Housebuilding: Target

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Wednesday 30th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot give that particular statistic; what I can say is that we recognise the importance of getting these standards right. We have consulted very recently on options to raise the accessibility of new homes and we continue to focus on ensuring that we have homes that work for people of all ages and are suitable for older and disabled people.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Thank you. How many of the homes that have been built are net-zero carbon and, therefore, how many are left to be very expensively retrofitted for energy efficiency later?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, we seem to be going around every type of housing that we could possibly build, but it is very important to recognise that we have a future homes standard, that we have set that to be in place by 2025 and that we continue to build homes that are reducing our carbon footprint—and, actually, modern methods of construction are precisely the way to do it.

Building and Fire Safety: Leaseholders

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Monday 14th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, there is no doubt that £15,000, paid over five years, is a substantial sum, but the reality is that some poor leaseholders who are victims have paid far more than that on interim measures before a single bit of remediation has been done. Having a cap on leaseholder costs ensures that they are no longer fleeced through Section 20 notices to pay for mistakes for which they are not responsible. That is what that protection achieved and, through regulation, we can broaden the impact to protect those with the very narrowest of shoulders.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, we have a problem going forward, because cladding, if it is put in properly, can be an option to make older houses thermally efficient. Have the Government thought about reassurance measures so that cladding remains an option for, for example, all the thousands of pre-1930s buildings?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

That is a very good point: cladding per se is not necessarily a bad thing. What we cannot do is wrap our buildings up in cladding where the effect on the spread of fire is a bit as if it had been coated in petrol. Cladding provides the warm homes that many people enjoy. If you carry out remediation in an insensitive way, it removes the protection for leaseholders in the insulation required to make the home liveable. Therefore, remediation needs to be done in a sensible and thoughtful manner with people who are living in their homes. Of course, we need to ensure that we promote good cladding systems and remove the bad.

Building Safety Bill

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

No.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Has the noble Lord been drinking?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I have not been drinking. I have had some Polos. In fact, I am not drinking anything at all.

I move on to the next campaign, which is electrical safety first. In fact, I am being bombarded with emails and letters. I promise noble Lords that I have had the briefing document from NAPIT—it followed up even today to check that I had it. That is also an incredible campaign.

I have to say that I particularly enjoyed the way the noble Lord, Lord Foster, introduced these amendments. His Amendments 122 and 123 have both been brought forward to ensure electrical safety in homes. I thank the noble Lord for raising this important matter and for his comments on the matter at Second Reading, but I am afraid that the Government cannot support these amendments.

We recognise the intention of these amendments, but we believe that they place a disproportionate burden on leaseholders in high-rise buildings. Under Amendment 122, high-rise leaseholders would be required to obtain and keep up to date an electrical installation condition report—an obligation we place on no other homeowner. Under Amendment 123, that obligation would also be placed on leaseholders who live in mixed-tenure high-rise buildings. “Mixed tenure” is defined as buildings where in addition to leaseholders there are also social housing or private rented tenancies. We believe that leaseholders living in their homes have a fundamental motivation to ensure that their home is safe and will take steps to ensure the safety of electrical installations. Therefore, we do not currently believe there is sufficient evidence to place further burdens on leaseholders in high-rise buildings.

I also assure the noble Lord that the intention of ensuring that residents take an active role in ensuring the safety of their building has already been met in the Bill. The Bill imposes a new active duty on residents not to create a significant risk of spread of fire or structural failure and empowers the accountable person to enforce these duties through the courts. These are systemic changes that are broader in scope than specific requirements for an electrical installation condition report; they will promote genuine collaboration between all parties in keeping their building safe.

The Government thank the noble Lord for raising this important point and will highlight in our guidance to accountable persons and residents the importance of considering electrical installations as part of their building safety decisions. With that assurance, I must ask him not to move his amendment.

