Representation of the People Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 14th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, in the 1990s, when the Labour Party, via the Plant commission, looked at the age of voting, we were very sceptical about lowering it to 16. I have tracked what has happened in Scotland’s local government in the last decade, but, above all, what has really convinced me is my work on Learn with the Lords. When I and 70-odd other Peers tour the colleges and schools of England, the reactions we get from 16 and 17 year-olds are remarkable, and it is completely different from what it used to be. I will take the rest of my time on the commitment Motion.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Rooker]

After “Whole House,” insert “but that Committee stage will not commence until the Minister has made a statement setting out which clauses and schedules of the Bill, including amendments made to the Bill, the House of Commons did not have time to consider on the floor of the House;”.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I spoke for less than a minute on Second Reading and therefore I did not have an opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lord Macintosh of Eastwood on his very powerful maiden speech. My purpose with this amendment is exactly the same as the one on the public accountability Bill: to strengthen the role of the elected Members of the Commons. I will make a couple of general points and then come to this Bill.

In the Commons, Second Readings are all effectively guillotined. It is called the programme Motion and it affects all Bills. The effect is that the Government always want to boast about the numbers of Bills, which is done at the expense of scrutiny of Bills, so the Bills arrive in your Lordships’ House as a result of inadequate scrutiny. We end up sending more amendments back to the Commons than would otherwise be the case. Then, in the Commons, the Government—it is only one Government in both Houses—blame the extra work for elected Members in the Commons on the upper House abusing its position, leading to calls for reform. Even when we return amendments to the elected Members, they are limited in the time they can use due to the original programme Motion. My view is that elected Members need more time for scrutiny. The Government have to return to Parliament some of the power that they have taken away with the programme Motions designed to fit in more Bills rather than better Bills. Asking for a list from the Government of what they have not allowed to be scrutinised puts the buck back where it belongs.

On this Bill, on 2 September the Commons dealt with Report and Third Reading. They had five hours during which there was debate and Divisions, on which I do not comment. Then the programme Motion from 2 March took over and the Government’s 15 new clauses and six schedules occupying 72 columns of Commons Hansard were approved on the nod—no debate, no speech, no vote. One of those new schedules—in the Commons it was called Schedule 8 and it has now turned up in the Bill as Schedule 12—is 19 pages of the Bill.

We are a revising Chamber. We need to know what we are revising, because in this case you cannot identify from the Bill any of the changes passed on the nod. They are dispersed throughout the Bill and the numbers have changed. They could, for example, be italicised. We would not need a list then. The Bill would show us that these were the bits on the programme Motion passed on the nod. The only way at the moment is via Commons Hansard, which of course is a bit unsatisfactory. We should have an official list from the Government of what the Commons did not have time to scrutinise. That is what it is all about. We cannot identify in the Bill the part that we are not revising but scrutinising for the first time because nobody else has scrutinised it.

We are being taken for Charlies, as it were, because we get the blame later on. I venture to say that there will be a lot of amendments to this Bill. In a few months, when the rows start about what has been sent down there, I want the audit trail complete. In a way, that is why I have raised this amendment.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has just said. He has identified a problem. It is not new. It has evolved over a period of decades, but it is a real problem that this Chamber is facing now. I strongly support the detail outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, which we face and which the Commons has not addressed.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment that my noble friend has tabled seeks information on the amendments debated in the Commons, so I thought it would be helpful to the House if I set out the scrutiny that the Bill had in the House of Commons.

The Bill had its Second Reading in the House of Commons on Monday 2 March. The House of Commons then ordered that the Bill should be committed to a Public Bill Committee. The Public Bill Committee itself decided on its sitting pattern. The Committee completed its scrutiny in nine sittings over five days. As usual, all clauses and schedules were considered, as were all proposed amendments and new clauses that were selected by the chair. Report took place on Wednesday 2 September. The House of Commons ordered that consideration should conclude no later than five hours after it commenced. All proposed amendments and new clauses selected by the chair were considered.

