Fire Safety Bill
Wednesday 29th April 2020
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I call Minister James Brokenshire to move Second Reading. He is asked to speak for no more than 20 minutes.
The Minister for Security (James Brokenshire) [V]
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Almost three years have passed since the tragic events on the night of 14 June 2017. It was the greatest loss of life following a residential fire since the second world war. None of us will ever forget the events of that terrible night, and the Government are resolute in their commitment to ensure that they are never repeated. Those 72 people should never have lost their lives. Our thoughts today are very much with the victims’ families, survivors and fellow residents, who have had to rebuild their lives over the past three years.
I know from my time as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government the profound effect the events have had on the Grenfell community, but also that community’s sense of purpose and its clear demands for justice and change. I have had the privilege to meet survivors and their families, as well as those in the local community who joined together to support them. Those discussions have been humbling and harrowing. They have underlined the responsibility—indeed, the duty—on us to act. The Government will continue to provide support to the affected families and support the creation of a memorial on the site of the tower, a process that is rightly being led by the bereaved and the local community.
The House has had the opportunity to debate the tragic events at Grenfell Tower on a number of occasions. Despite the unusual circumstances we are operating under today, I have no doubt that we will hear once again many powerful and impactful contributions. There is considerable experience across the House, and we will continue to listen to views from all interested colleagues, as well as working with the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue. I welcome the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) to his new role as shadow Home Secretary. We will continue to engage constructively with him and his team.
Our home should be a place of safety and security. At a time when we are asking the people of this country to stay at home—indeed, many of us will contribute to this debate from our homes—we are reminded of the overriding importance of people being safe and feeling safe at home, especially in high-rise properties.
In the days following the terrible tragedy, the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), announced that there would be a full independent inquiry, led by Sir Martin Moore-Bick, to get to the bottom of what happened on that night and to understand why the building was so dangerously exposed to the risk of fire. Alongside the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Home Office commissioned an independent review of building regulations and safety, which was led by Dame Judith Hackitt. Dame Judith’s findings have underpinned our unprecedented programme of building and fire safety reform. We are resolute in our commitment to delivering on them, and significant steps have already been taken to address building safety and fire safety risks.
Where a fire and rescue service has been advised of a high-rise residential building with aluminium composite material cladding, the National Fire Chiefs Council is confident that that building has been checked by the local fire and rescue service and, where appropriate, additional interim measures have been put in place to ensure the safety of residents. The Government have established a fire protection board, chaired by the National Fire Chiefs Council, to provide oversight of the programme to ensure that all high-rise residential buildings are inspected or reviewed by the end of 2021; £10 million has been allocated to support the fire and rescue service in this endeavour.
In December 2018, the use of combustible materials on new high-rise homes was banned, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in this year’s Budget that the Government will provide £1 billion to fund the removal and replacement of unsafe non-ACM cladding systems for both the social and private residential sectors on buildings of 18 metres and above. The prospectus for this new building safety fund will be published in May and open for registrations soon after. The funding is an addition to the £600 million we have already made available to ensure the remediation of the highest-risk ACM cladding of the type that was in place on Grenfell Tower.
In January, MHCLG issued specific advice for building owners on assurance and assessment and how to ensure fire doors meet appropriate fire safety standards. We have pushed owners and local authorities hard to identify and remediate unsafe buildings. We work closely with local fire authorities and fire and rescue services to ensure that interim safety measures are in place in all buildings until the cladding is replaced, but there is an urgent need for remediation to progress, even at this challenging time, recognising the continuing risks and the financial burdens on leaseholders in maintaining waking watches. I therefore want to be clear that remediation work can and should continue wherever it can be done safely—wherever it can, whenever it can.
It is critical that this work continue, and to help support that we have published information for industry and stakeholders on the gov.uk website on how to ensure sites can operate appropriately under the current restrictions. We have also appointed a firm of construction consultants to provide specific advice for those carrying out cladding remediation work.
While the focus of much of our activity has been high-rise residential buildings, it is important to stress that our work rightly goes far beyond that. To support the protection work targeting other high-risk buildings. the Home Office will be providing fire and rescue services with a further £10 million to help deliver protection work within their communities.
While talking about essential work within communities, at this time of incredible national challenge I want to use this opportunity to recognise, and pay tribute to, the essential role fire and rescue services are playing in our response to the coronavirus pandemic. In addition to their core duties, fire and rescue services have around 4,000 volunteers working to support ambulance services, coroners and local communities, as well as helping the vulnerable and those isolated at this incredibly difficult time. I want to thank firefighters and staff up and down the country for their incredible service, their dedication to duty and their desire to help others where they can, and for the incredible difference that is making.
The Queen’s Speech committed the Government to bringing forward two Bills on fire and building safety. The first is this short, technical, Home Office-led Fire Safety Bill, which will amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The second, the building safety Bill, led by MHCLG, will put in place an enhanced safety framework for high-rise residential buildings, taking forward the recommendations from Dame Judith’s review. The purpose of the Bill before the House today is to clarify that the fire safety order applies to the external walls, including cladding and balconies, and individual flat entrance doors in multi-occupied residential buildings. The fire safety order requires responsible persons, often building owners or managers, to assess the risk from fire, to put in place fire precautions so far as reasonably practicable to keep premises safe, and otherwise to comply with the requirements of the order. The order does not apply to domestic premises, except in limited circumstances.
The Grenfell Tower inquiry’s phase 1 report found compelling evidence that the external walls of the tower were not compliant with building regulations. In January this year, the independent expert advisory panel on building safety set up by the Government shortly after the Grenfell fire published its consolidated advice. That includes advice on measures that building owners should take to review ACM and other cladding systems to assess and assure their fire safety and the potential risks to residents of the spread of external fire.
We have established that there are differing interpretations of the provisions in the order as to whether external walls and, to a lesser extent, individual flat entrance doors in multi-occupied residential buildings are in scope of the order. For that reason, we submit that the Bill is a clarification of the fire safety order. It will apply to all multi-occupied residential buildings regulated by the order. The current ambiguity is leading to inconsistency in operational practice. That is unhelpful at best and, at worst, it means that the full identification and management of fire safety risks is compromised, which can put the lives of people at risk.
Twenty flats in Barking were destroyed in June 2019 when a fire spread from a wooden balcony. Richmond House was a four-storey timber-framed block of flats in Worcester Park that burnt down in September. Only last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) highlighted a further significant fire in her constituency. Such fires are stark reminders of how a conflagration can spread on the external envelope of a building, and why those risks need to be identified or mitigated.
The Bill will therefore ensure that, when the responsible person makes a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks, it takes account of the structure, external walls, balconies and flat entrance doors in complying with the fire safety order, and allows enforcement action to be taken confidently by fire and rescue authorities. That will complement existing powers that local authorities have under the Housing Act 2004.
The Grenfell inquiry’s phase 1 report, published last October, provided a comprehensive picture of what happened on the night of 14 June 2017. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear at the time of publication, the Government accepted in principle all of the 14 recommendations addressed to the Government directly.
For high-rise residential buildings, the inquiry’s recommendations included new duties on building owners and managers: to issue information to the fire and rescue services; to ensure that there are premises information boxes; to carry out regular inspections of lifts; and to ensure that building floor numbers are clearly marked. For all multi-occupied residential buildings, the inquiry also called for new duties for regular checks of fire doors.
The objective is to ensure that fire and rescue services can plan for and respond to a fire in a high-rise residential building, alongside overall fire safety benefits for residents. As we said in our initial response to the report, we are committed to working closely with other organisations to ensure that the right changes are brought about to protect the public.
The Bill will also provide the firm foundation on which the Government will bring forward secondary legislation to enact those recommendations. Our proposals will be the subject of public consultation, to be published in the coming months. The consultation will also set out proposals to ensure that the fire safety order continues to regulate fire safety effectively in all the premises it covers, as part of the ongoing improvements to building safety following our 2019 call for evidence on the order.
The Bill will give the Secretary of State a regulation-making power to amend or clarify the list of premises that fall within scope of the fire safety order. That will enable us to respond quickly to any further developments in the design and construction of buildings and our understanding of the combustibility and fire risk of construction products.
As the order and therefore the Bill relate to matters within the legislative competence of the Welsh Assembly, the Deputy Minister for Housing and Local Government in the Welsh Assembly has confirmed that she will put the matter before the Assembly for a legislative consent motion.
I am aware that the provisions of the Bill will require potentially significant numbers of responsible persons to review and update their fire risk assessments. For many, that will require specialist knowledge and the expertise of the fire risk assessor. We are working with representatives of the sector to understand the particular challenges in delivery. That will inform our approach to the implementation of the Bill, while maintaining a clear and consistent approach to fire risk assessments. In any event, and in line with the independent expert advisory panel’s consolidated advice, I would none the less encourage those with responsibilities to carry out a fire risk assessment under the order as a matter of good practice and to consider flat entrance doors and external wall systems as part of their fire risk assessment for multi-occupied residential blocks as soon as possible, if they have not already done so.
As I have highlighted, there is further legislation to follow. Following the 2019 consultation, the building safety Bill will put in place an enhanced safety framework for high-rise residential buildings. It will establish a new system to oversee the performance of building control functions, with stronger enforcement and sanctions, and give residents a stronger voice in the system, ensuring that their concerns are never ignored. That Bill will be published in draft form before the summer recess.
We will also establish a new national building safety regulator within the Health and Safety Executive. The new regulator will be responsible for implementing and enforcing a more stringent regulatory regime for high-rise residential buildings, as well as providing wider oversight of safety and performance.
The Fire Safety Bill complements all the actions that we have taken to date. It demonstrates that we are applying the lessons from the Grenfell tragedy and will continue to do everything within our power to ensure the safety of people in their homes. While legislation alone can never provide all the answers, I believe that it will make a significant and lasting contribution to the safety of residents. It will provide a catalyst to drive the culture change that is needed within our building and construction sector to put safety and security at the forefront and provide responsibility and accountability where people fall short. Above all, it will help to provide the legal foundations to ensure that such a tragedy can never happen again. I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Home Secretary, Nick Thomas-Symonds, who is asked to speak for no more than 15 minutes.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I thank the Security Minister for his speech and his welcome. I shadowed him briefly in a previous role over recent months, and I look forward to working with him on issues of national interest.
In our deliberations today, at the forefront of our minds are the 72 people who lost their lives and the more than 70 who were injured in the terrible tragedy of Grenfell on 14 June 2017. All of us in this House and, indeed, the whole country will remember where we were when we first saw those devastating scenes in west London. It was one of the most heart-wrenching tragedies we can all imagine, and what made it unbearable was the fact that the event that unfolded was wholly preventable. It is and always will remain a stain on our national conscience. For those who escaped, for the emergency services at the scene and for all the family, the friends and the wider community, the events of that awful day will live with them forever.
The fact that such a tragedy could happen in one of the wealthiest boroughs in one of the wealthiest countries in the world shines a piercing light on the inequality in modern Britain and the many ways in which it manifests itself. Over the course of this debate, we will, of course, discuss the legislation, the numbers and the finance, but at the heart of it, we must always remember first and foremost that this is about people, and most strikingly, those who lost their lives and those who managed to escape but will live forever with the memories of that night. That is why people will rightly look to this House for not just words but action.
Getting the Bill right is vital, not just to address the failings so horrifically exposed by Grenfell but to guard against similar incidents—incidents that may appear unlikely or unimaginable today, but could be all too real in future. Labour Members support the Bill, but we urge the Government to go further and faster on fire safety so that there are no more Grenfell Tower tragedies and people are kept safe and secure in their own homes.
In October, we welcomed the first phase of the Grenfell Tower inquiry, which addresses the events of the night itself: when the fire began, when the first 999 call was made, at six minutes to one in the morning, and when the first firefighters reached the tower, five minutes later. We await phase 2 of the inquiry and its investigation into the broader causes, but we already know from the first phase report how it happened. The report says:
“Once the fire had escaped from Flat 16, it spread rapidly up the east face of the tower. It then spread around the top of the building in both directions and down the sides until the advancing flame fronts converged on the west face near the south-west corner, enveloping the entire building in under three hours.”
The report also sets out that there is
“compelling evidence that the external walls of the building failed to comply with…the Building Regulations 2010, in that they did not adequately resist the spread of fire having regard to the height, use and position of the building. On the contrary, they actively promoted it.”
It continues:
“It is clear that the use of combustible materials in the external wall of Grenfell Tower, principally in the form of the ACM rainscreen cladding, but also in the form of combustible insulation, was the reason why the fire spread so quickly to the whole of the building.”
Given the particular focus on the actions of the London Fire Brigade at the scene in the first phase report, recommendations made to the fire service should be given the full response that they require. At the same time, while recognising what the first phase report says and learning the lessons, we continue to pay tribute to the heroic actions of firefighters in our country every day, including on the night of the Grenfell Tower fire, when so many put themselves at serious risk to save the Grenfell Tower residents. We will continue to press the Government to give all survivors the support that they need, to bring those culpable to justice, and to put in place every measure needed to prevent a fire such as Grenfell from ever happening again.
As the Security Minister said, the Bill’s provisions clarify that the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 applies to external walls, including cladding, balconies and windows, and individual flat entrance doors in multi-occupied residential buildings. Responsible persons will need to ensure that they have assessed the fire safety risks of the relevant premises and have taken the necessary fire precautions, with fire and rescue authorities having enforcement powers, including the ability to remove cladding and to put in place prohibitions until changes are made. However, we have to be absolutely clear who the responsible persons are and allow nobody—owners or anyone else—to shirk their responsibilities under the Bill.
Although those powers are welcome, they are clearly not enough in themselves to meet the Government’s pledge to prevent another tragedy from happening. Clause 2 gives the Government powers to make further changes through secondary legislation, and the Government have said that that will provide a foundation to take forward recommendations. The Government have said they will launch a consultation on the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 in spring 2020, and that that will include proposals for implementing the Grenfell Tower phase 1 report recommendations, which will be delivered via secondary legislation.
However, the Government have not given a timetable for when they will deliver those recommendations through secondary legislation. They must do so urgently. There is an urgent need for the fire safety measures recommended, and that urgency must be reflected in the actions of Ministers. Indeed, almost three years after Grenfell, this three-clause Bill is the first and only piece of primary legislation on fire safety that the Government have put before the House.
The Bill does not include provisions for the inquiry’s recommendations. The Government had already promised, in October 2019, to implement the inquiry’s recommendations in full and without delay. The 2019 Conservative manifesto repeated that commitment, but even the simpler recommendations, such as the inspection of fire doors and the testing of lifts, are not in the Bill. Long-overdue reforms of building safety are also not included in the legislation—they are to be in a separate building safety Bill. The Security Minister indicated that the draft version of that Bill would appear before the summer, but that process still needs to be moved forward as quickly as it possibly can be. He should clarify when it will appear in final form.
The House cannot escape the way in which the inquiry report was repeatedly critical of the Government: for the failure to remove ACM cladding from other blocks; for not funding the fire service efficiently to be properly equipped; for failing to publish national guidelines on the evacuation of tall buildings; and for ignoring recommendations to retrofit sprinklers in social housing blocks in the years leading up to the Grenfell tragedy.
The Bill will require a higher level of inspection and enforcement and will increase the workload on fire and rescue services. There has to be clarity about the funding to carry out such work. The Fire Brigades Union has said today that there are 1,100 fire-safety inspectors left; there have to be more to carry out the duties in the Bill. Between 2010 and 2016, the fire and rescue services were cut centrally by 28% in real terms, with a further cut of 15% by 2020. That led to 12,000 fewer firefighters—20% of the whole service.
As Mayor of London, the Prime Minister was responsible for deep cuts. An independent review by Anthony Mayer found that in the eight years of the Prime Minister’s mayoralty, the London Fire Brigade was required to make gross savings of more than £100 million, leading to the cutting of 27 fire appliances, 552 firefighters, 324 support staff, two fire-rescue units and three training appliances, along with the closure of 10 fire stations and a reduction of fire rescue unit crewing levels.
Grenfell was not the first fire in a high-rise block of flats that resulted in loss of life. In 2013, coroners wrote to Ministers about two separate fires: in Camberwell in 2009, in which six people died; and in Southampton in 2010, in which two firefighters died. The coroners’ letters included clear points of criticism and recommendations, important parts of which—including recommendations to retrofit sprinklers in high-rise housing blocks and to urgently overhaul building regulations—were either rejected or ignored. Letters were sent to the then Housing Minister by the all-party group on fire safety and rescue, with the last sent just 26 days before the tragedy.
An issue that must be recognised is the reaction to the Grenfell fire, with the Government not acting swiftly enough to remove Grenfell-style cladding from tower blocks and a failure to support residents with interim safety costs. To give an example, waking watches, when fire wardens patrol residences, can cost residents £10,000 or more for very short periods of time.
Coronavirus is an unprecedented challenge and I recognise what the Security Minister said about action continuing where it can and the crisis that we are currently in. We of course recognise that it absolutely changes working patterns, but it cannot ever be an excuse for failing to take strong and swift action on the removal of cladding, because 60,000 worried residents are still living in buildings wrapped in cladding that needs to be replaced. Almost nine in 10 private sector buildings and half of social sector buildings have not had cladding removed.
The Security Minister will, I am sure, remember setting a deadline of the end of 2019 for social sector blocks to be made safe, and of June 2020 for private sector blocks—a deadline that now looks likely to be missed. In addition, the Government have yet to publish their findings from the audit of how many buildings are covered with dangerous non-ACM cladding, such as high-pressure laminate. I urge the Minister to make that audit’s findings, which I understand were available at the end of March, fully available as soon as possible.
After Grenfell, the Government accepted that there were flaws in the building safety regime and commissioned the Hackitt review, as the Security Minister said. That was published in May 2018. The Government accept that they did not go far enough. That led to the ban on combustible cladding in November 2018 and the restrictions on desktop studies. As I have indicated, the Government have yet to publish that primary legislation. While the draft will be available in the summer, as the Security Minister said, the process must be faster.
Labour will look to improve the Bill during its passage through Parliament. I urge the Government to have an open mind in the short Committee stage they have allocated and to give reassurance on a timetable for the measures they intend to take. Anything less than that would be a breach of promise to those who were lost and every person affected by the terrible tragedy of Grenfell, which none of us wants to see ever happen again.
I will conclude by taking a moment to pay tribute to all those who were impacted by the Grenfell tragedy and the remarkable community efforts that grew up and have been maintained to support people. In this, the most awful of incidents, we also saw the very best in people. I commend the work that they have done campaigning for justice.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am now introducing a time limit of five minutes. I advise Members who are speaking virtually to have a timing device visible.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which has already been published. I also declare an interest in that I used to be a fireman. I look across the Chamber trying to see Jim Fitzpatrick, but he has retired. His expertise, knowledge and balanced attitude in these debates over the years is something that we will miss a lot.
I am also almost fully responsible for it being the shadow Home Secretary who is representing the Opposition in this debate and it being my good friend the Security Minister, sunning himself in Kent, who is representing the Government. I convinced the then Prime Minister and then Home Secretary that the fire service should be part, along with the police, of the Home Office emergency provision. Sadly we have not yet gone as far as I would like, with the blue-light services coming under one ministerial umbrella. The regulations should have come across with the fire service responsibility. It should not two different Departments vying over it with the Cabinet Office being involved; it should be one Minister who is responsible for safety in our fire service.
I welcome this very short Bill, but I share some of the concerns about what is not in it—those will be talked about in the House today—and that the shadow Home Secretary has expressed.
It would be wrong for me not to praise and have deep-felt thoughts for those who lost loved ones and have been affected so much by Grenfell, including my former colleagues, the ambulance service and the police who saw things that night and in the following days that they never thought they would ever see in their careers. I was trained in high-rise, and I never thought I would see what I saw on television and subsequently when I drove past on my way into Westminster the following morning. I never dreamed that we would see double-glazing units fully alight falling out and coming down the side of a building, or that the cladding itself would be the perpetrator. However, the cladding is not the perpetrator of what happened at Grenfell; the perpetrator is who allowed it to be installed. Who did not do the checks? The inquiry will go into that. In the five minutes I have, I am not going to be able to go into that in depth, but what needs to come out is how this happened. I am sure that that is exactly what will come out in the inquiry.
It is not only ACM. Other fundamentally unsafe claddings are being put around buildings. I will come on to those in a second. I looked very carefully at the Local Government Association’s brief and I share some of its concerns. One of my biggest concerns is the shortage of engineers, to which the shadow Home Secretary alluded. When I was in the job, the firemen did that. We had guys who went away on specialist courses and they were responsible for the topography of their patch. They did those sorts of checks. It was not just the guys on appliances, but officers who had gone away and were trained to do so.
There is an anomaly that can be resolved in the Bill, or the subsequent Bill, to prevent that from happening. One thing that shocked me when I was first made the fire service Minister was that it is not possible for a local fire service to charge the local authority to do such inspections because it is not allowed to make a profit. That is against regulations when there is a shortage of engineers around the country. The other day, I was in a warden accommodation where the lovely folk said, “The firemen came around and said I couldn’t have a mat outside my front door.” The firemen did not come around and say that; that was a private contractor. Frankly, it is lunacy if you cannot have a mat outside your front door. What sort of problem that is going to be in a fire, I do not know. Perhaps they thought that people would throw them away. The point is that often it is the fire service that does a lot of those inspections, but very often it is not.
We could change the regulations tomorrow to allow the fire service to do what it wants to do, which is to be responsible for their ground on their patches, in a way that it is unable to do at the moment. Perhaps we could do that through an amendment in the short Committee stage, or perhaps we could do that in the future Bill as it comes forward, because it will be published in draft and we can do a lot of work on it. I will work across the House to help to get this right. The Security Minister has now disappeared from our screens, but I know he would be similarly encouraged to do so.
There is another major anomaly. The LGA’s brief says that it should not be responsible for properties owned by leaseholders. The leaseholder does not own the property—that is the freeholder—and they should not have the burden, which is currently on them all the time, day in, day out, in the Bill.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]
First, may I allude to the work, which has just been mentioned, by my honourable friend and colleague, Jim Fitzpatrick? When he was a Member of this House, he did an awful lot of work in this area, and he deserves to be respected and remembered for that.
This is the first of two Bills to improve building safety, particularly in relation to fire. This Bill will be followed by the building safety Bill, which we understand will come in draft form. If that is the case, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, which I chair, will look forward to undertaking pre-legislative scrutiny on it. We will certainly treat it with the urgency it deserves. The Committee has taken evidence in recent months from Dame Judith Hackitt on her report on fire safety, expert witnesses and Ministers. We recommended at an early stage that all combustible cladding should be removed from high rise residential buildings and we called for Government funding to enable that to happen. I am pleased that many of the Committee’s recommendations have been accepted, but it is unacceptable that at this stage there are still over 300 high rise residential buildings that have combustible cladding on them.
The Select Committee has just started a new inquiry into combustible cladding. We have had 1,300 responses to a survey. In those responses, we have been told by the respondents that 70% of them are living in buildings that still have combustible cladding on them. We have been told that in many of those buildings, fire breaks and fire doors are missing or inadequate. We have been told that many of the buildings have combustible insulation as well as combustible cladding. Nearly three years after Grenfell, it is not good enough that those buildings are still in that state.
It is welcome, however, that the Bill clarifies the responsibility of building owners with regard to those issues and defects. It gives powers to the fire service to enforce the regulations that are in place. One of the challenges highlighted by Dame Judith Hackitt is the need for responsible and accountable persons at all stages of a building’s life. A responsible and accountable person needs to be identified at the construction stage and then, when the building is built, for its maintenance and management. As the previous speaker, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), said, the question is: who is the responsible owner in each case? Is it the leaseholder? The real problem for leaseholders is that they are not normally the building owner. Is it the freeholder, who may not have legal responsibility, or is it the management agent? Do any of these bodies actually have the necessary skills to take on this role and, indeed, would a management agent want to do that job if they had to take on those liabilities? There are real challenges that are not addressed in this legislation.
On the role of the fire service, it is welcome that it will be given powers to enforce the regulations and make sure that buildings are safe, and that owners do their job. We heard in our Select Committee inquiry that the job of the fire service, in all matters, could be greatly enhanced and helped if every single property has a log book, which has the materials used in the construction of the building, the building’s layout and the responsibilities for the management of that building, including evacuation procedures. It would help the fire service to carry out enforcement and, of course, it would make it much easier for the fire service to deal with a fire when one breaks out in such a building.
Dame Judith highlighted the need for residents of these high-rise residential buildings to be fully involved in, informed of and consulted on matters to do with the safety of those buildings. The Select Committee completely agreed with her, and it is welcome that in the Bill, there is the possibility to go on and ensure that evacuation procedures in buildings are fully understood by the people who live in them.
Finally, to echo the comments that have been made, all this legislation we are discussing today and future legislation should have the simple objective of making sure that a Grenfell disaster never happens again.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
As most hon. Members are aware, Grenfell Tower is in my constituency, so the whole issue of fire safety is very close to my heart. I start by paying tribute to my constituents, the Grenfell bereaved and survivors, their friends and neighbours, and the wider community, with whom I have spent a lot of time over the last six months, since I was elected to this place. They have been through so much, but they have always conducted themselves with great grace and dignity and they have campaigned tirelessly for improved fire and building regulations, so I commend them for that.
I also commend the Bill to the House, because I believe that it will improve the safety of those living in multiple-occupancy residential dwellings, and it will provide a platform whereby we can implement the recommendations of this first phase of the Grenfell inquiry. As previously stated, the Bill puts beyond doubt that the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 does require building owners, of any height of building, to mitigate the risks in their building when it comes to external walls, balconies and fire doors.
We also need to think practically, and we need to think forward. There is no question but that the Bill will increase, quite rightly, the amount and nature of the work that needs to be done on fire risk assessment on buildings, so we need to ask industry whether it has enough fire safety experts and whether they are trained to a sufficient standard whereby they can assess the entirety of a building.
Clearly, there will also be cost implications for building owners, and we need to make absolutely sure that if a building owner is unable or unwilling to pay for these remediation measures, that does not stand in the way of fire safety. I would also say to the Minister that we need to act with speed and with a real sense of urgency. I am very conscious that the tragedy of Grenfell Tower happened almost three years ago. We need to see tangible results not only in legislation but in improvements to buildings on the ground. I welcome the £1 billion in the recent Budget for the remediation of non-ACM cladding coming on top of the £600 million fund for ACM cladding, but we need to see that money utilised soon, and the work needs to continue in spite of the coronavirus lockdown. I would strongly encourage industry to focus on that remediation work now.
I strongly commend the Bill to the House, but I cannot stress enough that when it comes to fire and building safety improvements, we need to work collectively with a sense of urgency and purpose. As we spend ever more time in our own homes as a result of coronavirus, it becomes ever more clear that safety in our own homes needs to be of paramount importance. Nothing can stand in the way of improved building and fire regulations. We cannot allow another Grenfell tragedy to happen on our watch.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) [V]
I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), the shadow Home Secretary, both in welcoming the Bill and in relation to what is needed in respect of fire safety, funding for fire services and, in particular, justice for the Grenfell community. I shall focus my remarks on the plight of leaseholders in my constituency, who have been badly affected and for whom I believe the Government need to take much stronger action.
I represent hundreds of people who have been affected by cladding-related issues, including those in the Islington Gates development and at Brindley House in my constituency. Islington Gates is a 144-unit development, and Brindley House is a 182-unit development. Both have flammable cladding, which has rendered the buildings unsafe. In my view, the Government have not moved quickly enough in dealing with cladding that is not of the ACM type that we saw in the Grenfell fire. I welcome the new £1 billion fund, but it took far too long for us to get to that point. It was the result of sustained campaigning from Members across the House, the Labour Front Bench and campaign groups such as the UK Cladding Action Group, the Birmingham Leaseholder Action Group and Manchester Cladiators, alongside many others, who kept up the pressure on the Government ahead of the Budget, that the announcement of the remediation fund was eventually made.
Some big questions remain unanswered about that fund, on the speed with which the fund will be paying out for remediation works and on whether there is enough money to cover the cost of all the works that will be required in buildings such as Islington Gates and Brindley House. If the money is not enough, the Government need to make it clear that they will meet any and all of those costs, and that the £1 billion fund does not represent the limit of the support that the Government are prepared to make available.
These issues are difficult enough for the people who live in these properties, but many, such as those I represent, have now been overtaken by another even more pressing matter: the insurance cover for their buildings. On this issue, there has been a depressing lack of understanding and engagement from Government. If we are not to preside over an even bigger social disaster, that has to change.
At Islington Gates, residents were already paying very large sums for interim fire safety measures before they were hit with a fivefold increase in the cost of insuring their building from £36,000 to £190,000. They had to find a consortium of five insurers to provide cover for their building. When those sums are added to the money that leaseholders already have to find for interim fire safety measures, they are looking at bills of many tens of thousands of pounds—more than some of them will earn in a whole year. For residents of Brindley House, the new quote for their insurance costs is 1,000% higher, having soared to £530,000; the commission and taxes alone on their premium are more than the whole of their premium for the previous year. Last year, they spent £150,000 on internal compartmentation and fire door works; they are paying over £180,000 for their 24/7 waking watch; and on top of all that, they have had to pay £100,000 to replace their fire alarm system.
Can Ministers on the Treasury Bench imagine the stress of receiving a bill for a sum that is much more than they earn in a year? On top of that is the tightening of everyone’s financial circumstances as a result of the covid crisis. My constituents are enduring a level of stress that has left them at breaking point. Their situation is unconscionable, given that they have done nothing wrong. They are facing the consequences of national regulatory failure, and they should not simply be left to it. I have asked the Government repeatedly to take action on insurance for buildings affected in this way. In other parts of the sector, where insurance companies have been unwilling to provide affordable cover for natural disasters such as flooding, the Government have stepped forward with measures such as the Flood Re scheme. I urge them to consider stepping forward in a similar way on cladding insurance cover. It offends every part of our British values, our sense of fair play and decency, that people face ruin through no fault of their own. It is a national failure and it requires a national response.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Today our country is in the midst of a national crisis, and together with the rest of the world we face an invisible enemy. No individual or group of people can say with any certainty how this crisis started and how it will end, but I feel certain that working together we will overcome it. That is in sharp contrast to the Bill before the House, which was of course triggered by the Grenfell disaster.
Who can forget the chilling morning of 14 June 2017, when we all woke to see the Grenfell Tower become a burning inferno? Words cannot describe adequately the horror that I and everyone in our country felt when we saw the tower ablaze. We could see the enemy there. It was a fire, and yes, Parliament could and should have done something to prevent it from happening. The all-party parliamentary fire safety and rescue group drew attention on countless occasions to the underlying issues surrounding the cause of the fire, but unfortunately, those warnings were not acted on swiftly enough.
I, as chair of the APPG, do not want to dwell on the past. Instead, I want to say that I am delighted by and welcome the Bill, which will at long last require owners and managers of multi-occupancy residential buildings in England and Wales to reduce the risk of fire through unsafe materials on the external walls of buildings and individual flat entrances. Essentially, I am delighted to say, it closes at last a legal loophole that left it unclear whether fire safety legislation applied to certain parts of multi-occupancy residential buildings, such as the structure’s external walls, including anything attached such as cladding, balconies and windows, and the entrance doors to individual flats that open on to common parts. Our APPG strongly supports the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), who represents the constituency where the tower is, said, the Bill provides reassurance to residents that the Government have learned lessons from the Grenfell tragedy and are taking steps to improve the safety of those residents while ensuring that building owners and managers—the Opposition spokesman was right to draw the House’s attention to this—are clear that they are responsible for assessing the risk of external walls and fire doors of any height. If I had the time, I would say something else about height, but I hope that Members will discuss that in Committee.
The fire and rescue services’ role of undertaking enforcements against dangerous cladding and fire doors in residential buildings is also made clear. While the application of the order initially applies to a building containing two or more sets of domestic premises, the relevant authority may, by regulations, amend the order to change or clarify the premises to which it applies. The Bill will bring these areas within the scope of the 2005 order, ensuring that the responsible person assesses and mitigates the fire safety risk associated with these parts of the building. Fire and rescue services will at long last be able to take enforcement action and hold the responsible person to account if they are not compliant.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will gain powers to amend the 2005 order by way of secondary legislation, enabling Government to adapt legislation to align it with the proposed new building safety regulatory system and to implement the recommendations of phase 1 of the Grenfell public inquiry, such as new requirements for signage and evacuation plans in residential buildings. As has been said, this Bill is, in effect, enabling legislation that will address much-criticised legal ambiguity that has hampered fire and rescue services in trying to deal effectively with unsafe cladding and flat entrance doors. They will be expected to use these new powers, and landlords and responsible persons should be prepared for that, as the Minister of State said.
For the past 11 years, since the July 2009 Lakanal House fire tragedy, and with more intensity since the inquest on that fire seven years ago, the all-party parliamentary group has warned what would happen. I am delighted that now the Minister of State will work with us in the future.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) [V]
Criticising this Bill would be as futile as criticising an empty bookshelf: one needs to look at the quality of the books. Clause 1 simply clarifies the fire safety order of 2005, and clause 2 is no more than a delegated power to make regulations amending that order in future. While the Bill is, in itself, welcome, it is no more than a piece of legislative furniture—the content is yet to come.
I want to illustrate the futility of even the best regulations on fire safety if the monitoring and enforcement regime is flawed from the beginning. Almost 1,000 people had their homes in the TNQ development of 460 flats in my constituency. The flats are unsafe because of fire stopping and other defects, which means that there is no compartmentation between them and a fire would spread swiftly up inside the walls of the building. When the building was completed in 2015, the regulations from the 2005 order were not unclear in any way. Approved document B specified that fire and smoke will be prevented from spreading to concealed spaces in the building structure by fire stopping and fire cavity barriers. Those are the rules. They are good rules, and they were not followed.
When it became clear in 2017 how unsafe the building was, my constituents had every confidence that the developers, Royal London and NEAT, would swiftly put things right. They were wrong. A complex blame game began. In January this year, the remediation work had scarcely started and was loosely timetabled to take another two or three years. When the defects were found, I asked what I believed was a simple question: who was responsible for inspecting the work? The answer, it appears, was everybody and nobody. The National House Building Council conducted over 1,000 spot inspections before it issued its insurance certificate in 2015. Its CEO, Steve Wood, informed me that he was disappointed to learn of the failures in the original construction. I wrote back to say that he could hardly have been surprised, given that his own inspection reports, which I had obtained, spoke of
“potential risk to health and safety of occupants, fire safety compartmentation, inadequate fire stopping, barriers to separating walls between units not fitted to design.”
The National House-Building Council signed off and issued the insurance cover just two months later without any further in situ checks being done. Instead, it relied on everyone else. The law says that final responsibility for building control matters lies with the developer, but the approved inspector is key to the developer being able to discharge that responsibility. Competition between private approved inspectors has undermined the impartial inspection regime provided by local authorities. Head Projects, with the approved inspectors, was obliged under the Construction Industry Council approved inspectors register code to provide a guarantee of compliance with the building regulation—in this case Approved Document B of the 2005 Fire Safety Order. I wrote to Rob Burrows, its managing director, asking how such systemic failings in the construction had come about under his regime. He refused to provide further information, and shortly thereafter the company went into a very convenient liquidation—so much for CICAIR accreditation.
Finally, what of the project managers, CBRE? It made literally thousands of inspections. Its corporate social responsibility report declares that it is a leader in responsible business practices, serving its clients with integrity. Surely it would not have signed off on a building that it knew to be unsafe. Perhaps, but I have received leaked copies of internal correspondence between the company and its own clerk of works at the development. In that correspondence, the company is accused of amending reports he had submitted detailing the failures of defects. It was specifically told that, to allow occupation without making occupants aware, there would be no protection against the spread of fire—[Inaudible]—therefore leaving life at risk, as these areas did not comply with current building regulations. That was tantamount to fraud under the Fraud Act 2006. The regulations were there; the proper, disinterested monitoring and enforcement were not. No matter what sensible regulations the Government put on this bookshelf of a Bill, they cannot make safe a building that was not constructed safely. My constituents thought they were protected. The law said so in the regulations. They have learned that to have a right, but no means of enforcing that right, is to have no right at all.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
In January of this year, I attended the graduation ceremony for on-call firefighters at the Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service. This prestigious event was held at Easthampstead Park in Bracknell and involved 24 impressive young men and women rightly celebrating their hard work and success. As anybody in this place will know, we depend on our emergency services to keep us safe, so I wish to pay tribute to everybody in uniform, particularly at this time, for the outstanding work that they do on the frontline. One can only imagine the challenging experiences they face on a daily basis and I know that we should never take this for granted.
The graduation ceremony got me thinking: our fantastic fire services across the UK are ultimately employed as an insurance policy. Although they play a vital role to advise, plan and prevent, they also serve as a last resort to deploy to incidents when something has gone wrong, to protect life and property and to pick up the pieces when the human cost of not doing so becomes unacceptable.
We as policymakers have not just a moral obligation to protect those members of the public, who rightly expect the best possible regulatory framework, but a responsibility to those whom we always call on in unforeseen circumstances to perform their selfless duty and to ensure that they do not fall victim themselves to tragic circumstances. No one here needs any reminder that fire is a killer. I can vividly recall watching those awful pictures of Grenfell Tower on the news and subsequently seeing its charred shell while driving into London for work. One can only shudder at the unimaginable horror of those so gravely affected, not least the 72 men, women and children who lost their lives.
As a young teenager in 1985, I can also recall those terrible scenes of the Bradford City fire disaster playing out on television, with another 56 lives lost. As a regular football fan, it is clear to me that no one at any significant sporting, recreational or social event should unwittingly place themselves in harm’s way, and nor indeed should anyone in any public or private building—at their place of work or simply residing at home—feel vulnerable.
That is why I welcome the Bill. It is a much-needed piece of legislation and fulfils many objective purposes. As we know, it will amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 to clarify that the responsible person or duty holder for multi-occupied residential buildings must manage and reduce the risk of fire in respect of both the structure and external walls of the building, including cladding, balconies and windows, and in respect of entrance doors to individual flats that open on to common parts.
I can confirm, having informally consulted this week with the Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service, that my local authority welcomes the fact that all services across England and Wales will be empowered to take enforcement action and hold building owners to account if they are not compliant. This will enable the authority to build on the proactive work it has already undertaken on high-rise residential buildings with unsafe cladding and to ensure that Berkshire residents are safe. It is also prudent that the Secretary of State will be given the power to amend the list of qualifying premises, that the Bill will enable rapid developments in the design of buildings, and that provisions will allow these requirements to be brought in over time, thereby allowing a pragmatic clause 2.
What of the future beyond the Bill? While I look forward to seeing the detail of the secondary legislation to ensure that the recommendations from the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 report are implemented, there are two points in particular that I hope the Secretary of State will take away. First, the organisation Electrical Safety First has long advocated that electrical safety checks be obligatory in all tower blocks and that building management companies hold a register of white goods operating in those properties. Electricity causes more than 14,000 domestic fires a year, resulting in many deaths and injuries, so it is reasonable to suggest that electrical safety be included in any subsequent legislation.
Secondly, if we are to enable authorities such as the Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service to deliver for their residents using the new powers, it is imperative that fair and sustainable funding be provided. Aside from the additional resources needed to identify who owns specific buildings, reasonable initiatives for council tax could be considered. Berkshire has been a historically prudent authority. The average householder in any constituency pays just £67 per year for their fire service. This is in the lower quartile of all fire authorities in the UK, yet the authority delivers an upper-quartile-quality fire service, as awarded by its 2019 inspection report. I therefore recommend the “fiver for fire” initiative to the Secretary of State, which would provide fire authorities with the flexibility to ensure that the right resources are in place. A few years ago, this was an additional allowance for fire services that could be put on to council tax—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am terribly sorry, but we have to stick to the time limit as the debate is oversubscribed.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) [V]
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
Fire safety is an important issue in my constituency. I have spoken before in the House about Aura Court, a residential block in Old Trafford, which has numerous fire safety features and risks and remained occupied despite being subject to Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service enforcement notices. I therefore welcome measures to strengthen the safety regime, but I have some questions that I would like to ask of Ministers. First, I would like to understand more about how the Bill will fit with the anticipated building safety Bill. Will that Bill supersede any of the provisions of this Bill? Is there scope for confusion? As Dame Judith Hackitt pointed out, the overlaps and mismatch across different regulatory frameworks make it significantly more challenging to achieve a holistic focus on the fire safety of occupied buildings. That is particularly important in relation to regulation and enforcement.
Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service tells me that the fire safety order provides an adequate framework for regulating the management of safety in high-rise buildings where it is complied with and where those responsible for the building understand their obligations and have the requisite competence. The difficulties arise where the fire safety failings are due to non-compliance with building regulations arising from the design and construction phase and the weakness of the building standards inspection and sign-off process.
I note that fire and rescue services will be able to take enforcement action against building owners who fail to comply with the provisions of the legislation, but there remain important concerns about the building standards regime in general and about local authorities’ enforcement role and whether they have the necessary resources to carry out their functions. We all know the pressures that local authorities have faced over the past decade, and they are now compounded by the costs of coping with the covid crisis.
I welcome the additional funding for fire and rescue services set out by the Minister in opening the debate, but Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service has experienced £22.4 million of central Government funding cuts in the past 10 years, despite our population increasing by more than 100,000 between 2010 and 2018. The built environment in Greater Manchester is becoming more complex, with the development of new blocks and, in particular, office-to-residential conversions in my constituency and with the pace of development required to deliver the homes and infrastructure we need, which is becoming ever more rapid. At a time when the demands on the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service are increasing, in terms of support for our residents and the regulation of buildings, central Government funding per head reduced from £28.30 in 2010 to £18.82 in 2020. That is simply untenable.
