Temporary Accommodation Costs

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think that is within this Question. I will leave it to my noble friend to fight his corner on that one.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, many housing associations have been encouraged to develop homes for shared ownership, yet current trends illustrate that there has been a reduction in applications for this type of accommodation due to increases in mortgage rates and concerns regarding responsibility for maintenance—relating to the Grenfell Tower event. Can the Minister say whether capital could be made available for councils to purchase some of those empty properties and reduce temporary accommodation used for families?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Through their powers, local authorities can look to purchase accommodation. In the last two Budgets, we have given special dispensation to local councils, first, on special borrowing and, secondly, on their moneys from the right to buy. It is up to local authorities to look at the ways they can provide those houses, but I will take that back to the department as an idea.

Leasehold Reform

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[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.

International Women’s Day

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Friday 10th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, it is an honour to speak in this debate and to recognise Baroness Boothroyd, who very soon after I got here took me out to a charity lunch as her guest and told me not to worry if I repeated things that other people had said, which was one of my concerns, because, she said, the men do it quite comfortably.

We have heard about the vital need to address the many challenges that women face globally, but this should not hamper us considering women in the UK more closely. I will highlight the crucial need to tackle discrimination that parents, particularly women, currently face regarding extortionate childcare costs and gender inequalities in our healthcare system.

The Childcare: Affordability and Availability debate in Parliament on 21 February this year highlighted that childcare costs in the UK are the second highest in the world, behind only Japan. In the debate, one Member of Parliament reported that the cost

“is driving a bulldozer through the last 100 years of progress on women playing an equal part in the workplace and in our economy.”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/2/23; col. 26WH.]

The financial burden of childcare is usually borne by new mothers who are unable to return to work or forced to return part-time, thus hindering their career progression and exacerbating the gender pay gap. Data from the Office for National Statistics show that the number of women leaving the workforce for caring responsibilities—for both childcare and other family care—increased by 12.6% last year.

A national report into the childcare crisis released this month by Pregnant Then Screwed—rather than the other way around—revealed that 76% of mothers who pay for childcare say it no longer makes financial sense for them to work. The Coram report published yesterday also raises these issues. The Guardian reported that in the UK, 540,000 mothers have been prevented from working due to the lack of suitable childcare, and many have reduced their working hours for the same reason.

In addition, inflation has increased childcare fees by an average of 44% between 2010 and 2021, resulting in childcare costs being now at least the same as core domestic costs for three in five families; for lone parents, this rises to three in four. Unfortunately, salary increases have not matched the cost of living and some professions have experienced pay cuts. Health and social care staff, for example, have been subjected to real-term pay cuts totalling between 10% and 26% since 2008-09. We have invested in professional education for women, particularly, for example, in medicine, yet very few are able to work full-time, even if they want to—although I accept that some choose not to.

I highlight the case of a mother and sole carer of two children aged 8 and 9, working part-time as a higher trainee in psychiatry. She thought that childcare costs would decrease as her children went into full-time education and that her pay would comfortably cover the costs as she progressed to become a consultant psychiatrist. Currently, she is paying from a single salary for after-school clubs, childminders for late shifts and school holiday clubs, the monthly costs of which surpass her mortgage fees. She found the Government’s tax-free childcare system too complex and has shied away from claiming. Indeed, the recent childcare cost debate in the other House identified that £2.8 billion is sitting unclaimed in the Treasury. The Government need to address the complexity in the system and to consider childcare as part of infrastructure spending to retain women in the workforce. Should childcare costs be tax-deductible, for example, up to a certain level?

Dame Lesley Regan’s report Better for Women in 2019, already referred to, highlights the need to keep women in the workforce by embedding their health issues in workplace policies. Two common debilitating conditions mentioned are postnatal depression and the menopause, which can have significant physical and mental health consequences, making working life difficult. It is well known that work is a really important preventer of mental ill-health. A survey conducted by Wellbeing of Women found that nearly a quarter had considered leaving their jobs because of the menopause. A study for the Department for Work and Pensions estimated that if 0.6 million more postmenopausal women worked full-time, £20 billion could be added to GDP. Dame Lesley Regan’s report recommended that the UK Government introduce mandatory menopause workplace education, training and policies to help keep women in work and to break the stigma associated with menopause.