On Amendment 124, I thank noble Lords for raising this important matter, but I am afraid that the Government will not be able to accept this amendment. However, I can assure them that their intention is being met by the Government. In the Social Housing White Paper we committed to consult on electrical safety requirements in the social sector, and expert stakeholders participated in a Government-led working group last year to inform the content of that consultation. The working group considered the mandating of electrical safety inspections in all 4 million social homes, not just those in high-rise residential buildings, as moved by this amendment. The group also considered how to keep social housing residents safe from harm caused by faulty appliances. We will consider whether the best way forward to protect social residents from harm is to mandate checks and bring parity with standards in the private rented sector, and it is important that we work through all the issues to reach the right decision. The consultation will be published shortly.

Building Safety Defects

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Monday 7th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I do not want to pre-empt 14 February, but it is very clear that, from Florrie’s law, which sought to protect leaseholders from high-cost building safety and remedial works, there will be a principle which protects leaseholders. I thank my noble friend for raising this issue.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

But there is still nothing in law, is there? The Government are talking large and saying, “From round the House, there’ll be lots of good ideas and householders can take these companies to court”. But why does the Government not set the law? Instead of expecting us to do their work, why not do the work themselves and make the rules?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am used to the interventions from the noble Baroness. I had four years of it in City Hall and it is nice to join this great place and continue where we left off in 2016. However, I believe there is a process, which is getting Royal Assent. It is very clear that the passage of the Building Safety Bill is critical to ensure that we have those protections for leaseholders and that the polluter pays.

Leaseholders: Costs

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Thursday 18th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

All major landlords, including social landlords, will have to do that as a matter of course. We are providing funds that will protect leaseholders where the balance sheet does not enable them to do so, and I have given those figures already. However, we ask for a sense of proportion from registered providers—I have reached out to the noble Baroness’s chief executive—not to inflate the bill just because the taxpayer sums are there, but to keep costs down. We need to ensure that together we remediate, mitigate where that is preferable to remediation, keep tenants safe and use the affordable homes programme to build more homes.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

It is not just the remedial work, it is also the fact that insurance premiums have gone up, leaseholders cannot sell their property and they sometimes have to have a waking watch, which is a 24/7 dedicated project to protect from future fires. The Minister said that the polluter pays, but that is not how I see it. The Government are using taxpayer money to finance this. Why are the Government not insisting that builders pay? Is it more corruption: these builders and developers are government friends, so they should not have to pay?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I think that is an unfortunate line. Developers have caused this, and there are the insulation manufacturers and product manufacturers in the frame—for instance, for fire doors that do not act as fire doors. We have announced both a tax and a levy, and the new Secretary of State has further plans to ensure that the polluter will pay.

Building Safety Defects: Costs

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Monday 18th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, we are working very closely with the sector. I point out that there was a £400,000 fund specifically for providers in the social sector to remove aluminium composite material, the most serious form of unsafe cladding. In addition, where social landlords are thinking of passing costs on to leaseholders, there is an opportunity for them to apply to the building safety fund, which many of them have indeed done.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Could the Minister answer my question in very simple language, because I just do not understand this? The leaseholders did not design the building, do not own it and did not apply the faulty cladding to it. So why are they paying anything at all towards replacing it?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

It is quite clear that the building owner and freeholder have responsibility for keeping the building safe. Whether the costs are passed on to leaseholders is a matter for the individual lease, but we are doing all we can to step in to help recoup the money that should rightly be paid by the developers and have also put forward taxpayer funding to the tune of over £5 billion at this point.

Leasehold: Building and Fire Safety

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Thursday 16th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, the Government support the principle that—in the same way you might go to a doctor and get an opinion, then seek a second opinion—we get the opportunity to have a second opinion on these matters, particularly where there are eye-watering costs. We do not want to see eye-watering costs levied when other mitigations provide a much more cost-effective solution.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is not only the developers that might be at fault. The manufacturers of the cladding and insulation also knew they had problems with materials but carried on marketing them anyway. Are the Government going to let them get away with murder?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

We recognise that many people are responsible and that the standard of construction products has not been at the level we expect. That is why we have brought in a construction products regulator, situated in the Office for Product Safety and Standards, to oversee that within BEIS. Obviously, we are looking at how best to ensure that this does not happen in future and that those responsible make a contribution.