I would also like to inquire further about the nature of the responsible persons in the legislation. It seems from what the Minister said earlier that the definition will include managing agents. Do the obligations apply both to them and, equally, to their principals? Must a responsible person be a named individual, or could it be an organisation? What steps are being taken to ensure that those undertaking this role have the necessary qualifications? Are the Government confident that a pipeline of people with suitable skills exists or, if not, what plans are in place to develop such a thing? Finally, I note that Dame Judith recommended that fire safety order risk assessments should take place annually, so why has that not been specified in favour of only regular inspections?
I do, of course, support the Bill, but I hope that the concerns that I and others have expressed today will be addressed as the Bill continues its passage through Parliament. Getting this legislation right is fundamental to protecting the safety of all of our constituents.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) [V]
I am pleased that this Bill has been brought to the House for its Second Reading. After the terrible Grenfell tragedy in 2017, it is of the utmost importance that high-rise buildings are made safer and more secure so that such a tragedy never happens again. I have been encouraged by the Government’s commitment to deliver the most significant improvement in building safety for a generation. Promising progress has already been made in this area, and I commend the Housing Secretary for announcing in January the creation of a new building safety regulator. As colleagues across the House will agree, it is crucial that families feel adequately protected in their homes, and it is our duty as parliamentarians to improve our nation’s safety standards. Having managed my own electrical company for many years before becoming a Member of Parliament, I know how vital it is that residents know that their accommodation is safe and secure.
With this Bill, we now have a chance to learn from the tragic events of the past and to make the United Kingdom a world leader in building and fire safety. The three main aims of the Bill—giving fire and rescue authorities greater enforcement powers to increase accountability, complementing existing legislation that deters non-compliance, and assisting the introduction of secondary legislation that is supported by the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1—are all noble causes that I am proud that this one nation Conservative Government are pursuing.
This legislation will be even more effective if the Government continue to follow the guidance of the Grenfell tower inquiry and introduce further secondary legislation. Phase 1 of the inquiry has already concluded, and I wholeheartedly agree with its recommendations, namely that those responsible for high rises should be forced to inspect lifts and that the Government should develop national guidelines for the evacuation of buildings. I am therefore encouraged that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government have accepted the need for inspection of lifts. Furthermore, I shall follow the work of the Home Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as their newly formed steering group reviews the “stay put” policy. That policy is of particular concern. Having spoken with many clients over the years, I believe that it can cause confusion and puts responsibility on the tenant to do something that does not feel right in the event of a fire. It also relies on people keeping doors closed, which in real life is not always practical and can be very difficult to manage.
While I support the Bill, I believe that it could be further developed, and it is just the beginning on improving fire safety laws in the United Kingdom. It is my hope that it will widen the discussion on what work can be done to strengthen the role of third-party certification schemes in the fire protection and building industries. After all, in my own professional experience, I have noted how third-party certification registration bodies such as BAFE, which audits companies in numerous fire-related industries, can provide responsible persons with the assurances they need that a company they purchase a service from is working to an approved standard.
I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on how third-party certification registration bodies can play a greater role in improving fire safety, and whether further legislation that deals specifically with the design, installation, testing, inspection and, most importantly, verification of fire safety systems could complement the proposals set out in the Bill. That said, I believe that the Bill marks a great first step in the provision of safer accommodation.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]
It is a pity that this small Bill is all we have by way of primary legislation almost three years after the horror of Grenfell Tower. There is nothing to object to here, because there is little to see. There is nothing to implement the recommendations of phase 1 of the Grenfell inquiry, which is delegated entirely to secondary legislation. It is good that the reach of the fire safety order has been extended and clarified. The fire risks of exterior walls, windows, balconies and front doors have all been implicated in the Grenfell fire and other major residential fires of recent years.
We await the companion building safety Bill. It would have been helpful to have the Bills side by side to ensure consistency and to ensure that all angles are covered. This Bill covers any building containing two or more domestic premises. The building safety Bill will cover a more restricted range of buildings over a certain height. I find that dislocation unhelpful. For example, talking recently to a developer who is seeking planning permission for a 20-storey block of flats in my constituency, I pointed out that, like Grenfell Tower, it had a single staircase which, should there be a need for evacuation, would be used both by escaping residents and by incoming rescuers. That led to a discussion about whether evacuation in case of fire was likely in future, as opposed to a “stay put” policy; about the need for alarm and sprinkler systems and clear instructions for evacuating; and about the use of only non-flammable and fire-resistant materials for construction. The bottom line was that putting a second staircase in would reduce the number of flats and, he alleged, the viability of the project.
My point is that we should not be trading cladding for fire doors, sprinklers for alarms, or means of escape for evacuation procedures. We should do everything necessary to prevent any further loss of life and destruction of property, especially in high-rise buildings. To make that assessment we need to have all the facts and all the proposals in front of us, not the piecemeal and provisional approach evidenced by the Bill. We are so far from a comprehensive response to Grenfell that I fear we will have more tragedies before we learn the lessons. Getting the Government to act on unsafe cladding, to take one example, is a tortuous process. First, they concentrated on aluminium composite material, which was the type of cladding used at Grenfell. Then it was pointed out that high pressure laminate, the culprit at Lakanal House, was just as dangerous. Other materials, such as timber, are being investigated, but the basis for selection and the testing regimes do not command confidence.
Last week, I asked the Housing Minister whether the Government’s building safety fund would apply to all combustible cladding and insulation, and combinations of combustible and non-combustible materials. Earlier this afternoon, he replied that the criteria for the fund will be published next month—I hope that they do not disappoint. Certain buildings are vulnerable in a fire by virtue not just of their height or construction, but of their use: schools, hospitals, hotels and care homes. When are those to be brought within the same restrictions that apply to high-rise residential blocks, and who is going to bear the additional costs of inspection and enforcement consequent on this Bill?
These are not academic matters; they are questions of life and death, asked daily by my constituents. In September 2016, a very serious fire occurred in a 19-storey block, Shepherd’s Court, in my constituency. The cause was a known fault in a tumble dryer which had not been repaired or recalled. Why are high-rise blocks not subject to inventories of electrical products that are a major cause of domestic fires and why are they not checked periodically, as Electrical Safety First recommends? Grenfell is a mile from Shepherd’s Court. The friends, neighbours and relatives of Grenfell residents, those who died and those who survived, are my constituents. Other residents in Shepherd’s Bush found after Grenfell that their newly built homes had ACM cladding—it is now thankfully removed—and thousands of my constituents who live in tall buildings still have concerns over the safety of their homes.
I pay tribute to those who are working hard to resolve these issues, but the Government’s response is just not good enough. This Bill looks like a bookmark, marking the place in a narrative they will return to when they have more time. But the time for action on fire safety is now—in fact, it is long overdue.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I am a former chairman of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. One week after the Grenfell fire, the London Fire Brigade took me to the top of the tower, and what I saw there was a sobering experience, to say the least. So, this Bill is to be welcomed. It was a Conservative manifesto commitment last year, and it was announced in the Queen’s Speech at the start of this Session. I do not believe that the Bill represents the final destination on fire safety legislation, but it is a good first step along the way to prepare the ground for further legislation later this year.
Although the Bill is short, it seeks to take a grip on a key issue. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said in his opening statement, in amending the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, the Bill makes it clear that enforcing authorities can hold building owners to account if they are not compliant with their responsibilities for external walls of buildings, which is particularly pertinent in the light of Grenfell, as well as for the inside. That is a major step forward. However, there are areas of the Bill that could be improved as it progresses through Parliament.
The first issue I wish to address was also touched on by the hon. Members for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), and that is the issue of the responsible person. The Bill does not make clear what constitutes a “responsible person”—what skills and abilities they need or what precise enforcement powers they have. Pinning down the identity of the responsible person has long been the bane of various fire and rescue authorities’ existence, and it can lead to long delays in taking enforcement action. The designation of who is a responsible person has in the past been applied to individuals, owners, tenant management organisations, local authorities, other forms of residents and groups, and so on. This legislation would be considerably strengthened if it were to require the designation of the identity of the responsible person on a building-by-building basis. There are also questions associated with the competence of the responsible person, and this issue is not dealt with in the Bill. Greater clarity on what constitutes competence on a building-by-building basis would be very beneficial, because the skills for fire assessment in a low-level, one-storey care home might be materially different from those for assessment in a multi-storey tower block.
There is a gap, too, regarding how the impact and success or otherwise of the Bill are to be measured. One way might be the speed with which enforcement can be carried out through legal proceedings and prosecutions—in other words, the length of time between a defect being identified and a prosecution being brought. Unfortunately, at present, that can take years in some cases. Identifying the responsible person who is the chief cause can be very problematic, and even once identified, they will often attempt to find a legal loophole to evade responsibility. Tightening that up would be of clear benefit.
The Bill could also be clearer on the ownership of premises where the responsible person finds it difficult to enforce front doors on flats in a building where some of the flats have been bought under right-to-buy legislation. It would be good to tighten that up. Similarly, the Bill does not deal with the need for private owners of individual flats in a block to comply with risk assessments, which can be a risk to a whole block. There was a tragic example of that in 2009, with the Lakanal House fire in the London Borough of Southwark. On that occasion, the fire started in a flat that had been purchased under right to buy, and the owners had made structural alterations—knocking walls down and so on—without telling the local council. Risk was not assessed prior to those alterations. Any such changes ought to be notified to the building owner, and the responsible person must be informed in advance.
None of those are reasons to reject the Bill at this stage, but I hope that they can all be picked up as the Bill progresses through Parliament.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab) [V]
This Bill is clearly important and timely, given that it aims to ensure that people feel safe in their homes, at a time when the vast majority of UK citizens are locked down because of covid-19. Of course, the Bill was drafted well before the pandemic hit, but it is poignant and appropriate that, as we are being encouraged to stay home and work from home, a Bill is being debated that protects those in homes of multiple occupancy and high-rise blocks.
However, let us not forget that the principal aim of the Bill is to ensure that a tragedy such as the Grenfell Tower fire never happens again and that the lives of the 72 people who sadly died there were not lost in vain. It also means that the brave efforts of the London Fire Brigade firefighters at Grenfell—lessons needed to be learned from their actions and traumatic experiences—and the subsequent excellent lobbying for improvements to fire safety regulations by the Fire Brigades Union will not be in vain.
In Hartlepool, we are fortunate that we do not have any high-rise accommodation similar to that of Grenfell or the problem of flammable cladding on a scale that we see elsewhere in the Tees Valley, in neighbouring Billingham, Stockton and Middlesbrough. But over recent years, we have seen a proliferation in private rented accommodation, an increase in the number of homes of multiple occupancy and the introduction of student accommodation, thanks to the success and reputation of the Northern School of Art, which is located in the town.
The student accommodation and multi-occupancy dwellings are relatively new phenomena in their numbers and therefore have posed new challenges for council inspectors and the local fire authority. I recently met the chief fire officer for Cleveland Fire Brigade, Ian Hayton, who outlined his frustration at his officers having no powers of inspection of homes of multiple occupancy because they are classed as dwellings, not businesses or places of work. The National Fire Chiefs Council has been calling for additional powers since 2017, as has the FBU. The secondary legislation that the Bill enables will hopefully shift the responsibility for fire safety on to building owners and managers of high-rise and multi-occupied residential properties, with powers of enforcement going to fire and rescue services. I hope the secondary legislation will make that clear and put the power of inspection in the hands of the fire and rescue service.
I welcome the fact that the secondary legislation will require landlords, building owners and managers to undertake regular inspections of lifts and report results to the local fire and rescue service; ensure that evacuation plans are reviewed and regularly updated, with personal evacuation plans in place for residents whose ability to evacuate may be compromised; and ensure that fire safety instructions are provided to residents in a form that they can reasonably understand. However, the right of inspection must be firmly provided to fire and rescue services in order to underpin that.
Eliminating and mitigating fire risk not just in people’s homes but in all buildings must be a priority, and we must learn the lessons from Grenfell. In Hartlepool, I am proud that, post-Grenfell, our council is insisting that sprinkler systems are installed in new-builds—for example, the new English Martyrs and High Tunstall schools—and that our social housing providers are investing in improved fire safety precautions in their homes, but the challenges are out there, particularly in the private rented sector, so I fear that, even with all the positives coming out of this legislation, more will need to be done to truly protect all tenants, not just those living in high-rise flats or multi-occupancy dwellings.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this important debate. I start by expressing my heartfelt sympathy for the victims and their families in the Grenfell Tower disaster. I thank successive Ministers on updating the House on progress in remedying the disaster and in legislation, but it is sobering that almost three years on from the disaster we are considering this Bill.
I have had the opportunity of going through the various different updates and reviews that we on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee have conducted and, indeed, I have heard at first hand evidence from Dame Judith Hackitt. I would echo, therefore, all the remarks of the Chair of the Select Committee in drawing attention to the work that the Select Committee is doing on this subject.
I want to mention first and foremost the problems of the testing regime. It is easy to test cladding by directing a flame or heat straight on to the surface, but the problem is that both ACM cladding and other forms become a huge fire risk when holes are cut for windows and other such purposes. The regime must test all forms of cladding and other building materials properly and safely.
There is another issue on which I would echo the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon). From serving on the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority before coming into Parliament, I know that who is responsible for signing off the different safety regimes must be clarified. I am afraid that the Bill as it currently stands needs further clarification, because it could lead to confusion. I hope that that be rectified in Committee.
I have a further concern, which I hope will be flagged up by Ministers dealing with the other legislation that is required: what we do about electrical fittings in general. We have very strict regulations for who can fit gas appliances, but the regulation on who can fit electrical fittings is very loose indeed. People who fit the gas appliances must have proper training and certification, but electricians merely need three days’ training. I think most people would think that that is bizarre in this day and age, because those people will be at huge risk.
I also ask for clarity on what we mean by some of the specific definitions in the Bill. For example, references to buildings could be interpreted to mean semi-detached or detached properties of only two storeys. I am sure the definition is intended to cover multi-storey buildings. We will have a huge problem with fire assessments for householders and the fire authorities if it is not clarified.
The definition of “common parts” is normally considered to cover entrance halls, corridors and suchlike, but it needs to be extended to cover other areas of high-rise buildings, such as lift shafts and other systems. At present, there is doubt as to whether they would be in scope. There is of course also the issue of structure. At present, we are clearly thinking of particular types of structures, but we will have problems if that is not clarified by definition.
There are clearly some issues that need to be resolved, but a lot is left to secondary legislation. I trust that, during the passage of the Bill, we can clarify some of these issues, so that we can include them within the scope of the Bill without putting them in secondary legislation, so that everyone is clear.
In summary, I strongly support this Bill, and I hope we can speedily push it through to its conclusion. I look forward to the other legislation that is going to have to come through to improve fire safety in this country for all people in whatever type of housing they live.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The last speaker before our half-hour suspension is Daisy Cooper.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]
Nearly three years after the devastation of Grenfell Tower, I and the Liberal Democrats welcome the Fire Safety Bill as a first move in the right direction—but it is only a first move, because key aspects are not addressed. As currently drafted, tenants, leaseholders, local government and the fire service will take the weight of the new legislation. The recent building safety guidance for building owners, released by the Government in January, was foisted on the sector without any real regard for the expertise and training that would be required, and without any thought about how the changes were going to be paid for and by whom.
First, let us look at the scope of the Government’s cladding scheme. The Chancellor’s announcement in the March Budget of an additional £1 billion to replace dangerous cladding was welcome, but it does not cover a whole host of further measures that buildings need to take to ensure compliance. Fire safety assessments, the replacement of fire doors, installing smoke detector systems—these are just some of the major expenses that fall outside the Government’s scheme.
Secondly, there are the financial pressures on leaseholders. The Government’s Bill today has put the onus of fire safety on the building owner, but it does not say enough about who should be taking the financial burden. In my constituency of St Albans, one residents association has been told that it will be up to individual leaseholders to face the extra charges of about £20,000 per flat for this remedial work. Some service charges have increased sixfold since the tragedy of 2017 in preparation for the necessary works. I hope that the Government will agree that hitting individuals with a bill of £20,000 at any time, but particularly now, is completely unacceptable. More needs to be done to protect them from being financially crippled.
The third issue is about fire assessments, and specifically the EWS1 survey, which seems to have brought many flat purchases to a grinding halt. Most mortgage companies now seem to require an EWS1 certificate before lending, but feedback from my constituents, their management agencies and the local authority indicates that there is a very severe shortage of professionals around the country who are insured to sign off on this new survey.
My constituents have told me of 12 to 18-month delays, where they have to put their lives on hold and are left in constant fear of living in a dangerous home. Hon. Members will of course understand the impact that a 12 to 18-month delay will have on a pregnant constituent of mine who is looking for a suitable home for her growing family, or on the pensioner living in my constituency who is relying on the sale of their property to support them in retirement. Again, this is all the more urgent for those who find themselves and their jobs in a precarious situation as a result of coronavirus.
Finally, in line with the Hackitt review, these risk assessments should not only be held by building owners, but kept centrally with a public body, such as a Government-appointed regulator or a local council.
I am asking the Government to respond to these issues as a matter of urgency. We need to ensure that the EWS1 surveys are expedited. We need to have clarity for the industry about whether existing fire safety assessments may still be valid. We need to ensure that there are enough fire safety engineers— professionals—who can implement these changes and are insured to do so. Crucially, we need the Government to say what resources will be made available so that leaseholders are not faced with crippling fees. As a House, we have a responsibility to ensure that when we say an event like Grenfell will not happen again, they are not just words. We need to see far more action.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate. This is a sensible Bill, which I hope the whole House will support. I too pay tribute both to the memory of those who lost their lives in the Grenfell tragedy and to the emergency services. Like previous speakers, I had the honour of serving as a member—indeed, at one time as the leader—of what was then the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority. We ought to recognise the value of the work that the emergency services have done.
Given that the Bill is sensible and limited, and seeks to build on the lessons of Grenfell, I shall touch on two matters related to the broader policy areas that sit behind it. First, the Bill seeks, together with other legislation, to address some of the lessons that are being learned from Grenfell, but we should not forget the need urgently to address the position of those who are still living in accommodation with Grenfell-type ACM cladding or other dangerous cladding. Other hon. Members have referred to that, but I reiterate it to Ministers.
Many constituents of mine live in a tower called Northpoint in Bromley. I wrote to the Housing Minister, whom I am delighted to see on the Treasury Bench and I welcome to his position, on 26 February setting out the plight of those residents. I know that he has much on his plate, but I am sorry to say that I have not yet received a reply. That tower has a mixture of ACM and other flammable cladding. I am glad that, as I understand it, that will now be within the scheme, and I am glad that the moneys in the scheme have been extended. The Government are doing the right thing in that regard, and I welcome it. However, we are not addressing this issue with the speed and urgency that the desperate state of these people requires. All of them—many of them first-time buyers, others downsizers—live in flats that are now valueless. Most of them have mortgages; they cannot remortgage any more, and they cannot sell.
Although the scheme is welcome, it has two failings. First, as I set out in my letter to the Minister, it is extremely slow and bureaucratic to access. Those residents have already paid out something like £400,000 for the cost of a waking watch. Their service charge has gone through the roof, and their management reserves are expended entirely. Potentially, they will spend more months forking out up to about £11,000 a month on a waking watch until this issue is resolved.
To access the scheme, those residents have to go through a bureaucratic procedure to show that they qualify. There is no doubt that they qualify, for heaven’s sake. It takes far too long for them to access the scheme. By the time they have gone through the form-filling, the getting of surveys and then the commissioning of contractors and the getting in of materials, all of which has been slowed up by the near cessation of building works during the coronavirus emergency, it will, on current form, be a long time before they actually see that money. They are getting into more and more debt.
This is affecting my constituents’ health—their physical health and their mental health. I urge the Government, who have done the right thing and said they will step in to assist these people, to get a move on, cut out the red tape—cut through the bureaucracy—and get the money to these people at the earliest opportunity. In the social sector, much has already been done. We ought to be treating people in the privately owned sector in the same way. No question of any moral hazard arises, because these people relied on the regulatory system that was then in place, which said that their properties were safe and suitable. If there was a failing in that system, that certainly is not their fault. They acted in good faith, and we ought, in all decency and as a matter of good governance, to speed the process along. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will want to do that, and I urge him to look urgently at, among the many other things on his desk, these particular cases and those of many other people as well.
My second point relates to the responsible person regime, which is a good and sensible thing to bring in. However, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) picked up on the difficulty for many contractors in getting insurance in order to be able to undertake that work. A contractor operating in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Security Minister tells me that its premiums have gone through the roof, with an increase of about 140%, and the extra cost even to small firms has been about £250,000. Also, many insurance companies are writing exclusion clauses into their contracts, which effectively means that they will not cover anyone on their professional liability insurance if their fire risk assessors or fire engineers undertake cladding work. That will drive many firms out of the market, and this needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
On 14 June 2017, 72 people died tragically when fire ravaged Grenfell Tower. More than 200 firefighters and 40 engines responded. However, prior to the fire, the Grenfell Action Group had identified the fact that the block constituted a fire risk and a death trap. I would like to express my solidarity with the families and loved ones of the victims in their fight for justice.
We have seen years of Conservative failure on fire safety, before Grenfell and since. Lessons from previous major fires have not been learned by the Government, and despite Ministers pledging to implement in full the recommendations in the report on the first phase of the Grenfell Tower inquiry, the Bill does not include provisions for any of the measures called for by the inquiry. Martin Moore-Bick, who is leading the inquiry, originally promised to deliver the report on the first phase by April 2018. However, it was 18 months late and criticised by family members. They have called for a more independent and diverse decision-making inquiry panel. In January, a new addition to the inquiry panel, Benita Mehra, was forced to resign after it emerged that she was linked to the charitable arm of the firm that had supplied Grenfell’s deadly cladding.
The Bill is expected to result in greater clarity on the responsibility for fire safety in buildings containing more than one home, and to make necessary changes to fire safety law, but it does not go far enough to meet the Government’s pledge to prevent another Grenfell Tower tragedy. This is the only piece of primary legislation the Government have produced on fire safety. The fire safety order requires building owners and other responsible persons to undertake regular fire risk assessments. These changes mean that the safety of elements such as cladding will need to be considered in any fire risk assessment.
In Liverpool, 10% of buildings have the Grenfell-type highly inflammable cladding, with 5% having fire retardant cladding, meaning 85% of blocks with cladding. Social care settings in my constituency have HPL-type cladding, which is inflammable but not to the same extent. However, it is still a serious safety risks to residents, and there is still no firm enforcement of the Government’s recommendation that building owners, rather than leaseholders, take responsibility for removing and replacing it. The Government’s refusal to extend the Liverpool landlord licensing scheme will further impact on fire safety for many of my constituents. Last week, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government unveiled the voluntary pledge that essential safety work would continue despite the coronavirus. It was signed by regional leaders such as Sadiq Khan and Andy Burnham, but there were no signatures from construction companies or building owners.
The Bill will require a high level of inspection and enforcement, and will therefore increase the workload of the fire and rescue service. It is important that those inspections are completed by trained firefighters, and not by civilians or private contractors. The Fire Brigades Union estimates that potentially hundreds of thousands of premises would require additional activity by inspectors and that, as a result, fire and rescue services will need significantly increased resources to cover and carry out those duties of inspection, audit and enforcement.
The FBU has highlighted that, between 2010 and 2017, the number of fire safety inspectors fell by 28%. That is even greater than the already drastic fall in staffing across the fire and rescue services. Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service has suffered 35% cuts in funding since 2010 and lost a third of its firefighters, which has had a significant impact across the region. As a result of 10 years of chronic underfunding, fire services now operate with fewer firefighters, fewer fire appliances and slower response times. There are 11,500 fewer firefighters than in 2010. That equates to a 21% cut.
The Government have confirmed that a money resolution is needed for the Bill, but there is no clarity on how much will be provided to fire services to fund the additional work. The FBU described an additional £20 million allocated in the Budget in March for fire and rescue services as a pittance compared with the £141.5 million cut since 2013. It is utterly insufficient.
Ministers must commit to funding fire and rescue services sufficiently to ensure that the new duties of inspection, audit and enforcement can be carried out to prevent any more tragedies like Grenfell.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
The tragedy that took place at Grenfell Tower in June 2017 claiming 72 lives can sadly be classed as one of the UK’s worst modern disasters. The tragedy should never have happened, and the lives lost are rightly not forgotten by the House, the Government or the wider public.
In my Delyn constituency, we have three tower blocks in the town of Flint: Castle Heights, Bolingbroke Heights and Richard Heights. They have undergone regular fire assessments and were refurbished in 2015 to include measures such as the installation of protective fire doors to all tenants’ properties and a refurbished sprinkler system. That has reassured tenants that their homes are secure and that it was done to ensure their safety.
It is vital that fire safety is treated with the right level of seriousness. That may not always have been the case. It is therefore right that the Government are seeking, through the Bill, to provide the appropriate regulatory framework and statutory requirements to ensure that that happens nationwide.
The Bill is part of the Government’s wider commitment to ensure that a tragedy such as Grenfell will never happen again and to reassure the public that everyone, wherever they live and whatever their background, should feel safe in their own homes and be protected from fire risks.
In introducing the Bill, the Government are rightly listening to those who have been affected and are following through on commitments in our manifesto, on which Government Members were elected and which they are being seen to fulfil.
I want to take a few moments to discuss the Bill’s substance and how it is designed to reduce the risk to people’s lives through improved regulatory standards. It does that in two ways. First, it clarifies it in law that building owners have a duty and responsibility to implement general fire precautions regarding certain structures, and to ensure that their premises are safe for those who live there and that the risk of fire is managed and reduced. It is critical that all members of the public feel safe in their own homes. The Bill, by making it clear that fire safety is a key priority in the management of buildings and properties, helps ensure that people are indeed safe in their homes and not put at risk by the very fabric of the building in which they live. That seems such a bizarre thing to have to say, but it is so relevant to these proceedings.
Secondly, the Bill provides greater power to fire and rescue authorities so that they can properly enforce the rules and take action against those who fail to comply with the fire safety orders. It is important that there is much greater transparency between those responsible and the fire authorities so that those who put residents at risk by not following safety regulations can be properly held to account. That also allows individuals who live in the buildings to feel secure in the knowledge that a framework is in place that clearly sets out the legal requirements for responsibility for safety, and that the correct powers exist to hold people to account for failure to keep residents safe through not doing the right thing. The Bill will also inevitably help militate against the unfortunate box-ticking mentality that often gets in the way of good maintenance practice.
The Bill amends and reforms the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 to clarify that those responsible for multi-occupied residential buildings must take appropriate steps to ensure that their premises have been assessed continuously and have taken the necessary precautions. It makes it clear that the provisions explicitly apply to the structure and external walls of buildings, including cladding, as well as entrance doors to individual flats that open on to common areas. It reduces any previous legal ambiguity about safety regulations, which may have hampered fire services’ efforts to tackle unsafe building issues.
While the Bill is a start, there is further to go, as other hon. Members have mentioned—I am referring to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and, more especially, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), who spoke early in the debate with particular expertise on the subject. That said, it seems clear to me that the Government are committed to putting people’s lives first, and the Bill is a step towards achieving better levels of safety for individuals who need it most through a sensible range of reforms of fire safety laws. I am happy to support the Bill on Second Reading.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) [V]
Many of us simply cannot understand why tens of thousands of residents still live in blocks with Grenfell-style cladding. When we look beneath the rhetoric, the endless legal complexities and the passing of the proverbial buck, that is the truth of the situation and the reality of what so many people endure day to day. That is what is important here and what is at stake. Years have passed since the Grenfell catastrophe, and yet still no one has been called to account. When will we ever get answers? When will the victims ever get justice?
To be completely clear and frank, it is utterly unacceptable that residential blocks in my constituency of Poplar and Limehouse and elsewhere, covered in Grenfell-style ACM cladding, have still not had it removed. The remediation of unsafe buildings is a national issue, and supporting affected residents and leaseholders must be paramount, but it is not clear that the Fire Safety Bill will address the fact that a majority of the blocks remain covered almost three years after Grenfell, and that other types of cladding identified as dangerous and ordered to be removed have not yet been removed.
I am alarmed that residents and leaseholders are suffering from anxiety and stress, and that leaseholders in blocks with ACM and other types of cladding experience problems in selling or remortgaging their home. Most fundamentally, people are forced to continue to live in an unsafe building. It is not obvious what will be done for the hundreds of blocks that have either missed, or look set to miss, deadlines for cladding removal, or what assistance the Bill will give to residents who are trapped in buildings with Grenfell-style cladding but where work has stopped because of covid-19.
On top of that, there is much uncertainty regarding the sufficiency of the Government’s funding and assistance. The Government must acknowledge the difficulties that leaseholders face in particular, and the Government need to ensure with action, not simply words, that remediation work should not in any circumstances whatever fall on individual leaseholders in affected private blocks. Likewise, it would be helpful if the Government provided assurances today that support will be extended to all leaseholders, regardless of the type of unsafe cladding on their building, and that the coverage of the cladding replacement fund will extend to all types of blocks that the local fire service has identified as being unsafe.
As mentioned, the coronavirus has caused many contractors to cease work on cladding sites, while others have not even begun yet due to complex legal disputes. Such delays mean that residents in buildings continue to face extortionate fees for interim safety measures. The Government must ensure that leaseholders in blocks are not forced to shoulder the costs of such interim safety measures, especially those in blocks whose owners have been named and shamed by the Government for refusing to make their blocks safe.
The Bill is only a modest improvement to the fire safety regime. As I and many colleagues have said, it does not fundamentally solve the problems we face. That will require substantial investment in fire and rescue services, to ensure adequate staffing levels and appropriate levels of training. Yet existing policies continue to cut frontline services. In the meantime, firefighters take on new areas of work to keep their communities safe. On the frontline, they are helping us through this crisis, while still responding to fires and other emergencies.
It is time for the Government to step up, to take responsibility and ownership of the issue, and to ensure that the Grenfell Tower fire never ever happens again. The truth is that the decisions of central Government, stretching back for years, have led to the gutting of the UK’s fire safety regime and the failure to regulate high-rise residential buildings properly for fire safety.
Policies relating to housing, local government, the fire and rescue services, research and other areas have been driven by the agenda of cuts, deregulation and privatisation, fostered by the direct lobbying of private business interests. What is certainly without any doubt is that it is not the fault of individual residents that they are now subjected to the awful situation of living in an unsafe building. They most certainly should not have to pay the price accordingly.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) [V]
This legislation is crucial to show that Governments can and do learn lessons. In the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) the Bill closes a legal loophole and ensures that it is the responsibility of owners and managers of all multi-occupancy buildings of all heights to have their façades, flat entrance doors and all communal fire doors checked as part of the periodic fire risk assessments. The events on 14 June 2017 have had an untold effect on the lives of survivors, their friends and family, and residents of the local area, all of whom experienced unfathomable trauma that night. The scars Grenfell has left on our society will be visible for years to come, and to do the memory of those who lost their lives justice, we must spare no expense in legislation, funding and preventive measures in the future.
My partner has recounted to me emotionally the impact the fire at Grenfell Tower had on her, her colleagues and the pupils she taught at one of the nearby secondary schools. She saw at first hand the devastation the fire wrought on the little community and on those who tragically lost friends and family members. I say to the families and friends of the victims of Grenfell Tower and the wider community surrounding it, I am sorry for your pain and suffering. I am sorry that the laws created here did not go far enough to protect your loved ones. I hope that, in time, we in this place can rebuild your trust.
The amendments proposed in the Bill to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 secure the responsibility and accountability of building owners to reduce fire-related risks from external structures, such as cladding, balconies and windows, and internal structures, including flat doors that open on to communal living spaces. That is a vital change to the law, as it provides no room for misinterpretation and removes ambiguity. Building owners and managers will be responsible for the adequate maintenance of a building, including lift inspections, evacuation plans and easily understandable advice and direction in the event of an emergency. Those protective measures will undoubtedly save lives and I welcome them wholeheartedly, but I would like to see more preventive measures, including stricter monitoring and regulation of electrical equipment, especially in multi-occupancy residential premises and tower blocks.
Members of the all-party parliamentary fire safety and rescue group, of which I am a member, have pointed out that the Bill introduces new phrases and terms that have not previously been used in a fire safety order and are undefined—for example, “building”. That term is included in new paragraph (1A) of article 6 of the 2005 order, inserted by clause 1(b), which starts:
“Where a building contains two or more sets of domestic premises, the things to which this order applies include—”.
A potential consequence of that drafting, with the term not further defined, is that semi-detached and terraced houses come within scope, as arguably they form one building. It seems unlikely that that is the intention, as it would impose on residential occupiers a responsibility to carry out fire risk assessments and require the relevant authorities to enforce that. Some definition of new terms such as “building”, “common part” and “structure” would be welcomed.
The importance of learning from national tragedies cannot be overstated if we hope to help with the emotional and psychological recovery of those affected and to secure safe housing for every man, woman and child in this country, irrespective of borough or socioeconomic background. Will recently conducted fire safety risk assessments remain valid? If so, how do the Government intend to ensure that residents are protected to the letter of the law? Given that the inclusion of façades and fire doors requires specialist product knowledge and experience in carrying out assessments, to what extent will the Government take steps to ensure better systems for encouraging the qualification and certification of appropriately and suitably trained risk assessors to the high levels of understanding and attention required by the Bill?
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
Like many other Members, I vividly remember 14 June 2017 and my horror at the tragedy of the Grenfell fire. I was a brand new MP, with just a hot-desk and a laptop. Like so many, I was overwhelmed at first by the harrowing pictures and then by what felt like—and must be by this point—tens of thousands of emails from my constituents, hastily written, expressing sorrow, outrage and anger at how something like this could ever have happened. It feels like I have come full circle today, in what will be my maiden virtual speech, nearly three years later. I express my deep sympathy for the families and communities affected. I am sorry that it has taken this long to get this far. I am sorry that this has ever happened. We cannot let this happen again.
Grenfell showed us that we need properly to enforce and monitor fire safety regulations, and the Bill is welcome step. As my party’s education spokesperson, I welcome the fact that the Bill will help local authorities to enforce the ban on combustible-materials cladding on new tall buildings, including student accommodation and school dormitories. But we need to make sure that our fire and rescue services and councils are financially protected and supported, and that any operational changes necessitated by the Bill, and the secondary legislation, do not leave them out of pocket.
At a time when many are facing huge shortfalls because of covid-19, the Government need to be careful to make sure that the situation is not made any worse. The delaying of the comprehensive spending review and the precarious funding of our fire services mean that the money guaranteed in the Bill for them to carry out audits is in danger of being eroded away. I would welcome clarification from the Government on their long-term plans to support councils and fire services financially to ensure that the regulations remain fully enforceable and that no corners are ever cut.
It is absolutely right that the Bill will mean that fire risk assessments are improved, but the Local Government Association has concerns that the UK currently has a chronic shortage of fire-engineering expertise. We need to take this seriously across Government; without the skills and the know-how in our workforce, the Bill, and the building safety Bill to follow, may fail. The Fire Industry Association plans to advise its members that they should not provide fire risk assessments that cover cladding unless they have the requisite expertise; most, as yet, do not. Without the necessary competence and skills, the new risk assessments, which are absolutely needed, may be impossible to fulfil. We cannot provide any landlord with an excuse for not following the guidance.
We need more fire engineers—it is as simple as that. I would welcome clarification from the Department on what is being done with the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to make having more fire engineers a priority, and on what courses are planned. It strikes me that conversion courses and apprenticeships in particular are really needed. After all, it would be such a shame if the Bill’s ambitions were curtailed because we did not plan ahead and did not invest in training.
We need to continue to plan ahead. If we are to avoid another tragedy on the scale of Grenfell, we need to make sure that our country is equipped with the skills it needs to keep buildings safe, assess the risks and save lives. We owe it to the victims of Grenfell to make sure that we get this right.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) [V]
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
As other people have said, the Bill has come as the direct result of those terrible events of 14 June 2017. Like every single person in this country, I watched those events with a growing sense of shock and dismay. I pay tribute to the emergency services and apologise to all those who lost loved ones in that terrible tragedy—and, indeed, to anybody who is affected in any way by this tragedy, and may be for many years to come. It was such a needless tragedy.
I would thank the members of Grenfell United. When I sat on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, we looked into all these events. I found Grenfell United, a representative body for many of the residents of Grenfell, very good to work with and constructive. It played a huge part in getting us to where we are today.
The important thing is that when you lose, you do not lose the lesson. The whole country has lost due to this tragedy. The Government rightly acted quickly, following calls from the Select Committee and others, to ban combustible materials on the outside of tall buildings. In addition to that and the provisions in the Bill, it is right that we look at why this happened and why there were decades of mistakes that contributed to this tragedy—it is a case of decades of mistakes; it is wrong to try to use this as some kind of party political opportunity.
Having looked at why this happened with the Select Committee, I came to the clear conclusion that it was the result of unclear guidance. Approved document B, in particular, was very unclear. It had been criticised by the coroner in the Lakanal House tragedy as being very difficult to work with. If we look at clause 12.5 and the related diagram 40, it is very confusing regarding what is and is not allowed in terms of cladding on tall buildings. Understandably, people made mistakes or took shortcuts. Whatever the reasons, that gave people the opportunity not to follow the right route to ensure that those buildings were safe.
The Government moved to ban combustible cladding on new buildings, which was the right thing to do, but we then have to deal with existing buildings. Much as we talk about holding building owners responsible, that proved to be impossible in many cases. It was therefore right that the Government put together a financial package of £1.6 billion to remediate those buildings.
The reality is that many buildings have unsafe cladding on the outside. A key person in this whole debate has been Jonathan Evans of the Metal Cladding and Roofing Manufacturers Association, who provided the Select Committee with much useful and important evidence. For example, he has shown that high-pressure laminate cladding is pretty much as bad as ACM in terms of fire performance. We need to remediate these buildings urgently to prevent another tragedy.
Many of the right solutions are contained in the Bill, and I commend Ministers for bringing it forward, but we need some other measures. We need to ensure that the supply chain is there so that we can get remediation done quickly for many of these buildings across the country. We also have to question why we lost sight of the importance of non-combustible materials on buildings in the first place—perhaps it relates to the drive towards energy efficiency, or the commercial interests of the people responsible for testing these products. The Select Committee looked at the conflicts of interest that exist in the Building Research Establishment. It would be sensible to have a national public testing facility that represents the national interest, rather than the commercial interests that a private commercial organisation such as the BRE may have. We should look at that to ensure that the drafting of future guidance is informed by a national public body.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) [V]
I am pleased that the Fire Safety Bill is finally being debated in the House, nearly three years after the Grenfell Tower tragedy. I remember that awful tragedy very well. I carried out the Grenfell community engagement on behalf of the Mayor of London. I would like to use this opportunity to pay tribute to the brave emergency service workers who attended the fire. I must also pay tribute to the amazing communities that offered help to the people affected on that tragic night and afterwards, as they began to rebuild their lives. I ask that we hold the 72 victims in our thoughts and remember the human costs involved when the right measures are not taken to protect people.
People in tower blocks have lived in fear since the Grenfell tragedy and continue to do so today. Constituents have contacted me about being trapped in unsafe homes, unable to seek alternative accommodation or to pay for safety upgrades to their buildings out of their own pockets. They will be relieved to hear of these legislative changes. To put into perspective why we need them so urgently, I will read a message from one of my constituents who is concerned about the safety of a nearby tower block in the borough:
“The tower blocks have been found to be clad in combustible material and the landlord is currently unwilling to pay for the replacement. It would cost almost £40,000 per flat to replace—which individual homeowners are unlikely to be able to afford. They have already been hit with higher service charges to pay for patrols. Over two years after the Grenfell Tower tragedy, people are still living in fear and unable to get on with their lives due to being unable to sell their properties.”
The constituent goes on to make a very worthy point—it is one that in the conscience of most people would not have to be made, but the fact that it does explains why we urgently need the Bill. They said:
“Homeowners should not be expected to foot the bill for decisions made by governments who set the building standards. As homeowners cannot afford to fund the replacement of the cladding, the necessary building work will not happen and people will continue to live in unsafe properties risking another tragedy. These building works should be funded by the government as a matter of urgency and the liability for the costs agreed between the government and builders.”
Legislative change to ensure that building owners take responsibility for the safety of their tenants is necessary because, as we are seeing, when a loophole exists, someone will exploit it, despite the risk posed to residents.
I must also take this opportunity to raise concerns about the practicalities of the Bill. It is important that we make these legislative changes, but it is equally important that they can be acted on. The Local Government Association has raised concerns about disparities between the fire safety order’s concept of a responsible person, and the proposals for an accountable person and a building safety manager in the Government’s response to the “Building a Safer Future” consultation. Clear guidance must be issued on who is responsible for carrying out essential fire safety checks or we face the risk of some continuing to avoid their responsibility to their tenants. Local authorities and fire services must also be supported financially and logistically in ensuring that these checks can be carried out. Councils with large stocks of social housing have a duty to ensure the safety of a large number of tenants, and even before the introduction of this legislation have raised concerns that there is a chronic shortage of fire engineering expertise in the UK. The Government should act now to set up degree, conversion and apprentice schemes to address this.
I hope that the Government will take steps to ensure that no tragedy like Grenfell Tower can be allowed to happen again, and that, after nearly three years, residents in tower blocks can feel safe in their own homes.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
I want to begin by welcoming this long-overdue Bill. We all know what the consequences can be—[Inaudible.] Nobody here will ever forget the tragedy of Grenfell Tower, but only last autumn a block of student accommodation called The Cube, just over the border from my constituency in Bolton, caught fire. There were no casualties that time, but—[Inaudible.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I have to interrupt the hon. Lady because the sound quality is not very good. Let us try again for a few seconds, and if it does not improve, we will leave the hon. Lady and come back to her later.
Barbara Keeley
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Although this Bill is overdue, it does not guarantee action immediately. I understand that the current crisis makes it difficult—[Inaudible.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I am very sorry, but I have to interrupt the hon. Lady again. Those in the Chamber, and presumably those listening in other ways, cannot make out what she is saying, so we will interrupt her speech for the moment and hopefully come back to her shortly.