I have no doubt that noble Lords will add to the work of the Commons with their usual high-quality scrutiny. There will, I am sure, be time to debate all the issues that noble Lords raised in detail as the Bill progresses through the House.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend, but let us get this absolutely clear: the Committee in the Commons did not discuss the stuff that was dumped in the Bill after the programme Motion on Report. The Committee did not know about it. The reality is—noble Lords can read Commons Hansard; it is there for them to read—that 15 new clauses and six schedules, occupying 72 columns of Hansard, were approved on the nod. They were not discussed. What is more, they were all government amendments, because the programme Motion means that only the government ones are passed on the nod: the ones in the names of opposition or individual Members disappear.

The programme Motion is designed to secure the Government’s business, and quite right too. I was there at the beginning, in 1997, when we introduced the idea of guillotining every Bill, but it has got out of hand because they are too close, too tight. More Bills are being pushed through, and we are now ending up with unscrutinised legislation, and that is not good legislation. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

Grenfell Tower: Bureau Veritas

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Rooker]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by Lord Khan of Burnley on 17 June (HL Deb cols 1897–8), whether they have investigated the role of Bureau Veritas as the examiner of the cladding and inspector of the lifts at Grenfell Tower.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Rooker for continuing to probe on this important matter. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry thoroughly and independently examined the cause of the fire and the roles of various actors. While it was referenced in the final report, the inquiry did not criticise Bureau Veritas for its role in lift inspections at Grenfell or cladding testing. Any legal or investigative matters now sit with the appropriate authorities.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that, but is she aware that Bureau Veritas staff were inside flat 16 with the London Fire Brigade, as a contractor, before 1 am on the night of the fire, and that Bureau Veritas’s contract to inspect the lifts was out of time during the fire? On the final point, is the Minister aware that the firm that issued the quality management ISO 9001 certification for the cladding on Grenfell, made by Arconic, was Bureau Veritas in Philadelphia? I have looked at all the sites and I have not found anywhere any declarations of possible conflict of interest on all these points—that one firm was involved in so many aspects. I have only used three; there are other aspects that I could have used.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

To respond to my noble friend’s important points, the Grenfell Tower Inquiry thoroughly and independently examined the cause of the fire and the roles of various actors and set out its findings publicly. Although referenced within the final report, the inquiry did not criticise Bureau Veritas for its role in lift inspection or cladding testing. The ISO 9001 certification and cladding assessment certification are two different things, and it is important that we do not confuse them. ISO 9001 is an international standard widely used to assess a company’s quality management system; it is not specific to a product. Bureau Veritas certified Arconic to ISO 9001 standards, but the product certification for the cladding that was used on Grenfell Towers was issued by the British Board of Agrément. The inquiry finding suggests that Arconic concealed test data from the British Board of Agrément. Any legal or investigative matters relating to this now rightly sit with the appropriate authorities.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have not personally discussed the issue with Defra, but I am sure that officials in MHCLG will have done so, and—

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

If my noble friend the Minister does discuss it with Defra, she will find that Defra has nothing like the numbers of people with experience of farming that it had 10 years ago. It has been completely denuded and she would not find the answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness opposite.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I was about to say, before the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, intervened, that I am always happy to discuss these important issues further with noble Lords and to refer back to colleagues in Defra and elsewhere. Nevertheless, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to withdraw his amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a Bill I strongly support, I want it to work, but I think it will be a waste of time. That sounds harsh, but it need not be. As I said in the King’s Speech debate last year, on 18 July, I have been involved in planning reform before as a Minister, more than once. My radical suggestion of a 30-month period of no regulation other than building control has clearly not been taken up—far too bold. But unless Ministers can remove the walls around departmental silos, the Bill will be waste of time.

New Labour was not perfect. But I was involved under new Labour, more than once, in clear major work across departments, outside the silos. It can be made to happen. Currently it is not happening. I have been at meetings with developers, industrial builders, and energy providers in the last months. The issue was getting action across departments: no give and take, examples of “all or nothing” from departments, and in some cases it has been nothing; jobs lost and companies lost—no one seems in overall control. No. 10 is the issue. We have a good Government, but they are a clumsy Government.