Mortgages: EWS1 Form

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Tuesday 29th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I declare an interest as a former councillor in Southwark. The Minister is using lots of words such as “challenging this”, “working with so and so” and “taking a number of measures”, but have the Government actually made a simple statement, saying to the mortgage or finance companies that this is not necessary before giving money to people who want to move house?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, we have been working very hard to ensure that there is clear guidance about when such a form is necessary. In certain instances, there is deemed to be sufficient life-safety risk that an EWS1 form is required. The issue at hand is to ensure that lenders take a proportionate approach, and that is best achieved through dialogue.

Private Landlords: Tenants with Pets

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Tuesday 15th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, we are happy to look at any ideas that encourage wider pet ownership, and I will certainly take that back to the department to consider.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The Minister keeps talking about encouraging flat owners to do the right thing and allow pets, but he did not answer the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler: what are you actually doing to encourage this?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, we have set out a model tenancy agreement that encourages wider pet ownership. It also ensures that the landlord must give a clear reason why they will not accept a pet. This agreement strikes a balance between making it easier for responsible tenants to keep pets and ensuring that landlords are not forced to accept them.

Rogue Landlords Register

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, the majority of private rented sector landlords provide decent and well-maintained homes; in fact, the proportion of non-decent homes has declined dramatically from 41% in 2009 to 23% in 2019. We have committed to exploring the merits of introducing a national landlord register and we will engage with a range of stakeholders across the sector to understand the benefits of different options for introducing one.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

That was a complacent answer from the Minister because this has been going on for a long time, and a national register would be an excellent thing. After hearing this debate, how much urgency will the Minister put into speeding up the introduction of that register?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

There is no complacency; I am merely outlining that we are considering the introduction of the register as part of our commitment to introduce a White Paper in the autumn. That will contain a number of measures designed to redress the balance between landlord and tenant.

Tower Blocks: Cladding

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned the fact that the Prime Minister has not honoured his promise so far on this issue. Is there anybody in government or in the wider Conservative Party who can either make the Prime Minister honour his promises or stop him making any further false promises?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I simply do not accept that personal attack on the Prime Minister. This is a Prime Minister who has committed an unprecedented sum of money. Let us remember that, when I took office, only £600 million had been committed to the remediation of unsafe cladding. In the first Budget in his time as Prime Minister, £1 billion was committed—and now a further £3.5 billion. This is a Prime Minister committed to ensuring that the tragedy of Grenfell Tower never happens again.

Leaseholders and Property Management Companies

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Thursday 29th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have already put an unprecedented sum of money—over £5 billion—on the table to support the remediation of unsafe cladding. We made it very clear that the steps that we are taking can be covered without statutory intervention.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. If a company knowingly supplies substandard goods and dozens of people die because of it, but the company walks away with billions of pounds of profit without renovating or replacing all the other substandard products that they have already put in place, is that just good business practice?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

Clearly not, my Lords.

Planning: Net Zero Emissions Targets

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Monday 19th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, national planning policy statements are a matter for the relevant Secretary of State, but I would point out that Project Speed is at the moment reviewing national infrastructure planning reform and ensuring that we build projects faster, better and, of course, greener.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is obvious to me from my own experience as a councillor, and from speaking to planning experts and local planning inspectorates, that they just do not have good enough, strong enough guidance from the Government. I accept what the Minister says about the review but, quite honestly, writing better information for planning inspectorates is vital. We are going to be very embarrassed at COP 26 if we do not get to grips with this.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, we believe that the current National Planning Policy Framework is clear on how planning plays an important part, but we will look to ensure that the guidance is optimised for our planning inspectors, who play an important role in ensuring that we reach the net-zero economy that we all want.