I am glad to see that in the Chamber we have, without any sound difficulties, Meg Hillier.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I wish to start by declaring my own interest, in that I am a leaseholder in an affected block. Happily, the owner of my block has taken on all the costs of replacement but, like many of my constituents, and others up and down the country, I live in a property that is technically valueless at the moment. That is causing problems, which I will touch on, but I also want to use this opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) to her place on the Front Bench. She has been a doughty campaigner on this issue in her previous portfolio, so it is great to see that she can continue to fight for all those up and down the country who are affected. I hope that the Minister will hear what I have to say, and what others have said, and answer these questions, some of which go a little beyond the Bill, because it goes only so far, as a short, three-clause Bill, and there are wider issues here.
The Bill is long overdue—it has taken a long while to get this far—not just because of the tragedy of the Grenfell fire three years ago, but because of changes over many years and, as others have highlighted, under different Governments, that led to weakness and confusion over who is responsible for fire safety in a block. That and recent developments have led to real misery for many leaseholders in my constituency and up and down the country. Such people are mortgage prisoners, trapped with expensive mortgage payments and valueless homes. They are therefore unable to sell or rent their properties out, and they are dealing with the costs involved, including those for a waking watch, which in many blocks means two people per block. That is very expensive, but these people are also dealing with the upheaval, and the fear of scaffolding and major works going on around their home, which makes it harder for them to have peaceful enjoyment of their homes.
As of March 2020, only 54% of social housing blocks had had their remediation works done and nearly 90% of private residential blocks still had work to be done. That means that overall three quarters of ACM blocks—266 blocks, mostly flats—have yet to have remedial work done. We have highlighted in debates beyond this one the need for experts to do this work, and with coronavirus we have hit another challenge, because we cannot bring in expertise from elsewhere. Coronavirus is also increasing cost, making it harder for contractors to do the work, which means more delays and yet more costs for leaseholders. This therefore has to continue to be a priority, even during the pandemic. I know that this is not the direct remit of the Minister, but the Bill, and particularly the secondary legislation that follows it, could play a part here.
In the Budget, the Chancellor set aside £1 billion to do this remedial work, but we know that that is not enough—we see that when we look at the Bill and the amount of work involved. It might be a 10th of what is needed, and there is still no clarity about who will bid for that money. The Home Office is responsible for fire safety, so it needs to work closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to make sure that the money that is available is properly applied, easy to bid for and quick to be spent so that we make sure that these blocks get dealt with. The Home Office is responsible for fire safety, so if MHCLG does not have enough funds to help to deliver that, there will be ongoing problems.
I could raise many specific examples—I have raised them in the House before—but when there are owners with housing associations involved, there is double trouble, because there are leaseholders of the housing associations, and the HAs have a relationship with the owner or developer of the block. I want to highlight some of the tactics that can be in play and the delays that owners and developers can inflict on residents. I wish to highlight the case of Regal London, which built The Cube building in Hoxton. In the first year, when many residents were raising snagging issues, Regal did not respond. That lack of response has continued. There has now been five years—scaffolding has been up for a good couple of years—with residents still not sure what is going to happen and who is going to pay. In the meantime, the block has some fire safety issues, and with the to-ing and fro-ing between the owner and leaseholders, the resolution is not there.
While the Bill goes so far, there is a practical element to this, too. As we in this place know, legislation does not solve everything. While what needs to be done will be on the statute book, and that is a welcome beginning, there is a big practical job of making sure that the Bill is real, living legislation that delivers on the ground. While there are legal wrangles going on between owners and residents and organisations such as Regal, which is leading constituents a merry dance and not responding very well, this causes a problem. We know the costs for individuals are huge. I hope the Minister will, in Committee, be able to answer our questions on how this will practically deliver. It is a welcome first step late in the day. It is a start, but I hope that in Committee we will see discussion and movement on how this could be the beginning and not the end.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) to her place on the Opposition Front Bench. Like her, I arrived here on 11 June 2017, along with Emma Dent Coad. I want to place on record my thanks, and I think those of many, for the great campaigning work she did for the residents and the community in the immediate aftermath of the terrible tragedy that was the Grenfell fire. I then sat on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and it was a privilege to meet many of the survivors of the terrible events of that night. They have acted with such determination and diligence to force through many of the changes I am sure we will see over the coming months.
I welcome the Bill. It is an important first step in making our high-rise tower blocks safe for those who live in them, but it is just a first step. It is the first and only piece of primary legislation that has been brought forward by the Government since the tragedy of that night. Three years on, I am afraid I just do not see it as good enough. For all that time, people across the country have remained in unsafe housing. As someone who lives at the top of a very high tower block, I can understand the fear they live in.
A few months ago I set up the all-party group for council housing, which seeks to represent the views of council tenants here in Parliament. In that spirit, I mention the meeting I hosted with tenants back in the summer of 2018. We heard from tenants across the country about their priorities and how they felt, time and time again, that they were not being listened to by the Government or local authorities, and that the response to Grenfell had been inadequate. They still felt at risk in their homes a year on from the tragedy, and they still do three years on. Ed Daffarn, one of the survivors of Grenfell who campaigned brilliantly on the issue, spoke of the institutional indifference of the council and national Government to the concerns of Grenfell residents before the fire. I am afraid that that still exists in places.
Three years on, up to 60,000 worried residents are still living wrapped in lethal Grenfell-style cladding. Almost nine in 10 private sector buildings and over half of social sector buildings affected have not had that cladding removed or replaced. That is despite the former Housing Secretary, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), setting a deadline of the end of 2019 for social sector blocks to be made safe and a deadline of June 2020 for all private sector blocks to be made safe—a deadline that now looks likely to be missed. For years, Ministers did everything they could to avoid taking responsibility for ACM cladding removal. I am afraid that they had to be dragged into action by the campaigning of groups such as Grenfell United, the Labour party and others. It is still not happening quickly enough.
Elsewhere, the Grenfell inquiry found that the Government ignored recommendations to retrofit sprinklers in social housing blocks in the years leading up to the tragedy. It included the recommendations from the coroners after the loss of life in the Lakanal House fire in 2009 and in Shirley Towers in 2010. The lessons were not learned then and they are not being learned now. Some 95% of local authority-owned tower blocks taller than 30 metres still do not have sprinkler systems installed. We have repeatedly called for a £1 billion fund to retrofit sprinklers in all high-rise social housing blocks. Sadly, that has been ignored. I called for sprinklers to be retrofitted. As a new MP, I could see how desperately they were needed. I wrote to my district council asking for that to happen.
The Bill is important. I do not wish to downplay it. It is welcome and necessary, and I hope that it results in much greater enforcement action, and particularly in the removal of ACM cladding. However, we must be confident that the resources are there for enforcement to happen. I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). We know that £142 million has been cut from fire and rescue services since 2013, and that between 2010 and 2017 the number of fire safety inspectors fell by 28%. Without them, we have no protection on the frontline. Finally, I want to be assured that there is absolute clarity in the Bill that it will be the ultimate owner of high-rise blocks, not individual leaseholders, who will be responsible where remedial action is not being taken.
In conclusion, I welcome the Bill. It seeks to underline the importance of ownership, accountability and responsibility, but we have been slow in getting to this point. I look forward to the building safety Bill coming through, hopefully this summer, because it is critically important. At the same time, however, the Government must take urgent and necessary steps to get all cladding removed and install sprinkler systems in all high-rise social housing blocks, and we need to ensure that national, independently funded testing facilities are established as soon as possible.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call Christine Jardine—the hon. Lady cannot hear us. Do we have a connection? We can see her, but we cannot hear her. We will come back to her. Meanwhile we will go to Vauxhall.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
In my first virtual contribution, I start by paying tribute to the House staff for their tireless work over the last few weeks to make these hybrid proceedings possible.
I support this long overdue Bill, which provides much needed clarification on fire safety law, but we must go further if we are to prevent the potential for fatal fires in people’s homes. The Bill does not include the provisions arising from the recommendations made during the first phase of the Grenfell inquiry—something that Ministers had promised—and it does not include the much-needed changes to building safety standards.
It is nearly three years since the tragic Grenfell fire, which claimed the lives of 72 people, and for the Government to move so slowly on this is unacceptable. Like many other Members who have highlighted this today, I remember that fatal night, as I sat up for most of the night nursing my young son, who was just one week old on 14 June 2017. I sat up watching the scenes unfold during the night, and we must never forget those 72 innocent victims.
I also pay tribute to our hard-working firefighters, who continue to put their lives at risk and who need the Government to provide the necessary funding and assurances that this will never happen again. Will the Minister today confirm when we expect to see the recommendations from the inquiry brought into law and when the Government finally plan to bring forward a building safety Bill?
Legislation is only one piece of the puzzle in making our homes safe to live in. During this lockdown period, I have been contacted by many leaseholders in my constituency of Vauxhall who live in flats owned by private companies and who are having severe problems and delays in removing this dangerous cladding from their homes. This is not the fault of those leaseholders, and they should not be the ones to shoulder the blame for the Government’s failures, yet they are the ones who are struggling to get the necessary safety gas certificates and paying for really expensive service charges and interim security measures, and they are now having to spend this lockdown in unsafe buildings, worried that their homes will catch fire.
I welcome the £1 billion announced by the Chancellor in the Budget to remove the dangerous cladding from residential buildings, but the £200 million offered to private residential blocks to remove the cladding has been available for over a year now, and only two buildings have accepted that grant. Three years on, almost nine out of 10 private sector buildings affected have not yet had the dangerous cladding removed or replaced. The Government set a deadline of June for all private sector buildings to be safe, yet we know that the deadline is certainly going to be missed.
The Government need to accept responsibility for making our homes safe now and make the necessary steps to ensure that the money that they have made available is used to remove this dangerous cladding as soon as possible. We must not and cannot afford to wait.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We will now attempt again to go to Christine Jardine.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Christine Jardine
I am delighted to be able to join this debate. Each time the House debates or acknowledges in any way the horror that was Grenfell and the 72 lives lost that night, I find, like so many others, my mind going back to that evening. As a new MP, excited by the opportunity to effect change, I was horrified to turn to my TV in my hotel room and see the tragedy that was unfolding across the city. As so many right hon. and hon. Members have said, that memory remains with me. More than that, it is what drives my and so many others’ commitment to preventing it from happening again.
In this Parliament and the previous one, we have become accustomed to using words like “unprecedented”, “historic” and “crisis”. I hope that when we reflect fully on this period, we will be able to be confident that we gave this issue the attention, energy and commitment that it deserved. We need a commitment to ensuring that Grenfell is fully investigated and the victims and survivors honoured, and we have to make sure we have done everything possible to ensure that it cannot happen again. For that reason, I, with my Liberal Democrat colleagues, welcome this legislation today, but with a caveat. Several aspects of the Bill perhaps miss an invaluable opportunity to introduce other vital fire and safety mentions. There is no mention of evacuation plans for high-rise blocks or three-monthly fire door inspections, as recommended by the inquiry chaired by Sir Martin Moore-Bick. When will the House see those measures introduced in legislation?
A building safety Bill is urgently required. As more people spend time at home isolating, the risk of injuries and harm increases. When will that legislation be laid and what impact will the pandemic have on instigating necessary change and improvement? Those questions need to be answered.
While this Bill may be designed for England and Wales only—Scotland has its own fire safety regulations—it is far-reaching and has potentially serious implications for Scotland, where many homeowners now find themselves faced with a significant problem. Nine out of 10 mortgages in Scotland are provided by London-based lenders. The terms of those mortgages are based on English law and regulations. The effect of that is that many in apartment blocks are finding that their flats are now worthless. The mortgage lenders have placed a zero value on their property, because, according to those regulations, accommodation over six storeys must have an official external wall fire review, ensuring that the cladding is safe.
In England, one person would normally own the block and lease out the apartments to the owners. In Scotland, all the apartments are owned outright; there is no leasehold. The difficulty is down to that different ownership model. In England, it is relatively simple for one person to organise the checks and work on the apartment block and then bill the leaseholders. In Scotland, that is impossible. In a block of 250 owners, there would have to be 250 EWS1 forms verifying cladding. Each one costs thousands to complete. That anomaly is blocking any checks and many sales in Scotland. People cannot sell their apartments in such blocks without an ESW1 form, and in many cases no apartments are valued at more than zero. That is not to say that the regulations should be compromised—far from it. We need acknowledgement of the issue and arrangements made for properties where there is no leasehold.
I do not believe that any one of us is not committed to doing everything we possibly can to ensure that no family and no person ever has to endure the horror that the residents of Grenfell and their loved ones have endured over the past three years. To do that, we have to not just pass this Bill—[Inaudible.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We have lost contact with the hon. Lady, just as she was coming to her peroration. I think that everyone present, and in particular the Minister, can imagine what she was about to say, so we will assume that her peroration is complete.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) [V]
I hope everyone can hear me. I welcome the Bill—all three clauses of it—but it is not sufficient to deal with the problems that have been happening in relation to buildings across the country. The Grenfell fire occurred three years ago, and although the taskforce reported last year on the things that needed to be done, none of them has yet been implemented, despite the Government promising that all the recommendations would be encompassed, lock, stock and barrel. I hope that the Government will soon introduce a Bill that does all those things.
The Bill is very welcome, but it requires proper resources. The Fire Brigades Union has estimated that it will result in hundreds of thousands more buildings needing to be inspected, which is obviously the right thing to do. However, since the Government have, for years now, been cutting fire brigade services, we have fewer fire officers and less equipment. The response can therefore often be slower than it should be. Since 2013, £141.5 million of cuts have been made to the fire budget. Clearly, if the Bill is to have an impact, money must be provided to the fire brigade so that it can carry out its work.
There has rightly been talk about the Grenfell fire, but in my constituency of Bolton South East, The Cube, which was student accommodation, also erupted into fire, leaving 200 students homeless. Fortunately, no one was injured. The university has been great at looking after the students, even though the building did not belong to it, and the local community has been fantastic. I thank the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service for dealing with the situation so speedily and effectively. However, it leads to the question about the height of buildings. High buildings are considered those of 18 metres; The Cube was just 16 cm short of that.
The Cube’s cladding was what is called high-pressure laminate, unlike Grenfell, which had ACM cladding. People rightly talk about ACM cladding, but there is unsafe cladding across buildings in this country, some of which is high-pressure laminate and some of which is not. It is imperative that the Government test every single building in our country to ensure that they are safe for the people in them. Although such things cost money, at the end of the day, people’s lives are destroyed. The Grenfell Tower showed the tragedy of how many people died and how many lives were destroyed.
Although I welcome the Bill, I urge the Government to introduce a Bill that deals comprehensively with fire safety across all buildings—not just high buildings, but smaller buildings, such as hospitals and shopping centres. We need to have proper regulation, and proper inspections should be carried out for new buildings. I ask the Government to please sort this out. People’s lives must not be played with.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We will now go back to Barbara Keeley. The connection is not good enough to give us a video connection, but we will have an audio connection.
Barbara Keeley [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Let me try again to welcome this long-overdue Bill. We all know what the consequences can be when fire safety is neglected in blocks of flats. We have heard, and we are clear, that nobody here will ever forget the tragedy of the Grenfell fire, but only last autumn a block of student accommodation in Bolton called The Cube, just over the border from my constituency, caught fire, as we have just heard from the local Member. There were no casualties, but it reminds us how important it is that we address the issue as a matter of urgency.
Although the Bill is overdue, it does not guarantee action immediately. I understand that the current crisis makes it difficult to set a hard date for it to come into force, but that is of little comfort to people living in unsafe accommodation. Will the Minister tell us when he expects the Bill’s provisions to come into force? I am concerned about the cost of the additional work that will be required. To protect people who live in flats, the owners of many blocks will certainly need to carry out work to ensure that they are safe. That work is needed if buildings are not safe, but I am concerned that in too many cases the burden will fall on leaseholders with increased service charges.
In a recent survey of residents by the Greater Manchester High Rise Task Force, more than half of owner-occupiers said that they had been landed with increased service charge costs. One resident reported an increase from £90 to £400 a month; another faced an increase to £1,000 a month to cover the cost of remediation. Those extra financial pressures have had a significant impact on residents’ mental health and wellbeing, on top of the impact of the covid-19 crisis. It is not the fault of leaseholders if their buildings are unsafe.
The Government have previously offered funding to ensure that it is not leaseholders who have to pay for the removal of unsafe cladding, but that only applies if the building is over 80 metres high. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), funding would not therefore have been available for The Cube in Bolton—a six-storey building wrapped in high-pressure laminate cladding. If the Government are serious about ensuring that blocks of flats are safe, they need to ensure that funding is available for work on all blocks regardless of height, and I hope that that can be discussed in Committee. The Government must go further in funding work to remove dangerous cladding.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) set out, the costs of waking watches or other interim measures are often borne by residents. Will the Minister confirm that the scope of Government financial assistance in this area will be expanded, as the Greater Manchester High Rise Task Force has called for? Specifically, will the Government fund interim measures and renovations required to ensure fire safety in all residential blocks, not just those over a certain height?
We must also ensure that a change in the regulations leads to a change in practice. The current regulatory system is not up to the task, and we need detail on how it will be changed to enable local authorities and fire services to inspect residential buildings and take action against building owners who do not meet their new obligations. We cannot deal with the regulatory system later. When will we have details of a strengthened regulatory system, which has been promised as part of the Building Safety Bill?
When fires occur, sprinkler systems and fire alarms are crucial to protect life and property. I have been contacted by constituents who are concerned about the installation of mist sprinklers in residential units, rather than traditional fire sprinklers. Mist sprinklers are not subject to a common standard, whereby each case in which they are used must be assessed individually to determine whether they are a suitable solution. My constituents are concerned that such water-mist systems have been installed not because they are right for the job, but because they cost less. It would not be acceptable for people’s lives and homes to be put at risk because the cost to their landlord is lower. Will the Minister confirm that guidance will be published on what is considered a suitable sprinkler system for residential blocks, emphasising the need for the right solution, not the cheapest one?
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), I remain concerned about the financial situation facing Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service, which has seen a cut of more than £22 million of central Government funding in the past 10 years, which amounts to a 36% cut. At the same time, our population has increased, and the built environment in Greater Manchester has become more complex. In addition to the legislation that we are debating and the new regulatory system, we must take account of the increased demand on services such as the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service. We need the resources to have the right number of pumps and fire officers. As with the NHS, we must give better support to fire officers. They were the frontline at Grenfell—we must give them all they need for fire safety in future.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) [V]
It is a privilege to speak in the debate. I should like to begin by paying tribute to the Grenfell families and survivors, and to the fire service. I should add that it is a pleasure to follow hon. Members across the House, although it is somewhat strange to take part in the debate from my sofa.
I am pleased with the quality of today’s debate and the many thoughtful contributions from across the House. I, like other Opposition Members, welcome the Bill; it is a step forward, although a modest step, and I urge the Government to go much further.
I would like first to reflect on the situation affecting many residents in my constituency, particularly in central Reading where there is both a huge number of larger blocks and many much smaller ones, which—like the block referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley)—are below the height threshold but where there are serious concerns about their safety nevertheless.
I want to reflect on an email from a constituent that I found extremely moving. It was from a young woman who had been living, for several months at this point, in great stress in a flat in the town centre that had dangerous cladding. She and her fellow residents in the block have now been living in this condition for almost three years, and it is simply appalling that people are still having to put up with such enormous stress and worry, which is shared by residents across the country. As has been said, many of them are simply trapped in their properties; they are unable to sell, and are living in properties with dangerous cladding, either ACM or one of the many other types of dangerous cladding. We heard about the high-pressure laminate earlier. and it is also worth considering the danger from wooden cladding; there was the dreadful case of a fire in Barking a few months ago.
In the Reading area, we have ACM, wooden cladding that has been found to be dangerous, and laminate types. In my constituency, four or five large blocks have been inspected by Royal Berks Fire and Rescue Service and found to be not up to the required standards. The work is under way in one of those blocks, but in many other cases has been delayed. To make matters worse, there is the related issue, mentioned earlier, of smaller blocks that fall below the threshold yet have many dangerous fire safety issues— either dangerous cladding or a host of other problems, such as substandard fire doors, which have been discovered recently.
This is a very substantial problem affecting towns and cities across the whole country. We are only just beginning to discover the full extent of it. It started with the awful fire at Grenfell and similar fires which predated it and which should have been a warning to the Government. There have been subsequent fires, such as the Barking one or The Cube fire in Bolton, but there are many other dangers out there and I would like to draw the House’s attention to some of them, particularly those to do with HMOs.
There are huge numbers of HMOs in my constituency and many other towns and cities, and the numbers are growing. HMOs are not well regulated, and local authorities do not have the power to institute the sort of fire safety measures residents would often ideally want. There is also a growing market in unregulated and illegal HMOs, often tucked away and out of sight, which are not being inspected.
I want to make two points calling for more action from the Government; one of them relates to this issue of inspection and the other is a more general point about liability. On inspection, I hope the Minister will acknowledge what I have been saying about the scale of this issue in towns such as Reading, a typical medium-sized urban area in Britain. Our local fire and rescue service estimates that 30 additional officers would be required to inspect the county of Berkshire, which has a population of about 800,000, with towns including Reading, Slough and Bracknell. Given the number of smaller but still possibly dangerous buildings, substantial investment is required from Government. I hope the Minister reflects on this and comes up with a realistic plan for funding the emergency services so that they can properly inspect the vast multitude of potentially dangerous buildings. They include, as mentioned earlier, educational buildings, and there is a whole series of other types of building that people use, as well as flats and HMOs. All these need to be inspected and the resources are currently very limited.
I should add that it can take up to two years—possibly in some cases longer, depending on the grade of the person—for fire safety officers to be fully trained. They need to be trained firefighters who specialise in this field.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I trust the hon. Gentleman is bringing his remarks to a close.
Matt Rodda
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I apologise if I have somewhat overrun.
My other point is briefly to reiterate the wise comments made by colleagues about the need for the owners of blocks—not just leaseholders, but freeholders—to contribute towards these schemes.
In summary, this is a step forward, but much more needs to be done and I urge the Government to look at the resources needed, particularly for inspection.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) [V]
We meet in extraordinary times, and it is incumbent on us, as the democratically elected representatives of the people, to chart our way through this crisis. As such, I would like to thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and your staff for ensuring that people’s business can continue in this hybrid Parliament at this time.
I wish to start by paying tribute to all those NHS workers who have lost their lives in recent weeks. They have lost their lives in the line of duty, on the frontline, and we will all be forever grateful to them and their families for the sacrifice that they have paid.
Of course our responsibilities to the people whom we represent go on and they continue to be varied and diverse. That is why I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate and to welcome this long overdue piece of legislation that makes much needed changes to fire safety laws in England and Wales.
Although this is a Bill that has support from across the House, it is a Bill that we should have seen so much sooner. I share the concerns of the Fire Brigades Union about the Bill’s modesty and the important point that it will require substantial investment in fire and rescue services to ensure that there are adequate staffing levels and the appropriate level of training. This needs costing by individual fire and rescue services and a guarantee from the Government to support and fund what is necessary to keep people safe in their homes. The FBU wants fire and rescue services to quantify the number of inspectors necessary to carry out the additional responsibilities and Ministers to agree to fund the service accordingly. That is a call that has my support, as does the work of the FBU in standing up for our much valued frontline public sector workers.
After almost three years since the heartbreaking events at Grenfell, this is the first and only piece of primary legislation that this Government have brought forward on fire safety-related powers. This is a time for the House to unite and, in doing so, I would like to thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for the work they have done to honour the memory of those who died at Grenfell.
The wider response to the Grenfell Tower fire has been far too slow and—let us be honest—too weak on every front. I do wish the Prime Minister well as he celebrates the birth of his son today, but he and his Government must acknowledge and urgently act on their wider failures since the Grenfell Tower fire. They have failed to remove flammable Grenfell-style cladding from tower blocks and failed to support residents with interim safety costs.
We also need to ensure that the wiring of new build properties is undertaken correctly and that properties with dangerous electrical systems are updated at the earliest opportunity. We all need electricity to function, and with millions working from home at present we know that that is the case more so than ever, so we must get this right.
The Government promised in October 2019 to implement the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower inquiry in full and without delay. Six months later, we now have a piece of legislation, but it fails to contain a single measure recommended by the Grenfell inquiry. I hope the Minister will address why this is the case when the debate is wound up later today. It is shameful that there are still tens of thousands of residents living in tower blocks with dangerous and flammable cladding. In Newport West, we have had our own problems with unsafe cladding, and I hope that this Bill will go some way to speed up safety measures that my constituents and people across the United Kingdom deserve. The current covid-19 pandemic is an unprecedented crisis. I join the National Fire Chiefs Council in welcoming the Bill, but I urge the Government to go further.
I pay tribute to our fire and rescue service personnel. They are, as always, going above and beyond to support the response to the crisis despite the many unnecessary Government cuts from the Tories and Lib Dems since 2010. The pandemic must not divert us from the urgent need to take strong and swift action on fire safety, such as the removal of flammable cladding. It is for this Government to show leadership and deliver. I look forward to playing my part in holding them to account and to delivering on the promises made to the families of those who died in Grenfell, as we look to ensure that nothing like this can ever happen again.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I was a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee in the last Parliament, when our work focused on the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. The courage and dignity of the Grenfell survivors in continuing to speak not only of their own collective fight for justice but of the need to reform fire safety and building safety regulations to protect others from suffering as they have done is humbling and remarkable.
I also speak as someone who was elected to Southwark Council 10 months after the Lakanal House fire, in which six people tragically lost their lives, had shocked and devastated communities across the borough. The newly elected Labour administration that took over the running of the council in May 2010 did everything it could to address fire safety within Southwark, spending £60 million on fire safety works. Lakanal House was widely understood to be a warning siren for fire safety for the whole country, but no national reform of building safety and fire safety was delivered at that time. As we debate this Bill, we must reflect that had the coalition Government got a grip on fire safety reform, subsequent tragedies, including Grenfell, may have been avoided.
I want to focus my remarks this afternoon on three areas. First, how disappointing it is that so much of the substantive reform entailed by this Bill is deferred for secondary legislation. I understand that there will be new recommendations arising from the final phase of the Grenfell Tower inquiry, but three years on, there is much that is already known and action has been far too slow. In particular, I am concerned about the lack of dovetailing of this Bill with the forthcoming building safety Bill. This Bill establishes who is responsible for fire safety, but it does not establish how they should achieve it. We know that, across the construction and building management sectors, there is still total chaos caused by the lack of clarity on which materials are flammable and the lack of progress on testing and certification. We need urgent clarity on all forms of cladding so that the removal of all flammable non-ACM cladding on residential buildings can be completed with urgency. Action on this is long overdue.
Secondly, there is an urgent need for the proper resourcing of every organisation that will have new fire safety responsibilities as a result of the Bill. The number of fire safety inspectors is 28% lower than in 2010. Local authorities have seen more than 60% of the funding they receive from central Government cut over the past 10 years. Both our fire safety and local authorities must be properly resourced to deliver a new fire and building safety regime. This need for resourcing extends to training and professional development to build a skilled fire and building safety workforce. Grenfell Tower resulted in a collapse of confidence in fire and building safety and exposed many problems with accountability, which this Bill seeks to address, but also with expertise for certification. There is a chronic shortage of fire safety expertise in the UK at present. Can the Minister confirm in winding up that the new burdens calculation for this Bill will account for training and workforce development as well as the new inspection responsibilities?
Finally, there are half a million fire risk assessments in social housing in this country. Most councils and housing associations have worked hard in the past three years to bring their assessments up to date, but there is an important question about the validity of inspections undertaken under a broken fire and building safety regime. Equally, there is concern that if social landlords are asked to complete half a million new assessments in short order, this would be a costly and challenging task. Please can the Minister clarify how the transition to the new regime will take place such that all residents can be confident that a building with an up-to-date safety inspection is safe to sleep in at night?
As we are all spending much more time at home, I know that fire safety concerns—whether about cladding, compartmentalisation, lack of sprinklers or means of escape—are weighing heavily and adding to the burden of anxiety that many people are suffering at this time. This issue could not be more important, and I urge the Government to increase the pace of urgency to bring forward the substantive reforms of fire and building safety that residents across the country so desperately need.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) [V]
I fully support the broad purposes of this Bill. Any Bill that takes us a step closer to righting the wrongs of Grenfell tower gets my full support, and my thoughts are also with those who died in Grenfell and with those injured and all the families, friends, survivors and firefighters.
Greater powers and meaningful sanctions to ensure that residents are safe in their homes are welcome. However, this Bill is a huge missed opportunity to address a big issue in my constituency and around the country: that of leaseholders being made to pay for the cost of the unsafe cladding still on their buildings. It is too long to wait for the building safety Bill, and the deadline for the removal of all unsafe cladding in private blocks by June 2020, set by the Government, will clearly not be met. In the meantime, thousands of people are left in limbo because of the cladding crisis.
The Swish building and Riverside Quarter in Putney are two examples. They have 66 and 200 flats respectively, and their cladding is a mixture of the Grenfell-type ACM and HPL. Leaseholders have been told by their freeholder that the cladding and other fire safety measures in their building do not meet the standard now regarded by the Government as adequate to obtain a fire safety certificate. For a fire safety certificate to be issued, the building will need to be re-clad. Without the certificate, leaseholders cannot sell, and they have to pay for an expensive nightly waking watch, which costs about £100,000 a year. They are being told they need to foot the bill for the re-cladding, which they are told could be between £50,000 and £80,000 per flat.
It is simply unfair to make leaseholders foot the bill. They are not multimillionaire landlords, but normal people—many of them retired—trying to live their lives, which have been made even more difficult by the current crisis. They do not have a spare £50,000 lying around or the means to get it. The emotional toll is enormous, which is why the matter needs to be addressed urgently, so it is disappointing not to see that in this Bill. The situation has left leaseholders in complete limbo, as has been mentioned by other Members, and facing an uncertain future. Mortgage lenders will not issue mortgages for homes without a fire safety certificate, so people are stuck. One resident, who has been unemployed for over a year, told me:
“The net result for me is that I will lose my home”.
Another said:
“We now face financial ruin as a direct result of the Government’s retrospective change to fire safety regulation.”
Another resident said that their flat is
“unsaleable and therefore effectively worthless… We cannot afford to pay a sum of this size.”
The Bill offers nothing for leaseholders at the Riverside, Swish or in other similar tower blocks. While I appreciate that the building safety Bill is coming, this Bill could provide the measures that the cladding crisis victims need. In particular, I would like a commitment to adequate Government funding for cladding remediation work or to ensure that freeholders foot the Bill, as they, not the leaseholders, will be the ones who benefit from building improvements. The additional funding announced in the Budget is welcome, but it is also too hard to claim. Only two buildings have made claims from the existing £200 million private property fund. Ministers must take more responsibility.
I would also like local government reimbursement. To ensure that the legislation is successful in protecting lives, national Government must make sure that local government and other fire authorities are reimbursed for any additional costs arising out of the operational changes mandated by this Bill. Our already underfunded local authorities must be given extra capacity to make homes safe.
We also need greater clarity on the non-ACM cladding that is deemed unsafe. There is huge confusion about which cladding is safe or unsafe. Are people living in really dangerous buildings or not? Confusion reigns, and the Bill needs to address that.
In conclusion, we are approaching the third anniversary of the Grenfell tower disaster, and so many questions remain unanswered. This Bill fails to address them and will disappoint thousands. I welcome the Government’s work on cladding so far, but so much more needs to be done.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
The House is sitting in unique times, in a unique way. Every Zoom picture we have seen today has told a story of hon. Members safe at home with their loved ones. That is what home should be: a place of safety. During this lockdown, for all its stresses, we have come to understand even more urgently that sense of a place of safety.
Yesterday, we heard harrowing tales of people whose homes are not safe because of abuse. Today, we are talking about another group of people for whom home is not safe—people who are not as lucky as us; people who live every day with the fear that what happened at Grenfell may happen to them. They suffer this amid the economic shock of covid-19, which has further reduced their incomes and their choices, and stopped the remediation work that they have long needed. They are forced to stay in a place of unsafety; a place of fear. They cannot forget what happened on 14 June 2017, and neither should we.
I pay tribute to the Minister, officials and House staff who have worked hard to get us here today, and I thank the fire Ministers—the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) and Lord Greenhalgh —for their detailed briefing over the phone to me on Monday. We all agreed that our fire and rescue services deserve huge credit for going above and beyond the call of duty against covid-19. They deserve our full support.
I am also grateful to all the hon. Members who spoke with such passion and expertise today. As ever on this topic, there is agreement on both sides of the House. Members and former members of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee have done so much to highlight these issues. We heard from the ever-wise Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts); the hon. Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake); and my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who have sat or sit on the Committee.
Members of the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue, who were warning Ministers to act many years before the Grenfell Tower tragedy, also brought us their expertise. Its chair, the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), has been dogged in his campaigning for fire safety, and the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning)—he brings his own unique experience—and the hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), for Thirsk and Malton and for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) all brought great experience to the debate.
We welcome the Bill, but it goes nowhere near far enough to prevent another Grenfell tragedy, nor to undo a decade of cuts to our fire and rescue service. The Grenfell community were failed by a system that did not listen to them. We must never forget that failure. I pay tribute, as others have, to Grenfell United, the families and the whole community for continuing to fight for justice, but why has it taken three years to get to this? The Bill is the first and only piece of primary legislation on fire safety introduced by the Government in those three years. It is just three clauses long, and it fails to implement any of the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1. At every stage, we have had to drag the Government into action. Coronavirus is an unprecedented crisis, but it cannot be an excuse for failure to act on fire safety. We need to be much stronger and go much further.
I shall mention four key problems with the Bill, which we will explore in Committee. The first is the competence of fire risk assessors, which the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead mentioned. It is frankly outrageous that it is perfectly legal for someone with no expertise and no qualifications to set up as a fire risk assessor and complete fire risk assessments for schools, hospitals or tower blocks. The Bill makes the issue of competence even more pressing, because it will make fire risk assessments more complex by including elements such as the nature of cladding materials.
How is it that 15 years after the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 was passed we still do not have a proper system to accredit those carrying out fire risk assessments? I am aware that a working group has been looking at this issue. Will the Government commit to legislating, through the Bill, for higher standards and greater public accountability in fire inspections?
The second problem is the slow pace of implementation. The powers in the Bill will not come into force until an undetermined date of the Secretary of State’s choosing. This is simply not good enough. We are calling for the implementation of those powers from day one. This call is supported by the London fire brigade, among others. The fire service has developed a model for a risk-based approach of inspection, modelled in my own town of Croydon, which could be reflected in the legislation. A vague commitment to bring the Bill into force over time, as the Minister wrote to MPs yesterday, is not good enough. As many Members have mentioned, the Government have also promised to make further changes to the fire safety order via secondary legislation to implement the Grenfell Tower inquiry recommendations, but again at an undetermined date in the future. Six months ago, the Housing Secretary promised to implement the findings of the inquiry in full and without delay. We have a Fire Safety Bill here in front of us, and we have a series of recommendations that could have been consulted on and placed into the Bill.
The third question relates to residents trapped in Grenfell-style buildings across the country. This issue was raised by many Members in the debate. It is the most immediate and pressing fire safety issue and it is being exacerbated by covid because of stalled work to remove flammable Grenfell-style cladding from buildings. Not only are these residents in danger; they are now facing ruinous costs for waking watch, building insurance and other interim safety measures at a time when many have lost income due to covid-19.
We have heard excellent speeches and experiences from my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), for Reading East (Matt Rodda) and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, as well as from my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who has just told us about constituents who are losing their homes. I spoke to leaseholder residents yesterday who are paying £14,000 a year for waking watch. Who can afford that? There is one block whose residents have spent £700,000 on waking watch because they were told that they had to, but the building has now been tested and found to be safe. This whole area is a total mess—or total chaos, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood said. If we do not fix the problem now, people will go bankrupt at the height of this crisis. I know that the Housing Secretary has launched a pledge to keep cladding removal work going, but we need more than a pledge. We need action. And will the Government please make good on our waking watch system? It is simply not fit for purpose, and it is ruining people’s lives.
My final point is that, as the Fire Brigades Union and many Members including my hon. Friends the Members for Newport West (Ruth Jones) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) have said very powerfully today, the Bill could have significant resource implications for fire and rescue services, but the reality of the past decade has been devastating cuts to firefighter numbers and fire appliances, leading inevitably to slower response times. Fire inspectors—those we need to audit and enforce these new powers—have seen some of the largest cuts. Their numbers have fallen by almost a third since 2010. Will the Minister agree today to publish an impact assessment of the resource implications of the Bill and commit to funding it properly?
In July 2017, I made my maiden speech during the first full debate in this Chamber on the Grenfell tragedy. I did not think that, three years later, I would be facing a Government that have still yet to pass a single Act of Parliament to deliver on the clear promises made in the wake of that tragedy. We welcome this legislation, but it cannot be enough. This piecemeal response to Grenfell cannot be enough, and this delay and dither cannot be enough. The tragedy of Grenfell and the scandal it exposed of unsafe housing across the country have been too slowly addressed by the Government and too quickly overshadowed by other events—first Brexit, now covid. The Government have a chance to put this right, and we will work hand in hand with them to do that. Everyone needs a place of safety. We in this virtual House all have one. Three long years after the Grenfell Tower fire, we must move faster.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
It is a pleasure and an honour to wind up the debate for Her Majesty’s Government. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security and other hon. Members for the insightful contributions that they have made. I will try to answer as many of the questions asked as I can, although I am conscious that something like 32 Members have spoken today. The fact that we do not have a huge amount of time before the moment of interruption, and that there were so many contributions, may well preclude me from providing substantive responses to all the questions raised, but as the Bill makes progress through the House, I am sure that there will be further opportunities for everybody to debate and test its provisions.
I shall begin by commenting on some particular contributions. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chairman of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, made it clear that his Committee will treat the pre-legislative scrutiny of the building safety Bill very seriously. A number of Members have mentioned that Bill. Let me confirm that we will bring it forward in draft form before the summer recess, which will give Members an opportunity to begin to consider it.
I should also like to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), who noted how the survivors of Grenfell have conducted themselves throughout with grace and dignity—she is right. She was also right to say that we need to work collectively and with purpose to address what happened that night.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) said that he had not received a letter from me in response to his, written on 26 February. I will certainly look into that, because I know that he has long campaigned for his constituents living in Northpoint.
Members across the House campaign for their constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), who is in the Chamber, campaigns for her constituents who lost their homes in the lace mill fire a little while ago. Homes were lost; thankfully, no lives were lost.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) and others raised the question of fire risk assessors. The Government have been working with the fire risk assessment sector to develop a clear plan to increase its capacity and capability. We will work at pace to do that, and we will introduce a panel of expert fire engineers to ensure that there is expert assessment of more complex buildings. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher), who raised the question of the inspection of lifts. He may wish to continue to raise it as the Bill proceeds through the House.
All Members who have taken part in the debate have rightly put the need to safeguard residents such as those who were involved in the Grenfell fire at the front and centre of their contributions because, ultimately, what matters is saving lives. We cannot bring back those who lost their lives on 14 June 2017, but we can keep moving forward, applying the lessons that we continue to learn, and taking the necessary actions to keep others safe so that a residential fire such as the one we saw at Grenfell Tower can never be repeated.
As we have said and demonstrated by our actions over the last three years, we are committed to a generational reform of building and fire safety. We have to get this right. This is a short, technical Bill—I make no apology for that. It clarifies the law and constitutes a further step towards ensuring that there is better identification and management of fire safety risks in all multi-occupied residential buildings. It will also give us the firm foundation needed to bring forward further legislation under the fire safety order to deliver the recommendations from the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 report, issued on 29 October last year, which called for new obligations for building owners. The Bill will give certainty to all those working under the fire safety order, those who are regulated by it and those who enforce it.
There are challenges in respect of how we implement the Bill, particularly regarding the assessment of external wall systems. We will continue to work closely with our partners to deliver assessments on the ground in a way that is manageable and that takes account of the capacity and capability issues that hon. Members have raised. However, the direction of travel is clear, and I urge building owners and managers, in line with the independent expert panel’s recent consolidated advice note, to start taking account of fire risks arising from external walls and cladding as of now, if they have not done so already.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security mentioned in his opening speech, my Department will bring further legislation before Parliament for scrutiny in the course of this year. The building safety Bill, which I have mentioned, will deliver an enhanced safety framework for higher-risk residential buildings and provide wider and stronger oversight of safety and performance across all buildings. Residents’ safety is at the heart of all these reforms.
The Government have already taken forward a range of other legislative and non-legislative measures, including the provision of £1 billion to remove unsafe cladding, such as high-pressure laminate and wood on all blocks of flats over 18 metres; the provision of £600 million for the replacement of unsafe aluminium composite material cladding on high-rise social and private buildings over 18 metres; banning the use of combustible materials in cladding systems on high-rise blocks, as well as in hospitals, care premises and student accommodation; publishing a summary of responses to the call for evidence on the fire safety order; and setting up, in shadow, the building safety regulator.
I hope that hon. Members will acknowledge that we are taking forward a comprehensive response to the tragedy of that night in June 2017. The system failures in building and fire safety that have been identified by Dame Judith Hackitt in her report—the next phase of the Grenfell Tower inquiry will consider them further—are at the heart of our agenda. The importance of the work on building and fire safety is underlined by the fact that Lord Greenhalgh has recently been appointed to work jointly across both Departments to deliver these important reforms. In that vein, I remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Security Minister has huge expertise in this area because of his previous service in my Department and his current service in the Home Office.
As I anticipated at the start of my speech, I have not been able to address everybody’s concerns, but there will be further and ample opportunity, during the Bill’s passage through the House and through the scrutiny of other legislation, to address Members’ concerns. This is not the only piece of legislation coming forward and it is not the last piece of legislation coming forward; it is the first piece of legislation to address the concerns that colleagues have raised.
