbourhood development order cannot prevent housing development taking place in a location that has been proposed within the local authority’s development plan.

Clause 92(1) also introduces paragraph (fa) under paragraph (f) of paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4B to the 1990 Act. This requires that neighbourhood development plans and orders comply with the environmental outcomes report framework that the Bill is introducing to replace the EU processes of environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment.

In addition, Clause 92(2) introduces a new basic condition for neighbourhood plans, which sets out that they must not result in the development plan for the area proposing less housing development than would have occurred if the neighbourhood plan were not being made.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation. It is certainly helpful as far as the first parts of Clause 92 are concerned, but new paragraph (ea) is precisely the point I was raising: it requires a neighbourhood plan not to reduce housing allocation compared to the local plan, which is the current context. Bearing in mind that quite a few neighbourhood plans are being made in areas that do not have local plans, that raises another question, which we will park for the moment. If you put that floor at the level at which neighbourhood plans have to perform—in other words, you want everything to be above average compared to what we have now—does the noble Baroness not see that it undermines the flexibility that is the strength of neighbourhood plans?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, I do not. One of the main issues that this or any Government will face is building houses, and allowing a neighbourhood plan to deliver fewer houses than a local plan is not acceptable.

On Amendment 506, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, the Government recognise the important role that parish councils play in improving the quality of life and well-being of their communities, which are at the heart of the Government’s six drivers of levelling up. The Government believe that the current provisions are adequate in addressing issues faced by the sector. These provisions provide tools and flexibilities to allow town and parish councils in England to adapt to local needs and circumstances. In Scotland and Wales, the devolved Governments also already have the tools to conduct a review of the provisions in this Bill and to make changes in relation to community councils. Noble Lords will agree that it is important for local people and community groups to come together to set local priorities and directions. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Building Safety Update

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made earlier in another place by my right honourable friend Michael Gove.

“Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to update the House on the progress we have made in securing commitments from developers to remediate properties with building safety defects. Last year, the major housebuilders signed a pledge to fix all the medium or high-rise buildings that they had built or refurbished that were unsafe. The developers also promised to reimburse the taxpayer for work already undertaken at government expense.

This Parliament has always been clear that those with ultimate responsibility for those buildings should bear the cost of remediation. Innocent leaseholders, who are neither responsible for safety defects nor equipped with the resources to fix the problem, should not be on the hook. Those who are responsible must pay. We have worked with developers to draw up a contract that gives direct effect to the pledge that they made. I was and remain grateful to those developers who have been so keen to live up to their obligations, and to Stewart Baseley of the Home Builders Federation for his skilful work in supporting the commitments made.

We published the legal contract on 30 January 2023, and I gave an initial cohort of developers six weeks to confirm that they accepted the list of buildings for which they take responsibility and then to sign the contract. That deadline expired yesterday. I can today confirm that 39 developers have signed the contract. We have published a list of those developers on GOV.UK and hard copies of that list have been shared with the Vote Office. By signing the contracts, those developers have committed to fixing at least 1,100 buildings. They will invest more than £2 billion in that work—money saved for the taxpayer and money invested in giving leaseholders a brighter future. I thank those developers for their hard work and co-operation in helping us to right the wrongs of the past. They are making significant financial commitments and I am grateful to them.

Leaseholders who have been waiting for work to be done to make their building safe will rightly want that work to start without delay. I know that those responsible developers who have signed the contract understand that expectation and will be in touch with leaseholders to set out the programme of expected works as soon as possible. I take the opportunity once again to apologise to those leaseholders and others who have waited so long for this work to be done. While there is still much to do, I hope that today shows that your campaigning has not been in vain.

While the overwhelming majority of major developers have signed, some regrettably have not. Parliament has made clear what that means, and so have I. Those companies will be out of the housebuilding business in England entirely unless and until they change their course. Next week I will publish key features of our new responsible actors scheme, a means of ensuring that only those committed to building safety will be allowed to build in future.