In Quebec, childcare is treated as critical infrastructure, like schools or roads, costing parents about £6 a day. Hence, 85% of women in Quebec aged 26 to 44 are part of the workforce, generating extra tax and reducing the cost of social benefits. In many of our neighbouring countries, state-funded childcare is provided to all preschool children, thus increasing women’s access to further education and employment and bringing the benefits of work in terms of mental health promotion, through social interaction and increased self-esteem, and economic empowerment. Enabling mothers to work the hours they want could, it is estimated, generate upwards of £9.4 billion in additional earnings a year—an additional economic output equivalent to 1% of GDP.

Therefore, please can the Minister explain the Government’s long-term intention to adequately fund childcare, early education costs and training in the workplace to increase women’s attendance at work?

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 17th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the two noble Lords who made their maiden speeches today, and I draw attention to the issue of intergenerational fairness and housing that the latter speech covered. I declare my interests as outlined in the register. I broadly welcome the mission of the Bill, but like other noble Lords, I believe that constructive amendments are needed to improve the likelihood of it achieving its expected outcomes. In particular, the Bill could be strengthened through simplifying the devolution of power, including finance, to the local place-based organisations outlined.

I live in Devon, and in the 10 miles due south from my village, there is a reduction in life expectancy of one year for every mile—that is, 10 years. This disparity indicates that levelling up is not about the north of England and the south, but between neighbourhoods in cities and rural areas, where villages’ housing stock has become so expensive that local people cannot afford to remain. In turn, this puts huge demands on providing domiciliary support and care for the increasingly older populations of those expensive villages, but it also means that people are living there part-time, because the houses are used as holiday homes. Shelter has provided an excellent briefing on the Bill and highlights the need to strengthen it so that social rented housing plays a far more prominent role in the planning system.

Other noble Lords have argued many of the points I had intended to raise. At this time in the evening I will not repeat them, but I will say that I fully support the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, and the noble Lord, Lord Best.

Communities need not only healthy, safe, affordable social housing but schools, preschool nurseries, safe public transport—that comes more than twice a day, as in my village—health centres, step-down hospital facilities, hospital beds, effective domiciliary services and intergenerational hubs. All these things need to be considered to avoid loneliness and enable communities to work together, so that there is good infrastructure to develop the future for young people. Careful consideration needs to be given not only to access to nature—which where I live you can access in 20 seconds—but access to a shop, coffee shop or library, where you may be able to speak to somebody else during the day.

The centre needs to think about declaring a proportion of social housing that should be agreed across the whole country. I believe it should be a minimum of a third of all new housing.

I have read the Bill, though not every page. Absent from the majority of it is the importance of universities in the intangible development of patents, innovation and local jobs. We need to think carefully about how we get this right, as they tend not to serve wide areas.

Can the Minister comment on the evidence the Government have that investment in high-quality, affordable homes would reduce costs to the NHS, as outlined earlier by two previous leaders, and improve the educational prospects for children currently living in temporary accommodation and often moving from school to school? What will the Government’s responsibility be re housing? Will they simply devolve it, leaving local communities to get on with it and then blaming them, or will they set standards? For example, the current standard of renting a room enables you to get just over £7,000 a year, I believe, but some areas should be able to charge more. That could be really positive for housing, particularly for young people. I agree with what other noble Lords have said: the postcodes of our birth should not affect our life expectancy and chances, however we know that they do.

Finally, we seem to have removed the placeholder clause on vagrancy and begging. Could the Minister comment on whether this will be dealt with elsewhere, as it is an important issue?

Warm Hubs

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not think the Government necessarily do, but local government certainly does. If you google them, you will see the number of village halls and parish councils in these small rural areas that are doing exactly what the more urban areas are doing. We have village halls all across the country, and they can use the energy scheme for businesses and the voluntary sector. Working with their local councils, they can also get small grants to support their local villages. Also, in most of our rural villages there is a church. Working together with faith communities and parish councils, you can deliver in rural areas.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I will make a constructive suggestion in relation to rural areas; I wonder whether the Minister can help on this. We need a national campaign to encourage people in small villages, such as the one I live in, to welcome people into their homes for coffee or tea and to enable people to walk to a local warm hub, which could just be a local person who reaches out. I believe that many people would be committed to doing that. My anxiety is that we will end up with loads of people feeling that they need to go to a warm hub and sit still, which is not a solution either.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am more than happy to talk further with the noble Baroness. Some of these things are happening, but it is a matter of making sure that we keep them all together and that good practice is transferred across the country.

Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [HL]

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 27th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in social housing, in particular as the chair of Look Ahead, a small housing association in London. Like other noble Lords, I warmly welcome this Bill, which will support stronger and more proactive consumer regulations and the inclusion of further health and safety requirements in social housing to protect tenants.

The National Housing Federation provided a very useful briefing for today; it has been detailed by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. I particularly want to talk about its recommendations that the Government should seriously consider the potential costs of the ombudsman and regulator in taking on these new responsibilities, and ensure that there is effective funding so that they can conduct them properly. Can the Minister clarify what funding will be made available to ensure that the aims of the Bill can be achieved at pace within sound government structures?

In all the briefings received—including those from Shelter and Electrical Safety First, already referred to by other noble Lords—issues arise with the proposed electricity checks. Will such checks include appliances such as white goods, for example fridges, as well as main electrical installations for sockets and lights? We know—again, as other noble Lords have said—that the Grenfell Tower tragedy was linked to such an issue. New white goods are expensive. What will happen if tenants’ own white goods fail assessments for safety? Will they be removed? How will people afford replacements? These are really important issues for social tenants.

It is clear that social landlords will need sufficient powers to gain access to properties if they are truly to make sure that large buildings are fully assessed for electrical safety. Should safety checks cover leasehold properties in social housing blocks as well as homes that are rented out?

If the new proactive consumer regulation regime is adopted as outlined in the Bill, are the Government confident that the definition of “social rented sector” is sufficiently detailed? The statistics in the Library briefing suggest that the social rented sector provides homes for 4 million households, or, perhaps more importantly, one-sixth of all households. The Bill and briefings received appear to make no mention of shared ownership properties, which are a particular interest of mine, as the Minister knows. Many shared ownership households own only a quarter of their homes and pay social rent to housing associations on the remaining 75%. Is there a need for an amendment to the Bill to clarify the rights and responsibilities of both parties involved in shared ownership, particularly with regard to safety checks and the costs of putting things right? Under current legislation, I suggest that these will fall on the tenant, rather than the housing association, and I would welcome clarity on this.

Other noble Lords spoke eloquently about the positive aspects of the Bill, and it will certainly improve the lots of tenants if enacted. I look forward to working with the Minister and Members on all sides of this House to make revisions in areas where further definitions may improve the Bill, particularly with regard to the rights of shared ownership tenants, many of whom work in the public sector and are already suffering with the cost of inflation, before the mortgage element of their shared ownership increases.

Housing: Private Renters

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I suppose I should always be very careful about giving data. In response in the other place, the Minister—who was driving forward with the 12-point plan—made it clear that we are seeing as many landlords leaving the sector as we are seeing entering the sector. I will go back and find the data that underpinned my remarks in the debate we had earlier this week.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that part of the problem with the private rental sector is that many people in it would rather be in social housing at a fair rent, and that, because of a shortage in that housing, private landlords are often able to exploit some of the most vulnerable in our society? What could we do about that in the future, to increase social rented?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, it is important to recognise the balance of having more tenants who cannot afford renting in the private sector having social or affordable homes. That is why we have an £11.5 billion Affordable Homes Programme, and we are seeking to double the amount of social rented homes that we build to 32,000, because clearly, the housing benefit bill has been growing astronomically and we need to contain that over time.

Social Homes for Rent

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

We do recognise that we have an ageing society, which is why a chunk of the £11.5 billion affordable homes programme will go towards subsidising housing for the elderly. We recognise in our planning policies that areas need to do their bit to house people, and also to enable people to remain in their homes if that is what they choose to do.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, the promotion of shared ownership homes has helped some people get on to the housing ladder. However, the terms of resale are onerous, particularly for those who wish to move swiftly for new work. Some families default on the mortgage element of their shared ownership, which is likely to increase as a result of increased mortgage costs. Does the Minister agree that, if housing associations are expected to buy back such flats and houses in these circumstances, they could be put back into the social home rental market quickly?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I recognise that there are issues with shared ownership tenure. One of the problems has been that many shared owners own only a small amount of the equity and are often faced with heavy remediation costs. I certainly take that point on board, and we should allow flexibility, where it makes sense, to shift from shared ownership into social housing. I shall take that point away and discuss it with my officials.