This debate has shown the House at its best. Despite the restrictions—the very physical restrictions—that have been placed on us by covid-19, the Members of this House have operated in a new way of working to ensure that we have meaningful and, for the Government, challenging debate. I welcome the strong measure of cross-party, collaborative support mentioned by the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones); I will work with her to make sure that we get the best piece of legislation on to the statute book.
As the third anniversary of the Grenfell fire approaches, the Government are steadfast in their determination to see this Bill enacted as quickly as possible as a prelude to further legislation. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Fire Safety bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Fire Safety Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 25 June 2020.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.
Fire Safety Bill (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Fire Safety Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.
Fire Safety Bill (First sitting)
Thursday 25th June 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 June 2020 - (25 Jun 2020)
The Chair
Welcome, colleagues, to Public Bill Committee proceedings on the Fire Safety Bill. We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings and, given the temperature outside, jackets or other items of clothing may be removed. Date Time Witness Thursday 25 June Until no later than 12.00pm The National Fire Chiefs Council Thursday 25 June Until no later than 12.30pm The Fire Sector Federation; the L&Q Group Thursday 25 June Until no later than 1.00pm The Fire Brigades Union; The Royal Institute of British Architects
Today, we will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the ordinary evidence sessions. I hope we can take those matters formally, without debate.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 11.30am on Thursday 25 June) meet at 2.00pm on Thursday 25 June;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
TABLE
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00pm on Thursday 25 June. —(Kit Malthouse.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Kit Malthouse.)
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Kit Malthouse.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be sent to Committee members by email. We will now go into private session to discuss the lines of questioning. I hope it will not take us long as we will be eating into witness time.
The Chair
Thank you for coming to give evidence. Please begin by introducing yourself for the record.
Dan Daly: My name is Dan Daly. I am an assistant commissioner, currently seconded to the National Fire Chiefs Council. Previously I had 32 years’ service with the London fire brigade. I have been the assistant commissioner for fire safety in London for the past four years, until 1 June.
Penny Pender: Good morning. I am Penny Pender. I work at the National Fire Chiefs Council, where I am the deputy team leader for the building safety programme. I have been there for the past two or three years.
The Chair
Q
Dan Daly: We welcome the Bill and the clarifications that it seeks to provide. We are very keen that those clarifications should work not just for us as regulators and enforcers but for the people who have day-to-day responsibility for building safety, and for those people who live in, work in and visit those buildings, so that they understand what is required to keep them safe and their duties.
The Chair
I should explain that you have Members of Parliament in front of you and behind you, because we are socially distanced and the room is not quite big enough to allow us all to sit around the horseshoe table. We will start the questioning with Sarah Jones, who leads on this issue for the Labour party.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Q
Dan Daly: We have had a debate on whether these are clarifications or new aspects, and we have settled on them being clarifications. I am fine with that, but it suggests to us that the buildings to which they apply are those buildings that are currently there. I do not think that the Bill is attempting to grow the range of buildings that come within scope. We are seeking some clarification on certain definitions, to ensure that there is no creep in the scope of what the Bill is intended to do.
With regard to the pressures on fire and rescue services, the onus is on us to maintain skills and competencies in the sector, and we have a body of work to do in order to move forward and deliver that. Where we have a preference for the service, it is that we bring the legislation forward as it is, all together at one time, rather than putting in arbitrary height restrictions and things like that. I know that you will hear from industry that there will be pressures on competent persons to provide extendable assessments, and things like that.
I think that what we can offer is a risk-based approach to help the people with those responsibilities manage the ask in a way that targets the highest risk buildings first. There was a model that we used—in the London fire brigade we termed it the Croydon model, as you may be aware—which was to help those large portfolio holders understand where we expect them to apply their initial assessments with the new legislation. I think we can adopt a similar approach here. I think that will help to ease the pressure across the board. Certainly, as they are clarifications, it would imply that the legislation applies to those buildings already, so it does not appear that now is the time to bring in arbitrary height allocations.
Sarah Jones
Q
Dan Daly: I would certainly welcome a register for fire risk assessors and third-party accreditation for that. In a similar way, we are working towards a competency standard for fire inspection officers within the fire service. That is a bit of the work that the building safety team is doing at the moment. Certainly, the service will be working with them over the coming years to develop the skills within their own workforce to achieve that. Again, with the new building regulator, we are looking to bring in a level of competence to interact with more complex buildings.
Sarah Jones
Q
Penny Pender: That certainly picks up on some of the points we have made in our submission about ensuring that the different pieces of legislation speak clearly to each other. The first example is the term “building”: one concern we had was that if it was not clearly defined, the default setting would be to refer to the definition in the Building Act 1984, which is referred to in the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
Picking up on Dan’s point from earlier, that would be a much wider definition than the scope of the fire safety order currently covers, so that is the type of thing we are hoping to iron out. We just want to ensure that there are opportunities, maybe through secondary legislation or in guidance, for those types of thing to be spelled out clearly, to ensure that all the different pieces are interpreted clearly when they all come together in the future.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Q
For example, if you have leaseholders in a block of flats owned by a local authority that is responsible, what the leaseholder does within the property that may create risk to others may not be something to which the local authority can readily gain access. I am interested in this point about how the different pieces of legislation interact. Do you have a view on how we might collectively move towards a resolution of that problem?
Dan Daly: We talked earlier about how the clarifications in this Bill are really useful in terms of ironing out some of the overlaps we have seen that have caused us difficulties before, both in holding people to account, and in people’s understanding of their duties.
This is a bit of legislation that underpins a self-regulatory regime, and we must ensure that at the end of this we have something that makes it very clear to those people what their responsibilities are. It must also help residents and leaseholders to understand what they can rightly expect from the people with day-to-day responsibility for the safety of their buildings. That is the sort of thing that we are working closely with Home Office colleagues on. The Bill has been presented as it is today, but I know we have taken some assurances in the background that we will work together on providing secondary legislation and guidance to pick up those areas where we might still seek further clarification, to ensure that it is absolutely clear to those people who it most directly affects day to day.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Q
The first question is whether you have any estimates, because we know roughly where we are at the moment and where we need to get to. I was pleased to hear you say that you would welcome a register of assessors, but the interlinked issue is how we train those people. We have had differing evidence. Some suggests there should be a fast-track training, or different levels of assessment, and other evidence suggests that we should not have fast-track training because it can lead to problems. I would welcome your views on both questions: how many people do we need overall, and does there need to be comprehensive training for everybody, or would you take a differentiated view?
Dan Daly: I do not think I can give you a number on how many we need overall, because there is a bit of work to be done before that. This speaks back to the risk-based approach. If we look at the work we are doing with the building safety regulator and the ideas going forward about the level of competency to interact with buildings of different complexity and risk, we could apply a similar staged approach to how we look at the buildings to which the legislation needs to be applied. Picking up those most at risk will allow time for training to come through, and development of people to support the wider piece of work, while ensuring that the effort is focused on the buildings that we would see as highest risk.
There is further work that we need to do as a service overall on understanding what risk looks like. We have a historical risk matrix that informs the regularity with which we inspect buildings; that was based on good evidence at the time, but we have a richer understanding of risk now. We understand vulnerabilities, behaviours and lifestyles that have an equal impact on the likelihood of fire, and therefore the settings that those people may be living in. It helps us understand risk in a totally different way—understanding that this is not just our opportunity to fix high-rise living but is about the wider built environment. It is an opportunity to understand risk in a much more holistic way and ensure we are applying more rigorous inspections to those higher-risk premises, and an appropriate level of inspection to those lower down the risk register, so to speak.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Q
Dan Daly: That is certainly my understanding.
Andy Slaughter
Q
Dan Daly: Absolutely. The concerns we have and the clarifications we are seeking are shared in the submission from the National Fire Chiefs Council. There is no intent to apply this legislation inadvertently to buildings inappropriately, but we should be very clear that parts that are used in common between properties would be subject to the order. I do not think that creeps any further forward what buildings are in scope, but it makes very clear those areas to which it does apply.
Andy Slaughter
Q
Dan Daly: Yes, absolutely. As I say, we are working very well with colleagues on those clarifications and on commitments to getting those definitions in. Our reason for repeating to you our concerns about those clarifications and commitments is not to suggest that work is not going forward; it is partly to place it on record that we think those issues are hugely important to the success of this Bill and its application.
Andy Slaughter
Q
Dan Daly: Yes. This issue, particularly if we talk about external wall systems—which encompasses insulation and fixing everything, as you have suggested—has been debated for some time. In August 2016, I attended an incident in your constituency that you will be very familiar with. I was in my old role with the London Fire Brigade at the time, and we sent a letter to registered landlords to advise them to look at what was on the outside of their buildings. We debated for some time whether that letter could go further and suggest enforcement action, but it eventually became an advice note because we were unable to bottom out clearly what that legal advice should be. I think the clarifications we are seeking will make it much clearer that external wall systems are covered.
Andy Slaughter
Q
Dan Daly: Absolutely. It is for the property owner.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
Q
A secondary question relates to the skills, qualification and training of responsible people—this is very like Ms Cooper’s question from earlier—and how they can carry out fire risk assessments. Do you think that there is sufficient detail at present to satisfy the requirements?
Dan Daly: In terms of the training, there is work to do. The industry will point to some difficulties with capacity and volume. That is why I would urge a risk-based approach, and that we manage that here and now. The clarification of where responsibilities lie and what those responsibilities are is hugely important in this legislation to aid some of that training, so that it is very clear what the requirements are on individuals and on the competent persons who will be providing advice. Again, it is hugely important that this speaks to those people.
Our experience in enforcement terms is that there are those who seek to comply; there are those who seek to comply, but who fail to understand what is required of them; and then there are those who actively seek to dodge the legislation and work their way around it. What we want to do is close the loopholes for that secondary group, and to make it absolutely clear for the others who are doing their best to understand that the guidance and legislation support their understanding of their duties.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
My question comes from somebody who was a local government elected member for some 21 years, who has sat on planning committees and dealt with building regulations, and someone who has built properties and who is currently a landlord. I would like to ask a more specific question when we are considering risk. Much of what you talk about is about taking a risk-based approach. In your written submissions, you talk about how you would like greater resources and investment to be put into the enforcement side of things. Clearly, that is something for the Government to respond to.
Do you agree that construction and sign-off are potentially the points at which there could be the greatest risk of errors or non-compliance, either wittingly or unwittingly? Do you also agree that even after a structure has been signed off—whether it is by building control or by the local council—the time soon afterwards is still a point of high risk, because that is when door furniture can be changed, carpets can be fitted and all sorts of other things can happen that might have meant that the structure did not pass the certification in the first instance? Do you agree that perhaps a more dynamic monitoring role is required over how new buildings are being addressed from within existing structures—therefore, no extra body is particularly needed because we are approving buildings as we speak—but that looking at the timeframes might be a useful thing to do?
Dan Daly: I suppose that speaks more to the work that is being done around building safety—the Bill that is coming forward and the work on designing a new building safety regime. We cannot escape the findings of the Dame Judith Hackitt review. They were very damning about the existing system, and they speak to why we find ourselves with the built environment that we do and the challenges that that poses—not just for RPs in managing it, but for residents who have to live in the buildings, for us as enforcers and for firefighters in terms of their safety when they attend the buildings. We are fully engaged in that process.
It is equally important that we get this legislation absolutely right so that during occupation, the duties of whoever is responsible, day to day, for the fire safety in those buildings is very, very clear and it does not allow people to pass the buck—so that it is absolutely clear who is responsible, and they will be held accountable. That is what we are seeking.
Sarah Jones
Q
Dan Daly: On the first point, we suggest that the Bill should be amended to make sure that it has the flexibility to encompass the Grenfell phase 1 and phase 2 inquiry recommendations. I think that is entirely appropriate, because I think people expect the Bill to pick up the lessons and the learning from that, so we absolutely support that. Can you remind me of the second point?
Sarah Jones
The insurance issue—if you take a risk-based approach, what about all the people who do not have the right pieces of paper?
Dan Daly: Our role is to be fully engaged with insurers and those who support people to invest in and take out mortgages on properties, to give them an understanding of what that risk-based approach means. If we are able to convince those partners that the lower-risk buildings present a lesser risk, that should, hopefully, help with some of those challenges.
At the moment, when we have a slightly less finessed version of what risk looks like in these buildings, it is very hard for people in those circumstances to make accurate judgments and assessments. Part of our role is to support that, and I think the risk-based approach that we propose will help with some of that, because we will absolutely identify those more high-risk buildings, put resources towards them and focus the remediation efforts on them. By design, that would allocate other buildings to a lower threshold of risk.
The Chair
Penny, did you want to come in at all on that question?
Penny Pender: No, thank you.
The Chair
Thank you. That brings us to the end of this panel. We have only three minutes left before 12 o’clock. Thank you so much to both of you for answering our questions this morning; it has been extremely helpful. We will now conclude this part of the sitting and move on to the next. Thank you for being with us.
Examination of Witnesses
The Chair
Q
James Carpenter: I am James Carpenter, head of fire safety at L&Q. If you are not aware, L&Q Group is a large housing provider in London, and we currently manage more than 110,000 homes. I have been in the housing sector since 2007. Prior to that, I was a firefighter in the Royal Air Force. We are also, as a group, involved with and an early adopter of the building safety programme, and we are a strong supporter of the brief on fire safety across the built environment, to improve existing buildings but also new buildings coming out of construction. Our aim is to support that continuous improvement in fire safety to avoid tragedies such as those we have seen.
In offering evidence, we hope to ensure that amendments to the Bill are realistic and, more importantly, achievable for those who manage buildings and for residents, so that they understand what those challenges are and, ultimately, so that we can give reassurance about the safety of people’s homes.
The Chair
Q
Dennis Davis: Thank you. I am Dennis Davis, the executive officer of the Fire Sector Federation, which is a not-for-profit non-government organisation. We are an organisation of organisations, so our membership comprises professional bodies, trade associations, unions and commercial enterprises. Our collective work is really to improve public fire safety. We work as a group, and I lead work around competency and fire risk assessment.
We, like many others, have been working for a long period to try to improve overall competencies—our work predates the tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire—and most recently we have been working with the Government and others to try to improve fire risk assessor competency across the board. We, too, welcome the Bill and look forward to its guidance, but we have concerns about definitions and clarity, and concerns about the implications of taking it forward in practice.
The Chair
Thank you. We have a number of questions for you from Members of Parliament on the Committee. We will start with Sarah Jones, who leads for the Labour party on this matter.
Sarah Jones
Q
Mr Carpenter, one of our amendments is about how the definition of responsible persons should not include leaseholders. One issue that has been raised with us is how you implement a Bill when you are looking at a building in its totality and, as a freeholder, you have a responsibility to look, for example, at doors that might belong to the flat owner rather than you. How on earth can you do that? How do you know if changes are made or things happen when parts of the building are not in your control? How does that work?
Dennis Davis: The first thing to say is that the built environment—the part we are concerned with—is very complex. Buildings, of course, are infinitely variable, from a small single-storey dwelling to a block of flats on top of a commercial development that has got car parking, leisure activities and so on. So the environment you are looking at is complex, but fire risk in particular is holistic. By that, I mean it is about the way people interact with the building, the building itself, the structures and the way the whole process is put together. One big issue that often arises is that when the way you design, construct and build—the professional leadership in the process—is transferred on to the ground, and more importantly into the life of the building, you find that things you thought had been constructed, developed and managed in a certain way are not.
The first point I would like to make, therefore, is that in trying to look at the competence of individuals, you are first trying to ensure that there is a common platform of understanding about fire and its behaviour, and about people and how they behave, before going into the complexities and granularity of buildings themselves. You could have a fire engineer—I am a qualified fire engineer—who specialises in a particular area. You might have someone working offshore, in the radiation industry or on high-rise buildings. You cannot take one simple snapshot and say, “Oh, he or she is qualified as such and therefore is able to develop himself or herself into all these areas.”
Secondly, many of these things are not mandated, in terms of qualification. You can become qualified, but when it comes to applications in the real world, often there is no specific legislation that says, “You must use one of these people.” Because of the need for flexibility, the legislation has to ensure that it asks for competent people and, on that basis, you become reliant on a definition of what is competent. If we can pass through that, we can start to understand how difficult these issues can become.
Most of what we do in more complex environments involves a team-based assessment, rather than an individual one. We are talking about fire risk assessment or fire engineering. An individual may be capable of handling a project, but if that project evolves and becomes bigger and more complex, you add more skills and colleagues, and there is more team-based working. That has to be applied through the life of the building. The built stock is the difficult bit. New buildings should be well regulated, but once a building is occupied and used, it becomes a different environment again.
The Chair
Mr Davis, thank you for that. We have a lot of questions to get through in the next 25 minutes. That was an excellent and comprehensive answer, but I would be grateful if we could have slightly more concise answers.
James Carpenter: I think the key point is around access and, as you mentioned, doors. With residential housing, a lot of buildings might be fairly straightforward in their basic design. The complexities come with the various management arrangements, lease agreements and so on.
The biggest question and challenge for housing providers is one of access. We cannot have it, we do not have it—there is no right of access. With tenants, we might be able to go to court and get injunctions to gain access to a home, but with leases, that challenge becomes even more difficult. It is their private space and we cannot touch it. When it comes to self-closers and checking inside doors, it is optional and voluntary for the leaseholder to listen or to comply with what we are asking. That is a big concern.
As we submitted in the evidence, in my view and in that of others, it would be useful if the law would allow leaseholders to be held responsible for their actions. That could allow building owners some leverage in getting leaseholders to co-operate. Also, if we got to that final point, action could be taken directly against them by enforcing authorities, which would solve the challenge that there has been in housing for the last 13 years or so.
David Simmonds
Q
From personal experience, I refer to the example of a structure that has been signed off by building control— an independent contractor of the contractor who has built the structure—but, when occupying the building, the local authority discovers that the fire door has been installed against a false ceiling so that it is, in effect, not providing any fire safety at all. One would only know that by taking the whole thing down and finding that that was the case. Such intrusive activity is a significant step into leaseholders’ property. Does the accountable individual need powers, or does something else around building control need to be done to change this situation?
James Carpenter: Ultimately, if there was a way of transferring ownership of a leaseholder’s property through legislation so that it is no longer theirs but the building owner’s, that could solve the problem, because it is now our door and not theirs. I do not know whether that is possible, but that could be something to look into. Other than that, I am not sure. If leaseholders, or whoever it is, have a responsibility to ensure that something is there, safe and how it should be, they have a duty to ensure that that continues and must not make any changes to jeopardise that. That is where I think the law needs to be able to hold multiple people responsible, as opposed to just a single building owner. While I appreciate that having one person in control of everything would make things a lot easier, realistically, I do not think that that is possible.
Dennis Davis: It is quite a difficult one. Again, it is worth remembering that there is another Bill, which will take some of those powers and is about trying to ensure that a building is maintained as well as constructed to a standard. Some of that legislative power may exist within those requirements. We picked up the point about common doors in our submission, because it is an issue. It needs to be very clear that the responsible person has access and can control those elements in the same way that they can control the fire safety systems—alarms or detectors—within a dwelling. Clarity in that area would be helpful; there is no doubt about that.
The Chair
Can you see us all right, Mr Davis? Are you watching this?
Dennis Davis: Yes, I am watching.
Andy Slaughter
Q
For example, a building that is mainly brick but has some detailing made from aluminium composite material or high-pressure laminate will have a much lower priority than one that has complete cladding. Also, there just are not the people there to carry out the enforcement. For example, a social landlord—and social landlords are much better than private landlords, in my experience—that is not L&Q is telling occupants of a particular building in my constituency that it might take four years for this to be done. That is problematic in itself, and it has the additional problem that the EWS1 form and the process to be gone through effectively stops any sale or movement during that time. Are you aware of those problems, and how can you see them being resolved?
James Carpenter: L&Q currently has 191 buildings that are over 18 metres, and we estimate at the moment that those buildings will cost in excess of £450 million to resolve, which may take up to 10 years. The G15, as a wider group of housing providers in London, has over 1,100 buildings, and the estimated cost could be as high as £6.8 billion for those buildings. I appreciate that there are extreme challenges with buildings.
On the point about sales, I think it is really important that the insurance industry, which seemed to be holding up the EWS1 forms being completed, works with mortgage lenders to try to open the market again, to allow at least one of those problems to be resolved. If the building insurance covered the cladding, would mortgage lenders be happier to lend, on the basis that their money is not at risk, because it is covered by the wider building insurance?
The situation of leaseholder and mortgage prisoners, as they have been referred to in the press, is extremely unfortunate, and I do not think that that is right at all. People should be able to buy and sell their homes regardless of whether the walls have a different material on them. It is right that we all work towards the end goal of making sure all those buildings are safe. We can look at the numbers for how much money it will cost to resolve some of these buildings, but we must deal with it by risk. It has to be about safety risk, where we have concerns with lower-rise buildings that might be able to move if we can solve the cladding issue by just issuing a certificate. We need to keep focusing on safety risk. We have to continue working with and lobbying mortgage lenders, with the Government, to make sure those measures do not hold up the lending process and stop people moving.
Dennis Davis: As a first answer, we are very much aware of these issues, and I think that comes out in our evidence. The clarity that we are seeking is around definitions, for some of the reasons that have been touched on. External walls are a team event, as I have made clear. Therefore, it is about scaling part of this process—how many people are available to undertake the sort of area of cover that we are dealing with. The impact assessment suggests that it is a very large number of properties, rather than just the over 18 metres.
On the example of over 18 metres, where the Government has funded the schemes of remediation, you can see how progress can be made. Equally, even with funds, dedication and teams, it is a relatively slow process. We are three years on and the National Audit Office is saying we are getting there. The issue is how we manage it. As Mr Carpenter said, it is about managing the process through prioritisation of the risk. We are working with the Government, hopefully through a new task-and-finish group, to try to move that forward in a positive way.
There has to be due diligence from the responsible person to make sure this is happening, but it is worth remembering that a lot of these people are in relatively low-risk low-rise buildings, which are now within the scope. We need a process to manage that that is very open and transparent, so that tenants know they are safe. We can work on that together.
The EWS1 form has created its own problem. It was intended originally for high rises, but it is now being used to free up the whole mortgage market. The problem that we see with that is that you get unqualified assessors signing off forms just so that the market can move. Risk assessors have found it difficult to get indemnity cover. We have spoken to the insurance world about that as a trade body—our people have contacted them—and the people who want that level of insurance can get it. You are dealing with a broad spectrum of risk, and we need to get the elephant down to bitesize chunks.
Andy Slaughter
Q
The Chair
Mr Davis, do you have a solution for us?
Dennis Davis: I think the solution, Chairman, is shared work between those responsible for the buildings; the owners, like L&Q; those who are actually applying the skills, techniques and competences; the enforcers; and the Government. As I understand it, the initiative that is being created by the Home Office to try to work this process through will do that. Where and when the result of that will be seen, and how much and who pays—I am afraid I cannot answer that.
The Chair
Q
James Carpenter: With that particular issue, I do not know what the answer is. I think there needs to be an understanding. The key is to separate the two points. Resolving the mortgage lending issue should be looked at completely separately to solving the cladding issue. Separating them completely would solve the concerns that have been raised with leaseholders. But we still need to appreciate that the sums of money involved in remediating buildings are very expensive and it will take time. There is no quick solution to finding either the money for it or the skilled people to do it. But I think the answer is to take mortgage lending and view it completely separately. How to do that I am not quite sure, but to take the risk of cladding away from lending would be the right thing to do.
The Chair
Thank you. We have time for two more questions, which will be asked by Daisy Cooper followed by Karen Buck, and then the Minister may want to come in quickly at the end.
Daisy Cooper
Q
I also have a quick question for Mr Carpenter, following up on your last point. What do you think is the fairest way of managing the costs? I say that as an MP with constituents who are being asked to pay 20 grand or more as an up-front, one-off cost, as well as having their service charges increased sixfold. Some of them are trapped financially because they cannot fight, and they have no mechanism to raise the money that is needed to pay for the remedial work. So that is a question for each of you, quickly.
Dennis Davis: It is difficult to give you a very quick answer. There could be 50,000 people who call themselves risk assessors. Some of them will be employed by a company specific to their premises and will help to maintain the integrity of that company’s building facility etc. They will be trained, maybe on a week’s course and maybe in particular areas, and that will be their skill base and they will do that.
The fire safety order, when it was brought in, was deliberately intended to be applied by individuals if they so wished. Part of the phrasing, I think, at the time was that it was not intended by the Government to be a consultants charter. The inference from that is that you should be able to apply a lot of common sense, and the Government published a very detailed series of guides to assist in that.
So at one level you need no qualification; you can do this yourself, provided that the premises are simple. At the other end of the spectrum, you certainly would need degree-level education—level 4 and above—to be able to apply the standards to complex buildings. In addition to that, you might need a high level of granularity, as I have said, in a particular system. That might be the installation—that is, the cladding system—or the fire alarm system.
This spectrum is very wide. The problem, as we foresee it, is that there are people going around who say that they are fire risk assessors, but they do not have a qualification. They have not attended any form of course, training and so on, yet they purport to offer this service. Our worry is that the public are then placed in a situation where they think that they have received good advice, but they may not have done. There is certainly anecdotal evidence of that sort of application.
James Carpenter: One of our asks is that we want to be able to reassure housing association residents that they will not need to foot the bill for these works. Obviously, there is the £1 billion building safety fund at the moment, but that is predicated on where the viability of the owners may be threatened by funding the works themselves, and it will involve submitting a business case and so on as to why they would be at risk without support.
We are currently assessing our position. However, it would be unlikely that large associations such as L&Q would be eligible under this particular scheme, and those that are would then have to notify the Regulator of Social Housing, which may in turn result in a downgrade of their viability. We are working jointly with the G15 on this. Neither our leaseholders nor tenants should pay the price for systemic issues in relation to building safety. We need to exhaust all possible options to claim the costs, or to get those that were responsible to pay for those things. Failing that, and in the absence of Government funding, we will have no choice but to consider those legal obligations that are set out in leases with residents. However, that is the last point. We have not done it with the buildings that we have remediated; we have not done it with leaseholders, but it is there as the last resort.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Q
It was widely believed that leaseholders would want to co-operate, for example, after the Lakanal fire, yet lawyers were saying that as many as one in three simply did not and would not. So can you give us an idea about the scale of the problem and the complexities? In London, there are particular issues with things such as the overseas ownership of property, which makes it difficult to track the true owners of properties. Can you also comment on why enforcement is difficult, for example, for housing associations and local government, in terms of the cost and the length of time it takes to take people to court?
The Chair
Mr Carpenter, for some fairly concise answers, if you will, please.
James Carpenter: On the challenge, we have got more than 100,000 homes and there are tenants in a lot of those. The issue of access is not just in relation to leaseholders; we also have issues with tenants, where they do not want to help us to meet those demands. With leases, we have a separate issue. It is not just about inspecting; we can also have challenges where we want to make improvements to buildings, but they are objected to by residents, because they do not want sprinklers in their home or a fire alarm system. We may then manage to put a fire alarm system in someone’s home, and it is linked to the building to raise warning to others, and they unscrew detector heads and so on. So the challenge is a huge and, as a landlord, there is very little power we can take without going through a lengthy and costly court process—often the costs of that are not recoverable. That is the challenge, but I point out that that is not all tenants and all leaseholders. Obviously, we do get people who co-operate and understand, but there are also people who don’t want you accessing their home.
Ms Buck
Q
James Carpenter: Access is a significant problem for building owners to manage—it is not small in any sense. It is not all tenants who cause those issues, but this is a significant challenge for landlords.
The Chair
A quick answer from you, Mr Davis.
Dennis Davis: I am very sorry but I cannot give you a scale on this, which is what you asked for. The anecdotal evidence certainly is that there are tenants, whether leaseholders or not, who do not like you to have access. In addition, there are difficulties in any case for everyone, because people work and so on. Therefore, access outside normal working hours can often be the norm if you are trying to visit inside someone’s dwelling. You can understand why those arrangements have to be made, but it is a serious issue for those seeking to maintain systems—there is absolutely no doubt about that.
The Chair
I believe we are not allowed to go beyond 12.30 pm by the programme motion, but the Minister has a quick point to make.
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
I was just going to try to draw out some of the complexities of access, not just for fitting, but for maintenance. Just to clarify, the way the Bill is commenced will have significant effects. I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that one thing we have done is to convene this task and finish group, which Mr Davis referred to, with the various bodies, not least the NFCC and the Fire Sector Federation on it, to devise a recommendation to the Home Office as to how the Bill should be commenced. I know we have an amendment on commencement this afternoon, but that is going to be our method of making sure we get it right.
The Chair
Thank you, that is very helpful.
Gentlemen, thank you very much indeed. We have now run out of time. Thank you, Mr Carpenter and Mr Davis for excellent answers. The Committee is very grateful. We must move on to our last set of witnesses.
Examination of Witnesses
Adrian Dobson and Matt Wrack gave evidence.
The Chair
This session can last until 1 pm. Beginning with you, Mr Dobson, would our witnesses kindly introduce themselves for the record? If you would like to say a few words up front, now is the time to do so.
Adrian Dobson: Thank you very much, Chair. My name is Adrian Dobson and I am the executive director for professional services at the Royal Institute of British Architects where, broadly, I look after educational and practice standards. I also support the work of RIBA’s expert advisory group on fire safety.
Matt Wrack: I am Matt Wrack, the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, which represents the vast majority of serving fire officers across the UK. I signed up as a firefighter in the London Fire Brigade in 1983 and have served as general secretary since 2005. Our approach to the Bill is that we broadly support it. However, we have some concerns about the need for a more joined-up approach on the whole question of the fire safety regime.
In that regard, I represent particularly fire inspecting officers, a specialist group within the fire and rescue service. I thank them for their feedback on their views on the Bill. The concerns come down to issues about implementation, and therefore about investment. For example, the impact assessment is based in our view on a very rough and ready calculation based on the current regime. However, in our view and that of our members, that regime is not fit for purpose. That is demonstrated very clearly by some major failings, most notably the Grenfell Tower fire.
Look, for example, at the specialist roles within the fire and rescue service. Between 2011 and 2020, we have seen a 19% reduction in the number of watch managers, a 23% reduction in the number of station managers, and a 20% reduction in the number of fire and rescue service staff overall. If we take the number of inspectors, we see inadequate record keeping by the relevant Department, which is currently the Home Office. Most recently, it reported that in England some 951 fire and rescue staff are eligible to carry out fire safety audits. If we look back 20 years for England and Wales, the figure was some 1,724, so in terms of competent staff with rather technical expertise there have been very significant reductions.
The impact assessment that has been produced in relation to the Bill does not, in our view, adequately take account of the demands that will be placed upon the fire and rescue service as a result of the Bill. We therefore urge the Government and parliamentarians to seek a more joined-up approach to the whole question of the fire safety regime, in this case across England.
The Chair
Thank you, Mr Wrack. You will now be asked questions by a number of Members of Parliament. We will start with Sarah Jones on behalf of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition.
Sarah Jones
Q
Mr Wrack, you have already set out for us quite a lot of the concerns about funding. We know that the fire service has had significant cuts over the past 10 years. Can you, again, tell us what “good” looks like in terms of how we implement the Bill? What do we need in terms of resourcing and the joined-up approach that you talked about?
Adrian Dobson: We certainly recognise that the Bill is important legislation. I will pick up on the point that Mr Wrack made on joined-up thinking. It is a piece in the jigsaw. We are still concerned about having strong and clear functioning building regulations and a proper enforcement regime. Obviously, our main expertise is in the design and construction of buildings to the point at which they are handed over to the owner or occupier, or where there is major refurbishment.
Our essential concern is the relationship between this Bill and the Building Safety Bill. The two must join together. We would support most of the provisions in this Bill, particularly giving enforcement powers to local fire services in relation to the structure and external walls of buildings, fire doors and so on. I note Mr Wrack’s point, however, that the resources must be in place to do that.
On joining the Fire Safety Bill and the Building Safety Bill, I can highlight a danger whereby gaps might exist. For example, the fire safety order talks about a “responsible person”, but the Building Safety Bill talks about an “accountable person” and a “building safety manager”. What would be the lines of communication between those roles? Are they fulfilled by the same person? There is a risk there.
Dame Judith Hackitt has been a prime driver of the content of the Building Safety Bill. She talks a lot about “the golden thread”. We are aware that the quality of information handed over at the end of construction work is often poor. If the fire service is looking at evacuation plans and wants to know what materials have been used in the building, that information is not as readily available as it should be. We would like an amendment that says that the fire service and the occupier should be entitled to accurate, as-built information. Members of the Committee are probably aware of some of the dangers in procurement when materials get changed during the design and construction process.
While we welcome the Bill, we await an improved enforcement regime in relation to building regulations and changes to the approved documents. To illustrate the importance of that, for example, the Bill talks about the need to review evacuation plans, but we know that some of the legislation around escape routes is ambiguous. We need to ensure that the two tie together.
Matt Wrack: On the question of what “good” would look like, I am approaching this from the point of view of firefighters and the fire and rescue service. For us, there must be a joined-up approach between the specialist fire safety teams and firefighters on stations.
If you look at the question of resources—unfortunately, a lot of this does come down to resources—we need a greater understanding of fire safety in the operational workforce. Unfortunately, over the past 15 or 20 years, we have seen a reduction in initial training courses to cut costs. Courses that might have been 16 weeks 20 years ago are now reduced to 13 or 12 weeks, or less than 10 weeks in some cases. There needs to be a greater understanding at the station level of fire safety risks.
There needs to be an end to the reduction in fire safety teams. Fire services that have been financially squeezed have found it easier to cut specialist fire safety teams than fire stations. I am not in favour of cutting either, but they have cut fire safety teams. We have reports of fire safety teams being cut by 25%, 50% or more over the past decade.
We need a joined-up approach between the two wings of the fire service in that respect. We need to prevent fires from happening, if we can. We need to mitigate the spread of fire where it does occur. We need to know how to fight fires when they occur—we know that they will occur. That is what we mean by a joined-up approach.
There are concerns among fire safety specialist officers about the levels of training, both at the stations and among their peers. There are concerns about refresher training. If new materials come on to the market, such as cladding, there needs to be adequate resources to enable people to be updated with the latest developments.
The final point I would make about what “good” would look like is that we need a much more joined-up approach nationally to the whole question of fire, fire policy and how we deal with fires. That means proper research. It is alarming that many firefighters and many fire services apparently did not know what was being put on to buildings. They therefore had not researched how they would inspect such buildings to be aware of the risks, for example, at Grenfell. They were also, therefore, not aware of how such fires might be tackled if necessary.
We used to have a body in the British fire service called the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, which would have addressed such matters. Sadly, it was abolished in 2004, and nothing similar has been put in place to replace it. That is what we mean by a lack of a joined-up approach, and that is what is desperately missing in the fire safety regime in Britain today.
Daisy Cooper
Q
“the impact assessment ‘does not include any additional enforcement costs’”,
and you suggest that fire inspectors would need to spend
“a great deal of time and effort”
to focus on getting cases through the courts and so on. I suspect this question might be like, “How long is a piece of string?”, but in the absence of an impact assessment, can you give an estimate of your own assessment of what those additional enforcement costs might be?
Matt Wrack: I am afraid I am not able to give that. I do think that, on the question of enforcement, there have been cases of ministerial pressure to reduce the enforcement role of the fire and rescue service, which is something that Ministers need to think carefully about. Fire services have been criticised subsequently for being slow to act on their enforcement role.
The whole question of fire services’ enforcement role ties in with the more general points I have made, in that they need adequate specialist fire safety teams, and that is possibly the area, or certainly one of the areas, where we have seen the largest reductions in staffing levels, with all the knock-on concerns about training and refresher training. I am not able to answer that question directly, but I think it is very much a resource question.
Andy Slaughter
Q
The specific point that I would like you both to address is that it appears, as there is a specific mention of “external walls” in clause 1, that the Bill is directed at what we have already seen coming out of the Grenfell inquiry in relation to external cladding and cladding systems. But lots more issues have emerged from that, such as the way that buildings are constructed or modified, means of escape, alarm systems and the processes for evacuation in that way. Do you think that they are also adequately covered in the Bill or do we need other legislation? Do you think we have the means to carry out all those matters?
Adrian Dobson: There is quite a range of questions there. Essentially, in my view, the Bill is just clarifying and pointing to some key facts, as it is not fundamentally changing the nature of the approach. I could not agree more that, although it is useful to highlight the issue of external wall construction and cladding, there are lots of other known issues in relation to fire safety. For example, the Scottish schools report talks a lot about fire compartmentation and lack of proper fire barriers. You have pointed out the issue around means of escape and evacuation strategies. To return to my earlier point, I see this as only part of the jigsaw. What we desperately need is clarification of the building regulations themselves and a stronger enforcement or competency regime around that, so that the two work together.
Matt Wrack: I see the Bill as a clarifying Bill, as has been suggested. On that level, we welcome it, with some of the amendments in particular. You highlight an important point—much of the national focus is on cladding.
There is clearly a national scandal about flammable cladding being put on to buildings, but we are aware from Grenfell and other fires that there are many other failings in fire safety in buildings, particularly with the risk of the breakdown of compartmentation. Cladding is clearly one mechanism by which that happened at Grenfell, but issues around other materials used in renovations and modifications of buildings are also relevant. If people have fire resistant walls and drill holes through them, that will clearly alter the fire resistance of the compartment. All those things need to be built into a proper fire safety regime.
I do not think the Bill addresses the question of evacuation. That is obviously a huge concern to people living in high-rise residential buildings; it is also a huge concern to firefighters, who have been trained for decades in ways to fight fires in high-rise residential buildings that are based on the construction and design of those buildings. Over the past 20 years or so, those buildings have been modified in a way that was never intended, which has altered the whole structure and fire behaviour in those buildings.
In our view, there is no simple answer to the question of evacuation. Again, we raised the question of a review of evacuation at the close of stage 1 of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. We now have Government bodies looking at reviewing the evacuation policy and saying that it might take two or three years. Firefighters were apparently supposed to decide on new strategies on the night, even though the people reviewing the policy have told us that it will take them two years or more to reach such a conclusion.
I come back to my point about a joined-up approach. We should have bodies in the British fire service that take account of the views of all professionals, take account of research and develop answers to these questions as we go along. We should be horizon-scanning. There had been fires in clad buildings elsewhere in the world. It is staggering that no one in leadership positions in the British fire service or at Government level was monitoring those and seeing what should happen to alter policy in Britain.
Andy Slaughter
Q
Adrian Dobson: I think I would answer broadly yes, in those aspects that have now effectively been covered by prescriptive regulations. In relation to combustible external wall materials on high-rise residential buildings, we have at the moment a fairly prescriptive piece of legislation that makes best practice pretty clear. As you say, however, there is a certain element of lobbying to say that we need a more flexible approach, so you can already see attempts to row back on that. In terms of what has actually been regulated, fairly good practice is in place. We know there is quite a lot of good retrofitting work happening on buildings above 18 metres, even if it is very slow, but we do not really have much idea in terms of combustible materials below 18 metres.
Matt Wrack: I would like to comment on the lobbying that was mentioned by a building developer recently and in some earlier comments in your session. One of the voices we are keen to hear are those of tenants. The lesson of Grenfell is that the voices of tenants were ignored. The voices of tenants are often ignored in relation to building and modifications to the places where they live. The vast majority of tenants are respectable, sensible people and their views should be heard. They were not heard at Grenfell. I think they, us and firefighters would have greater respect for a risk-based approach if we could have the confidence in such a risk-based approach. Unfortunately, experience shows that risk-based approaches are often driven by commercial and financial interests, and that is why people have scepticism about them.
Sarah Jones
Q
Matt Wrack: We oppose a deregulated system of fire risk assessors. Sadly, much of the work we end up doing arises out of tragedies. One of our experiences in that regard relates to the death of one of our own members. It emerged that the fire risk assessor in the case concerned had few or no qualifications in that field and had simply set up in business as a fire risk assessor. That highlighted to us a disgraceful state of affairs, so we would support the better regulation of fire risk assessors. However, the best protection we have, in terms of the delivery of advice to occupiers and building owners, and the best mechanism for inspection and enforcement, is a well-resourced and highly skilled workforce in a publicly accountable fire and rescue service.
Adrian Dobson: Clearly, on the specific issue of cladding and insulation, retrofitting is possible. The very reason those materials were used for cladding is because they are lightweight and external—they do not form part of the structure of the building—so the practicality of making buildings safer is definitely there. We have seen some, albeit slow, progress.
As I think one of the witnesses in your earlier session said, the cost can be very significant indeed. While steady progress is being made in the social sector, I think your Committee has today discussed some of the issues when it comes to private leaseholders in privately owned blocks and the ultimate issue of where the funding will come from. That, of course, is what set off secondary problems within the insurance and mortgage markets. One of the problems we face is professional indemnity insurance. Although the cladding can be identified through testing and so on, it tends to require intrusive testing. It requires specialists to look at it and that requires insurance for them, so there is a potential blockage.
The bigger concern is that following the fires we had in Barking and Bolton, attention has naturally turned to whether these sorts of materials pose a very significant risk on lower-rise buildings. There has been discussion about what height threshold might apply. Some people have suggested 11 metres—indeed, 11 metres is the height chosen by the Government for sprinklers—but one of the problems there is that you have got a whole different order of magnitude, potentially, of properties that could be affected. That may also be a factor that is driving some of the movement in the insurance sector, because there is probably a realisation that this is potentially a much larger problem than was first thought.
Sarah Jones
Q
Mr Dobson, do you agree with Mr Wrack’s frustration about the time that it has taken to do all of that? Grenfell was three years ago. What should we be doing? Clearly, there is huge complexity and hundreds of working groups at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are working through all this. Equally, there is a real hunger for going faster. Is there any way in which you think we could and should be going faster?