Housing: Leasehold

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Tuesday 5th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I assure my noble friend that some of the “fleecehold” practices that we have seen around ground rent escalations are absolutely abhorrent. That is one of the things that the Competition and Markets Authority is looking at, and I take my noble friend’s point very seriously indeed.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm two things: first, that reform of leasehold means moving towards commonhold, and secondly, that the reforms will exempt community land trusts, which use this system in a very productive way?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I will not make such a statement today in the House but a statement will be made very shortly. Community land trusts are a separate policy matter. I agree with the noble Baroness that community land trusts are a way forward—not always the right way but one way to use land for the benefit of a particular community.

National Planning Policy Statements: Climate Change

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Thursday 3rd December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that the climate change strategy team has read every single report on the matter and recognises the importance of having clear planks to be able to achieve the target. Obviously, at the moment those are the national carbon budgets, the net-zero target strategy and, of course, the 10-point plan.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, this is such a wonderful, wide open Question that it is very difficult to know where to go for an answer, but let me try a very small point. The Government seem to be doing a slight U-turn on onshore wind farms, which have quite harsh rules at the moment within planning documents. Is there going to be a new document for onshore wind?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am not going to take the prompt from the noble Baroness. We need to write to her on the matter, because I do not want to make policy on the hoof.

Covid-19: Local Government Finance

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Monday 29th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh]

My Lords, there is no doubt that there is pressure on the funding of our cultural institutions, but we must recognise that there has already been a commitment of £27 billion to local areas to support councils and their communities, including the £3.2 billion to deal with demand pressures. I recognise the important role played by cultural institutions in supporting many in our communities.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]]

One option for the Government to see their way clearly through this financial crisis would be to undertake an equality impact assessment of taking no action—that is, assessed the risk of a sudden halt in services to vulnerable groups. That would make it quite clear that it is more expensive to do nothing.

[Lord Greenhalgh]

My Lords, I have made clear that this is far from a do-nothing Government. In just two months we have already provided £3.2 billion—an extraordinary sum—to deal with the demand pressures of Covid-19. I have also made quite clear that an announcement will be forthcoming in a few days to provide the support that councils need for the rest of the financial year.

Covid-19: Planning System

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Monday 8th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh]

Certainly there is no diminution in the standards required for accessibility in these temporary and pragmatic changes as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]]

I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Some very big planning decisions being taken at the moment are going to impact on the UK for well over 100 years: for example, Sizewell C. The planning application has been extended for two months so that more people can make their views heard. But, quite honestly, would it not be more sensible to defer these very big applications until after the lockdown, so that local people can engage properly?

[Lord Greenhalgh]

I note the point about the potential deferral of sizeable planning applications, but at the moment we have introduced measures that are pragmatic and temporary to enable a proper continuation of the planning system, even for major decisions.

Housing and Construction Sector

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Thursday 14th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh]

I thank the noble Lord for his Question. It is absolutely critical that construction work happens in a safe environment. The announcement yesterday of extending construction hours was precisely to do that—to enable travelling to work at times when public transport would not be busy. Also, there are very clear guidelines on how to carry out construction. Those are jointly agreed by the Home Builders Federation and the Government, and they include the appropriate use of personal protective equipment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The figures from the Office for National Statistics show that construction workers have a higher fatality rate even than health professionals. There is clearly not enough personal protective equipment on sites, nor enough understanding of physical distancing. Does the Minister not agree that this move by the Government is reckless, in sacrificing construction workers and their families to this awful disease?

[Lord Greenhalgh]

The noble Baroness points out that low-skilled workers in construction have a slightly higher death rate per 100,000, at 25.9 deaths per 100,000. However, we are not sure whether it is their occupation that is the causation. We obviously have an association, and I think we need to be careful and review the situation on an ongoing basis. That is why we have very clear guidelines that need to be followed to ensure that construction can happen safely.