Those developers who have been invited to sign the remediation contract, but who have not agreed to live up to their responsibilities, will not be eligible to join the responsible actors scheme. They will not be able to commence new developments in England or receive building control approval for work already under way. The House should note that the companies invited to sign the remediation contract that have not yet lived up to their responsibilities are Abbey Developments, Avant, Ballymore, Dandara, Emerson Group—Jones Homes—Galliard Homes, Inland Homes, Lendlease, London Square, Rydon Homes and Telford Homes.

While my officials remain in discussions with several who are making progress towards signing, I am concerned that some companies do not appreciate the grave nature of the responsibility they bear. I hope the directors of those firms will now exercise the same level of responsibility as the leaders of the building industry. The reluctance so far of some companies to sign up only underlines the need for the responsible actors scheme. It will ensure that there are consequences for developers who wish to be neither answerable nor accountable.

I will also take other steps to ensure that companies live up to their responsibilities. I will be writing to major investors in those firms to explain the commercial implications of their directors’ decisions. I will write to local authorities and building inspectors to explain that those developers’ projects may not be started or signed off. I will notify public bodies to be prepared to reopen tender award processes or rerun competitions. House buyers will want to know what that means for them. We will formally set out the risks involved in purchasing homes from companies that have chosen to ignore the prospect of prohibitions.

The course of action that I have set out today is a significant intervention for any Government, but the magnitude of the crisis that we faced and the depth of the suffering for those affected clearly justified a radical approach. To their credit, the leaders of the development industry willingly accepted the need for action. The vast majority of developers have made undertakings to the British public to put right the wrongs of the past. We can now work together on making sure that we deliver more safe, affordable, decent homes for the country.

As they have rightly argued, we will do more to pursue freeholders who have yet to live up to their responsibilities, and construction product manufacturers, who also bear heavy responsibility for unsafe buildings. I will have more to say in the days and weeks to come. For the many thousands of people whose lives have been blighted by the failure properly to address building safety in the past, today’s update brings us another step closer to resolving the issue, and for that reason I commend this Statement to the House.”

That concludes the Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement that she has repeated. On this side, we welcome it and the determination shown by the Secretary of State to deliver the outcomes that he has reported.

We welcome the decision of the leading housebuilders to put their shoulders to the wheel, to make things happen at long last and to relieve the anxiety and stress of many innocent householders. Surely the Home Builders Federation—an organisation that I do not always see eye to eye with—and Stewart Baseley should get a mention for facilitating the process in a very difficult climate.

There are some big buts, however. The firms named in the Statement are failing to deliver their fair share of the massive costs of remediation. That is disgraceful. We endorse the action that the Secretary of State proposes to take to limit their capacity to cause more damage and heartbreak in the future. I appeal to those firms, even if they do not recognise their duty to society or to the families that they have traumatised, to at least now recognise their duty to their shareholders, and to get their pens out and get some signatures on paper PDQ. I note that, in the Statement, the Secretary of State is very much of the same opinion. I assure him that there will be a unanimous view across this House, urging him to get on and achieve that.

We should also recognise that, even after five years, this horrific saga is not over. This settlement is welcome but only partial. There remain, and will still remain, many families traumatised by the terrible failures right across the country which were exposed by the Grenfell inquiry.

Those terrible failures are now for the building industry to rectify. The industry has built homes that should have been places of security but were in fact death traps and that should have been places of warmth and comfort but instead have been left uninhabitable and unsaleable.

When can we expect to see the defaulting contractors finally accepting their liability and playing their proper part in helping desperate families to rebuild their lives? Will the Minister give noble Lords a timescale for further action and some hope for those families left stranded now for five years and growing?

The Statement says this programme will fund repairs for 1,100 buildings. How many homes are in those buildings? What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the gap between this programme of restitution and the enormous further cost of repairs still outstanding on building after building across the country which are not covered by it? How do the Government plan to close that gap? How many homes will remain unrepaired after this scheme comes to its end?