Matt Wrack: No, I do not think that we grasp the scale of the problem at all. If I can refer back to Grenfell, the focus of the country has been on ACM cladding, but what we found at Grenfell was that virtually every single element of fire protection in the building failed. So if that has happened in one building, what is the scale in every building in the country? It is immense. There has been a lot of renovation, refurbishment and modification of buildings over the past 20 or 30 years, which has altered the building as it was originally designed and constructed, so we will therefore have altered fire behaviour in such buildings, particularly for compartmentation, in relation to the response of firefighters.
That brings me back to our frustration with the Bill’s impact assessment, because it is based on the current way that buildings are looked at. In our view, we need a much better way of looking at buildings. That would require time for an upskilling of firefighters in fire stations so that they recognise risks and can then refer them to specialist teams within the fire service. That would require training for both groups of staff and adequate powers to undertake the necessary inspections on a scale that, at the moment, we do not currently grasp in full detail.
The Chair
Thank you. Mr Dobson, we will finish the sitting at two o’clock, so you have two minutes to answer.
Adrian Dobson: I will try to rise to that challenge. I think that we see the problems as threefold. There is an issue around how we procure buildings in the first place and procure alterations to buildings. I imagine that when the final report of the Grenfell Tower inquiry is written, it will have much to say about that. Then, there is an issue of competence and expertise, which you have already touched on. Of course, the UK construction industry is a relatively deregulated industry with very few regulatory competence requirements—they are mainly voluntary systems—so the industry will really have to put its house in order if it is going to regain public confidence.
There is also a regulatory problem. We have seen movement on the introduction of requirements for sprinklers being extended, and on combustible materials—from the consultation, that is likely to be extended. However, although we have good movement on the building safety Bill and on the Fire Safety Bill, we have not seen a comprehensive review of the actual guidance that people work to, so we are essentially working to the same approved documents that we worked to previously. That is disappointing because, although people recognise the need for research on some of those issues, we seem reluctant to get on and commission it and, as Mr Wrack said, reluctant to learn from colleagues in other countries who have experienced similar problems.
The Chair
Thank you very much, Mr Dobson and Mr Wrack, for your excellent evidence—you have helped the Committee enormously. As you know, we will grapple with those issues this afternoon as we go through the Bill line by line.
Fire Safety Bill (Second sitting)
Thursday 25th June 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 June 2020 - (25 Jun 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. Members will understand the need to respect social distancing guidance. I will intervene if necessary to remind everyone, but at the moment it is okay. Members may remove jackets during our proceedings. Tea and coffee are not permitted during our sittings, and Members must ensure that mobile phones are turned off or switched to silent mode.
The selection list for today’s sitting, which is available in the room, shows how the amendments selected for debate have been grouped. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order that they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. Hansard reporters would be most grateful if Members could email electronic copies of their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
On a point of order, Sir Gary. I apologise for rising so early. I do not want to start on a contentious or sour note in what I am sure will be a consensual Committee, but there was some consternation about the way in which the Committee was timetabled. I make no criticism of the necessary rigours enforced on us by social distancing; the staff have done an excellent job in that respect.
The issue of fire safety in tall buildings, particularly in west London, is very important. It is one of the very few issues that keep me awake at night. We are dealing with the whole the Bill, which, as the evidence session this morning showed, ramifies in many ways, in one day. We had the evidence session this morning, and we are dealing with line-by-line consideration of the whole Bill, albeit a short Bill, this afternoon. The evidence was excellent; it would have been good to have time to digest it and perhaps propose amendments on the basis of it. We now have three hours for debate—I will be brief so as not to eat into that time—and we also have a Committee that is smaller than was originally envisaged. That is partly to do with the constraints of the room and social distancing, but it is an unhelpful precedent.
I do not know whether it is a matter for the Chair or for the Government to take away, but I wanted to put on record my concerns. The matter before us needs to be explored in depth; it has huge complexities and different streams, even within the limits of the Bill, which is one of several. I hope that the authorities and the Government will take away the message that scrutiny should not in any way be constrained.
The Chair
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have taken notice of his point of order. The programming motion has already been agreed, so we cannot change it, but he has made some powerful points and they are now firmly on the record. We will now start line-by-line scrutiny.
Clause 1
Power to change premises to which the Fire Safety Order applies
Andy Slaughter
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out lines 7 to 14 and insert—
“(1A) Where a building contains two or more sets of domestic premises, the things to which this order applies include—
(a) the building’s structure and external walls and floors, and any common parts;
(b) all doors between the domestic premises and common parts (so far as not falling within sub-paragraph (a)).
(1B) The reference to external walls and floors includes—
(a) doors, windows or penetrations in those walls and floors, and”
This amendment would apply the Fire Safety Bill specifically to penetrations that pass from a dwelling, through a fire-rated wall or floor into a common space.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 8, after “include” insert
“all other parts of that building including—”
This amendment aims to clarify that the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 applies to all parts of a building that contains two or more dwellings, other than those dwellings themselves, and is not limited to parts that come within the meaning of structure, external walls or common parts.
Will the hon. Gentleman move one chair to his left? That would be better from a social distancing point of view.
Andy Slaughter
Thank you, Sir Gary, for looking after my and everybody else’s health. I rise to speak to amendment 1, tabled in my name. It is grouped with amendment 2, tabled in the name of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central. The two matters are linked. My amendment, as is the custom in my case, is more pedantic and finickity than the broader amendment 2. If I may, I will speak to my own amendment.
As I mentioned a few moments ago, we had a very useful evidence session this morning. It was short—only an hour and a half—but there was a lot of information there. What came through from all the witnesses was that this Bill clarifies existing law. It is a matter of constitutional debate whether the function of legislation is to clarify existing law. Governments have a habit of doing that to fill in time or to make an emphatic point, although it is perhaps not a good use of legislation. It is clear, however, that there are problems that need to be resolved in relation to fire safety, which has troubled us hugely since the Grenfell Tower disaster three years ago and should have been troubling us for many years previously in the light of other disasters.
I guess, therefore, that the Bill is intended not so much to change the law, but to say, “This is the law, and this is what should have been happening.” That begs others questions. Are the resources there now to make this happen? Is the focus of the Bill in the right area? In questions this morning, I made the point—and I do not think the experts dissented—that the phrase, “the building’s structure and external walls and any common parts”, in clause 1, line 8, is rather tendentious. The “building’s structure” could mean anything in relation to the building, but it is then qualified by the reference to “external walls” and “common parts”.
My amendment addresses the issue of whether there is a clear definition of common parts, but I think we all know why the phrase “external walls” is in the Bill. As has already come out of the Grenfell inquiry—indeed, the recommendation from the inquiry was perhaps not needed—a substantial cause of the Grenfell disaster, as well as a contributory factor in many other major fires, including in high-rise buildings, has been the type of material that adheres to or forms part of the external structure of the building. That could be cladding—certain types of which have been found to be more combustible than others—insulation, or the way in which the materials combine. We are only scratching the surface—excuse the pun—of the types of cladding and systems that are appropriate to be used, or to remain in use, on such buildings.
It is pretty clear, however, that such material is a major focus of the Bill. The money, time and resources the Government have spent so far—many of us believe they have not gone far enough—have gone on looking at aluminium composite material cladding and then perhaps at high pressure laminate and other types of cladding. No doubt, as we consider the Bill, there will be some focus on that. My amendment, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central, go slightly beyond that. As Matt Wrack, the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, pointed out this morning, Grenfell has exposed not only that there are issues with cladding, but that there are fire safety issues in the construction, management and operation of tall buildings, in particular, that go far beyond that.
My amendment addresses a specific point by dealing with opportunities for fire to penetrate into a building other than through doors and windows. Doors and windows are a major way in which fire can enter a dwelling. If a window is open or a fire door is not—as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central explained this morning—sufficient, sufficiently well fitted or has other defects that do not maintain a 30 or 60-minute barrier, there is that opportunity. It is perhaps stating the obvious to say that the reason that flammable cladding is such a danger is that it allows fire to spread across the face of the building in a very short space of time, as we saw at Grenfell. That in itself is not what is causing the problem; it is the ingress of that fire into the building itself. That could be through a window that is open or through a door that is insecure, but it could be through any other means of entry. There are other ways for fire to spread that are perhaps more serious than doors and windows. That is why I used the word “penetrations”. They could be ducting, pipework or openings that have been created for good or bad purposes: it could be shoddy workmanship, but equally it could be something necessary to do with the supply of services through the building.
One other point on amending clause 1 was to add the words “external walls and floors”. It is clear why clause 1 mentions doors and windows—generally we have doors and windows; I understand that point—but other openings or apertures created in a building may well be through floors. The danger is that anything of that kind will allow the spread of fire—but not only fire, as I will come on to explain in a moment—throughout a building very quickly, particularly if there are pipes and ducts. If the opportunity arises for fire to spread, it can go through them very quickly. As I say, it is not just fire, but smoke and other gases. A major factor at Grenfell was the spread of smoke through the building. That can make escape difficult and, particularly if it is created by the burning of toxic materials, can create a toxic atmosphere, which has an effect on the respiratory system of those trying to escape the fire.
To explain my point, I will provide an example from my constituency. It did not end in disaster, I am pleased to say, but it easily could have done. In January this year, a resident of a block of flats with over 20 storeys was returning home late at night when she noticed a strong smell of gas. She checked her flat but could not find anything that was causing the smell. Fortunately, there was a member of staff, a concierge, on site even at that late time. They investigated, and the National Grid was called out, but it could not find anything. Neighbours’ doors were knocked on, and the emergency services were called out. By this time, it was the early hours of the morning and neighbours on several floors were being woken up. Eventually, the source of the gas leak was found four floors below. An elderly resident—over 80, I think—with an elderly gas stove had turned on the gas and left it on. The gas had effectively filled the whole block, from the ground floor reception up to at least the eighth or ninth floors of the block.
This matter ramifies endlessly. Why should an unsafe gas appliance be allowed in a block anyway? Modern gas appliances have failsafe mechanisms—if the gas is left on, they will shut off after a while—but unfortunately the reality is that some people, particularly poorer people perhaps, will have very old gas appliances that do not work in that way, and therefore the gas, after being turned on, will fill the whole flat. In this case, the occupant, who had obviously made a genuine mistake, needed oxygen. Many people had either opened their windows or were confused about what was happening. It was only because of the excellent action by one concerned resident—this was the opinion of the emergency services—that the matter did not end up in disaster. What happened late at night in January was that the gas did not pass through doors or windows but up through the building, potentially causing great stress.
My point is that, with fire, smoke and other noxious fumes passing through a building, it is complacent to say that simply ensuring that fire doors work and that windows are properly sealed and do not have combustible material around them means that a building is entirely safe and the fire will not spread internally. I hope the Government will accept my amendment. It is a relatively technical addition, which improves the Bill rather than changes it materially. I will wait to see what the Minister says in response; he might want to break the habit of a lifetime and say that we can allow an Opposition amendment to get the Bill Committee off to a flying start.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Let me start by saying that the Opposition support the Bill. We are here to be constructive. Although clearly we wish that things had gone faster and that we had been able to do more, we support the Bill and want to make it the best that it can be. On Second Reading there was agreement across the House on what needs to be done to fix some of the problems with the legislation. Amendment 2 relates to one of those problems, which has been raised by many of the organisations that have submitted written evidence.
I associate myself with everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, who is an expert in this area. He is absolutely right that we need to ensure right at the outset that we include parts of the building not currently listed in the Bill.
Amendment 2 would do what amendment 1 would do, but in a slightly different way. As the explanatory statement states, the amendment would make the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 apply
“to all parts of a building that contains two or more dwellings, other than those dwellings themselves,”
Not just the
“parts that come within the meaning of structure, external walls or common parts.”
I had a long conversation with the London Fire Brigade about how we define “common parts”. Introducing that term without a definition alongside the definition of “domestic premises” in article 2 of the fire safety order could lead to confusion about what it means and could add an additional layer of complexity to what is already quite a difficult landscape.
In the past, “common parts” has been used to refer to entrance halls, corridors or stairways in a block of flats, but it does not necessarily cover areas such as lift motor rooms, service risers, roof voids and other potentially high-risk areas, as well as fire safety facilities that are inside individual dwellings but used in common for the protection of the entire premises, such as sprinklers and detection systems.
This is not a new issue. Following the Lakanal House fire, the coroner recommended that there be clear guidance on the definition of “common parts” in buildings containing multiple domestic premises. Dame Judith Hackitt has also recommended that the assignment of responsibilities in blocks of flats be clarified.
The purpose of the Bill, as we discussed this morning and as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith has already mentioned, is to provide clarity on what is covered under the law. Without really clear definitions, there will be new questions of interpretation, and we will not achieve what we are setting out to achieve. There will be the potential for confusion and conflict.
Simply put, the absence of a clear definition creates opportunities for those who might try to game the system. We know that the system has not worked in the past, because people have been able to do things that nobody intended them to do. We want to make it crystal clear that the provisions cover all common parts of the building, and want to make it clear that “common parts” includes all the other spaces, such as lift motor rooms, that are not set out in the Bill.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I very much sympathise with the motivation behind the amendments, but I am unpersuaded by the argument. There is sometimes a risk of seeking to make very precise what in reality is not at all precise.
Following the Grenfell Tower disaster and the Lakanal House fire, the Local Government Association, working with local authorities across the country, commissioned a huge piece of work to try to understand the inherent risks in tall buildings, but also in other types of building in the public estate, and to learn lessons that might be relevant to the private sector.
I want to refer to a particular type of structure known as a Bison block, which is common in west London and found across my constituency, and which my local authority has spent a good amount of time examining. It is particularly relevant to amendment 2, which is seeking a very tight definition. The blocks were large panel system builds. They are quite common across the capital and in other parts of the country.
A great many of these blocks were extensively refurbished, particularly in the 1980s, because they are not especially attractive buildings and in the past there have been concerns about their structural integrity and safety. The refurbishment was undertaken by a process that we might understand as cladding. In this case, a brick skin was erected around the entire outside of the building. New windows were installed, and the structure now looks considerably more attractive than when it was first constructed.
To manage the risk of fire spreading in the cavity between the floor where a fire occurs and another floor, a steel band needs to be installed between each storey’s-worth of brick structure. It ensures that a fire that gets into that cavity cannot spread up or down. On examination following the Grenfell disaster, it was discovered that some of the window installations, for example, had been changed, which had had an impact on the integrity of the fire safety system. The banding had been constructed many years ago. The challenges of inspecting something that is inside a sealed brick structure, the natural dilapidations of time and the consequences of a small amount of heave or subsidence around the site would all have had an impact on it. That is a significant issue for those of us who are concerned about the safety of those high-rise towers.
I am concerned that the amendment, by seeking to be very precise, could open the door to our not including a number of the elements that we would see in a variety of structures around the country. I have heard the Minister speak about this before when questions have been asked of him. I am satisfied that one of the motivations behind the Government’s choice of wording was to make the definition sufficiently broad that all the issues were captured. To ensure that the definition relates to all the different, unique types of structure out there, many of which there may be little evidence of on the public record today, it may be wise not to narrow our definitions too much. We could end up with a lawyers’ bonanza of arguments about whether, for example, the provision covers the steel band structure for fire safety in a Bison block. For that reason, I am unpersuaded of the merits of the amendment.
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
I am very conscious, not least as the former London Assembly member for the area, that it is less than two weeks since we marked the third anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire, which saw the worst loss of life in a residential fire since the second world war. I am sure that all those who died, the bereaved and the survivors will be in our minds as we do our work this afternoon and into the future.
On the day of the publication of the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 report, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister accepted in principle all 12 recommendations addressed to the Government directly. Eleven of the recommendations will require implementation in law. The Fire Safety Bill, which will amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, is an important first step toward enacting those recommendations. As has been mentioned, the Bill is short and technical; it clarifies the scope of the order. We appreciate that this is the first Bill on fire safety since the Grenfell Tower tragedy, and we intend to legislate further.
It is vital that regulatory standards and public confidence be increased across the whole system of building and fire safety. Next month we will publish a consultation on the implementation of the phase 1 recommendations that call for changes in the law, alongside proposals to strengthen other aspects of the fire safety order. I assure the Committee that the Bill is the start, not the finish, of a process through which we intend to improve the fire safety order.
Alongside the consultation, there is the building safety Bill, which will be presented in the House for pre-legislative scrutiny before the summer recess. That Bill will put in place new and enhanced regulatory regimes for building safety and construction products, and will ensure that residents have a stronger voice in the system. It will take forward the recommendations of Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review of building regulations and fire safety.
Our programme of work is not limited to legislation, of course. It includes establishing a remediation programme, supported by £1.6 billion of Government funding, through which we will remove unsafe cladding from high-rise residential buildings. We are undertaking, in conjunction with the fire service, a building risk review programme for all high-rise residential buildings in England by December 2021, supported by £10 million of new funding.
This Fire Safety Bill is also a move towards enhancing safety in all multi-occupied residential buildings by improving the identification, assessment and mitigation of fire risks in those buildings. It will resolve the differing interpretations of the scope of the fire safety order in such buildings and provide clarity for responsible persons and enforcing authorities under the order. It will make it clear that the order applies to the structure, external walls—including cladding—balconies and flat entrance doors in multi-occupied residential buildings.
Andy Slaughter
I will reply to two points. The first was made by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, who has huge experience in this sphere, not least from his role in local government over the years. I disagree with his point because the example that he gave of modifications to the exterior of a building should be included in the Bill under that part of clause 1 that talks about external walls. I think that that is specifically envisaged to include not just external cladding but the whole external structure; it would therefore include voids and attempts that have been made through banding to restrict those voids.
Equally, I do not agree with what the Minister said. We all understand the point about private homes. It cannot be dismissed. We mentioned this morning the issue of leaseholders who provide their own front doors and how far that is considered, but there are other issues. There are issues to do with sprinkler systems and their installation in the homes of either leaseholders or tenants—assured or secure. This is not a black-and-white issue in terms of what goes into individual homes.
The amendment is a necessary or at least helpful addition to the Bill. Over a period of 30 or 40 years, a huge number of modifications will be made to buildings, even if, when a building was originally constructed, it was done in a secure way that would prevent the spread of fire and smoke. We know that this issue has been neglected, but it is so important that it should be reflected. However, given that the Minister has put it on the record that he believes that these matters will be dealt with, through the Bill and other measures that the Government are taking, I do not propose to press the amendment to a vote.
Sarah Jones
I thank the Minister for his response. He was basically saying that amendment 2 is unnecessary, which I would challenge, because the fire service has asked for the definition and thinks that it would be an important part of the Bill. I agree with the fire service, but I take the same approach as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and hope that these matters will be looked at as we go forward.
Kit Malthouse
Fundamentally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner says, we are concerned that the definitions in the amendments might have a narrowing effect. Detailed guidance offering definitions will come out as a consequence of the Bill, and obviously we will work with partners to ensure that we get that guidance right.
It is worth pointing out that this approach is consistent with that in the Housing Act 2004, which uses similarly broad definitions to ensure that the many and various varieties of housing in this country, some built over many hundreds of years, all fall within a generalised definition in guidance that is put in place later on.
Andy Slaughter
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sarah Jones
As the Minister said, we recently passed the three-year anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire. I just want to mention the letter that we will all have received from Grenfell United last night. It was not able to give evidence before us today, but it welcomes the Bill and is pushing for it to have the funding that it needs and for it to apply to all buildings. It reminded us of the fire in Canning Tower, in east London, only last week, when 100 people were evacuated. It used to be covered with Grenfell-style cladding, but that was removed last year, just in the nick of time. As the letter says, there were not any serious consequences.
The importance of the Bill is not to be underestimated. Small though it is, it is incredibly important. We support the Bill and we support clause 1. It provides clarification, although it is a shame that we could not take it a bit further with our amendments. There are many issues that we would want to bring into the Bill, but because it is too small in scale, we cannot. They include electrical safety—people are keen for us to talk about that, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith mentioned it. We tried to have some of those issues included in the Bill, but they are not within its scope. There is a huge raft of issues beyond that of cladding—important as it is—that we must address, through the building safety Bill and subsequent measures.
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Lady is right to raise with me whether there is a need to address the issue of cabling and ducting in buildings. That was raised with me when I was Housing Minister, and I hope that I have explained that there will be opportunities to look at that quite soon, in more comprehensive measures to follow. For the moment, the Bill is a small, tight, technical one, which creates the foundational stone on which we will build an entirely new regulatory and fire safety regime, which must be coherent. We must therefore proceed step by step. I fully appreciate the comments that Members have made, and they will be fed into the next stage of our work, and the consultation, which will be issued next month.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Power to change premises to which the Fire Safety Order applies
Sarah Jones
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 2, page 1, line 21, at end insert—
‘(aa) for the purpose of changing or clarifying any of articles 2 to 22 or 38 of the Order’.
This amendment aims to ensure that the key articles of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 can be amended to account for the Grenfell Tower Public Inquiry Phase 1 and subsequently the Phase 2 recommendations and changes that may be brought about by the forthcoming Building Safety Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 4, in clause 2, page 1, line 22, at end insert ‘or (aa)’.
See amendment 3.
Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 1, line 22, at end insert
‘(1A) The relevant authority may make regulations under subsection (1) for the purpose of aligning the Order with regulations which concern fire safety and which are made under any other power.’
This amendment seeks to ensure there is proper alignment between the Fire Safety Order and other regulations that relate to fire safety, including the upcoming Building Safety Bill.
Sarah Jones
Amendments 3 and 4 would ensure that the key articles of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 could be amended to account for the Grenfell Tower public inquiry phase 1 recommendations—and the phase 2 recommendations, although of course phase 2 has not happened yet—as well as any changes that may be brought about by the forthcoming building safety Bill. The issue was brought to our attention by the London Fire Brigade, and it makes a reasonable point.
Clause 2 provides for further changes to be made to the scope of the 2005 order, and clarification of its application. Our amendments would ensure that there was sufficient legal power, which could be relied on to respond to emerging evidence or events. It is important that we should not find that there are constraints in the future. The London Fire Brigade gave some examples of things that could be included. One was a legal mechanism for improvements to or replacement of the front doors of flats. Others were the installation of additional fire detection and warning systems, the retrospective fitting of fire safety measures in a building, and the adjustment or clarification of what an enforcing authority might need to be notified about.
As I have said and will keep saying, we welcome the Bill. We do not think it goes far enough, but want to make sure it does everything it sets out to do. We want to make sure that it is possible to make changes or additions to this cornerstone or foundation, as the Minister called it, including as a result of what comes from phase 2 of the Grenfell inquiry.
Amendment 5 would ensure that there was proper alignment between the 2005 order and other regulations on fire safety. The forthcoming building safety Bill, which we have talked about, will place requirements on accountable persons to ensure that buildings in occupation are safe.
This will include fire safety and will place enforcement responsibility with the new building safety regulator.
Andy Slaughter
Briefly, it is very important that there is the closest possible alignment between the Bill and what emerges from the Grenfell inquiry. We have had phase 1 of the inquiry, which dealt with what happened on the night. Phase 2 is coming, albeit not for some time. It relates to the wider issues of concern around building safety, and of course there is further legislation coming about building safety.
We heard evidence this morning from the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Fire Brigades Union. Despite their very different perspectives and experiences, they were essentially saying the same thing: that Grenfell has exposed not just the really criminal action of putting highly combustible material on the outside of tower blocks, but the huge weaknesses and inadequacies in the system, causing us to look again at the whole way in which building safety works.
Just one example of that is the stay put policy. Most experts will say, “Well, the stay put policy is still in effect.” That may be literally true, in the sense that for most blocks that do not have combustible cladding and where compartmentalisation works, it may be the opinion of experts—whether they are from the fire service, are building experts, or others—that it is safer to stay in a flat than to leave it while the fire is contained within a single flat in a high-rise block, but try telling that to the occupants of that block post Grenfell.
The Leader of the House made comments about the evacuation of Grenfell Tower that were not just unhelpful but disrespectful; he asked whether people were right to stay in Grenfell Tower in that way. A senior Member of this House has raised doubts about whether it is sensible to stay. If a fire is known to be occurring, people will try to exit the tower block.
Any review of the stay put policy will look at the way that evacuation procedures, alarm systems and sprinkler systems worked. Recommendations coming out of the Grenfell inquiry should be reflected in the Bill. That is my only point.
Kit Malthouse
The amendments seek broad delegated powers to amend key articles of the fire safety order: articles 2 to 22, in parts 1 and 2 of the order, which relate to the interpretation of the order and to fire safety duties; and article 38, a miscellaneous article relating to a further duty on the responsible person to concern themselves with the maintenance of measures for the protection of firefighters. The amendments also seek to enable changes to be made to the fire safety order by secondary legislation, rather than primary legislation, that are consequential to changes made by other regulations. The amendments build on the delegated power in clause 2 of the Bill, under which it is proposed that the order can be amended for the purpose of changing or clarifying the premises to which it applies, and can allow for consequential provision to be made. I have already set out the purpose and limitations of that power.
The fire safety order already has a delegated power under article 24, which enables the Secretary of State to make regulations on the precautions that are to be taken or observed in relation to the risk to relevant persons. That can be used to provide additional fire precaution requirements over and above those already required under the order.
Although powers that enable legislation to be expedited when needed, and with the appropriate scrutiny, have clear benefits, the Government’s view is that it would not be appropriate to ask Parliament to delegate legislative power in the manner proposed. I have made the point already that this is a short and technical Bill. We intend to legislate further. The Government will shortly publish the second of our fire and building safety Bills, the building safety Bill. Alongside this, there will be pre-legislative scrutiny: we will publish a fire safety consultation, which will set out our proposals for strengthening the fire safety order and improving compliance on all regulated premises, leading to greater competence and accountability.
We will also implement the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s phase 1 report, which calls for new requirements to be established in law to ensure the protection of residents in multi-occupied residential high-rise buildings, with some proposals applying to multi-occupied residential buildings of any height.
As the Committee has heard, the Government are taking further steps to ensure that the fire safety order continues to be fit for purpose, as part of our consideration of reform of the wider building safety landscape. The consultation will propose changes to strengthen the order in a number of areas to improve fire safety standards. It will also seek further evidence and implement further legislation if required.
Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report examining the events of the night of 14 June—the night of the Grenfell Tower fire—was exhaustive. Of the 46 recommendations made in the inquiry’s first report, 12 were addressed to the Government directly, with 11 requiring legislative changes. They relate primarily to a number of prescriptive safety measures and checks, to be undertaken by building owners and managers. The Prime Minister accepted the principle of these recommendations on publication of the report in October last year.
Subject to the outcome of the consultation, our intention is to deliver, where possible, the Grenfell inquiry recommendations through secondary legislation under the fire safety order. Where an amendment to the order is required through primary legislation, we intend to do that in the building safety Bill. That Bill will also cover the consequential amendments that will be required to the fire safety order to ensure that the Bill, when enacted, and the order align and interact with each other. We will ensure that the legal frameworks and supporting guidance provide clarity for those operating in this area, and bring about the outcomes sought across the fire and building safety landscape.
The hon. Member for Croydon Central mentioned having a single point of responsibility, and that is very much on our minds. Intensive work is going on between the Home Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and with the wider sector, to ensure that there is no confusion as to who is the responsible individual.
One of the key principles that came out of Dame Carol’s review—I mean Dame Judith’s review; Dame Carol’s review is about drugs, which is also within my portfolio—was the need for the point of responsibility to be transparent and known to everybody. It is a key part of the proposals, and I have no doubt that it will form part of the consultation and, therefore, the legislation that will follow.
Sir Gary, I hope that explanation is enough to allow the Committee to be content for the amendment to be withdrawn.
Sarah Jones
We say the same things on both sides of the Committee, but we on the Opposition side want speedy action, and we have been frustrated by the delays. It would be reassuring if we could have some kind of timetable before the summer recess for when the building safety Bill will be introduced. There is a whole raft of other activities, and we do not know when they will be coming forward—and covid is no reason for these things not to come forward.
This morning, Matt Wrack asked where responsibility for some of these issues rests in Government, and I wonder whether the split between MHCLG and the Home Office compounds some of the problems with how these things fit together and work. The more information we have about the timetable, the better. It would be good if the Minister could take these matters away; I know officials are looking at how they will sit together. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sarah Jones
I will be brief. I want to make a point about finances and resources, and it seems fitting to mention that as we debate clause 2. We heard a lot of evidence this morning about the need for proper resourcing. We heard from L&Q about the extraordinary amount of money that it and its colleagues will have to spend in the housing association sector on removing cladding. Although the Government’s £1 billion fire safety fund is welcome, that will not be anywhere near enough.
As for enforcement of the legislation, the fire service has had significant cuts, as was outlined excellently in the Fire Brigades Union’s written evidence to the Committee, particularly around inspection, where we need to beef up the resources. We will need a lot more fire risk assessors. We will have to try to fund all that. There is a point to be made about what the Home Office has done about the cost, because the resources are not anywhere near enough. That is all I want to say, but it is a really important point that the Government will have to grapple with.
Kit Malthouse
I recognise Members’ impatience for us to get the measure through as quickly as possible and to put the new regime in place, not least because it will take time to bed in. There will be not only structural change, but cultural change in various parts of the building safety world. The Bill is a start. There will be a consultation shortly. The Bill will be scrutinised before the summer recess. There will be a flurry of activity. On the point made by the hon. Member for Croydon Central about coherence between Departments, as Housing Minister I recognise that issue, and she will be pleased to know that the old sparring partner of the hon. Member for Hammersmith—I am not sure he will be pleased—and former leader of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham is now the joint Minister between the Home Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. He has responsibility for fire, albeit in the Lords, which is why I am here today.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Extent, commencement and short title
Sarah Jones
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 3, page 2, line 25, after “may” insert “not”.
This amendment seeks to ensure that the Bill be brought into force at the same time for all buildings it will apply to, rather than adopting a staged approach that may make arbitrary distinctions between similar premises.
This amendment is slightly controversial, in that there are different ways to interpret it. It seeks to ensure that the Bill is brought into force at the same time for all the buildings that it will apply to, rather than us adopting a staged approach that may make arbitrary distinctions between similar premises. Some might have concerns about the amendment; the National Housing Federation—the only organisation that responded to all the amendments in writing, which is very impressive—is worried that if we bring everything into the scope of the Bill straight away, there will be a capacity issue. I understand that, but I will explain the thinking behind the amendment.
I have heard from several organisations that the Home Office was looking at perhaps bringing into scope buildings over 18 metres first, and then other types of buildings. The view put to me was that that is slightly arbitrary and not the best way to approach the issue. We heard this morning about the risk-based approach, which had its infancy and was undertaken excellently in my borough of Croydon, rather than people there saying, “We will do this set of buildings first and then this set of buildings.” People who knew what they were doing were trusted to look first at the areas that were most problematic.
Kit Malthouse
We acknowledge that clarification of the scope of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 will represent operational change for many, particularly responsible persons, who, as the hon. Lady said, will need to update their fire risk assessments to include external walls and flat entrance doors. The Bill will also have an impact on the fire sector, fire risk assessors and other competent professionals, such as fire engineers, who are needed to assist the responsible person in complying with the order.
We acknowledge that there are capacity and capability issues, particularly in relation to assessing the risk for external walls. This is not just the Government speaking, but a number of organisations from the fire sector, local authorities and housing associations. The Government are committed to ensuring that we commence the Bill in a way that is workable across the system, while ensuring that swift action is taken to address the most significant fire safety risks.
That is why, as I mentioned this morning, we have established a task and finish group—co-chaired by the Fire Sector Federation and the National Fire Chiefs Council—that will be responsible for providing a recommendation on how the Bill should be commenced. The group will advise on the optimal way to meet the Bill’s objective of improving the identification assessment of fire risks in multi-occupied blocks and addressing them as soon as possible to ensure resident safety while also effectively managing any operational impact.
The task and finish group is made up of representatives from the early adopters group on building safety at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government; private sector developers; the fire sector; the NFCC; and a number of fire and rescue services. The group is expected to report no later than the end of September. It is tasked with providing a recommendation based on an assessment of the evidence and on their knowledge and expertise, which the hon. Member for Croydon Central said was preferable.
We expect that recommendation to address how the highest-risk buildings should be prioritised for assessment of the composition of, and risk associated with, their cladding systems. Ministers will consider the advice and make a final decision. The amendment would remove the ability to make regulations that enable the Bill’s provisions to be commenced on different days for different purposes. That is, it removes the possibility of using regulations to ensure a staged commencement. I make no comment on whether and how the commencement might be staged, but the Government will not prejudge the advice of the task and finish group, or support any restrictions on the ability of the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to make informed decisions about when and how regulations are made to commence the provisions in the Bill.
I am particularly conscious that this morning the hon. Lady raised the issue of individuals who might, because of a sudden commencement, find themselves in some kind of limbo, and be unable to undertake property transactions for many years, given the scale of what is required. Notwithstanding that risk is the primary concern, some of those issues will have to be taken into consideration. I hope that gives the Committee a suitable explanation as to why the amendment should be withdrawn.
Sarah Jones
I will withdraw the amendment on the basis that there will be a task and finish group, but I stress that we have had a lot of groups, conversations and consultations. In my previous role in housing, we had 60 consultations on leasehold reform, yet we still do not have leasehold reform. We need to push this forward. Having some sense of when the Bill will commence and how it will be implemented would be helpful. It would also be helpful to know the implementation date, because that is not set out in the Bill. There is a lot of uncertainty, and we are putting a lot of faith in the experts and in the Minister to get this done as quickly as possible, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sarah Jones
Very briefly—although, we are now doing well for time—I want to reiterate the point about the Bill not having a date for when the new requirements will come into force, aside from what is implemented and when. The Bill allows the Secretary of State to choose a date that is considered appropriate, and that makes us uncomfortable. Again, we need to do this as quickly as possible, because these are literally matters of life and death. That is the biggest issue with the clause; other than that, I am happy.
Kit Malthouse
Thank you, Mr Streeter—Sir Gary. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I apologise. Again, I acknowledge the impatience. It is worth remembering that the Bill is a technical clarification of a fire safety order that should be functioning well in the vast majority of circumstances. Although there are respectable views about disagreements on definition within the order, which is why we are seeking to clarify it, in the end there is still someone out there who has responsibility for safety in all these buildings. Although I recognise the impatience of the hon. Lady and other hon. Members to get it under way—we share their impatience—I would give that background.
The task and finish group should be reporting by the end of September. There will be more consultation legislation on the way. I realise that the hon. Lady is suffering a little from consultation fatigue. Nevertheless, these are complex issues dealing with effectively unravelling and reknitting a huge system of building safety regulation that has grown up over many decades and needs wholescale reform. It is therefore no surprise that if we want to get this right for the future and avoid any possibility of a future Grenfell, we need to ensure that we do the detailed work, which is what we are trying to do—hence this foundation stone today.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Public register of fire risk assessments
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision for a register of fire risk assessments made under article 9 (risk assessment) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541).
(2) Those regulations must provide that the register is—
(a) publicly available; and
(b) kept up-to-date.
(3) Regulations under this section are—
(a) to be made by statutory instrument; and
(b) subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”—(Daisy Cooper.)
This new clause would enable would-be renters and owners to check the fire safety status of their potential home, like the EPC register.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Public register of fire risk assessors—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision for a register of individuals who are qualified to make fire risk assessments under article 9 (risk assessment) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541).
(2) Those regulations must provide that only persons on the register may make such assessments.
(3) Those regulations must provide that the register is—
(a) publicly available; and
(b) kept up-to-date.
(4) Regulations under this section are—
(a) to be made by statutory instrument; and
(b) subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
This new clause would enable home owners to verify fire assessors qualified to conduct compulsory checks such as completing the EWS1 form, and would enable government and industry to assess the numbers of assessors to be trained.
New clause 7—Accreditation of fire risk assessors—
“The relevant authority must by regulations amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) to require fire risk assessors for any building which contains two or more sets of domestic premises to be accredited.”
This new clause would require fire risk assessors to be accredited.
Daisy Cooper
New clauses 1 and 2, which stand in my name, are fairly self-explanatory. They both call for a public register: one for assessments, and the other for assessors. The Hackitt review said that risk assessments should not only be held by building owners, but be kept centrally with a public body such as a Government-appointed regulator. Chapter 4 of the Hackitt review refers to
“the need to rebuild public trust by creating a system where residents feel informed and included in discussions on safety, rather than a system where they are ‘done to’ by others… The interim report recommended that fire risk assessments should be carried out annually and shared in an accessible way with residents.”
For something as vital as fire safety, that information should be readily accessible to current and prospective residents of the building, both for public trust and for the sake of enforcement. Of course, the most accessible way to present such assessments is on a public register. If the Government are not minded to support new clause 1, I would welcome assurances that they intend to introduce such a public register at some point.
New clause 2 would create a public register for fire risk assessors. Of the two clauses that I have tabled, this is by far the more urgent. We heard shocking evidence this morning from the FBU that there are still people calling themselves fire assessors who are going out and conducting fire assessments without being qualified to do so. The witness gave the example of a member of the union who died in a building that had reportedly been assessed by one of these non-qualified fire assessors. We cannot wait for the public register of fire risk assessors; we need it now. The practice by those who are not qualified must stop.
In 2018 the London Fire Brigade raised the issue of assessor numbers. The Fire Safety Federation talked about fears that there were overwhelming demands for ESW1 surveys. It is clear that most mortgage companies now require the ESW1 certificate before lending. Feedback from my constituents, from management agencies and from local government indicates that there is a severe shortage of professionals across the country who are insured to sign off the new survey. A new public register would not only help to build trust, but show Government and industry how many fire assessors we need to train. From the questions we asked this morning, it was clear that the current number of assessors is between 400 and 50,000. Those were the numbers we were given, which is why it is so important that we have a public register and that we have it now.
My constituents have told me about delays of between 12 and 18 months in getting ESW1 surveys, putting their lives on hold and leaving them in constant fear of living in a dangerous home. That is made all the worse for my female constituents who are pregnant and living in such homes, as well as those who fear a loss of income as we head into a pandemic recession.
My final point is that there is a precedent for both these public registers. We have a register for homes, in the form of the energy performance certificate, which operates in the same way. EPC certificates are publicly available on a Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government website. There is a register for domestic energy assessors and for energy performance certificates, so there is a precedent for such registers to exist. It is a simple proposal that could be adopted in exactly the same way, but for fire safety, which, from a safety perspective, is far more vital.
Sarah Jones
Thank you, Sir Gary—I did wonder whether that was the correct way to address you when you are in the Chair. I also forgot to say, “It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.”
Sarah Jones
It is good to get these things right.
I welcome the two new clauses proposed by the hon. Member for St Albans, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats. We are coming from the same place and we all accept that having fire risk assessors who are not necessarily qualified in any way is completely unacceptable. We need to get to grips with that for many reasons, including those that she mentioned.
The register of fire risk assessments is slightly challenging because it would take a long time to get the assessments, to get it up and running and to get it done. That may be something for the future, but not now. Having a public register of fire risk assessors is a way of dealing with the problem. It is similar to our new clause 7, which is about having an accreditation system for fire risk assessors. That is probably one of the most important elements of our concern, and it was raised by Members on both sides of the House on Second Reading. I raised that concern in a conversation with the Minister and Lord Greenhalgh when I was first appointed, and I know that the Government are looking at it.
It is remarkable that there is currently no legal duty to have any kind of qualification before becoming a fire risk assessor. It could be argued that some parts of the role are relatively straightforward, such as checking whether there are obstructions in the way of fire exits. The Bill introduces the need for an understanding of the nature of cladding; what it is made of and how it works. There is absolutely no way someone could assess that without being qualified.
Concerns have been raised for many years about private sector involvement, lack of qualification and a “race to the bottom” mentality. The fact that anyone can set up as a fire risk assessor to assess schools or care homes cannot be defended.
Sarah Jones
I agree; it is shocking.
We have all seen examples, and one was given to us this morning. In 2017 an independent fire risk assessor was given a four-month jail sentence when a court described his assessment of a Cheshire care home as “woefully inadequate”. In the same year, a private hire safety consultant was found to have given valueless risk assessments to several businesses in south Wales, putting people at serious risk of death because of poor escape routes, a lack of fire alarms and insufficient precautions to reduce fire and the spread of fire. In 2012 a fire risk assessor in Nottingham was fined £15,000 after it was found that fire precautions in two hotels he assessed were inadequate, potentially putting hundreds of lives at risk. I suspect there is much inadequacy that we do not know about because it has not come to light.
Therefore, what do we do about this? We propose a fire risk assessor accreditation system. There are ways of easily mapping skill levels and the competence of individuals that are used across many sectors. We could look at those and work with the experts to find the right balance. For many years, the further education sector has used regulated qualifications to train the workforce. Vocational qualifications, which have been around for many years, have been the main way of demonstrating that an individual has met a certain standard. I spoke at length to the chief executive of the British Woodworking Federation, who sits on the Build UK WG2 competence of installers working group in Government, which is looking at some of these issues and mapping the competence of an installer following the Hackitt review. It is looking at third-party certification routes, continuous professional development and different things that would be possible. There are relatively straightforward options through the Health and Safety Executive, Ofqual—there are all sorts of ways to do this.
In anticipation that the Minister might not accept the new clause, I ask him to take this matter seriously and accept that there is a problem that we must do something about. I also ask him to see it in the round with what on earth happens if it takes a long period of time to try to build up workforce expertise, with people potentially living in buildings without the piece of paper that tells them they can get insurance and mortgages, as the hon. Member for St Albans said. This job must be done—whether it is done now is for the Minister to decide—and it must be done sooner rather than later, to avoid deaths in the future.
Andy Slaughter
I agree with these sensible new clauses, because they would remedy the defects identified by the FBU and others in how the system currently works, by professionalising it and taking it seriously. Having said that, they would create another requirement to be actioned by the Government. Whether the Government accept the new clauses or not, I am sure that they wish to see fire risk assessments and mediation carried out properly and efficiently.