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Grand Committee

Relevant document: 20th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

My Lords, Members are encouraged to leave some distance between themselves and others and to wear a face covering when not speaking. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.

Amendment 111

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, Amendment 111 seeks to address the issue of potentially unsafe electrical items purchased online and the impact that could have in high-rise blocks. Some noble Lords may believe that this is not a very serious issue and that perhaps not very many such products are available.

Electrical Safety First has done a detailed analysis of the work of the Office for Product Safety and Standards and, in a test, 63% of electrical products bought in an online marketplace were found to be non- compliant and, of those, 23 were unsafe. The OPSS publishes a weekly product safety report, which details products found to pose a risk to health and safety. Analysis of these reports by Electrical Safety First shows that, during 2021, 31% of all unsafe products identified were electrical, 72 of them having been purchased online. A separate investigation that it carried out found that 93% of a sample of electrical products tested from online marketplaces were unsafe. It has also repeatedly found numerous items that have been recalled by manufacturers—often due to a concern about the risk of overheating and fire—but were still available for purchase online. We are not dealing with a small problem.

We know that there is an increasing number of fires in high-rise buildings: the number has gone up year on year. In fact, there has been a 20% increase in the last two years alone. We know that some 53%—over half of all of the fires—were caused by electricity in one form or another. In many cases, the source of ignition was a faulty electrical product. The fire in Grenfell Tower was caused by an electrical appliance—a fridge freezer—as was the fire at Shepherd’s Court in 2016, which was caused by a recalled tumble dryer, and the fire at Lakanal House in 2009, which was caused by a TV. I do not know whether, in each of those cases, those products were purchased online, but we know from all the research that an increasing number of electrical appliances are purchased online. In February last year, 75% of UK shoppers said that they bought such products online, compared to just 40% the previous year—this was obviously enhanced by lockdown.

This is an accident waiting to happen, and we need to do something about it. That view is supported by many organisations: following the OPSS consultation in 2021, they argued that change was needed to ensure that markets remain fair, and specific powers were requested by them in relation to online marketplaces and platforms. The National Audit Office—the NAO—carried out an investigation and found that there were “gaps in regulators’ powers” to regulate the online marketplace. A Public Accounts Committee report includes findings and states that the OPSS had explained to it that

“under current legislation, online marketplaces are not responsible for the safety of products sold by third parties on their platforms.”

Yet there is of course a requirement for purchases made not online but in normal shops, so it is odd that there is a discrepancy here.

It is particularly odd that the Government have done nothing about it so far, because, in answer to a House of Commons Written Question, the Minister said:

“The Government is committed to ensuring that only safe products can be sold in the UK.”


The purpose of this amendment is to achieve exactly what the Government want—to ensure that only safe electrical products can be purchased, whether they are purchased in normal shops or online. It seems a simple amendment. I have not spent a lot of time going through it, because I am absolutely certain that the Minister is just going to say, “Yes, Don, good idea, we’ll agree to it.” I look forward to hearing her say that in a few minutes.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I support all three amendments in this group. Amendment 111, which was laid by my noble friend Lord Foster and to which I have added my name, aims to protect consumers from items purchased online that are non-compliant with rules for purchasing the same products in shops. I thank him for his clear and detailed explanation of why it is needed.

The excellent analysis by Electrical Safety First of the Office for Product Safety and Standards demonstrates that there is a real safety issue. Nearly two-thirds of electrical products bought in an online marketplace are non-compliant and a shocking quarter is actively unsafe. Electrical Contracting News said that in 2020 faulty appliances caused 43 fires per week in England. Everyday household appliances caused 15,000 accidental fires in homes. We know that some serious and fatal fires in high-rise and medium-rise buildings were caused by faulty appliances. Some fires were due to household items being placed too close to the source of heat or to misuse of appliances, but a number were due to appliances that were found to be faulty.