The Bill will not work if at the top it is awkward, all thumbs, butter-fingered, lumbering and stiff. Believe it or not, I think the Prime Minister should take a leaf out of the Arnold Weinstock management playbook, when he took GEC from a tiny company of £100 million to a manufacturing company of £11 billion, selling power plants to China and locomotives to the USA. He did not allow silos to exist in the subsidiaries. He cut out the chaff. He did not get sidetracked by consultants or third parties. It can work.

I support the Bill. I have read the briefs from at least 10 organisations: the National Trust, the Royal Town Planning Institute, Association of British Insurers, the Town and Country Planning Association, the National Association of Local Councils, the LGA, the County Councils Network, CPRE, the CLA and the NFU. All claim to support the Bill, “but”—there is always a “but”. Some of them contain good people I am happy to work with—tomorrow morning will be a good example—but, collectively, as third parties, aided by the two regulators, Natural England and the Environment Agency, they are the reason so little progress has been made over the years. That sums it up. Collectively, they have been the problem. They sidetrack the clumsy Government we have.

The Government need to embrace boldness as their friend, not their enemy. Once No. 10 is clearly in charge with a plan to stop and get rid of the silos, Ministers should be made to work across departments and just get on with it.

Cladding: High-rise Buildings

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Rooker]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made on removing cladding from high-rise buildings.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)]

My Lords, over half—57%—of all 18 metre-plus buildings identified with unsafe cladding have started or completed remediation. For 18 metre-plus buildings with aluminium composite material—ACM cladding—like that in Grenfell, 96% of identified buildings have started or completed remediation. We have been clear that those responsible must make swift progress or face action. We will update on the remediation acceleration plan this summer.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Many blocks still to be done contain the same panels as Grenfell. Can we be assured that the companies identified in the Grenfell report as using dishonest strategies and making false claims, such as Kingspan, Celotex and Arconic, are not involved in any replacement work? The companies are reported to have manipulated test data and manipulated the market. The Minister and other noble Lords will have read the exposure of the crooks running Arconic in a devastating article in the Sunday Times two days ago. Why are these people not behind bars?

Local Government: Electoral Quotas

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is very important that people do not lose their sense of place as this devolution programme goes forward, and they will not. The places will still exist. I have been talking to the associations that reflect the views of local councils—town and parish councils. We will support them in local areas, so they will definitely have a voice in this new system. The electorate will of course be able to decide at election times whether they are being properly represented.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Does my noble friend recall the point about not having national equality for local government? Whereas the average ward in London had 6,000 electors, the average ward in Leeds had 15,000 electors and the average ward in Birmingham had 20,000 electors. You cannot run a national system when you have such a variety of issues. Surely it must suit the locality.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The boundary commission is focused on making sure that the structure of the electoral wards and divisions meets the needs of the council concerned; that is, in respect of the types of decisions being taken, the need for strategic leadership in those areas to enable the appropriate scrutiny of decisions and making sure that councillors can meet their community responsibilities. It has been doing this for decades, and I am sure it will continue to do so.

Council Tax

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Rooker]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to make council tax more progressive.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, there are currently no plans to reform council tax. I suppose I should sit down now. It is a widely understood tax with a high collection rate and contains a range of discounts and exemptions to reflect personal circumstances. Local authorities are also required to run local council tax support schemes to provide reductions to those on low incomes.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend, but how is it that a £12 million penthouse in Islington pays £1,000 less in council tax than a £1.5 million manor house in Hartlepool? It is eight times the value, yet it pays £1,000 less. This is why council tax is so regressive, and no tough decisions have been taken for 34 years. When people no longer know what a tax is for or how it is fixed, and they see this unfairness, that risks bringing the whole system into disrepute. It is a major political and social risk. Why are we taking it?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, we all know that there are problems caused by outdated valuations and the regressive nature of council tax. However, a widescale reform of the system would be time-consuming and complex, and we are committed to keeping tax on working people as low as possible. The Government will carefully consider the impact on councils and taxpayers before taking any further decisions on council tax.