We heard evidence this morning from the Fire Safety Federation and the head of fire safety at the L&Q Group about how the system is working—or not working—in practice. Whether the Minister accepts the requirements, we seriously need to address the current investigation process. I say this with no disrespect to the witnesses, but I was not filled with confidence by them saying that the processes of assessment must be looked at, with is done either through the enforcers, the owners and the Government coming together, or through everyone doing their own bit, because it is simply not working at the moment.
I gave the example, which I will briefly amplify, of a block of some 400-plus flats owned by Notting Hill Genesis, a big housing association in London, with which some issues to be resolved have been found. Those issues are not the most serious issues; there is some timber construction and some cladding on the building. Most of the building is constructed of brick. The effect was that the building perhaps did not have as high a priority as more dangerous structures. The effect of that has been to set out for all residents, including those leaseholders who have sold or are trying to sell their properties, a process that goes through six separate stages: initial survey, survey review, developer engagement, project planning, specification and tender, and remedial works. That process could take as little as 16 months or up to 42 months, and only at the end of it would an EWS1 form be issued. I thought that was bad enough, but we heard from the head of fire safety at L&Q that they expect it to be 10 years before all the buildings in London are dealt with.
That situation cannot be allowed to continue, so I ask the Minister to ensure, when he looks at the issues raised by the new clauses, that we have competent and professional assessment of risk, and proper processes to carry out those assessments. We must also look at the speed at which that work is done, because the Government have found it necessary during the covid crisis, and previously during the housing crisis, which we see particularly in London but which exists generally across the country, to intervene with measures that help people either to get on the housing ladder, to upscale or to move; there need to be different types of packages in that regard.
That is needed here and now. This matter cannot be left to the relationship between leaseholders or tenants and their landlords or owners at the end of the building process; it must be for the Government to address. Otherwise, in what is already an extremely depressed and fractured housing market, this situation will cause further delay and misery. It is not just a case of people being forced to stay in properties that they do not want to stay in—they want to move, perhaps because their family is growing, or because they want to take up a job in another part of the country. This situation is causing real financial and social distress. That may be an unintended consequence of what is designed to be an efficient process, but the process is simply not working at the moment.
Kit Malthouse
My role on this Committee is obviously becoming clear: it is to manage Members’ legitimate desire for urgent action and change, and to indicate that there is a process we need to go through in order to get this matter exactly right. I find myself in that position once again.
The fire safety order establishes a self-compliance regime. There is currently no requirement for responsible persons to record their completed fire risk assessments, save for limited provisions in respect of employers. They are simply required to record the significant findings of the assessment and any group of persons identified by the assessment as being especially at risk. The creation of a fire risk assessment register will place a new level of regulation upon responsible persons that could be seen as going against the core principles of the order, notably its self-regulatory and non-prescriptive approach.
There is also a question of ownership and maintenance, and where the costs of such a register would lie. A delicate balance needs to be struck. There are certainly improvements to be made, but we also need to ensure that such improvements are proportionate.
The Government acknowledge that there is work to be done to ensure that residents have access to the vital fire safety information they need in order to be safe and feel safe in their homes. People need to be assured that a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment has been completed, and that all appropriate general precautions have been taken or will be taken.
I also say to potential buyers of leasehold flats that any good conveyancing solicitor would ask for sight of the fire risk assessment from the responsible person—the freeholder—as part of their pre-contract inquiries. If the assessment was not forthcoming, one would expect that the solicitor would advise their clients accordingly and that all due inferences would be made. I can assure the Committee that the fire safety consultation will bring forward proposals for the recording of the fire risk assessment and the provision of vital fire safety information to residents.
New clause 2 would create a public register of fire risk assessors and require the fire risk assessors to be accredited. I agree that there is a clear need for reform concerning fire risk assessors, to improve capacity and standards. I understand the probing nature of the new clause, so it may be helpful to outline work that is ongoing in the area of fire risk assessor capacity and capability.
Some hon. Members will be aware of the industry-led competency steering group and its working group on fire risk assessors. The group will soon publish a report, including proposals for creating a register, third-party accreditation and a competency framework for fire risk assessors. The Government will consider the report’s recommendations in detail.
We are working with the NFCC and the fire risk assessor sector to take forward plans for addressing the short-term and long-term capability and capacity issues within the sector. I share hon. Members’ alarm at the existence of unqualified fire risk assessors; one wonders how many decades this situation has been allowed to persist unnoticed by anybody in this House or by any Government of any hue. The fire safety consultation, which will be issued shortly—I have already committed to that—will bring forward proposals on competence issues.
To summarise, the right approach is for the Government first to consider the proposals of the competency steering group and its sub-groups in relation to a register of fire risk assessors and accreditation. The Government’s position is that that work should continue to be led and progressed by the industry. I am happy to state on the record that we will work with the industry to develop it. Any future statutory requirements on fire risk assessors might be achieved through secondary legislation, which will offer us greater flexibility to add to it or amend it in the future. For those reasons, I intend to resist these new clauses.
Daisy Cooper
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 2
Public register of fire risk assessors
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision for a register of individuals who are qualified to make fire risk assessments under article 9 (risk assessment) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541).
(2) Those regulations must provide that only persons on the register may make such assessments.
(3) Those regulations must provide that the register is—
(a) publicly available; and
(b) kept up-to-date.
(4) Regulations under this section are—
(a) to be made by statutory instrument; and
(b) subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”—(Daisy Cooper.)
This new clause would enable home owners to verify fire assessors qualified to conduct compulsory checks such as completing the EWS1 form, and would enable government and industry to assess the numbers of assessors to be trained.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Daisy Cooper
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 3, by my own admission, is a rather blunt instrument—I put that down to the fact that I joined the Committee at rather short notice last week. I would not want to invite the law of unintended consequences, which the new clause does slightly, and prohibit people from paying towards something that might actually help them to move house if they wanted to do so. The purpose of the new clause is to seek to draw the Government’s attention to the question of who has financial responsibility. It is one that we discussed this morning, and to which there were no clear recommendations or answers from those who gave evidence.
The Bill puts the onus for fire safety on the building owner, but not enough has been said about who should take the financial burden of the measures that follow. The fact is that, despite the responsibility of the freeholder, building insurance premiums that residents may have paid for years, valid nuclear new build warranties, financial burden—all those things—it has been shifted and shirked, and ultimately the financial burden seems to land upon their tenants and leaseholders.
In my constituency of St Albans, one residents’ association has been told that every individual leaseholder will probably face extra charges of around at least £20,000 each per flat. Some of their service charges have already increased sixfold since the tragedy of 2017. Those service charges have increased in preparation for the necessary works, and I hope that the Government will agree that in a property market that is already so financially challenging, with the pandemic recession just ahead of us, to be hit by a further bill of £20,000 is completely unacceptable and, for some, completely impossible.
Sarah Jones
I want to put on record our support for the notion that leaseholders have been incredibly hard done by in recent years. They are championing their cause through incredibly powerful campaign groups, and we have heard over the past three years of the costs that have been put on them to remove cladding. It is extraordinary. In new clause 4, I try to ensure that they are not part of the definition of the responsible person in the legislation.
I agree with the premise of the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for St Albans, but having been the shadow housing Minister for three years, looking at the issues of leasehold and freehold and working with the Law Commission and with lawyers to try to unpick some of the legal issues, I think that it would be a challenging new clause to accept as it is, without significant compensation having to go to freeholders. I think the hon. Lady is probably right to describe it as being a blunt instrument, but I agree about the impossible position of leaseholders being faced with more costs when they are struggling so much.
Andy Slaughter
I applaud the hon. Member for St Albans for bringing the matter to the Committee’s attention, although the new clause may not quite be the way to deal with the issue in law. I say that because although Government have made funds available in a drip by drip way—it is quite a substantial amount of money, so perhaps drip by drip is the wrong phrase—it is an inadequate sum to deal with the necessary remediation.
The way in which the funding relating to ACM and other types of cladding has been announced to social landlords and then private landlords has not only created some degree of confusion, but meant that there are huge gaps in terms of accessibility to funds to leaseholders and freeholders for carrying out remediation work. Therefore, landlords—not the worst landlords, necessarily; in some ways, it could be the better ones—are seeking to deal with remediation works in relation to blocks that do not fall within the fairly restrictive criteria that the Government have set. They are saying, “Yes, we will remove cladding, or do other works, but it isn’t covered by the Government’s building funds at the moment. We will therefore look, with section 20 notices or in other ways, for leaseholders to carry the costs.”
We are right to draw attention to this point, and I hope that the Minister will respond to it. He has been reading out his ministerial brief, which is all to the good because we need to put it on the record, but it would be quite good for him to respond to some of the points spontaneously made by Opposition Members.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (Michael Tomlinson)
My hon. Friend has done both
Andy Slaughter
I say that because, in the previous debate, there were issues to do with the speed at which the process is going, and I do not think the Minister responded to my points about that nor to those about the qualifications of assessors. If he intends to resist the new clause, which I suspect he probably is, he needs to deal with the issue of leaseholders who, faced with the prospect of bills, cannot then be advised “Go to the Government funds”, because such funds are not available for those purposes.
Kit Malthouse
Sir Gary, the hon. Member for Hammersmith knows the impositions put on Ministers of the Crown as to what they can and cannot say in public. Legal interpretations emanate from their words, such is the importance of the things that we say in this place, and many legal cases have been decided on the words, imprecise or otherwise, of a Government Minister in a Committee such as this, so we try very hard to be precise. I should point out that, although I previously had responsibility for this portfolio when I was Housing Minister, I am covering for a Minister who is shielding at the moment. Hence I have to make sure that the words I use are broadly those that he would use as well.
Andy Slaughter
I was seeking to flatter the Minister. We not only want to hear from the civil servants; we also want to hear from him.
Kit Malthouse
Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. Member for St Albans obviously recognises that this blunt instrument, as she put it, might result in unintended consequences, not least driving a coach and horses through the notion of privacy of contract, which is a fundamental part of our economy and legal system, I recognise her aspiration and the obvious concern and distress that there has been across the country among people who have been caught in the nightmare. As the hon. Member for Croydon Central knows, as Housing Minister for 12 months I wrestled with that issue and lobbied the then Chancellor of the Exchequer with increasing ferocity that the Government should step in to assist, which we have now done. My efforts, along with those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who was then the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, managed to secure the first £600 million of the £1.6 billion now pledged for remediation of various types of cladding.
I should point out that the funding does not absolve the industry from taking responsibility for any failings that led to unsafe cladding materials being put on buildings in the first place. We still expect developers, investors and building owners who have the means to pay to take responsibility and cover the cost of remediation themselves without passing on the cost to leaseholders. We committed in a recent Government response to the building safety consultation to extend the ability of local authorities and the new regulators to enforce against building work that does not comply with the building regulations from two years to 10 years. Further details will be set out in the draft building safety Bill when it is published next month. The new regime in that Bill is being introduced to prevent such safety defects from occurring in the first place in new builds and to address systematically the defects in existing buildings. Moreover, as part of any funding agreement with Government, we expect building owners to pursue warranty claims and appropriate action against those responsible for putting unsafe cladding on the buildings. In doing that we are not only ensuring that buildings are made safe and that residents feel safe, and are safe, we are ensuring that the taxpayer does not pay for the work that those responsible should fund or can afford.
I appreciate the intent of the new clause, particularly to protect leaseholders from the very high cost of removing and replacing cladding. That is why we have made £1.6 billion available to cover the costs, particularly where experts say that they represent the highest risk, and we are working with industry to identify what funding structures would be most appropriate to help cover the cost of further remediation work. Leaseholders should not have to face unmanageable costs. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will provide an update on the work when he presents the draft building safety Bill to Parliament before the recess. I ask that Members recognise the complexity of this policy area, which cannot be solved, I am afraid, through the new clause. Indeed, it would make owners who, in some cases, would include leaseholders, responsible for funding any and all remediation work. For example, service and maintenance charges would at present meet the costs of safety work required as a result of routine wear and tear, such as worn fire door closers. Under the new clause, those costs would fall to building owners. I hope that hon. Members will agree there are more effective ways of achieving the same aim, which we all share, and I therefore hope this clause can be withdrawn.
Daisy Cooper
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Meaning of responsible person
“In article 3 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) (meaning of responsible person”), at the end of paragraph (b)(ii) insert—
‘(2) Where a building contains two or more sets of domestic premises, a leaseholder shall not be considered a responsible person unless they are also the owner or part owner of the freehold.’”—(Sarah Jones.)
This new clause aims to clarify the definition of ‘responsible person’ to ensure leaseholders are not considered a responsible person unless they are also the owner or part owner of the freehold.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5—Single assessment of risk—
“In article 9 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) (risk assessment), after paragraph (3) insert—
‘(3A) Where a building contains two or more domestic premises, any person identified as a responsible person in relation to any part of the building must co-operate with other responsible persons to obtain a single assessment of risk relating to the building as a whole.’”
This new clause seeks to create a requirement that, where a building contains two or more domestic premises and there are multiple responsible persons, a fire risk assessment should be a single document in instances.
Sarah Jones
New clause 4 also relates to leaseholders, and I think what it proposes is quite straightforward, easy to do and something that the Government could put on the face of the Bill relatively easily.
On Second Reading, the definition of a responsible person was raised again by Members from across the House. There were worries about the ambiguity of that definition, and about the risk that the responsible person might seek to use any such confusion or ambiguity to avoid their responsibilities under the Bill. There is a worry that leaseholders might be defined as the responsible person, which they are not unless leaseholders have collectively bought the freehold; that model is not used much, but it does exist. The point of this new clause is simply to ensure that unless that model exists—unless leaseholders have bought the freehold—leaseholders are not the responsible person. It is a relatively straightforward clause, and I cannot see that it would cause any problems.
I suspect that new clause 5 is a probing one, because there are many complex types of buildings, with different types of ownership within them. A block may well contain council housing, housing associations, leaseholders, and—although not part of the Bill—commercial premises within residential premises. All those different types of ownership within a block creates a complex situation when it comes to making the “responsible person” responsible for ensuring the safety assessment is done for the entire building. This clause is a question and challenge to the Government: how will the Bill work when we have all these levels of complexity, including commercial premises, different types of residential premises and different problems with access? This relates in part to some of the issues we were talking about this morning, such as getting access to domestic properties, but there are blocks in my constituency where half of the block is housing association, and half is a mix of all kinds of other private housing. We are worried about how that is going to work in real life when this legislation is introduced, so that is the point of new clause 5.
Kit Malthouse
The fire safety order places the onus on the responsible person to identify and mitigate fire risks. For the most part, it engages responsibility for fire safety in line with the extent of control over a premises or part of a premises. That is the underlying principle.
In multi-occupied residential buildings, the leaseholder of a flat is unlikely to be a responsible person for the non-domestic premises. The exceptions to this would be where they own or share ownership of the freehold, as is acknowledged in new clause 4. However, the leaseholder can be a duty holder under article 5 of the order. This will be determined according to the circumstances in any particular case. This Bill does not change that arrangement; it does, of course, clarify that the order applies to the flat entrance doors. Depending on the terms of a lease or tenancy agreement, responsibility to ensure the door complies with the requirements of the order could therefore fall to the responsible person for the building, having retained ownership of the doors, or the tenant or leaseholder as a duty holder. The lease can also be silent.
Legislating for the removal of the leaseholder as a responsible person, or indeed duty holder, would undermine the principles of the order. It could leave a vacuum when it comes to responsibilities under the order, and therefore compromise fire safety. However, as part of our intention to strengthen the fire safety order, we will test further some of the relevant current provisions of the order with regards to flat entrance doors in order to support compliance, co-operation and, if necessary, enforcement actions. The NFCC has offered to support these considerations; again, the fire safety consultation is the right place for us to take such matters further. The Government are committed to ensuring that sufficient guidance and support is given to those regulated by the order. That is why the Home Office, working alongside our stakeholders, has established a guidance steering group that will be responsible for recommending, co-ordinating and delivering a robust and effective review of all the guidance provided under the order.
Sarah Jones
I feel like we are being beaten down with consultations, steering groups and promises of honey to come. I know it is complex and there a lot of questions to answer. The basic premise of new clause 4 is that, where there is a freeholder, the leaseholder should not be the responsible person. I know there are complexities with that: who is responsible for the front door, and how does it all work? That all needs to be ironed out, but there is a basic principle in the new clause. Given the Minister’s proposal to go back and talk to officials, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 6
Duties of owner or manager
“The relevant authority must by regulations amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) to require an owner or a manager of any building which contains two or more sets of domestic premises to—
(a) share information with their local Fire and Rescue Service in respect of each building for which an owner or manager is responsible about the design of its external walls and details of the materials of which those external walls are constructed;
(b) in respect of any building for which an owner or manager is responsible which contains separate flats, undertake regular inspections of individual flat entrance doors;
(c) in respect of any building for which an owner or manager is responsible which contains separate flats, undertake regular inspections of lifts and report the results to their local Fire and Rescue Service; and
(d) share evacuation and fire safety instructions with residents of the building.”—(Sarah Jones.)
This new clause would place various requirements on building owners or managers, and would implement the recommendations made in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase One Report.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 9—Inspectors: prioritisation—
“In discharging their duties under article 27 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) (powers of inspectors) in relation to any building which contains two or more sets of domestic premises, an inspector must prioritise the premises which they consider to be at most risk.”
This new clause would require the schedule for inspecting buildings to be based on a prioritisation of risk, not an arbitrary distinction of types of buildings.
Sarah Jones
The new clause does what the Government say will come later: it puts on the face of the Bill the recommendations made in the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 report. At the beginning of June, the MHCLG announced that it was preparing to open a public consultation on recommendations for new fire safety regulations emerging from the Grenfell Tower inquiry. In a letter to Martin Moore-Bick, the Prime Minister gave assurances that action on the findings of the inquiry’s first report “continues at pace”. However, the Government had already promised in October 2019 to implement the inquiry’s recommendations in full and without delay. Failing to include the simpler recommendations for the Bill, such as inspections of fire doors and testing of lifts, is a breach of their commitment to implement the recommendations without delay.
Only this week we saw alarming statistics that underline the urgency of implementing the recommendations. Of more than 100,000 doors in about 2,700 buildings across the UK inspected by the fire door inspection scheme in 2019, 76% did not comply with building regulations and about one in six, or 16%, were not even proper fire doors. Nearly two thirds, or 63%, of the buildings also had additional fire safety issues. Those are huge challenges. We need to move as quickly as possible to implement the recommendations.
Earlier this month, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said that the Bill
“provides a firm foundation upon which to bring forward secondary legislation”.—[Official Report, 2 June 2020; Vol. 676, c. 41WS.]
The Minister has taken the same approach, but there is no timetable for when everything else will happen. There are lots of committees, consultations and groups looking at these things, but it is not acceptable that after the promise of “without delay” in October 2019, we still have not moved on those issues by the middle of summer 2020.
I do not understand, and it would be good for Minister to explain, why we would not put such provisions in the Bill. They have the support of the organisations that we heard from this morning. It is just a case of putting things up front in the legislation, rather than waiting for an undefined time that may or may not come at some point in the future.
The new clause would require an owner or manager to
“share information with their local Fire and Rescue Service in respect of each building for which an owner or manager is responsible about the design of its external walls and details of the materials of which those external walls are constructed…in respect of any building for which an owner or manager is responsible which contains separate flats, undertake regular inspections of individual flat entrance doors…in respect of any building for which an owner or manager is responsible which contains separate flats, undertake regular inspections of lifts and report the results to their local Fire and Rescue Service; and…share evacuation and fire safety instructions with residents of the building.”
It just pushes faster and implements more quickly the action that the Government have committed to implementing. I press the Government to accept that that is possible, or to set out exactly when those things will become part of legislation.
David Simmonds
I have similar feelings about new clause 6 as I had about amendment 1. There is a risk that by seeking to be precise, we may create additional gaps in the legislation. Looking at the list, it would be clear to anybody with experience of the issue in a wider context that many other issues would come into consideration in such circumstances.
For example, the London Borough of Hillingdon had to go to court on 16 occasions last year to gain access to tenants’ properties to undertake essential safety-critical work on gas installations. If we were to define the duties that we are placing on the responsible individuals, the list would be extremely long. I have heard the Minister talk on the issue and I know that, with his local government experience, he is well aware of the context.
The properties to which the legislation will apply are hugely diverse, as are the risks that they offer. I therefore strongly believe that the new clause is another example where we are better off having a broader-brush piece of legislation that provides the opportunity to catch every set of circumstances flexibly, rather than being unnecessarily specific and risking missing out things that might turn out to be safety-critical.
Andy Slaughter
Thank you, Sir Gary. I apologise for referring to you as Mr Streeter throughout.
Andy Slaughter
I will get it right before the end.
I have a brief comment about new clause 9, which goes to the heart of our discussion. It says that where there are
“two…sets of domestic premises, an inspector must prioritise the premises which they consider to be at most risk”.
That echoes what Mr Carpenter, the head of fire safety at L&Q, said in evidence this morning, and it must be right. It also mirrors the debate that we are having about covid-19 and the balance between the health implications and the economic implications. If all our eggs are put into the basket of buildings where there is believed to be a singular risk or multiple risks, there will be all the consequences we have already discussed relating to delays to sale and so on for buildings with a more marginal risk that nevertheless need remedial work. The Government have to grasp that dichotomy and say how they propose to deal with it.
At the moment individual landlords are dealing with it in their own way. My local authority, for example, has gone far beyond what are considered to be minimum standards. It has something called a fire safety plus programme, which means that fire safety experts visit tenants to check electrical and fire detection appliances. They replace white goods for free if they are faulty. I referred earlier to problems with flame failure devices, where gas leaks can occur, and the authority has now incorporated checks of all gas devices into annual boiler checks.
Some responsible landlords, and particularly social landlords such as Hammersmith and Fulham Council, take those responsibilities seriously and prioritise those matters. However, that has to happen across the board and not be left to landlords’ good will, as it were, or their responsible action. It has to be something that the Government enforce. It would be useful to include that with new clause 9 and provide for such prioritisation in the relevant circumstances. However—and yes, this is cake-and-eat-it, but this is a cake-and-eat-it Government, so I am sure they can incorporate it—we cannot forget those tenants or leaseholders who are at the back of the queue and who, as Mr Carpenter said at column 14 in the first sitting of the Committee, may be waiting 10 years for remedial work to take place. I should be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that—both whether he agrees with the content of new clause 9 with respect to prioritisation, and what he would do as a consequence.
Kit Malthouse
As the hon. Member for Croydon Central has pointed out, the Prime Minister has accepted the outcome of the Grenfell inquiry. However, Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report stated that his recommendation should command the support of those with experience of the matters to which they relate. That means that we need to make sure that everyone is on board with the proposals as we take them forward.
Our intention is to enact the proposals, subject to the views of the consultation, under article 24, which specifically requires the Secretary of State to
“consult with such persons or bodies of persons as appear to him to be appropriate.”
Once again I acknowledge the impatience of the hon. Lady and everyone else in the Committee to get on with it, and get the Grenfell inquiry measures in place, but there are stages that we need to go through to make sure that we get the measures right and to ensure that the changes made to building safety will be cultural as well as legislative and structural. That is an issue that became clear during my time as Housing Minister. The entire sector has to acknowledge its moral and legal duties for the safety of those in its care, whether that is in the design, building, management or maintenance of properties. That means we need to make sure everyone is bought in.
On new clause 9, I do not dispute the need to ensure that resources and enforcement activity are targeted, but I dispute the need for legislation to do so. Fire and rescue authorities are in the business of managing risk and are accountable for how they do so. The fire and rescue national framework for England requires fire and rescue authorities to have a locally determined risk-based inspection programme in place, for enforcing compliance with the order. It sets out the expectation that FRAs will target their resources on those individuals or households at greatest risk from fire in the home and on those non-domestic premises where the life safety risk is greatest. In parallel, the regulators’ code states that all regulators should base their regulatory activities on risk, take an evidence-based approach to determine the priority risks in their area of responsibility, and allocate resources where they would be most effective in addressing those priority risks.
We acknowledge the vital work that local FRAs do and the NFCC has done, and will continue to do, to ensure that building owners are taking all necessary steps to make sure that those living in high-rise buildings are safe and feel safe to remain in their homes.
Sarah Jones
I hear what the Minister says—there are stages that we need to go through to get this right—but the Bill has no date for its commencement, so we could put this provision in the Bill and then do the things that need to be done in order to bring it into force at the time that the Secretary of State deems right. Therefore I would, on this new clause, like to test the will of the Committee.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Sarah Jones
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 7 is about fire assessors being accredited. Again, I heard what the Minister said: there is the competency steering group; we are going to bring forward these kinds of changes. I think that we could be doing that sooner rather than later, so I would like to test the will of the Committee on this new clause, too.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Sarah Jones
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 8 refers to an issue about waking watch that has been raised with us many times by struggling leaseholders. The aim of the new clause is to clarify exactly when a waking watch must be in place and when one should not be. We have seen since Grenfell that this involves a huge number of buildings; tens of thousands of people are living in blocks where some kind of remediation work is necessary and so a waking watch has been put in place. There are lots of concerns about waking watch in general. How qualified are the people doing the job, and are there enough of them? Is it a suitable alternative to the work that needs to be done?
Many leaseholders have told us that there are conflicting instructions on whether people should have waking watch, depending on where you are and which block you live in. The National Fire Chiefs Council says that waking watch should be temporary, but there are residents living in blocks that have had a waking watch for nearly three years, at huge cost. I have spoken to leaseholders who are paying £14,000 a year for the waking watch. In one galling case, residents on the block spent £700,000 on waking watch, but when the building was tested, it was found to be safe, so they spent a lot of money collectively for something that they never actually needed in the first place.
We will clearly not remove all the cladding that needs to be removed for some time, given that the issue it is not just ACM cladding, but HPL and other forms, too. Those things take time and we do not have enough people to do the work. What will happen in that time? Do people really have to pay that much money for that long when, in some areas, people are told they need a waking watch, and in others, they are not? Other questions remain about whether people can have other alarm systems that would mean not paying as much. People are going bankrupt paying for something that is supposed to be temporary but is not needed or the best thing for them to do.
Through the new clause, we are saying to the Government that this issue has been raised many times. There is inconsistency about the waking watch and how it is applied. In any case, it is not supposed to be in place for only a short period, not three years. The issue was raised by Government Members on Second Reading and has been raised in housing questions for some time. We want a system where it is clear what waking watch is for and what it is not for, to resolve inconsistencies.
Kit Malthouse
I should start by acknowledging the issue of waking watch. It is obviously very serious. In my previous position as Housing Minister, I met a number of groups that were struggling to pay for waking watch. I will speak later about what the Government are doing to support its proper use. I acknowledge the issue the hon. Member for Croydon Central raised, and I am sorry for the particular story she pointed to. However, expanding the scope of the Bill with this new clause is not the best way to achieve what she seeks.
There are significant issues with the wording of the new clause. First, it would introduce a regulation-making power that “must” be exercised to amend the fire safety order. Further, the term “fire safety failings” is very broad and subject to interpretation. There could be several circumstances where there is a fire safety failure that would not warrant the imposition of a waking watch—for example, cases where only a faulty fire door or smoke detector needed replacing. In such circumstances, swift remedial action can be undertaken, but the wording makes no distinction between fire safety failures.
Aside from the wording, we oppose putting this provision in primary legislation in any event. A decision on the use of waking watch is a matter for the responsible person when considering how to achieve compliance in particular premises. That decision must factor in the circumstances of the premises and other fire protection measures in place. Auditing for compliance is ultimately an operational issue, best dealt with by the relevant enforcing authority on a case-by-case basis. Specific circumstances will dictate what form of remedial action is necessary. The fire safety order already provides for an appropriate enforcement action to be taken. To impose a prescriptive legislative requirement of this type would be unhelpful and, worse, potentially inhibit an enforcing authority from taking the most appropriate action.
We are, however, taking forward work in conjunction with the NFCC on waking watches; it might reassure Members if I outlined it briefly. First, the NFCC is updating its guidance on waking watches. Once that guidance is available, we will ask fire protection boards to advise fire and rescue services on how best to ensure the guidance is implemented on the ground by responsible persons. That will include looking into other measures, such as installing building-wide fire alarm systems to reduce the dependency on waking watches wherever possible.
We are also looking to publish data on the costs of waking watches. That will ensure transparency on the range of costs, so that comparisons can be clearly made. Our aim is to help reduce the over-reliance on waking watch and, where it is necessary, reduce costs.
Furthermore, as Committee members may be aware, we are already working with the NFCC and fire and rescue services to undertake a building risk review programme on all high-rise residential buildings of 18 metres and above in England, which will ensure that all such buildings are inspected or reviewed by the fire service by the end of next year. It should give residents in high-rise blocks greater assurance that fire risks have been identified and action taken to address them, reducing the need for waking watches and other interim measures.
Essentially, we find ourselves in the same argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner has raised on a number of occasions: by being prescriptive, we create a situation where anomalies may occur and lacunae open up in the fire safety framework, of which this foundational Bill is meant to be the keystone—or whatever firm word we want to use—for the future. For that reason, we hope that this new clause will also be withdrawn.
Sarah Jones
Heaven forbid that lacunae should open up! I immediately withdraw the new clause. I completely understand the point about this being a matter for the responsible person. The issue is that the freeholder is the responsible person, and the leaseholder is the one who has to pay, so there is a problem there.
I welcome the work that the Government are doing in trying to shine a light on some of the issues about costs; we have heard all kinds of accounts of different costs for the same job, so shining some light on that would be helpful. I think this is an issue that needs to be pushed, but I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.
The Chair
Colleagues, we have done well. If anyone wishes to say anything pleasant about officials at this stage, that is the usual course of events.
Kit Malthouse
Strangely, the officials have not provided me with a script of nice things to say about them. First, I am obviously grateful to all Members of the Committee for the constructive way in which our proceedings have taken place and to you, Sir Gary, for your benign chairmanship.
This is obviously a difficult and complex piece of work, and while we see the emanation of it in the clauses and the various bits of legislation that come before us, a whole team of officials at both the Home Office and MHCLG has been beavering away on this for some time, engaging with various industry groups and often with affected residents who are in distress, in as sensitive and proportionate a way as possible. I know the Committee express their appreciation for all that work as well.
I hope, as we move into the next phase of this very important journey and this enormous reform to the system, we can continue with not only that very forensic work that officials have done to put us in this position, but the collegiate and co-operative political atmosphere. As I say, this is a situation that, unfortunately, has arisen over a number of decades, under Governments of all colours, and it behoves us all as a political class to put it right.
Sarah Jones
I will be brief; my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has put her jacket on, so I know it is time. I thank the officials who have helped me to find my way through this, not least when the House adjourned at 5.30 pm on Monday instead of 10.30 pm as normal, since that was the deadline by which we had to table amendments. There was a particular pickle at that moment, but the officials were incredibly helpful. Thank you, Sir Gary, for your chairmanship.
I will finish by saying again that we welcome this piece of legislation. We wish things had gone a lot further and faster. There is a lot more to be done, and we are very hungry to see it done and happy to help the Government in any way we can to get it done. We all keep top of mind the people who lost their lives in the Grenfell Tower fire. That is what we are here for, and we must therefore act as quickly and as well as we can.
The Chair
Thank you very much. I know the whole Committee will endorse those remarks. I also thank Yohanna for her excellent clerking of the proceedings.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.
Fire Safety Bill
Monday 7th September 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 7 September 2020 - (7 Sep 2020)
20:22 - The House divided: - Ayes: 188 / Noes: 318 - Question accordingly negatived.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Accreditation of fire risk assessors—
‘The relevant authority must by regulations amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) to require fire risk assessors for any building which contains two or more sets of domestic premises to be accredited.’
This new clause would require fire risk assessors to be accredited.
New clause 3—Inspectors: prioritisation—
‘In discharging their duties under article 27 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) (powers of inspectors) in relation to any building which contains two or more sets of domestic premises, an inspector must prioritise the premises which they consider to be at most risk.’
This new clause would require the schedule for inspecting buildings to be based on a prioritisation of risk, not an arbitrary distinction of types of buildings.
New clause 4—Meaning of responsible person—
‘In article 3 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) (“meaning of responsible person”), at the end of paragraph (b)(ii) insert—
“(2) Where a building contains two or more sets of domestic premises, a leaseholder shall not be considered a responsible person unless they are also the owner or part owner of the freehold.”’
This new clause aims to clarify the definition of ‘responsible person’ to ensure leaseholders are not considered a responsible person unless they are also the owner or part owner of the freehold.
New clause 5—Waking watch—
‘The relevant authority must by regulations amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) to specify when a waking watch must be in place for any building which contains two or more sets of domestic premises and which has been found to have fire safety failings.’
This new clause would require the UK Government (for England) and the Welsh Government (for Wales) to specify when a waking watch must be in place for buildings with fire safety failures.
Amendment 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
‘(1C) Where a building contains two or more sets of domestic premises, the things to which this order applies includes electrical appliances.
(1D) The reference to electrical appliances means any appliances specified by Order made by the relevant authority.
(1E) Schedule 1 of the Fire Safety Act 2020 shall apply to paragraphs (1C) and (1D).’
This amendment would clarify that the Fire Safety Order applies to electrical appliances.
New schedule 1—
‘1 The relevant authority must, no later than 12 months after the date on which this Act is passed, make regulations specifying the electrical appliances covered by paragraph (1D) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
2 The relevant authority must, no later than 12 months after the date on which this Act is passed, make regulations to amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (“the Order”) as follows—
(a) to require the responsible person for premises to which the Order applies to—
(i) carry out electrical safety checks of such type as may be prescribed by the Order at such frequency as may be so prescribed (being no less frequently than every 5 years) at each set of domestic premises, regardless of whether the occupier is a tenant of the responsible person;
(ii) keep records of the checks for such period as may be prescribed by the Order and make them available upon request to such persons as may be so prescribed;
(iii) keep a register of such kinds of electrical appliances as may be prescribed by the Order that are kept in each set of domestic premises, regardless of whether the occupier is a tenant of the responsible person;
(iv) check whether those electrical appliances are the subject of a recall notice under paragraph 12 of the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016.
(b) to require occupiers of such premises to—
(i) provide access to premises and allow action to remedy any failure to meet safety standards identified in a safety check carried out in accordance with sub-paragraph (a)(i);
(ii) provide the relevant responsible person with information about electrical appliances prescribed in accordance with sub-paragraph (a)(iii) and kept in the premises;
(iii) comply with any reasonable requirement made by the responsible person in relation to electrical appliances which the responsible person has reason to believe are the subject of a recall notice under paragraph 12 of the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016.
3 Regulations made under paragraph 2 may—
(a) confer a power to enter premises on such persons as may be prescribed in the Order for such purposes connected with the requirements imposed under the regulations as may be so prescribed.
(b) create offences;
(c) amend the definition of “responsible person” in article 6 of the Order;
(d) make such consequential, supplementary or incidental provision by way of amendments to the Order as the relevant authority considers appropriate.
4 Regulations made under paragraph 2 must provide that any power to enter domestic premises is not to be exercisable unless—
(a) at a reasonable time and with the consent of the occupier of the premises; or
(b) under the authority of a warrant issued by a justice of the peace.”
5 In this schedule the term “relevant authority” has the same meaning as in the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.’
This new schedule would require the Government to make regulations specifying the electrical appliances to which the Fire Safety Order applies. It would also require the Government to amend the Order to impose additional duties on the responsible person and on occupiers. It is consequential on Amendment 1.
Sarah Jones
Let me begin, as I have at every stage of this Bill, by saying that we on the Opposition Benches support the Bill. The Minister knows that. We are keen to be as supportive as possible, but let me reiterate the point that I have also made at every stage, which is that this Bill is a shamefully inadequate response to the multiple problems for fire safety, which were so tragically brought to the fore when 72 lives were lost in the Grenfell Tower fire. The Bill—all three clauses of it—goes nowhere near far enough to prevent a tragedy like Grenfell from happening again.
The Government said that the introduction of the Fire Safety Bill would take them a step further in delivering the inquiry’s recommendations and recently cited the Bill as one of their key priorities in response to a deeply frustrated letter from Grenfell survivors. Yet the Bill does not even include provisions for any of the measures called for by the first phase of the inquiry.
The Grenfell community were failed by a system that did not listen to them. We must never forget that failure. I pay tribute to Grenfell United, the families and the whole community for continuing to tirelessly fight for justice. They should not have had to fight so hard, and hundreds of thousands of people across the country are now being failed by a system that does not listen to them—those stuck in buildings with flammable cladding, those using their income to fund waking watch and other safety measures, and those who cannot buy or sell their flats because the mortgage market has been ground to a halt by confusion and lack of Government leadership.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend starts absolutely with the crux of the matter. She will be aware that, in my own constituency of Cardiff South and Penarth, we have thousands of residents in apartment blocks who are affected by these issues. The failure of companies such as Redrow, Laing O’Rourke and Taylor Wimpey to hold to their responsibilities for fire safety and other building defects is a huge problem. Does she agree that they need to take responsibility for mistakes that they may have made in construction?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The system as a whole is fundamentally broken, and it is the developers as well as the Government who need to look to their own actions and correct them.
The Government have made many promises to bring justice to the survivors and their families, to change building and fire safety regulations and to do this quickly, but the Government are yet to make their promises a reality. At every stage, we have had to drag them into action. During the passage of this Bill, we have sought constructively to improve it, so that it goes further as a piece of primary legislation towards improving fire safety.
New clause 1 would do what the Government say must come later. It would place robust requirements on building owners or managers and implement the recommendations—the key recommendations—from phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. The Government said that they would implement the Grenfell phase 1 inquiry in full and without delay. This new clause, which we are moving tonight, would fulfil that promise. In what is a very complex world of building and fire safety, the new clause is relatively simple. It seeks to do four things: the owners of buildings that contain two or more sets of domestic premises would share information with their local fire and rescue service about the design and make-up of the external walls; they would complete regular inspections of fire entrance doors; they would complete regular inspections of lifts; and they would share evacuation and fire safety instructions with residents. These measures are straightforward and are supported by key stakeholders. Frankly, it is pretty extraordinary that they are not already enshrined in law.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way at this point. She is making a very powerful case. I will be supporting new clause 1, as it is worthy of support. Will she put some pressure on her Labour colleagues in the Welsh Government in Cardiff to bring forward similar proposals for consideration by the Senedd in Cardiff before the elections in May?
Sarah Jones
The Welsh Government have a proud record on fire safety, and I point the hon. Gentleman in the direction of the many actions that have been taken. In this case today, we are looking at the actions of the Government and their failure to act since the Grenfell Tower fire three years ago.
Time and again in Committee, the Minister supported what we were saying in principle but told us that we must wait for a consultation to finish, a taskforce to report, or the experts to tell us what to do. That is not good enough. We have seen with covid what can be done with political will: hospitals built in days, and whole systems restructured to respond where there is a need. If the political will was there, the Government would support this new clause and we could take one step in the direction of keeping the promises that we all made in those days and weeks after the Grenfell fire. The Government have given no timetable for when they will deliver the inquiry’s recommendations through secondary legislation. The Government have continuously pushed back on their promises while thousands of people across the country are stuck still in unsafe flats.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will know, and the Minister will recognise, that there are thousands of leaseholders living in flats—I support all steps being taken to improve fire safety—where, as each day passes, more bills are coming in for increased insurance and waking watches. They live in dread of the final bill for the cost of replacing the cladding, which will be completely unaffordable. It is not fair to our constituents to make them live with this nightmare that they did not cause, and I hope she will continue to urge the Government to play their part, because only the Government can solve this.
Sarah Jones
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: only the Government can fix this problem. The lack of action and the lack of clarity about which buildings are safe, apart from anything else, and about what needs to be done has led to huge disruption for thousands of people, huge cost, mental health issues, weddings put off, jobs and opportunities not being able to be taken and all manner of problems that the Government need to fix.
The Government have constantly pushed back on their promises, while many people are still in unsafe flats. The fire safety measures recommended by phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower inquiry are urgently needed. Why would we wait for secondary legislation at an undetermined point in the future to ensure that building owners and managers share information about the design of external walls with their local fire services? Why would we delay the requirement to have inspections of individual flat doors and lifts? Why would we wait to make building owners or managers share evacuation and fire safety instructions with residents?
In Committee, the Minister responding—the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse)—said that the Government intend to legislate further, but we need more than vague commitments about secondary legislation. At the very least, we need a clear timetable from Government that sets out when further changes to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 will be delivered.
The fire safety order requires regular fire risk assessments in buildings, but it includes no legal requirement for those conducting the assessment to have any form of training or accreditation. I could call myself a fire risk assessor, set myself up with a logo and be responsible for one of the most important safety measures we have. No other sector would accept that. No one would accept electricians with no qualifications or gas engineers making it up as they go along. It is absurd. Any one of us could carry out fire risk assessments on schools, hospitals or care homes with no test or accreditation needed. The lack of training and accreditation in such an important area is completely unacceptable.
The Bill’s changes to the fire safety order clarify the inclusion of external wall systems such as cladding and insulation, which makes the competence of fire risk assessors even more important, as they will need to understand the more complex elements and materials found in cladding systems. That hugely important issue has been raised by Members from all parts of the House on Second Reading and in Committee.
The Government should be using the Bill to legislate for higher standards and greater public accountability in fire inspections. New clause 2, tabled by the Opposition, would bring into force an accreditation system for fire risk assessors, rather than waiting for more secondary legislation. In Committee, the Minister responding referred to the “industry-led competency steering group” in relation to fire risk assessors. I hope that the Minister today can provide an update on when the Government plan to bring forward changes to address the issue of unqualified fire risk assessors.
Turning to new clause 3, we have talked to many experts and stakeholders who have significant concerns, which the Minister will be aware of, about how the Bill will be implemented. The Minister responding in Committee referred to the building risk review programme, which looks
“to ensure that local resources are targeted at those buildings most at risk.”––[Official Report, Fire Safety Public Bill Committee, 25 June 2020; c. 62.]