Finally, I will ask the question I know my noble friend Lady Pinnock would ask if she had been able to be here. Do Ministers still stick to their promise that not a penny of the costs of restitution will fall on the families who live in these homes—the completely innocent victims of this tragic episode? If Ministers do still stick by their word, when will we be told how that promise is to be delivered?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, today’s announcement is an important day for thousands of leaseholders living in buildings afflicted by fire safety defects. The Secretary of State announced that 49 developers had pledged to take responsibility for remediating unsafe buildings that they developed over the past 30 years. The pledge committed them to fix life-critical fire safety defects and reimburse the Government for grant funding paid out on their behalf to fix their buildings.

I had a lot more to say, but because of the late time I will just answer noble Lords’ questions—I am sure they will be happy with that. The most important thing is the impact that this will have on leaseholders and residents. They are the most important people in this. Once signed, the contract requires developers to take responsibility for addressing all life-critical fire defects arising from the design and construction of buildings over 11 metres in England and that they have developed or refurbished over 30 years. The developers will be expected to keep residents in those buildings informed of progress towards meeting this commitment. Monitoring and auditing provisions will ensure that the Government will hold developers to account to make sure that they are completing the work properly and at pace.

Talking about pace, we expect the developers to remediate their buildings at pace at all times. Some developers have already started assessing and remediating buildings, which is very welcome. Under the contract that we published this week, developers will be required to set out their plans to identify, prioritise, assess and fix defects as soon as reasonably practical. We will hold those developers to account to make sure that they are completing the work properly and at pace. Developers will be required to report to the department quarterly on progress against their remediation plans and to keep those leaseholders informed of that progress as well. That is an important part of the system.

Another part of the system that is important is the recovery strategy unit that we are setting up. We are further cracking down on those who fail to do the right thing and pay to fix building safety issues through a new recovery strategy unit. The unit is dedicated to pursuing firms that have failed to do the right thing and pay to fix the problems that they have created. It will take forward the most serious cases, holding the worst actors to account and delivering for leaseholders where other routes are not available. There will be some that fall outside all the issues that we have talked about, and the unit will be there to follow those cases. The unit contains an intelligence function to help to identify such cases, which is important. I am happy to say it is being run by Colonel Cundy—who sounds the right person to do it—and it is very happy if any Peers would like to be briefed on the work it is doing, because that is an important piece of work.

Noble Lords have asked about those not signing the contract. It is quite clear that if you fail to sign the contract and comply with its terms then you will not be able to operate freely in the housing market in this country, and more details of that will come out. The Government are committed to laying regulations under Sections 126 to 129 of the Building Safety Act 2022 to implement a responsible actors scheme for residential developers, supported by a system of building control and planning prohibitions that will impose serious consequences on eligible developers that do not sign up.

Both noble Lords said that they would support a robust response to this issue. I do not think I need to assure them that the Secretary of State can be very robust when he wants to be, and he will be very robust over this. He is passionate about the fact that those people should be doing the right thing for the people who live in the houses that they built which were not up to standard. I assure noble Lords that everything will be done, and more information will come out in the next weeks that will add to this Statement today. This is just the first Statement that needed to be made, because the Secretary of State promised he would let people know as soon as the six weeks were up.

I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would have wanted me to mention buildings under 11 metres in particular. It is generally accepted that life safety risk is proportional to the height of the building, as the noble Baroness knows, but a fire risk assessment and a fire risk appraisal of external walls conducted in accordance with the PAS 9880 principle will often find that lower-cost mitigations are more appropriate in low-rise buildings. We stress again that the responsibility for the costs of fixing historic building safety defects should rest with the building owner. They should not pass those costs on to leaseholders but should seek to recover them from those who were responsible for building unsafe homes in the first place. It is important that any leaseholders in this situation look for support and information on how to ensure that those responsible for their unsafe houses get in touch. I know that many people in this situation have written to the department and are being supported by it. That is an issue, and I thank the noble Baroness, as always, for bringing it up.

I hope I have answered most of the questions. If not, I ask noble Lords to let me know. I will go through Hansard in the morning, but I think the major issues that noble Lords have brought up have been answered.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, along with other noble Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. It is a positive step forward, but only a partial step. The Minister referred to my noble friend Lady Pinnock and her concerns about buildings under 11 metres. I also want to highlight those that are the responsibility of non-major housebuilders. Earlier today, in Grand Committee, we talked about the 13,000 high-risk high-rise buildings, yet this Statement talks only about

“fixing at least 1,100 buildings.”