If two-thirds of electrical products bought in online marketplaces are non-compliant and, worse, a quarter is unsafe, that is a recipe for danger. Perhaps it is not surprising that legislation is taking time to catch up with new ways of purchasing goods, yet the focus of this Bill is to ensure that buildings are safe, especially high-rise buildings. This amendment proposes a solution to the problem and I support it.

Briefly, I want also to add my support to Amendment 112 laid by my noble friend Lady Pinnock and Amendment 117 laid by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. The amendment of my noble friend Lady Pinnock also responds to evidence given at both the Grenfell inquiry and Dame Judith Hackitt’s review of the appalling habits of too many construction product companies of managing to soften or even blatantly breach the safety regulations. It is evident that the regulations are out of date and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond favourably to this, too.

Finally, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, highlights the importance of the provision of CO detectors and alarms and seeks for the responsible person to ensure that they are provided. Too many times, people end up with unsafe equipment, whether an old gas fire or, worse, a new exterior gas fire being used inside through ignorance, which has resulted in the deaths of far too many people. We are used to having smoke alarms in buildings, especially high-rise ones. We should also have CO detectors and monitors as a matter of absolute routine for safety. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

There is no doubt that this amendment would save lives, and I hope that the Minister will support it. If he feels unable to, I hope he will share with the Committee a compelling reason why he will not give the amendment his blessing. I would then be very grateful if he would meet with me and others to explore his alternatives. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baronesses, Lady Harris of Richmond and Lady Brinton, are taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.

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

My Lords, I support Amendment 120 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jolly and other noble Lords and would just like to make a few comments.

At Second Reading, we heard how important it was to ensure that BS 5395-1 was accepted. I am disappointed that the Government have not yet made a concession on this. In fact, there is no mention at all of stair safety in the Bill. In the 2010 legislation, the standard was put in place only as a recommendation, as we have heard. It is now time to put it in this Bill as a requirement and ensure that all new buildings comply from 2024, as my noble friend Lady Jolly has indicated. We know that hundreds of lives may be saved every year—estimated at about 700 in England alone. If this standard were adopted for all buildings, we could prevent the hospitalisation of around 43,000 more people. Think what amount of money that would save in costs just to the NHS, never mind the trauma suffered by the families of those injured.

I ought to declare a small interest here, as I have increasing difficulty using the stairs in my own home, as they are both steep and deep. In fact, I am having to have another handrail put in so that I can use them safely.

It is vitally important that stairs in high-rise buildings, indeed any communal building, are of sufficient depth and width to allow numbers of people to use them simultaneously in an emergency. We know that the horrors of the Grenfell Tower disaster were exacerbated by totally impractical stairs in the building. I cannot believe that any building company or architect designing a new high-rise building would rely on just one staircase for multiple flats. That would be a complete dereliction of duty, in my opinion. In the event of an outbreak of fire in a high-rise building, there will inevitably be a rush to get out down the stairs, as lifts will be out of use. It is therefore inevitable that people will fall. BS 5395-1 should be put into law during the passage of this Bill and I urge the Minister to accept this immediately.

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 28th February 2022 Grand Committee

A standard service charge will already include some health and safety compliance costs. I looked up a recent service charge on my flat; indeed, there is a line headed “Health and safety”. However, under Schedule 8, either that will have to be removed and located under the new building safety charge or it will appear twice with an appropriate credit, and leaseholders will have the bear the cost of, in effect, paying another set of service charges.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

There is a Division in the House. We will have up to 10 minutes to cast our votes but, if noble Lords return earlier, we will proceed because we are taking quite a long time this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

The question is that Amendments 79 to 81 be agreed to.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I am sorry. Those amendments are not government amendments. Will they go in Hansard?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock)]

Do not worry. They will not because Hansard will cover your back and my back. I have been told that this is the most complicated thing that has been done in Grand Committee for years, so I think we have to accept it if I have made a mistake. I thought they were government amendments.

Amendments 78 to 87 not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 107 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

I cannot call Amendment 107A, as it is an amendment to Amendment 107.

Amendments 108 to 110 not moved.