We would like to see a similar provision in the Bill. New clause 3 would require the schedule for inspecting buildings to be based on a prioritisation of risk, not an arbitrary distinction of types of buildings. Local fire and rescue services know their areas and the buildings where there is greatest risk. Let them decide what to prioritise first. They know better than Whitehall.
Many Members from all parts of the House have been contacted by desperate leaseholders who have been left to foot the bill for urgent fire safety works, despite not being the building owner. That is a huge challenge, as we have already discussed. The definition of the responsible person in this legislation needs to be made clear.
The Fire Safety Bill is intended to be a foundational Bill. Its purpose is to provide clarity on what is covered under the fire safety order, which will inform other related and secondary legislation. New clause 4 would be an important example of that kind of clarification. Its purpose is to clarify the definition of “responsible person” to ensure that a leaseholder is not considered a responsible person unless they are also the owner or part-owner of the freehold. The draft Building Safety Bill places various requirements on the responsible person, and refers to the fire safety order for the definition. It is vital that the fire safety order makes it clear that there is no ambiguity around the definition of “responsible person”; otherwise, there is a risk of confusion and misalignment between the two pieces of legislation, and a danger that the responsible person might seek to use that ambiguity to avoid their responsibilities under the Bill.
The definition of the responsible person has been raised by many Members from across the House at each stage of the Bill’s progress. Without clear definitions, there will be new questions of interpretation, and we will not achieve what we are setting out to achieve. The Opposition do not understand why that is controversial. Perhaps the Minister could help by explaining why he is comfortable leaving such dangerous ambiguity.
New clause 5 refers to another important issue, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) raised. Struggling leaseholders across the country have been forced to pay extortionate fees for interim fire safety measures—most commonly, waking watch—while progress on remediation work has been too slow. New clause 5 aims to clarify when waking watch should and should not be in place. The Government still have not published the findings of their audit of external wall systems of high-rise buildings, and are therefore unable to say how many buildings are covered in dangerous non-ACM cladding. However, we know from their latest figures on aluminium composite material cladding that more than 80% of private sector residential buildings, and nearly half of social sector residential buildings, wrapped in Grenfell-style ACM cladding have not had it removed and replaced. The Government deadlines of 2019 for social sector blocks to be made safe, and June 2020 for private sector blocks, were both missed. Progress has been painfully slow, and the coronavirus pandemic has hindered it even more. The impact on residents is terrible. Tens of thousands of people have been locked down in unsafe buildings for months on end.
The National Fire Chiefs Council says that waking watch should be a temporary measure, but some blocks have been paying for it for three years, which has cost residents thousands of pounds and ruined lives. Given that the safety status of many buildings across the country remains uncertain and the timelines for cladding removal keep getting extended, clarity on when and for how long waking watch should be used would bring much-needed consistency on how the measure should be applied.
I will speak very briefly about amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), who has persistently campaigned on fire safety for many years. I pay tribute to him and Jim Fitzpatrick, who is no longer in this House, for their campaigning work and for writing to Ministers time after time, including only weeks before the Grenfell fire, to implore them to act on fire safety. The issue of electrical safety, which amendment 1 raises, is hugely important, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing it to the House. The additional requirements on the fire and rescue service to provide a higher level of inspection and enforcement on the communal parts of buildings with two or more domestic premises, which this Bill introduces, should be accompanied by a rigorous approach to safety checks of electric appliances inside the premises. It is vital to ensure that the risk of faulty electrical appliances in multiply occupied residential buildings is minimised.
Last month, I wrote to the Minister seeking urgent action on the rising number of fires caused by faulty appliances in high-rise blocks. The number of electrical fires caused by faulty appliances has risen in England. Based on analysis of Government figures by Electrical Safety First, The Times has reported a rise in the number of electrical fires caused by faulty tumble dryers and fridges. The number of accidental electrical fires in tower blocks has risen in each of the past three years. If these measures cannot be included in the Bill, we will scrutinise any proposals that the Government bring forward to ensure the best possible standards of electrical safety. Will they set out a timetable to deliver that?
In conclusion, there are many issues around improving fire safety that we would have liked to see included in the Bill. However, due to its limited scope, many will have to be addressed through the draft Building Safety Bill and secondary legislation. The amendments we have tabled are straightforward; most of them are on issues that the Government have stated their intention to address but have not shown the political will to move faster on. For those living in unsafe buildings, the risk of fire will not wait for the Government to choose an appropriate date for the Bill’s commencement. After Grenfell, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), said that her Government will do “whatever it takes” to keep our people safe. Three years on, we urge the Government to honour the commitment to keep people safe, and to act as quickly as they can to do that.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I rise to speak to amendment 1, and I welcome, to a greater extent, the remarks of the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones). I thank her for her generous remarks about myself, of which I am not worthy; I have simply been the mouthpiece for others who have been doing the work behind the scenes.
My right hon. Friend the Minister and I have known one another for a very long time; in fact, when I was an MP for another place, he and his dear wife were there knocking on doors for me, yet now I have tabled an amendment which is not exactly what he wants. I have something to say to him, to which he must not take offence: I am a loyal Conservative through and through, but there comes a point when that loyalty begins to wane a bit. I say to my hon. Friends on the Government Benches that the Government are in choppy waters at the moment. I do not want to tip the boat over, but I am beginning to tire of the responses we have been getting from the Front Bench, and I will come to that in a moment.
I am delighted to see present my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who was once a fire Minister—I hope he is not here to pick holes in my argument; he had better not—and my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher), who has far more expertise in electrical matters than I could ever hope to have, and also of course the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who has campaigned on this issue for many years. That shows that there is broad all-party parliamentary support on this matter, and it is not party political.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Robert Neill
I assure my right hon. Friend that I very much sympathise with the points he was making, and I am certainly not here to pick holes. As a fellow West Ham supporter, I would never dream of picking holes in my right hon. Friend’s arguments, and I hope that the Minister, as another West Ham supporter—like Jim Fitzpatrick—would not either. Perhaps we can get some unanimity as to the objective, even if we need a bit of clarity on the way forward; does my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) agree that that is what we need from this debate?
Sir David Amess
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words, but the three of us have got one or two worries about West Ham at the moment because we lost 5-3 in the friendly; we hope to do a little better when the serious matches start.
Let me say at the outset that, as I said on Second Reading to my right hon. Friend the Minister, I very much support this Bill, and the hon. Member for Croydon Central said that as well. It is, understandably, short and is clear in its purpose of making provision about the application of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 where a building contains two or more sets of domestic premises, and it also confers power to amend the order in future for the purposes of changing the premises to which it applies. That being noted, I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that I believe that if the Government were minded to accept my amendments, that would improve the Bill even further. And what is wrong with that—that is something that we should embrace?
However, I do accept that when my right hon. Friend comes to reply, he will draw out of his folder a bit of paper telling him to resist the amendments, and to do so because they are “not in order”, or because “It’s the wrong Department” or “It’s the wrong time.” It is never the right time, however, and I say to my right hon. Friend that we owe it to the people who died in Grenfell, and their relatives and friends, to act as quickly as possible. And I say to those on the Treasury Bench that there is more than enough time to legislate; my goodness, we packed up on Thursday at 1.35 pm. I could have filled the Chamber’s time with endless issues. I say to my right hon. Friend that we should find time in the legislative programme for this.
While taking account of phase 1 findings from the Grenfell Tower public inquiry, the Bill requires owners and managers of multi-occupancy residential buildings in England and Wales to reduce the risk of fire by removing unsafe materials on the external walls of buildings and the individual flat entrance doors. As the hon. Member for Croydon Central has said, the responsible person or duty holder for a multi-occupied residential building must manage risk for the structure, external walls, cladding, balconies and windows, but this legislation should also consider the source of fires in the first place. Surely, for goodness’ sake, that is what this legislation should be all about. The purpose of my amendments is to be proactive, and to help prevent fires caused by electrical sources of ignition and ensure that consideration of the safety of electrical appliances is given in this Bill, as they are a key cause of fires in people’s homes.
These amendments further build on the Government’s new regulation for the private rented sector, The Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020, which will give electrical safety checks every five years to tenants in the private rented sector—I certainly welcome that. I commend the Government on introducing those regulations, which had cross-party support, but I believe this Bill can be amended further to include electrical checks for all people in buildings of multiple occupancy. I know that the Minister will tell us at the end why it cannot.
I wish to thank the wonderful charity Electrical Safety First, which has worked with me, as chairman of the all-party group on fire safety and rescue, on its long-standing campaigning to prevent fires caused by electricity in domestic homes. I agree with ESF’s assessment that this Bill should do something more to prevent fires from occurring in the first place, so my amendments seek a solution that will strengthen the protection that people living in high-rise residential buildings require. I accept that the Government are giving some consideration of electrical appliance safety through their Draft Building Safety Bill, but my amendments are designed to ensure that electrical appliances are registered with the responsible person for high-rise domestic dwellings and to introduce mandatory checks for all residents, whatever the tenure of their home. It is truly shocking that electricity causes more than 14,000 fires a year, which is almost half of all accidental house fires. In England, 53% of dwelling fires are caused by an electrical source of ignition, but what does this House do about it? It does nothing, and there is time now to do something. Let us, in this unusual Parliament, where we are trying to fight the invisible enemy, do some good—my amendment would do that.
There are about 4,000 tower blocks in the United Kingdom, and the English housing survey estimates that they contain more than 480,000 individual flats in England alone—that is a huge number. Unless every unit in a high-rise building is subject to the same safety regime, everyone in the building can be placed at risk from one single flat—my goodness, how we found that out not so very long ago. Therefore any measure to improve electrical safety in multi-occupied buildings can help to protect more than 1 million people. New analysis of Government data reveals that nearly a quarter of the accidental electrical fires that occurred in high-rise buildings in the past five years in England were the result of faulty appliances, leads and fuel supplies, which can include electrical wiring in a property. My amendments would see a responsible person record the presence of white goods, in order to minimise the risks that faulty goods can pose in densely populated buildings—I know that that is a challenge, and I say to my right hon. Friend that I accept the practicalities about it. Keeping a record of the appliances in use would mean that faulty recalled appliances could be removed or repaired—if only that had happened with the Whirlpool appliances. Mandatory five-yearly electrical safety checks in tower blocks, regardless of tenure, are also included in the amendment. Current regulations mean that privately rented flats are required to have electrical safety checks, but other tenures are not, which has created what I would describe as a tenure lottery of buildings, which often include owner-occupier, privately rented and social housing property.
The tasks to check tenants’ electrical safety would be undertaken by competent, registered electricians, and I know my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) will have something to say about that. I am aware of the concerns of the Fire Brigades Union, who have written to me. I fully accept that their members have more than enough to do without bearing the responsibility for this work, and there is absolutely no intention in the amendments that fire officers would actually undertake it. Let me provide that assurance, and I would be very happy to talk to the Fire Brigades Union about the situation.
More worryingly, analysis shows that over the past three years, accidental electrical fires in high-rise buildings have risen consistently year on year, and it is absolutely ridiculous that that is happening. High-profile tower block fires have been previously linked to electrical sources, including Lakanal House, where an electrical fault with a television claimed the lives of six people, and Shepherd’s Court of course where, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith has told us in detail on other occasions, a faulty tumble dryer led to extensive damage to an 18-storey building. While other factors accelerated that fire, it must be highlighted that the primary cause of the Grenfell Tower fire was an electrical source of ignition, as subsequently confirmed by the Grenfell inquiry—that source is in phase one documentation.
It is important to note that fires are not all caused by appliances themselves, but by misuse of them. That is why, despite my amendments, education is obviously very important. Every year, there is a week of educational awareness raising with the public on the proper use of electricity and appliances through the “Fire Kills” campaign. Recent tragic events have demonstrated the fatal risks that electrical accidents and incidents pose to people in their own homes, particularly in high-density housing such as tower blocks. Electrical Safety First has worked to ensure that tenants living in the private rented sector are protected by mandatory five-yearly electrical safety checks in their properties, which was recently brought into law. Such measures are crucial in bringing down the number of electrical accidents and incidents, and I believe that now is the time to include individual dwellings in tower blocks in that regime, regardless of their tenure.
I appreciate that this is a short Bill that will amend the Fire Safety Order 2005, which focuses on non-domestic measures, but it will also amend the order in domestic homes. That means that homes in high-rise blocks will be affected by the proposed legislation, and this offers an excellent and straightforward opportunity to ensure that all who live in such buildings are brought under the same safety regime. Given this, I believe that the newly created role of the responsible person for each high building should include the task of compiling a register of every white good in the building. That ensures that when a recall occurs, anyone with an affected appliance can be quickly alerted and the safety risks resolved. Relying on consumers to register and respond to recalls in these buildings when the potential risk is so high must be considered wholly inadequate and unrealistic.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), who have set out amendments to the Bill that are reasonable, proportionate and non-partisan, and I cannot see any reason why the Government should not support them. I do not intend to repeat the arguments they have made cogently; I will just add a few comments of my own.
As the hon. Member for Southend West said, he has chaired or been part of the all-party group on fire safety and rescue for more than 20 years. I cannot claim to have been a member for that length of time, but I have learnt a huge amount in the time that I have been. It is one of the most effective groups within Parliament. The all-party parliamentary group on online and home electrical safety, which my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) chairs, has equally made a huge contribution on this issue, with the support of professional bodies. I urge the Minister to listen to the advice coming from those sources.
I do not know anybody who does not support this Bill. It is a very short Bill, and it aims to do two things. First, it clarifies what is meant by “common parts”, particularly in relation to external cladding and the responsibilities therein. Secondly, it is permissive, in terms of the introduction of secondary legislation to modify and add different classes of building in the future.
Had we been debating this two or three years ago, I think everyone would have said, “This is very sensible. Well done to the Government for getting on with it,” but we are not. We are three years post Grenfell. It seems like a piece of emergency legislation, when we should be on to discussing the nitty-gritty and more comprehensive measures. These amendments achieve that in various ways. I will not go through each one, but I would like to mention new clause 1.
We now have the results of part one of the Grenfell inquiry, and new clause 1 effectively asks the Government to take some of those recommendations on board. They include: that information on materials and construction is available to fire and rescue services; that plans of high-rise residential buildings are available; that inspection and testing of lifts is done properly; that evacuation procedures and information to residents are carried out properly; and that there is proper inspection of fire doors. A lot of us would have probably thought, pre Grenfell, that those things already happened, but they do not, and they did not. It is about time that they did. It is about time that the Government legislated and implemented these measures, rather than put out general, catch-all clauses.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is making a very good point about new clause 1 and the responsibilities. Would he accept that there is a significant responsibility on the original developers, architects and those involved in construction—I mentioned Laing O’Rourke, Taylor Wimpey, Redrow and others—to make sure that they are providing and have available the original construction diagrams of buildings? We have had a huge problem in Cardiff South and Penarth of not being able to get hold of those and then very expensive testing having to be done. Of course, the cost is then passed on to leaseholders, on top of the bills they may face for rectifying these problems in the first place.
Andy Slaughter
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is my experience from dealing with blocks in my constituency, and I am sure it is many other Members’ experience, that nobody wants ownership of this, nobody wants to pick up the tab and nobody wants to take responsibility—whether it is those who designed the building, those who built the buildings, those who manage the buildings or those who modified the buildings in ways that were not conceived. Somebody has to do that, and if they will not do that, it is Government’s responsibility to ensure that they do, and I do not think this Bill goes far enough in doing that.
New clauses 2 to 5—I am not going to go through those in detail—are, as I say, sensible and proportionate measures, which are designed to ensure that this legislation the Government are properly bringing forward works more effectively. I wait with bated breath to hear what arguments the Minister can put forward for not adopting those.
Let me come on to the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Southend West, because I think that that is an important amendment. I am glad that it was found to be in scope and is being taken because he is absolutely right to say that, whereas a great deal of the focus has properly gone on construction and modification, particularly in relation to external cladding, insulation and so forth, it is also important that we look at the source of fires. It is rather a truism to say that, if we can control that source, we are going to get a lot fewer fires, whether or not they spread.
There are many issues that are being pursued here. Tomorrow, there is a ten-minute rule Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) on the registration of electrical appliances, so that where there is a need for recall, those matters can be in hand. What we are doing today is not comprehensive, but the two measures that have been proposed in the hon. Gentleman’s amendment and new schedule are entirely sensible. Yes, they are quite onerous because what we are looking for is both a register of white goods and that there are regular checks. Those have been found appropriate for the private rented sector, and I wonder why they are not appropriate for high-rise buildings where we know, as a consequence of fires such as Lakanal, Grenfell and Shepherd’s Court, that people are particularly at risk.
Let me say a brief word about that because it is in my constituency. It is just over four years since the very serious fire at Shepherd’s Court. A tumble dryer, which not just should have been recalled and had not been recalled, but was going to be repaired and was awaiting repair, was being used according to the manufacturer’s instructions—wrong instructions—and therefore did catch fire, destroyed somebody’s home, spread to several other flats and caused the evacuation of an 18-storey block. Had it not occurred in the middle of the afternoon on a summer’s day, the consequences of that would have been dire. As it happened, there were no serious injuries, but the trauma of being involved in a fire of that nature, I do not think can be imagined. If I were the Minister, this would give me sleepless nights every night until these matters are resolved.
What I fear is that the Government are continuing to take what I can politely describe as an incremental approach here. Yes, these are complicated matters and more issues come to light—every time an investigation takes place, we find more problems with more types of building—but that is the world we live in, and it does not excuse the Government from responsibility. We are looking at height, but we are also looking at the type of buildings, the type of users of buildings and the type of cladding that is used on buildings. They could be hospitals, hotels, care homes or schools; they could be low-rise as well as high-rise buildings. They all have risks attached to them.
It sometimes feels like getting blood out of a stone to get the Government to widen their ambit and look beyond the very narrow classifications they have already dealt with in terms of ACM cladding, possibly high-pressure laminate cladding and possibly buildings down to 11 metres. The Government are very good at giving advice to others, and we all know the problems that that has caused with the sale and remortgage of properties and the necessity for inspections when the professional staff are not there to deal with these matters. The Government should be better at directing those responsible and, where necessary, providing the means for those responsible to remedy the serious risks that are apparent.
That is the problem with the Bill, which the amendments go some way towards clarifying. Whether we are looking at the source, the construction or the modification, the consequences can be the most serious. They can be matters of life, of the destruction of people’s homes, or of people living daily in fear of the risks that apply to their homes. I cannot think of anything less reasonable than that, frankly, so more than three years on from Grenfell, will the Minister look seriously at what is proposed and either adopt the amendments or, at the very least, say that the Government will bring forward their own legislation soon?
It rather feels that we have been overtaken by events because we now have the draft Building Safety Bill. That is a much more detailed piece of work, but I already have some criticisms of it—I will not bore the House with those tonight—and I look forward to more discussions on that as we go forward. I know that the Minister takes these matters seriously, but I do not feel that the Government are addressing them with the rigour or the detail that they need to be. Let us make a start on that today by adopting the amendments that have been put forward.
Sir Robert Neill
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter); he and I have been around debates on this issue for a number of years now. That is true also of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess).
I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security on the Treasury Bench. He is an old friend and a good man, and I know that he wants to do the right thing. I remember being the Minister responsible for the fire services, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West kindly observed. Whether to deal with these issues by primary legislation, by secondary legislation or by way of regulation is always problematic, particularly when it is often necessary to update the actions required in the light of changing scientific and technical knowledge, and emerging knowledge about the right types of processes and procedures that should be followed to ensure safety.
However, given that everybody wants to achieve the same objective here, I hope that my right hon. Friend will listen carefully to the points that are made, because all the amendments have merit behind them. Whether it is possible to achieve their objectives through the Bill is something that I am prepared to listen to the Minister’s arguments about, but, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith just said, if it cannot be done through this Bill, may we please at the very least have a commitment about how it will be achieved?
Having said that by way of preliminary, let me deal with some of the specific points. The whole question of responsible owner is an important one that we need to tackle somehow. My right hon. Friend will have known that I would mention Northpoint in my constituency. He will have known because I banged his door down more than once about it when he was Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. He will know that despite his endeavours then, and despite the endeavours of the current Secretary of State, who made a speech back in January about the need to move on this—despite the establishment of a fund and the enhancement of the amount available in the fund—the process none the less remains so complicated that, as yet, residents in Northpoint have not been able to progress their claim. Of course, the scope of the scheme at the moment does not enable them thus far to pick up the interim costs, including that of waking watches and so on, which I will come to in a moment. All manner of obstacles come along—for example, insurance for any potential disruption to the railway, because the block is right next to a railway line. That was eventually overcome because an uninsurable amount of indemnity insurance was initially being requested. Happily, the Minister’s colleague, the noble Lord Greenhalgh, the Minister responsible in the other place, assisted in that, but it indicates that although we have lots of initiatives, a number of the strands are not being joined together, a point to which I will briefly return in a moment.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Of course, those of us on the Opposition side welcome the Bill and support the clarification to fire safety law that it brings. In the wake of the terrible Grenfell Tower tragedy, which will stay etched in our minds despite the passing of time, it is so important that building owners take responsibility for managing and reducing the risk of fire. A key element of that is to seek to clarify which parts of the burden are covered by those requirements and what the responsibilities are. So why does the Bill feel like such a missed opportunity? It is partly about the amount of time it has taken for us to get this point, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) outlined.
Back in October 2019, the Government pledged to implement the Grenfell inquiry’s recommendations in full and without delay, yet here we are with the thinnest of bills amounting to three clauses, ducking the main issues and failing to include even the simplest of recommendations such as inspections of fire doors and the testing of lifts. But it is also a bigger missed opportunity, precisely because the Government have failed to learn the lessons. Of those there are many, but I want to briefly focus on one.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Earlier this year, during the Second Reading debate on this Bill, I and many others expressed concern that it was clear that it will not solve the problems that my constituents are facing. Having spoken to residents and leaseholders in my constituency and beyond who are suffering from anxiety and stress, I outlined how leaseholders in blocks with ACM and other types of cladding are experiencing problems in selling or remortgaging their homes. I raised the alarm that up to 60,000 worried residents are still living in buildings wrapped in lethal Grenfell-style cladding over three years after the fire. This is despite the Government setting a deadline of the end of 2019 for all social sector blocks to be made safe and a deadline of June 2020 for all private sector blocks to be made safe, both of which have now been missed. Instead, over 80% of private sector buildings and nearly half of social sector buildings affected have still not had this dangerous cladding removed and replaced. In fact, in June it was reported that the Government are now not expected to remove the same cladding that was on Grenfell from high-rise homes until a full two years after their own deadline and five years since the tragedy itself. How can this still be the case and how can this be right?
Yet the Bill before Parliament today is only a modest improvement, at best, to the fire safety regime. It does not do enough to break the tortuous pattern of buck-passing leaving residents trapped in between authorities and the building owners. It does not do enough to address the fact that many residents are suffering from anxiety and stress. It does not do enough to resolve the fact that leaseholders in blocks are experiencing problems in selling or remortgaging their homes. Most fundamentally, it is inadequate in protecting people who are being forced to continue to live in an unsafe building.
The Government promised in October to implement the full recommendations of the Grenfell Tower inquiry, yet nearly a year later the Bill does not contain a single measure recommended by the inquiry. For many, Grenfell showed how little black lives matter to the British establishment because of the unavoidable and clear fact that so many of the affected residents were of BAME and working-class backgrounds. Why is it that 72 people are killed in their homes and no one is deemed to be responsible? When will we ever get answers? When will the victims ever get justice?
We need to be sure that a Grenfell Tower fire never ever happens again. The truth is that decisions stretching back years have led to the gutting of the UK’s fire safety regime and the failure to regulate high-rise residential buildings properly for fire safety. Policies relating to fire and rescue services have too long been driven by an agenda of cuts, deregulation and privatisation fostered by the direct lobbying of private interests.
The Fire Brigades Union has raised concerns about the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 since it was first imposed, pointing out that many responsible persons who own and manage residential premises have not been assessed for the fire risks in their buildings and have not introduced sufficient measures to keep people safe in their homes. The Fire Safety Bill will require substantial investment to ensure adequate staffing levels and appropriate levels of training. Yet, according to the Fire Brigades Union, the Home Office’s impact assessment written for the Bill underestimates the amount and complexity of the work involved, and therefore underestimates the amount of funding necessary to ensure that the legislation is effective. In the meantime, firefighters have been taking on new areas of work to keep our communities safe. More than four fifths of fire and rescue services have delivered packages of food, medicines and other essentials to vulnerable persons, which is the most frequent activity carried out by firefighters.
We need more decisive action from the Government. Too many of my constituents are living in dangerous homes and facing huge financial and legal liabilities for remediation of building safety defects that are not of their making. Our firefighters, our constituents and our communities have the right to expect so much more.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I am pleased that the remaining stages of the Fire Safety Bill are being debated in the House today. Some hon. Members will know that, as an electrical engineer, fire safety is an issue that is of great interest to me. Having spoken on Second Reading, I was reassured that fellow Members felt as strongly as I do about this issue, and that has been demonstrated yet again in today’s debate.
Having managed my own electrical company for many years before being elected to this place, I know how vital it is for residents to know that their accommodation is safe and secure. It is for that reason that I spoke on Second Reading and have closely followed developments on this Bill since then.
That said, hon. Members noted possible issues regarding the responsibilities of leaseholders and freeholders under this legislation, which leads me on to why I shall be speaking in favour of the amendment tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) today. The amendment is of significant importance to building safety. We have all heard of portable appliance testing and we have all seen the green labels on our appliances, yet, although the appliance may be of good order, it is vital that the socket into which we plug these items is also of good order. Furthermore, all the wiring that provides our lighting and heating should also be inspected and tested. That is already law in rented properties, but it is only advised for privately owned premises. The fact that the tenure of an individual flat within the same block decides whether or not it is tested for safety is far from ideal, and it fails sufficiently to guarantee the safety of all residents.
As we have seen, fire spreads very quickly, and although buildings are constructed to stop this spread, this is not always successful. The reasons for that are numerous and can be down to deterioration of the fabric, poor management of fire prevention, or even poor building maintenance work when work is carried out on the fabric of the building by unskilled or unsupervised personnel. Fixed-wire testing of all wiring within the building is therefore of paramount importance.
Secondly, it is my belief that an appliance register is a must as we have all seen the effects that a faulty appliance can cause. A register by a responsible management company is not an onerous task and would substantially help towards reducing fires owing to a faulty appliance that has been part of a recall, but not actually recalled. I would hate to think, after all the time spent on the Bill, that it falls short and that another incident such as Grenfell then happens due to a faulty appliance or an electrical system that has failed because of a lack of maintenance. It is therefore crucial that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government looks into this, as reducing the source of fires is far better than preventing their spread. This amendment does exactly that, and if it cannot be addressed today, the Minister may want to further investigate the merits of what is being proposed in the upcoming fire safety consultation and the draft Building Safety Bill.
It is vital that the Government do not allow anomalies in this area if they are to truly demonstrate their commitment to ensuring that everyone has a safe place to live. I believe that the amendment would strengthen the Bill. That said, while it may not go through the House today, it will be a great shame if right hon. and hon. Members do not press for what it is asking for in future.
This Bill is very welcome and it has my support. Three years on from Grenfell, it is high time that the wrongs of the past are put right. I also add that if the Minister would like my help with the Fire Safety Bill, please do ask.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats support and welcome the Fire Safety Bill, but it is a first and only very small step in the right direction. As many hon. Members have said, we are three years on from the tragedy of Grenfell and this Bill is woefully inadequate. We support it and all the amendments that have been tabled. I would like to speak to new clauses 2 and 4 and ask the Minister for various assurances.
On new clause 2, on the accreditation of fire risk assessors, it is crucial that those conducting a fire risk assessment are accredited. Those of us on the Bill Committee heard shocking evidence of unqualified fire risk assessors declaring unsafe properties safe, and the Fire Brigades Union told us of one case that resulted in the death of one of their own. In Committee, the Minister for Crime and Policing shared our alarm at the existence of unqualified fire risk assessors and he posed the question of how many decades this situation had been allowed to persist unnoticed by anybody in the House or by any Government. Surely now is the time to ensure that this practice is brought to an end.
There must be a nationally recognised qualification and certification for those charged with assessing the safety of people’s homes. There also needs to be a freely accessible register of those holding such a qualification, held and maintained centrally by a public body, such as a Government-appointed regulator. However, I would go even further: the Hackitt review suggested that with something as vital as fire safety, the fire risk assessments should also be freely available in a publicly available register. That is vital for existing and prospective residents and for inspection and enforcement, so will the Minister provide a firm commitment, on the parliamentary record this evening, that a fire risk assessments register will be provided for in future legislation?
I turn to new clause 4, on the definition of a responsible person. It is right that we are absolutely clear on the Bill’s definition of a responsible person and I welcome the clause, because it ensures that a leaseholder without a direct interest in the freehold cannot be considered to be the responsible person. However, outside the scope of the Bill is a massive question about who should pay for the remedial work, and the Government have so far failed to tackle that head-on. Some leaseholders have paid building insurance premiums for years and they may still have valid new-build warranties, but the financial burden of new Government regulations or failures by developers is being shifted to tenants and leaseholders through increasing service charges and demands for one-off contributions.
In my constituency of St Albans, one residents association has been advised that individual leaseholders will face extra charges of around £20,000 per home. This is unacceptable. Some service charges for those residents have already increased sixfold since the Grenfell disaster in 2017 in preparation for the necessary works. I hope the Government agree that while so many individual circumstances are incredibly financially challenging right now, to be hit by a further £20,000 bill is completely unacceptable. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee recommended in March that, given the urgency of these remediation works, it is necessary for the Government to provide the funding upfront. Will the Minister this evening commit to at least taking this up with the Chancellor and asking that the funding be provided for in the autumn statement to make sure all homes are safe?
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
I welcome the Bill, and the measures it seeks to put in place to make buildings safer and prevent tragedies such as the one we witnessed with Grenfell Tower. I note, too, that other measures announced by the Government will further complement the Bill.
I have worked in construction over several years, during which time I was involved in the construction of fuel retail stations. I have also worked on oil rigs. I should also note that I am a landlord and thus declare an interest. Ensuring that homes and other buildings are safe is of the utmost importance. My experience has given me some insight into fire safety and how sometimes I see a disconnect between policymakers and those who deliver a service on the ground. The practicalities of day-to-day delivery can sometimes show a well-meaning policy to be out of touch with what actually happens on site. Let me give an example of what I mean.
I have known site managers ask for fire doors to be installed before a building had been made waterproof—dozens of doors. As to be expected with our British climate, it rained, and those fire doors and frames swelled. When they would not open and close properly, carpenters were asked, under time pressure, to plane doors down so that they would pass inspection. Of course, eventually these doors dried out and shrank. That meant they were again the wrong size, but this time with gaps so large that they were no longer fit to be fire doors. However, by that point, the doors had been signed off by inspectors, despite the fact that modifications had now made them no longer fit for purpose.
My plea is to ensure that when the Bill is finally delivered, people who are ultimately accountable for fire safety are not only competent by the certifications they may have, but that they are present on site and understand construction, not just fire safety alone. Furthermore, I make a plea for an ever-evolving and updating follow-up process that identifies any and all changes that new tenants can often make, often innocently for aesthetic purposes, which alter the fire rating of the system, such as the changing of door furniture and other material modifications. We need a dynamic model of fire safety that ensures it is delivered over time during construction and for the entire lifetime of a building. This Bill is a very positive step in the right direction, but it is a step because fire safety and any safety is always evolving.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate.
Over three years after the Grenfell Tower fire, any improvements to fire safety legislation are of course welcome; however, the Bill in its current form is only a modest improvement on the current fire safety regime. I do not have the experiences of so many hon. Members speaking in this debate today, but as the daughter of an ex-firefighter I certainly understand the importance of these issues, and I share the concerns highlighted by the Fire Brigades Union that the views and concerns of the people who live and work in high-risk buildings should be at the heart of the new system of fire safety across the UK.
That means that the voices of tenants must be heard in this process. Residents have raised concerns about the removal of flammable cladding and the role of waking watches. It is disturbing that three years on from Grenfell, there are still issues around the removal of flammable ACM cladding from both social and private-sector tower blocks. Coronavirus has caused many contractors to stop work on cladding sites, while others have not even begun due to complex legal disputes. These delays mean that residents of buildings continue to face extortionate fees for interim safety measures, most commonly waking watch. The National Fire Chiefs Council’s advice on waking watch has become outdated. Its guidance suggests that waking watch should be a temporary measure, yet some residents have been forced to pay for waking watches for a number of years. This is not a sustainable solution. New clause 5 would require both this Government and the Welsh Government to specify when a waking watch must be in place for buildings with fire safety failures.
The voice of firefighters also needs to be heard with regard to the Bill. The FBU believes that this legislation requires investment in professional firefighters and an expansion in the number of fire inspectors. Therefore, I have great concern that the Bill gives little consideration to the additional costs to the fire and rescue services in implementing these additional inspections. That comes on top of Government cuts to central funding to fire and rescue services by 28% in real terms between 2010 and 2016, followed by a further cut of 15% by 2020. These cuts have led to 11,000 fewer fire service personnel—that is 20% of the service. On Boris Johnson’s watch as Mayor of London, in eight years the London Fire Brigade was required to make—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady must refer to the Prime Minister as “the Prime Minister” here in the Chamber, please.
Kate Osborne
On the Prime Minister’s watch as Mayor of London, in eight years the London Fire Brigade was required to make gross savings of over £100 million, leading to the cutting of 27 fire appliances, 552 firefighters, 324 support staff, two fire rescue units and three training appliances, the closure of 10 fire stations and a reduction in fire rescue unit crewing levels. Ministers must commit to funding fire and rescue services sufficiently to ensure that fire authorities are able to inspect and enforce these new measures.
In conclusion, last October the Government promised to implement the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower review in full and without delay. Nearly a year later, this Bill does not contain a single measure recommended by the inquiry. Therefore, I will be supporting new clause 1 as it places robust requirements on building owners or managers to implement the recommendations from phase one of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. I will also be supporting new clauses 2 to 5. I urge the Government to make true on their promises: back the amendments and put everyone’s safety first.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I would like to add my voice to those of many colleagues across the Chamber who have expressed the frustration of many of our residents that, following the terrible incident at Grenfell, we have not yet brought to a conclusion many of the issues that the incident highlighted. We have followed the progress of the inquiry, with many views expressed by stakeholders—those personally affected because they had relatives in the building, and different parts of the industry and professional bodies. At the heart of much of the frustration is the question of liability. Who, ultimately, will meet the costs faced by our residents—whether they are landlords or occupiers of the property, freeholders or leaseholders—for the cost of remediation, which we know is substantial?
That issue plays out in many different parts of our lives. In my former role, I was responsible for the construction of a significant number of new schools. Inspections of those new buildings subsequently identified that some of the fire safety work, signed off and done in recent times, did not meet the standards that we would expect. We need to ensure that the question of liability is brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible. Those on the Front Bench know that there are many different ways in which that might be achieved, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will have something to say about that.
I turn to two specific points on which it would be helpful to hear a little more from my right hon. Friend. The first is the role of the responsible person. Across Government, where we are concerned about the degree of accountability for a life-and-limb, critical activity or service, it has been common practice to identify an individual post holder who is accountable for ensuring that work is done to the relevant standard. In children’s social care, we have the director of children’s services. In public health, we have the director of public health. In businesses, we have chief accountable officers.
We also know from long experience, with all sorts of things having gone wrong across different parts of those services, that having someone identified as accountable will only bring about the improvement that the House wishes to see if we can be confident that that person has the necessary qualities to do the work required and the ability to carry out the duties we are imposing on them. A number of Members have expressed views about whether there will be sufficient people with the knowledge of fire safety to undertake this role. It is crucial to ensure that whoever is responsible in individual buildings, on estates, on local authority estates or on school estates, we can rely on them to carry out that duty effectively. It will be critical to ensure that training, qualifications and all the rest of it sit behind that.
Secondly, ensuring that that person has the ability to do what sometimes may be intrusive and expensive work that may not always attract the consent of the householder will be a major issue. Earlier on in my political career, I spent a bit of time as chairman of a housing management and maintenance sub-committee at a local authority responsible, as a landlord, for over 12,000 properties. I am conscious that the local authority sometimes had to take several dozen tenants to court every year to get access to properties to do—at no cost to the tenant—essential safety checks and safety-critical work. We should not assume in this House that, by saying that we are going to designate a responsible person, we can be confident that they will be able to do what they need to do. I look forward to my right hon Friend fleshing out the further measures that we might need to take to ensure that responsible people are able to undertake the work to the relevant standard, to provide the assurance that we all want on behalf of our residents.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the next hon. Member, might I remind everyone in the Chamber, but especially new Members who have possibly not quite got into their stride on the matter as we have not had normal times—I took the matter up with the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne)—that it is obligatory to refer to hon. Members not by name, but by their constituency? I call Matt Rodda—I can call Members by their names.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate tonight.
Thank you for reminding me of that very important point as well. I would like to speak in support of new clauses 1 and 2 and the other new clauses tabled by the Opposition on the duties of building owners and accreditation of fire risk assessors. However, before I address those important points, I would first like to reflect on the scale of the challenge facing our country following the Grenfell disaster and, indeed, the issues in my own constituency of Reading East. I would like to briefly pay tribute to the Grenfell families, and I am sure we can all agree that our thoughts are with them continually after what happened in the disaster. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) earlier, I wish to show my support for our firefighters, both for their bravery and their professionalism.
Three years after Grenfell, the issue of dangerous cladding is still a daily reality for thousands of residents, including many in my constituency, and for many more, there are a whole series of other issues, such as fire safety concerns about their own properties or concerns on behalf of friends or relatives living in accommodation that is subject to those risks. One resident put it to me so poignantly when she contacted me, when she said:
“Imagine coming home every night to a flat which you fear is unsafe to live in, and yet you are unable to sell the flat or to move out of it.”
That is the reality that thousands of people in our country continue to face. That story is repeated time and again in towns the size of Reading or much smaller, and in great cities around the country. Indeed, it extends way beyond the issue of ACM cladding, although that in itself is a huge issue for the country.
To give an example, in Reading and Woodley there are several blocks containing Grenfell-style cladding, and others with other forms of composite materials on them, as well as wooden cladding, all of which have been found to be highly dangerous and flammable. Indeed, since Grenfell there have been fires in Bolton and in Barking with the materials that I have mentioned, similar to those found in my constituency.
In addition to tall buildings and the issues that we have talked about tonight, there are also fire safety concerns about lower-rise buildings. In my constituency, there are huge numbers—possibly into the thousands—of lower-rise flats below the 9-metre limit, many of which have what I believe may be serious fire safety issues. That affects tens of thousands of people around the country.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes an important point when he talks about the impact that this is having on many families. He may have instances in his constituency, as I do in mine, where couples have divorced but are unable to separate properly because they cannot sell their flat. The mental strain, illness and stress that that imposes on many residents is absolutely phenomenal.
Matt Rodda
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, because it points out just how dire this problem is, on so many fronts. The point I was about to make relates not just to the taller buildings or even the 9-metre ones, but to houses in multiple occupation. There has been a huge growth in the number of houses that have been divided up into bedsits or small flats in my constituency, as there probably has in his north London seat. I have concerns about those, as do other Members, although they are not addressed by this Bill, and I urge the Government to consider that matter as well.
This Bill is long overdue. I hope it will help, but I fear that it does not go far enough, and I urge Ministers to look again at the issue in much more detail and tighten their grip on it. A much more substantial response is needed, both in legislation and in the level of resources available to fire services, as has been mentioned, and to local authorities. Strengthening this response, both in legislation and resources, will be particularly helpful in respect of buildings that have multiple owners, such as blocks with leaseholders, tenants and freeholders, where the fire services, local authorities or contractors face a deeply confusing jigsaw puzzle of ownership. In many cases, it is hard to track people down. In some cases, the owners may be corporations based overseas or there may be other forms of ownership that are difficult to piece together. A more robust approach combining legislation and the funds to support local authorities and fire services would help residents in lower-rise accommodation. Berkshire’s fire service has urged me and MPs from across our county to speak up about the issues found in many towns mainly in lower-rise accommodation, not in the high-rise blocks discussed in the Bill, because of the huge number of those sorts of flats in towns such as Reading, Bracknell and Slough.
I am conscious of time, so I shall turn to new clauses 1 and 2. New clause 1 is particularly important, because, as many people involved in this issue recognise, we face real problems in improving safety in some private blocks. The new clause would speed up what can be a very lengthy process by requiring a manager or a lead figure to share information with the fire service about both fire safety and evacuation plans, which are important matters.
New clause 2 also raises a significant but simple point: fire inspectors should be accredited. I hope the new clause would address a long-standing loophole that I understand was first introduced unwittingly in legislation in the 1980s. It takes years for a fire safety inspector to complete their training, so it seems obvious that they would need accreditation. As has been mentioned by Members from across the House this evening, a common feature of any regulatory system is having people who have a known role of this type accredited.
I hope that tonight’s debate has allowed a further discussion of these issues and allowed us address these points in some detail. I urge the Minister to look at the matters in hand, and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak tonight.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you for calling me to speak on this matter, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a little more frightening than a raging fire, as it is then that we truly understand the little we are able to do in our human state. We are so thankful for those in the fire service, who use their expertise and training, yet, ultimately, lay their lives on the line every time they answer the call. Others have said it, but I want to put on record my thanks to them for all they do and have done.
The Grenfell tragedy had repercussions for all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so although it happened on the mainland, and although this legislation is for England and Wales, I wanted to make a brief contribution to ask that the lessons learned are shared with Northern Ireland. When the Grenfell tragedy took place, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the bodies with responsibility for this area right away checked all their high-rise flats to see whether the danger that there was on the mainland was or was not apparent in Northern Ireland. Some steps were taken right away. I know it is a devolved matter, but I wish to mention something at the end that the Minister might take on board, and it relates to what we have learned in Northern Ireland.