I am not expecting answers, but I am concerned about how many smaller builders there are—they may still be big builders by many business standards, but they are not the major developers. Will they also have to sign a contract as part of next steps?

I think that both my noble friend Lady Pinnock and I completely understand that the death rate in fires at lower levels is, thankfully, lower, but homes are still destroyed, and the same poor products have been used. What are the Government going to do about those?

The other point that I know the residents of those buildings will talk about is the excessive insurance charges they are being forced to pay at the moment. Are the Government planning to talk to the insurance companies in the same way they have been working with the major housebuilders? Again, it is not the fault of the tenants and residents of these high-rise blocks that they should be faced with those bills, and I wonder whether perhaps there could be some help there.

Finally, the Secretary of State said in the Statement that these would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis—but there are thousands of buildings. Do the Government have any idea how long it is going to take to respond to this? Are we going to have quarterly Statements in the future? It will be enormously helpful if we are, but I am worried that it is easy to think that because we are dealing with big companies, everything is resolved. It absolutely is not.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I can assure the noble Baroness that some of these companies in the list that we have seen today are not the large companies. That, obviously, is causing some of the smaller companies to need a little more support, because it is more difficult financially for them to sign up to the financial costs of this. We are working with them on ways they might be able to pay back. We are not giving them any money for the future, but the Government have already paid for some of the payback of remediation work; we are helping them with payment schemes if that helps.

There will always be other companies, and that is why we are always saying that this is not the end of the system. This is the beginning, and the department will keep going until we make sure that no leaseholder is in the position that they have been in over these years.

As for the signing of the contracts, there are 4,000 buildings owned by those companies, of which about 1,000 have life-critical fire safety defects. We have to be careful with the figures, because they may be responsible for many more properties than actually have any problems. That is an important issue.

As far as insurance is concerned, yes, the department has been working with the FCA and the insurance companies over a number of months, if not years, because we are well aware of this issue, and we will continue to work with them. Particularly now that we are getting a solution to it, there is absolutely no need for these insurance issues at the moment.

Was there anything else? There was nothing on PEEPs tonight.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I thank the Minister. She answered my question, and I look forward to hearing from her on PEEPs in the future.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I have three interrelated questions, and I am going to relate them to the 1,100 buildings mentioned in the Statement, not the rather breathtaking figure from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, of 13,000 buildings. The Statement rightly says that leaseholders will want work to start without delay on all 1,100 buildings, which are, by definition, significant buildings. Are the Government confident that there are sufficient skills and ability, as well as the sheer workforce, to deliver this in any meaningful kind of timeframe?

Although most of the focus since the awful tragedy of Grenfell has been on external wall systems, there are also huge and quite complicated problems that have been discovered with fire-stopping systems, particularly breaches of compartmentalisation in the way buildings have either been designed or built. Fixing that is not going to be a simple matter of taking some cladding off and putting some cladding on; it is going to require a very high level of skills to make sure that you are genuinely fixing the problem and not, goodness forbid, making it worse.

In that context, the Health and Safety Executive recommended the golden thread principle, which I think probably applies here, of ensuring that there is a responsible person who is in control, really understands what is happening and has all the necessary documents and understanding.

I also note that this week the consultation closes on what is known as approved document B, which is the new and improved iterative process of fire safety standards. That is only going to apply to new buildings and will not affect existing buildings. Are the Government really committed to ensuring that we get the best possible standards in these buildings? People have now been living in fear for years, and they need the confidence to know their buildings are as safe as possible.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Skills is an interesting issue. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, we expect developers to remediate these buildings at pace and we will be on their backs to do that. They also need to be doing the work properly. To that end, we will be checking the quality as well as how quickly they have done it. We will be checking it for two years after the work as well, so that we make sure that it has been done to the highest possible standard. Obviously, if the sector brings up skills as an issue, then we will have to look into it and deal with it. As far as I know, we have not been told as yet that there is going to be a skills shortage for this.