Cladding Remediation

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that point. I will have another look at it, but that guidance is very clear. They are industry-accepted standards, so they should be adhered to.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Why do the Government not arrange for the blocks of flats that still have dangerous cladding to be fitted with equipment to prevent neutral current diversions causing a fire in the first place? The fear of fire has got to be a serious issue. Given that the most expensive three blocks of flats in London are fitted with such equipment, I do not see why it should not be fitted to all those flats where people are living in fear and still with dangerous cladding.

Housing: Modern Methods of Construction

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I support modern construction methods. In February 2003, Lord Prescott published a seminal document, Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future. Ministers would be well advised to look at this, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel. We then in ODPM promoted off-site construction and committed to encouraging the private sector to invest in factories and new techniques.

In an Oral Question I asked on 8 June 2023, I made the point that you cannot switch factories on and off, and a stable demand is a prerequisite. What stops a big uplift? Both off-site and onsite require new skills and techniques; they are not separate.

I once visited a factory in Birmingham and three weeks later visited a site in Stratford-upon-Avon to see the construction of what I had seen in a factory. It was made clear to me that techniques on both the site and the factory are linked. The Government need to ensure that the new skills are developed, and they need to create demand. Perhaps a density directive, which Lord Prescott used, to stop wasting land could help.

My final point concerns the Building Research Establishment. Lord Prescott and I visited it in its early years of being a Tory privatised body to see examples of modern methods. I had visited one in opposition, when it was government-owned. Given the Grenfell report, the BRE should no be longer be involved in certifying modern methods of off-site construction techniques or products. Such work should be seen to be fully independent and professional.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Lincoln]

My Lords, I stand to support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. My right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester has put his name to the amendments and regrets that he cannot be in his place today. As we have heard, the Building Safety Act 2022 contained welcome measures to address historic building safety defects, but the fact remains, as other noble Lords have noted, that it does not go nearly far enough. Seven years on from the Grenfell fire, only 21% of high-rise blocks have been fully remediated—and they are the ones that are eligible; there remain gaps in provision where leaseholders are disqualified for such arbitrary reasons as their block being 10.9 metres tall rather than, say, 11.1. The Act disqualifies huge numbers of people who are now trapped in potentially unsafe flats which they will struggle to sell. They might face very high bills through service charges and insurance premiums.

My right reverend friend’s diocese of Manchester has been identified, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Young, as one of the areas most at risk from inadequate cladding. More than 20 buildings have been identified with ACM cladding in both Manchester and Salford, and in Salford between six and 10 of those are yet to be remediated. The measures are not being implemented fast enough, which is why I also support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which would require a statement to Parliament on progress, because, clearly, more scrutiny is needed. But for those buildings which are ineligible for support entirely, a statement to Parliament does not go far enough. Does the Minister believe that living on the top floor of a block of 11.5 metres is significantly safer than living on the top floor of a block of 11 metres, where both have flammable cladding? Beyond this obvious safety issue, my right reverend friend has received correspondence evidencing the difficulties that some leaseholders face in selling ineligible properties due to the difficulties in obtaining a mortgage on those flats. Will the Minister commit to ending this injustice once and for all?

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the thrust of the amendments in general. I also much regret the news we had today about the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. The points I am going to raise relate to a previous debate we had on the levelling-up Bill where he followed me and also raised some very practical issues on safety.

I want briefly to follow up the points I raised on 18 September last year during the passage of the levelling-up Bill, at Hansard cols. 1252 to 1255, regarding the issue of electrical safety and what are known as NCDs—neutral current diversions. I have no interest to declare, other than my 60-year membership of the Institution of Engineering and Technology and that I came across this issue via an article in the April 2023 issue of the IET magazine.

Since I raised the issue in September last year, I have been contacted by several electrical engineers. Indeed, I visited one factory involved in preventing neutral current diversions. I will keep the techy bit brief. A neutral current diversion can occur on the network when the combined protective earthing and neutral—PEN—conductor fails. The current is then diverted, making a circuit via exposed metalwork on buildings, including gas, water and oil pipes. This can lead to a significant build-up of heat, because those pipes are not designed to carry electricity, which can lead to fires and gas explosions. These conductors are susceptible to damage, corrosion, and general wear and tear across what is an ageing network. We probably have the second-oldest electrical network in the world—and it will vastly expand due to our net-zero obligations.