On the accountable person, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. We are looking at the regulator and we have just today put through some SIs about accountable persons. They are going to be critical because they are going to be the people in these buildings who are responsible to the regulator to say that they are going to do everything that had to be done, monitored and checked under the Fire Safety Act. We put the SI through today and, once those regulations come into force, I think we will have a much better idea of what is happening in all of these high-rise, high-risk buildings.

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

My Lords, I first declare some interests. I am chair of Heart of Medway Housing Association. I am also a director of MHS Homes Ltd and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am also a leaseholder but am not in any way affected by the issues discussed.

It has been five years and nine months since the dreadful Grenfell Tower fire where 72 people lost their lives. While the Statement from the Government is welcome, you could not accuse this Government of acting in haste. It has been five years and nine months we have been waiting for this. There has been progress, yes, but progress has been slow, and I think we need to put that on record.

I was pleased with what the Government said. Looking at the list of developers which have not signed the contract, I think it is a list of shame. I hope the noble Baroness will take back to the department that, when considering next steps, every possible avenue should be thought through. What we do not want to happen is that company X becomes company Y and just changes its name. We need to go after the individual directors as well because, unless people understand that it will affect them, they will find all sorts of reasons to get around it. Frankly, not to have signed this contract is an utter disgrace. I am sure that the department will be doing that as well.

I was really pleased to learn about Colonel Cundy. We have a Special Forces commando now coming to lead on this, which is wonderful. Could we arrange for Colonel Cundy to come the Lords, to give Members a briefing on what he is doing? It would be really good to hear that; it would be really interesting for us all.

I often raise general issues about leasehold in, for example, houses. All the terrible things that people have experienced in these blocks—the appalling bills, stress, worry, hearing from nobody; the general bad behaviour from developers, freeholders and managing agents—all comes round again to the issue of leasehold reform. I know that it is a wider issue, but we have to get it sorted out. I cannot get an answer from the Government—I keep asking—on this issue. Will the leasehold Bill, which we have yet to see, but which is coming down the track, be a Bill to reform or abolish leasehold? I cannot get that question answered. I know that I will not get an answer tonight—maybe I will be surprised—but it would be really great to know what the Bill will do when it comes.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

First, I say that I absolutely agree, and the Secretary of State agreed. He said in his Statement today, as he has said in many Statements, that it has been too long, but we are where we are and we are getting on with it, and we will move forward with pace. I think that he has done that since he has returned to the department.

As far as those who have not signed, we have not given up on them. We are still working with them, and we are serious about that. The Secretary of State named and shamed them today, and we will stop them building any more houses in this country if they do not stand up to their responsibilities.

On leasehold, I can only quote my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who has set out his intention in the Commons to bring the outdated and feudal tenure of leasehold to an end. I cannot give the noble Lord a date, as he knows, and I will probably say that again many times here before I can. But, honestly, for me it will be the best day ever, when I can stand up here and give him the date for the leasehold reform Bill. As I have said before, it is a manifesto commitment, and we intend to introduce it by the end of this Parliament.

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

I will come back to the Minister on that point, because I cannot get this clear. One moment, she said that the Government will end the outdated system of leasehold—I agree with that; that is very welcome—but then she talked about the leasehold “reform” Bill. I do not understand that. Will the Bill reform or abolish leasehold? A reform Bill is needed too, so I do not mind which it is, but I cannot get a clear answer. I read the material in the House of Commons, I read the material in the Sunday Times, and I watched Michael Gove’s interview on Sky News, but they are all saying different things. I cannot get a straight answer to a straight question. Will the Bill reform or abolish leasehold? That is all I want to learn. I know that she cannot tell me when it will come, but I would like to know what will be in it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Until we know when it will come, we will not know what is in it, will we? What I can say is what I have said before: it is really important to understand the complexity of this matter. Building a house is different for leasehold, as the noble Lord knows, and we have very few leasehold houses now being built and sold. However, when you get to flats—to make commonhold work for flats— government, industry and consumers must all work very closely together. It is very complex, and it will take time.

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

I will make one final point. As the Minister knows, I have a Question on this issue coming up before we break for Easter. Could she please go back to the department before then? I will ask the same question again, so I hope to get another answer.