This Bill is a devolved matter for Northern Ireland, so my comments will be brief. It is clear that the improvements in this Bill to create greater fire safety must be considered UK-wide. My colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly have taken seriously the lessons that we have learned from the absolute tragedy at Grenfell. I take this opportunity once again to remind all the families involved that our thoughts remain with them as they try to rebuild their lives. I do not think there is anybody anywhere in the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or further afield who was not touched by what happened, as we watched the tragedy unfold.
I echo other hon. Members’ comments about the danger of electric goods, and in particular about the need to have them checked so that they meet the standards that we have in the United Kingdom, which are some of the highest in the world. The hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), who represents that great city of Southend, has been an excellent, outstanding spokesperson on this matter, along with our former colleague and friend, Jim Fitzpatrick. I remember him fondly; he, I and the hon. Member for Southend West shared many debates in that other great place, Westminster Hall, on electrical safety and other things. We had some very good and enjoyable times. One thing that was outlined was the opportunity for people to buy online goods that may not meet the standards. I am sure the Minister will say how the Government are addressing those issues for online purchases, which I believe need to be checked.
I welcome the remediation programme, supported by £1.6 billion of Government funding, to remove unsafe cladding from high-rise residential buildings, and the commitment of £20 million of funding to enable fire and rescue services to review or inspect all high-rise multi-occupied residential buildings by the end of 2021, but it is clear that more needs to be done. Right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House have said that, and hopefully the Minister will be able to say what other steps the Government are looking at to try to make improvements.
I do not want to be alarmist, but the Northern Ireland Assembly’s inquiries into safety standards raised not just the issue of cladding—the Northern Ireland Housing Executive carried out those risk assessments, because cladding is its responsibility—but concerns about reports that 63% of Northern Ireland Housing Executive wall cavity insulation may be defective. There was some concern that the cavity wall insulation could in some way lead to worse fires and could be a conduit, allowing fires to go through buildings. I do not expect an answer from the Minister today if he has not got one, but I know that he always follows up, and we thank him for that, so perhaps that could be looked at. We are awaiting more information, but that raises a pertinent issue. I believe that it must be absolutely clear in any legislation that it is the building owner’s responsibility to make safe not simply the outside of the walls but the inner cavities. I would appreciate it if the Minister could clarify how that is legislated for in this Bill.
Has the Minister had any discussions with other regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland about a UK-wide approach to this issue? I often say in this House that lessons learned in England and Wales can and must be shared with the devolved Administrations—the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. This debate is not about that, but none the less it is important that we share things. We can learn from each other in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If things are learned in Northern Ireland, they should be shared with the rest of the United Kingdom. If they are learned in England and Wales, they should be shared with us in Northern Ireland, and with Scotland. An improvement can be made UK-wide so that all the people of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can benefit.
The Minister for Security (James Brokenshire)
It is a privilege to respond to this debate. It is the first time I have had the chance to speak physically in this Chamber since March, so it is a great pleasure to be here tonight to respond to what has been a passionate, well-informed and very serious debate on issues that touch on concerns that we share across this Chamber. Like others, I very much underline our recognition of the context of the Bill: the Grenfell Tower fire and the need to ensure that people feel safe and are safe in their homes. I pay tribute to the community of Grenfell—Grenfell United and more broadly—on their determination to seek justice and change, and I recognise the responsibilities we hold to them in following through on that.
Andy Slaughter
In Grenfell Tower, there will have been secure tenants,
leaseholders and private tenants. Why should regulations apply to some of those groups and not others just on the basis of tenure?
James Brokenshire
I was coming on to precisely that point. In her review, Dame Judith Hackitt recognised that residents themselves have a role to play and recommended clearer rights and obligations for residents to maintain the fire safety of individual dwellings, working in partnership with the duty holder. There are provisions on this within the draft Building Safety Bill, published in July, setting out a clear duty.
A number of different measures are in place, but I take the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West made very seriously. The Government are committed to ensuring that the electrical products that people buy are safe. I recognise the concerns, and we will look across Government at whether there are any gaps in the current regime and proposals to strengthen accountability in this area. I give that assurance to my hon. Friend to work with him. I would like to pay tribute, as he did, to Electrical Safety First for its important work in this arena. I hope to work with my hon. Friend and colleagues across the House to identify gaps, and if there are still gaps, we, like so many Members, want to see those filled effectively. With that assurance, I hope my hon. Friend will be willing to withdraw his amendment.
I turn to the new clauses, which were tabled in Committee, as the hon. Member for Croydon Central highlighted. On new clause 2, I agree that there is a clear need for reform in relation to fire risk assessors, to improve capacity and competency standards. That includes the role for the industry-led competency steering group under the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s building safety programme and its sub working group on fire risk assessors. That group is looking at ways to increase competence and capacity in the sector. The competency steering group will publish a final report shortly, including proposals in relation to creating a register of fire risk assessors, third party accreditation and a competence framework for fire risk assessors. The Government will give detailed consideration to the report’s recommendations.
The Government are also working with the National Fire Chiefs Council, the fire risk assessor sector and the wider fire sector to take forward plans for addressing both the short-term and long-term capability and capacity issues within the sector. The fire safety consultation will also bring forward proposals on issues relating to competence. Members are understandably keen for this work to be brought forward, but it is vital that we get this right and that the Government listen to the advice in order to frame this effectively and appropriately. Once the fire safety consultation responses have been considered—as I said, it closes on 12 October—the Government will be able to determine the most appropriate route to implement changes.
New clause 3 seeks to impose a new duty on inspectors to prioritise their inspections of multi-occupied residential buildings by risk. I would like to underline some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime and Policing in Committee. As he said, the Government’s position is that adequate and established arrangements are in place to ensure that enforcement authorities target their resources appropriately and are accountable for their decisions without the need to make it a statutory requirement. The fire and rescue national framework for England requires fire and rescue authorities to have a locally determined risk-based inspection programme in place for enforcing compliance with the fire safety order. The framework sets out the expectation that fire and rescue authorities will target their resources on those individuals or households who are at greater risk from fire in the home and on those non-domestic premises where the life safety risk is greatest. The national framework for Wales includes similar provisions.
In parallel, the regulators’ code states that all regulators should base their regulatory activities on risk, take an evidence-based approach to determine the priority risks in their area of responsibility and allocate resources where they would be most effective in addressing those priority risks. The building risk review programme, which will see all high-rise residential buildings reviewed or inspected by fire and rescue authorities by the end of 2021, is a key part of this.
The programme will enable building fire risk to be reviewed and data to be collected to ensure that local resources are targeted at the buildings most at risk. The Government have provided £10 million of funding to support that work, not only to facilitate the review of all buildings, but to strengthen the National Fire Chiefs Council’s central strategic function to drive improvements in fire protection. That is in addition to a further £10 million grant to bolster fire protection capacity and capability within local fire and rescue services. The allocation of funding is based on the proportion of higher-risk buildings, further demonstrating the need to target resources at risk. I remind the House that we have also established the task and finish group that will be responsible for providing a recommendation on how the Bill should be commenced before the end of this month—obviously I have commented on that work and how the group is expected to report.
Sarah Jones
Ahead of setting up the Grenfell Tower fire public inquiry, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), said that she wanted
“to provide justice for the victims and their families who suffered so terribly”
and that
“we cannot wait for ages to learn the immediate lessons”.—[Official Report, 22 June 2017; Vol. 626, c. 168.]
However, despite being long delayed, the Grenfell Tower fire phase 1 inquiry’s recommendations are now nearly one year old, and they have not yet been implemented.
The Minister will have heard the frustration from across the House: it is not just on the Opposition Benches but coming loud and clear from the Government Benches, and the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) put it best. It is always never the right time for these things to be implemented with this Government—there is a consultation, a taskforce and the dreaded roundtable followed by another roundtable. It is simply not good enough.
New clause 1 attempts to press the Government to deliver on the first set of recommendations from the Grenfell Tower phase 1 inquiry. The Minister is a good man, but his response is not good enough. We must lead. That sense of momentum he talked about has to have meaning. We have to act to do what we can, three years on from the Grenfell Tower fire. The official Opposition therefore want to press new clause 1 to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
James Brokenshire
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Grenfell Tower fire was a national tragedy that shook confidence in the building safety system to the core. As a Government, we remain fully committed to fixing that system, to reforming fire and building safety and to ensuring that the events of 14 June 2017 are never repeated. People have a right to be safe and feel safe in their homes.
On the day of publication of the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s phase 1 report, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister accepted in principle all 12 recommendations that were addressed to the Government directly, 11 of which will require implementation in law. The Fire Safety Bill, which will amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005—the fire safety order— is an important first step towards enacting these recommendations.
In that context, I thank the Minister for Crime and Policing, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who led the Bill in Committee on 25 June, all the Members who served on that Committee and applied scrutiny to the Bill, and indeed all right hon. and hon. Members who participated in the debate earlier today.
As Members are aware, this is a short and technical Bill to clarify that the scope of the fire safety order applies to the structure, external walls and flat entrance doors of multi-occupied residential buildings. This provides a firm foundation to implement the Grenfell Tower phase 1 legislative recommendations that focus primarily on inspection of high-rise residential buildings by building owners and managers and information sharing with fire and rescue services.
I want to take a moment to underline that this is part of a bigger picture. The Government have published the draft Building Safety Bill, which will shortly be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. The Building Safety Bill takes forward the recommendations from Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review of building regulations and fire safety, and will put in place new and enhanced regulatory regimes for building safety and construction products, and ensure that residents have a stronger voice in the system. Alongside the Building Safety Bill, the Government published a fire safety consultation, which includes proposals to strengthen the fire safety order, improve compliance with the order, implement the Grenfell Tower phase one recommendations, and progress arrangements for consultation between building control bodies and fire and rescue authorities in relation to building work.
Our programme of work is not limited to legislation and includes having established a remediation programme, supported by £1.6 billion of Government funding, to remove unsafe cladding from high-rise residential buildings. For those who register for the fund, they are now able to submit their funding applications. We are also undertaking, in conjunction with the fire service, a building risk review programme for all high-rise residential buildings in England by December 2021, supported by £10 million of new funding.
The Building Safety Bill is a very detailed piece of legislation that aims to create significant changes to improve building and fire safety. Moreover, our fire safety consultation contains proposals to strengthen a number of areas of the fire safety order. Together, the Fire Safety Bill, the draft Building Safety Bill and the fire safety consultation will create fundamental improvements to building safety standards and ensure that residents are safe and feel safe in their homes.
During the passage of the Fire Safety Bill, we have had good and robust debates in this House which have benefited the Bill in airing and showing the issues that are at stake. Hon. and right hon. Members have underlined why this matters to their constituents, why this matters for safety and why this matters for people feeling confident in their homes. That is a message and an objective that the Government absolutely will follow through on. It is why we believe the Bill is important in setting good and solid foundations upon which we can now proceed. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
On Third Reading, I reiterate that the Opposition support the Fire Safety Bill, but we are desperately disappointed that the Government have not gone much further and much faster on improving fire safety.
I regret that the Government did not choose to support Labour’s new clause 1, which would have implemented the key recommendations of Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s Grenfell Tower inquiry phase one report, published in October. It is difficult to understand why the Government, who promised to implement the recommendations in full and without delay, have not chosen to make the concessions to include provision for them in the Bill. It is difficult to understand why responsible owners should not have to share evacuation plans with residents or undertake regular inspections of flat doors or lifts. It is difficult to understand why the Government are content with a situation where a fire risk assessor needs no qualifications whatever. It is difficult to understand why we cannot define the responsible owner in such a way to avoid leaseholders, who are already paying so much, footing the bill for things that are not their fault.
Endless promises of action, statements, consultations, taskforces and roundtables without any real change have tied the entire building safety world in knots, with hundreds of thousands of people paying the consequences, living in unsafe homes or unable to sell their flat because there is such confusion over which buildings are safe and what pieces of paper are needed to prove they are safe and who is liable. At every stage, the Opposition have sought to be constructive and to help the Government to improve the Bill. There is a lot more work to be done and we hope that as much of it as possible will be achieved now through secondary legislation.
Having debated our amendments on Report, I want to raise an important point about the implications of the Bill for our fire and rescue services. We welcome the high level of inspection and enforcement that the Bill requires, but we need clarity about the funding and resources provided to carry out such work. Over the past decade, we have seen devastating cuts to firefighter numbers, amounting to 20% of the service. Fire inspectors have seen some of the largest cuts, yet the Bill requires much more of them, and many more of them. I would like the Minister to set out what additional funding will be provided to the fire and rescue services to undertake this work.
I pay tribute to our fire and rescue services, as the Minister did, who go above and beyond to keep us safe and have worked tirelessly to protect us throughout the covid pandemic. I am grateful to the Ministers, the officials and the House staff who have worked with us on the Bill, and I give particular thanks to Yohanna Sallberg and Kenneth Fox, who have brilliantly supported me through the passage of the Bill. I also pay tribute to the hon. Members who have made such important contributions today and at previous stages of the Bill. There is much expertise in this House—either built over years of work in this place or personal experience in jobs that people have done before coming to this place—that the Government should listen to with more urgency.
In July 2017, I made my maiden speech during the first full debate in this Chamber on the Grenfell tragedy. I never would have thought that three years later, I would be facing a Government that are still yet to pass a single Act of Parliament to deliver on the clear promises made in the wake of that tragedy. The most important aim of the Bill is to clarify fire safety rules to prevent loss of life or damage to buildings from fire. It is to ensure that our constituents can live safely in their homes. I want to say to all those stuck living in unsafe blocks, but in particular to the Grenfell survivors and the victims’ families, that Opposition Members will not rest until every measure necessary is in place to prevent a fire like Grenfell from ever happening again.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Grenfell Tower is in my constituency of Kensington, so I start by paying tribute to the Grenfell community—to the bereaved and to the survivors, who have borne their loss with such dignity. This Bill is a small step in implementing the recommendations of the first phase of the Grenfell inquiry, and I commend it to the House, but I urge Government to move with a sense of urgency. I would also say that the Bill is just one small component. Clearly, the Building Safety Bill and the consultation on the fire safety order are also critically important. We owe it to the Grenfell community to never, ever allow a tragedy of this kind to happen again, so let us ensure that we implement state-of-the-art building and fire safety regulations with urgency.
Sir David Amess
I rise to support the Third Reading of the Bill and wish it a swift passage in the other House. The Bill has been welcomed by public and industry bodies, noting the expected increase in the enforcement action by fire service authorities as a result of its clarifications, as well as an expectation that it will impose greater burdens on the responsible person in multi-occupancy residential buildings.
On 20 July, the Government also published the draft Building Safety Bill, which takes forward their fundamental reform of the building safety system, introducing new regulatory regimes for building safety and construction products. Unquestionably, the Bill would strengthen the whole regulatory system for building safety as well as ensuring that there is greater accountability and responsibility for fire and structural safety issues throughout the life cycle of buildings within the scope of the more stringent regime.
Having said all that, I very much hope that the Government will not ignore all the points that have been made by the Opposition and the arguments that I have tried to make this evening. We cannot, and must not, waste any more time by pushing the issue of electrical safety around between different Departments. We owe it to those who lost their lives in Grenfell and other fires to find the parliamentary time and the right vehicle to enshrine electrical safety in legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Fire Safety Bill
Tuesday 8th September 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 7 September 2020 - (7 Sep 2020)
Fire Safety Bill
Thursday 1st October 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 7 September 2020 - (7 Sep 2020)
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to bring this Bill before the House today for its Second Reading. While short, it introduces important measures designed to keep people safe from the risk of fire.
None of us will ever forget the tragic events at Grenfell Tower in the early morning of 14 June, nor will we forget the 72 people who lost their lives in the most appalling circumstances. Our thoughts today are very much with the victims’ families, the survivors and fellow residents, who have had to rebuild their lives over the past three and a half years. Yesterday evening I was privileged to visit the Grenfell Tower site and tour the Lancaster West Estate at the invitation of the Lancaster West Residents’ Association. I thank its members for a constructive meeting thereafter.
A full independent inquiry was established in the aftermath of the fire, which is being led by Sir Martin Moore-Bick, to understand what happened and make recommendations to ensure it can never happen again. The Government also commissioned an independent review of building regulations and safety, led by Dame Judith Hackitt. Her findings have underpinned our unprecedented programme of building and fire safety reform.
We are resolute in our commitment to delivering change, and significant steps have already been taken to address building safety and fire safety risks. The Bill is just one part of that wider programme. There is considerable experience across the House and, as we take forward the Bill, we will be listening, as well as working with the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fire Safety and Rescue.
Before I go further, I take the opportunity to thank our fire and rescue services for their incredible response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Across the nation, around 4,000 firefighters and staff are now helping in the broader Covid-19 efforts. The National Fire Chiefs Council very quickly agreed a framework with unions and employers for firefighters to support the vulnerable and their emergency service partners. This has enabled firefighters to provide support to the NHS and ambulance trusts, the most vulnerable people, and coroners: at one stage, 300 firefighters were helping ambulance services in London alone. As the Minister with responsibility for fire, I am incredibly proud of the way they have responded to the crisis.
As soon as possible after the Grenfell Tower tragedy, the Government started working with relevant authorities and building owners to identify the risk and prevalence of buildings with unsafe aluminium composite material cladding and set up a comprehensive programme to remediate buildings of 18 metres and above with unsafe ACM.
We have since taken many other steps. These include setting up an independent expert panel on building safety, chaired by Sir Ken Knight, a former London Fire Commissioner and Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser, to provide advice to government and building owners, and making £600 million available to social and private sector landlords to fund the removal and replacement of unsafe ACM cladding on residential buildings over 18 metres. Progress by building owners has been far too slow. However, as of 31 August 2020, of the 458 high- rise residential buildings identified as having unsafe ACM cladding, 74% of them have either started or completed works to remove it.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor announced in this year’s Budget that the Government are providing a further £1 billion to fund the removal and replacement of unsafe non-ACM cladding systems for both the social and private residential sectors on buildings of 18 metres and above. Those who registered for the £1 billion fund are now able to submit their funding applications.
Every single person in this country, no matter where they live, has the right to feel safe in their own home. Alongside the risk it posed, ACM cladding placed an enormous psychological and emotional burden on residents of high-rise buildings, each wondering whether their home would be next. It is right that we act to remove this danger.
In addition to the removal of ACM cladding, the Home Office has also provided £30 million of additional funding for fire and rescue services. Some £20 million of this is to allow them to increase their capacity and capability, while £10 million has been allocated specifically to the National Fire Chiefs Council—to strengthen its protection activity—and to the building risk review programme, which will ensure that all high-rise residential buildings in England are inspected or reviewed by December 2021. A further £10 million has been made available via a protection uplift fund so that fire and rescue services can increase their focus on other high-risk categories of buildings, and £10 million has been provided to build the NFCC’s central capability and ensure that it can implement the lessons from the Grenfell tragedy in local services contained in the phase 1 inquiry.
The Queen’s Speech committed the Government to bringing forward two Bills on fire and building safety. The first is this short, technical Fire Safety Bill, which will amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The second, the building safety Bill, will later be led by me in this House, and was published in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny on 20 July. The draft building safety Bill proposes to put in place an enhanced safety framework for high-rise residential buildings, taking forward the recommendations from Dame Judith’s review. It will bring about a fundamental change in both the regulatory framework and industry culture, creating a more accountable system.
The proposed Bill will put in place an enhanced safety framework for higher-risk buildings, taking forward the recommendations from Dame Judith’s review. This framework will include a new regulator, clearer accountability and duties for duty holders. The Bill will also ensure that the residents of high-rise buildings have a stronger voice, alongside giving them better access to safety information about their building, clarifying their rights and providing recourse to raise safety concerns directly to the building safety regulator. The pre-legislative scrutiny for that Bill is currently under way. I am determined that we will bring forward as soon as possible after that process concludes a Bill that reflects views and expertise from across this House and expert advice from beyond.
At present, there are differing interpretations of the existing fire safety order on whether the external walls and, to a lesser extent, the individual flat entrance doors fall within the scope of the order. This ambiguity is leading to inconsistency in operational practice. This is unhelpful at best; at worst, it means that the full identification and management of fire safety risks is compromised, which could put the lives of residents at risk.
This Fire Safety Bill clarifies that the fire safety order does apply to the structure, external walls—including cladding and balconies—and individual flat entrance doors in multi-occupied residential buildings. This clarification will also ensure that fire and rescue services can confidently take enforcement action and hold building owners or managers to account if they are not compliant with their duties under the FSO. Clarifying the scope of the fire safety order through this Bill will also pave the way for the Government to bring forward subsequent secondary legislation to deliver on the Grenfell recommendations. I will return to this later.
I wish to clarify a couple of detailed points about Clause 1 before I explain Clauses 2 and 3. First, Members in the other place and industry representatives have raised as an issue the express inclusion of “structure” in the Bill. The concern is that this term will mean that structural assessments should more routinely be carried out as part of fire-risk assessments. I assure noble Lords that that is not the case. The intention, as set out in guidance, is that this should be a visual inspection of the construction and layout of the building on the basis that it will have been built to resist early structural collapse in the event of a fire.
As such, although dependent on the circumstances in any particular case, intrusive surveys of buildings are likely to be required rarely and only on the basis that the fire risk assessor has serious concerns about the risks that the structure of the building could pose. Otherwise, non-intrusive surveys should normally be carried out. This will be set out in a fact sheet that we will publish and will be reflected in the industry-recognised guidance.
Secondly, some fire and rescue services have also asked for clarification on what is meant by “common parts” in the Fire Safety Bill. The fire safety order applies to all premises and to all parts of premises unless they are expressly excluded by Article 6. One such exclusion is for “domestic premises”, for which the definition includes parts of the domestic premises that are
“not used in common by the occupants of more than one such dwelling”.
This has led to some confusion about which parts of the overall building are covered by the order. I can clarify that walls and structure are expressly within the scope of the FSO, and that “common parts” applies whether they are “used” by residents or not. An example of a common part that could be routinely used by residents might be a communal area that is immediately outside flat entrance doors. An example of a common part not frequently accessed by residents could be a boiler room.
Clause 2 provides the Secretary of State with a regulation-making power to amend or clarify the premises that fall within the scope of the fire safety order. Through this, we will be able to respond quickly to any further developments in the design and construction of buildings and our understanding of the combustibility/fire risk of construction products.
The territorial extent of the Bill is set out in Clause 3. The fire safety order extends and applies to England and Wales. The order, and therefore the Bill, relates to matters within the legislative competence of the Senedd Cymru, or Welsh Assembly. This matter will be put before the Welsh Assembly for a legislative consent Motion in relation to these provisions on 6 October.
Finally, the Bill will provide a power to commence the provisions of the Bill on “different days for different purposes”. This acknowledges the operational implications of this Bill, in particular the potentially significant number of responsible persons who will need to review and update their fire risk assessments. For many, that will require specialist knowledge and expertise from competent professionals who can advise on the fire safety risks for external wall systems.
In recognising these operational implications, the Home Office established a task and finish group, which is chaired jointly by the Fire Sector Federation and the National Fire Chiefs Council. It includes representatives from local authorities, private sector housing developers, the fire sector and fire and rescue services. We are currently considering their advice, which we received earlier this week, and I intend to set out the Government’s position on how they will commence the Fire Safety Bill to this House in Committee.
As I just mentioned, we recognise that there are capacity issues relating to fire risk assessors and concerns around competence. It will be helpful to touch on the measures that we are taking to address them. Significant work has been undertaken within the MHCLG-led building safety programme by the industry-led competency steering group—in particular, its sub-working groups on fire risk assessors and fire engineers—to look at ways to increase competence and capacity in the industry, which proposes recommendations in relation to third-party accreditation and a competence framework for fire- risk assessors. The final report from the CSG will be published next week, and MHCLG, the HSE and the Home Office will consider the recommendations of the report in detail.
It is extremely welcome that there is a shared commitment across all parties to implement the recommendations of the inquiry and legislate where necessary. That commitment bears repeating: we will honour the memory of those who died in that appalling fire and implement the Grenfell inquiry recommendations in full.
On 20 July, the Government launched a consultation that included proposals to implement the recommendations and further strengthen the fire safety order. The consultation closes on 12 October 2020.
It is important to deliver the Fire Safety Bill first, then subsequently the secondary legislation taking forward the outcomes of the fire safety consultation. This is a matter of sequencing to ensure that we consult the relevant parties appropriately on the measures we propose, which in a number of areas go further than the inquiry’s recommendations. It will mean that the legislation will be informed and properly enacted. It is in everyone’s interest that we get this right. The Government will bring forward the necessary secondary legislation as early as practicable following commencement of the Fire Safety Bill.
Nothing can bring back those who lost their lives in the Grenfell tragedy. Nothing can undo the errors that led to their deaths. Yet, if anything is to come from this disaster, let it be the lessons we have learned from those errors and our solemn determination to ensure that they can never happen again.
I spoke earlier of how proud I was in taking this Bill forward. Legislation alone can never have all the answers, but this, the first Bill since the Grenfell fire, will, I believe, make a significant contribution to protecting residents in multi-occupancy buildings from the dangers of fire. I commend it to the House and I beg to move.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have direct personal experience of this area of local government responsibilities. Following the tragedy at Grenfell, not only was I the leader of Newport City Council at that time but Newport was the only council in Wales that had social tenants in high-rise buildings covered in ACM cladding, and one of those tower blocks was in my ward.
The tragedy at Grenfell has prompted extensive inquiries, research and debate about the steps that might be needed to minimise the risk of such a tragedy happening again. Much of that has concentrated on the fabric and construction of high-rise residential buildings because the materials and techniques used in constructing and renovating Grenfell Tower have been implicated in allowing the fire to spread so rapidly. That in turn will mean changes to the system of building control, which regulates how and with what materials buildings must be constructed.
I commend the actions in the Bill because I have first-hand experience of the benefits that can be secured when registered social landlords, such as Newport City Homes, act appropriately and respond to their responsibilities to manage and reduce the risk of fire in multi-occupied buildings. Within six months of the tragedy at Grenfell, the three tower blocks clad in ACM in Newport had sprinklers installed and, within a year, the work to remove and replace the ACM cladding had begun. This was achieved through pragmatic partnership working between the council, the housing association Newport City Homes, Senedd Cymru and South Wales Fire and Rescue Service.
Responsible landlords should already be conducting regular inspections of buildings with the local fire and rescue services, ensuring that evacuation plans are reviewed and regularly updated and personal evacuation plans are in place for residents, providing fire safety instructions to residents in a form that they can reasonably be expected to understand, and ensuring that the building complies with current standards. That is why I agree with the Fire Brigades Union that the Bill is the first—long overdue—piece of primary legislation that seeks to rectify the failures identified after the Grenfell Tower fire. The FBU has raised concerns with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 since it was imposed. It is clear that many “responsible persons” who own and manage residential premises have not assessed the fire risks in their buildings, nor introduced sufficient measures to keep people safe in their homes.
It is the Welsh Government’s intention to bring forward a White Paper for consultation by the end of this current term and the analysis of this consultation will be available to inform any new Government bringing forward primary legislation in this vital area. These reforms build on the work set out by the Welsh Government’s Building Safety Expert Group in its report, A Road Map to Safer Buildings in Wales. The remit of the group was to identify the parameters of a Welsh response to the issues raised by Dame Judith Hackitt’s report, Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety.
In the immediate aftermath of Grenfell, the primary focus was on aluminium composite material—ACM—cladding systems, which had been implicated in the propagation of the fire. In Wales, we have made good progress in relation to remediation of buildings with ACM cladding. There were 15 buildings with non-compliant cladding, all of which have been remediated or have plans in place. We have been able to develop and maintain relationships with building owners and managing agents to ensure an open and honest dialogue about progress. No leaseholders will have to pay for remediation works in relation to ACM cladding. In addition, the Building Regulations 2010 have been amended to ban the use of all combustible cladding on residential buildings over 18 metres in height. The ban applies to combustible cladding on all new residential buildings and where renovation works take place, including flats, student accommodation, care homes and hospitals over 18 metres high. The ban ensures that ACM and other potentially dangerous cladding cannot be used on tall buildings in the future.
The Welsh Government have worked closely with the Home Office on this Bill. It significantly expands the fire safety order’s coverage of blocks of flats, in particular to include the external walls and internal doors that were so clearly implicated in the spread of the Grenfell Tower fire. They have also been working with the social landlord sector through Community Housing Cymru to develop and trial work in relation to resident engagement and sharing of building safety information. Safety First in Housing intends to support those managing buildings to put in place helpful measures ahead of legislation that will allow genuine engagement with residents, and I urge the UK Government to follow this lead in resident engagement.
Newport City Homes had to take the original contractors of the cladding to adjudication to recover its costs to make the building safe. The reality is that flammable material should never have been put on the outside of buildings, and the contractors and developers who allowed this to happen should rectify matters.
The Welsh Government intend to take the opportunity to establish two new regulatory regimes for Wales. The proposed fire safety regime will build on the existing fire safety legislation and will cover all residential buildings containing more than one dwelling. That goes significantly further than the Home Office proposals for England. It intends to establish a new regime focused solely on fire safety in domestic dwellings, unlike the current fire legislation that blurs the focus of workplaces and residential buildings. The Welsh Government also intend to establish a building safety regime for purpose-built high-rise blocks of flats. This will incorporate the fire safety regime but will look across the whole life cycle of buildings, putting in place additional requirements on those designing and constructing high-rise residential buildings, all the way through to the way in which they are managed and maintained during occupation.
Dame Judith Hackitt’s review identified competence issues throughout the system. It found that there was no clear set of competence standards or expectations for many of the professionals involved in the design and construction of fire-safe buildings or the maintenance of fire safety in occupied buildings. Her recommendations apply across the UK. Building industry action to develop more robust approaches is welcome, in order to make the improvements necessary to ensure that competence is clearly embedded within the professions that make up the construction industry.
Dame Judith was clear that information, from inception to occupation, is key to overseeing the ongoing safety of buildings. It allows buildings to be constructed safely and managed appropriately when occupied. Her proposals for a “golden thread” of building information not only are the basis of the information and data required during the gateway process as buildings are designed and constructed but flow through to the occupation stage. The golden thread will be comprehensive and include full as-built plans, a construction control plan and a fire and emergency file, and culminate in the safety case, which articulates how structural and fire risks will be managed and mitigated against. The safety case identifies the potential hazards in the building and considers how these might be reduced and mitigated against. The findings of these considerations should be recorded and acted upon. Evaluating and reviewing the success of mitigating actions should be monitored, and the processes of reviewing and assessing hazards undertaken on an ongoing basis. The golden thread is a live document—in effect, the user’s manual for the building.
Buildings must be designed and constructed in a way that ensures they are as safe as they can be. This is more than health and safety on a building site, and more than ensuring that there is fire-fighting equipment in an emergency. It is not only about ensuring that the design complies with building regulations safety requirements but that the intention is delivered in the finished product. This means making sure that safety features are properly installed in the right places, using the right materials and standards, by persons who are competent.
In conclusion, the Bill goes a good way to redressing the gaps in controls and provisions that led to the tragic loss of life at Grenfell Tower but I ask the Minister to ensure that no positive opportunity is overlooked when reviewing the steps available to get the Bill absolutely right for the future safety of our citizens, wherever they live in the UK, and to acknowledge and learn from the stronger steps that other Governments are putting in place for public safety.
Lord Stunell (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is right that we should remember the 72 victims of the Grenfell fire, their families and neighbours. It is right that we should remember the first responders, the emergency services, the public servants and volunteers, who came forward to help and have been helping in the weeks, months and now years since. We also need to remember the righteous anger and deep frustration of that community as more time has passed and more compelling evidence has come to light about the institutional and corporate failures that caused this fire. We must make sure that it never happens again.
I know the Minister takes this issue deeply seriously and I very much welcome his remarks in introducing this Bill. I know that his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, did so as well and I look forward to hearing his words in a few minutes’ time. I thank the Minister for reaching out to those on the other side of the House to gain a broad consensus for this Bill and to make sure that the foundations are firmly laid and progress made briskly. We support the Bill, but it is a matter of regret that it has taken 38 months since the fire to bring it to your Lordships’ House. It will be another four months at least before the building safety Bill reaches us.
Meanwhile, that compelling evidence of failure mounts up. I give just two illustrations from the last couple of weeks of Grenfell inquiry evidence. Last week, the project manager of the cladding subcontractor told the inquiry that he had no knowledge of the existence of key product safety regulations relating to the cladding he was installing. Yesterday, the senior building control officer at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea told the inquiry that he had received no training in technical industry guidance and had not considered at all the lessons about the fire risks of cladding systems. The brutal reality is that the only people who noticed what was going on were the residents of Grenfell Tower and they were dismissed as malcontents and trouble- makers. That must never be the case again.
That is the context in which the Minister has brought forward the Fire Safety Bill today. I thank him for setting out so clearly what it is intended to do when it comes into force and for making the point very clearly that it is a start, not the finished product. I thank him too for the letter that he circulated to your Lordships today that sets out other measures that the Government have taken and plan to take.
The Liberal Democrats certainly support the Bill’s intention and will be supporting it in its passage through your Lordships’ House. It plugs some gaps and removes ambiguities and, crucially, it makes a named individual responsible for fire safety reports in every building in England and Wales, regardless of its height. There will be a formal assessment.
This Bill has thoroughly good intentions, which we support, but we should also be quite clear that it would not have stopped the tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire. That would require not only this Bill but also the building safety Bill to come into force urgently. It will require a complete change in the culture of building safety from the construction industry, clients and building owners, designers and contractors, national and local regulators and building users too. It is going to require a massive investment in the training of fire engineers and fire assessors and of all those in the industry who, up to the night of the Grenfell fire, had just been winging it and keeping their fingers crossed. At every step of design and procurement and every level of contracting and subcontracting, there have turned out to be fatal gaps in knowledge and skills that must be plugged. The Government have a serious responsibility to enable, facilitate and drive that process relentlessly.
In considering this Bill, I and my colleagues will be urging the Minister not to confine himself simply to the routine task of steering an uncontroversial Bill on to the statute book, but to undertake to put a rocket booster under the process of delivering a complete package of reform. I hope that he will take back to the Government the intense concern from right across your Lordships’ House on all the progress needed to make sure that things happen “at pace”. That catchphrase has been used repeatedly over the last three years from the Dispatch Box and we need to see it happening, not just in the Home Office, where this Bill sits, but also in MHCLG in relation to regulations, in BEIS in relation to the Construction Leadership Council and the work it is doing, and, indeed, in the Department for Education on apprentice training and graduate training to fill some of the gaps in knowledge and manpower.
The reform the whole building regulatory system, the proper staffing and training of qualified personnel to operate that system and the restoration of confidence of local communities caught in the eye of the storm all remain to be done three years after the fire. We take this Bill as some evidence of progress but it is also, to some extent, evidence of delay so I hope the Minister will convey the sense of concern in this House and the anger of local communities right to the very highest level of government, to which, I know, he has good personal access.
I have some questions. Will the Minister undertake to provide your Lordships with a detailed report on the number of fire engineers the Government estimate will be needed to properly deliver the regulatory system set out in the Bill? Can he tell us what estimate he has of the current shortfall and the steps he is putting in place to overcome it? Does the Minister share my fear that the implementation of the Bill will have to be delayed because of that shortfall? Has he taken note of the fall in the number of fire safety officers employed by fire and rescue services in the last 20 years? Does he believe that the current number is sufficient to take on the new duties that the Bill sets out? Perhaps he can say a little more about that. Can he confirm that there is to be a publicly accessible register of all fire assessments?
I know that the Minister will want to honour the often-repeated promise that tenants and residents would be at the heart of the new post-Grenfell regulatory system, with their concerns and their practical experience of day-to-day life in their own home being taken seriously. Does he agree that every one of them should be able to read a copy of the assessment for their block and be told exactly who is responsible for monitoring the risks and delivering the necessary changes? That needs to be a person with actual responsibility, not a distant corporate body registered in the Cayman Islands or an anonymous helpline. We must never again have residents’ legitimate concerns ignored or simply dismissed as troublemaking. We shall certainly want to return to this in Committee.
I am sure the Minister will have read the useful briefing prepared by the LGA, setting out its concerns about some of the practical matters of implementation. It is not at all surprising that, in view of the cuts local authorities have suffered to their income because of Covid-19, they have also raised serious concerns about where the cost of inspection and enforcement is planned to fall. No doubt other noble Lords will expand on that point in the debate.
The Bill is wholly silent on the question of costs and the impact assessment is vague too. The struggle to safeguard leaseholders and tenants who face huge bills directly arising from the replacement of ACM shows just how easily the individuals with no prior knowledge or professional background get left carrying the can, while the contractors and the paid professionals just move on to the next job.
What are the Government’s intentions when it comes to meeting the costs of any remediation that the Bill shows is necessary? Has the Minister any assessment of what those costs are likely to be? How does he intend to safeguard leaseholders against being saddled with yet another huge bill caused, as they might see it, not by them doing something wrong but by a new piece of well-meaning legislation dumped on their heads?
The Minister may feel that these are small details and that we should focus instead on the bigger picture, but I say, as a former Minister, that it is often the small details that trip up and spoil the big picture. Even more to the point, if we look at the big picture, this Bill is not the big picture; it is a small part of a much bigger picture, where reform and challenge is urgently needed to put right past wrongs and prevent future tragedies.
So we do welcome this Bill, but it has to be seen as only a small step in a long journey, one that has taken a long time to get started, where the pace is still too slow and the urgency to bring forward legislation seems to have been somewhat lacking. Those 72 Grenfell residents and their families and neighbours have waited far too long to see justice and to see meaningful change and action. I very much hope that the debate today can put some extra energy back into the campaign to achieve that change.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is the very greatest honour to have been appointed to your Lordships’ House and to be speaking here for the first time. I express my thanks to the Prime Minister for nominating me and to the doorkeepers, the staff and all those who have made me feel so welcome over the last two weeks. They are very special people who are working here for us, especially given the circumstances and the current risks that everybody faces, and we should be very grateful to them.
I am very proud that three of the last four Members of Parliament for Arundel are, or have recently been, Members of this House. I am proud to be joining my predecessor but one as the Member of Parliament for Arundel and South Downs, my noble friend Lord Flight, and sad that my predecessor but two, Lord Luce, retired from this House just before I joined it. I was hoping that the three of us might be able to be photographed together: how many other parliamentary constituencies can claim such a record?
I have taken the title Lord Herbert of South Downs because my constituency, which I was proud to represent for 15 years, is called Arundel and South Downs. I still live in Arundel and still enjoy, every week, the beauty of the South Downs, one of the finest parts of this country and the most beautiful landscapes. It expresses the great love I have always had for the countryside, a passion that I will continue to have, and I hope to promote its interests while a Member of your Lordships’ House.
I have the honour to be the chairman of the Countryside Alliance, a position that I have noted in the register. It was there, or at least in its precursor organisation, that, a very long time ago, I met my noble friend Lord Mancroft, who was my lead supporter when I was introduced in this place. It was he who insisted that I should wear robes, pointing out that that was provided for under the Standing Orders of the House. It is a practice that I understand has taken place since 1621, and I was very proud to do so.
I met my other supporter, my noble friend Lord Hill, in my first job, when I became a member of the Conservative Research Department just after leaving university. I was given the job by my noble friend Lord Lexden. I think he was and remains surprised that he gave me the job, and he seemed similarly surprised that I had arrived in your Lordships’ House, but I owe him a very great debt in that, 35 years ago, he had the confidence in me to launch me on my political career.
I arrive in your Lordships’ House to discover that, of course, it is very different to the other place; but it is also very different to the place it was just a few months ago, because of the way proceedings are conducted. I am full of admiration for the way your Lordships are grappling with new technology so as to speak remotely and vote electronically. Indeed, I remarked to a friend in the United States, a former ambassador, that he might see it as a double constitutional outrage that I had been appointed a legislator for life and that I was now voting remotely, not even present in the Chamber. He nodded and smiled and said, “Yes, that is what we fought the War of Independence about.” I hope that it will not be long before we are able to return to the previous practice of being present in this House.
Of course, one should not believe that age is any impediment to using new technology. My elderly parents, in common with many others of their generation, have become fiends in the use of personal phones and iPads. We encouraged my mother to begin texting and she started to do so voraciously. I recall sitting on the Front Bench in the other place when I received a message from my mother to say that I should call her urgently. I texted back to say that I was sitting on the Front Bench and therefore unable to do so. “Yes”, she replied by text, “I can see that you are on the Front Bench. I am your mother. I would like you to call me now.” I made my excuses and went out of the Chamber, expecting that something terrible or dramatic had happened. I called, only for my mother to ask if I would be there for lunch on Sunday. These are the imperatives of life.
It is a very great pleasure to be able to rejoin the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT Rights, which I founded, along with many Members here and in the other place, and had the honour to chair. I will be chairing the Government’s international LGBT+ conference, which has unfortunately been postponed because of Covid but will, I hope, be held in some form next year. I continue to chair the Global Equality Caucus of parliamentarians around the world who are united in the belief in the importance of equality and ensuring that everybody is treated with dignity and respect according to their fundamental human rights.
I have also rejoined the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global Tuberculosis and will now be resuming my co-chairmanship of that group. I also founded that group when, 15 years ago, I visited Kenya and learned about a disease called tuberculosis, the orphan of diseases, in that it is so little talked about, yet it is still, despite Covid, the world’s deadliest infectious disease. Tragically, Covid has now killed 1 million people worldwide, but tuberculosis still kills 1.5 million people every single year and will do for many years to come unless we find a vaccine, unless we find new tools and unless we renew our determination to beat it. We do not face a choice between tackling these infectious diseases; we must learn the importance of global health security. I will also continue to chair the Global TB Caucus, trying to mobilise parliamentarians from around the world to take action to ensure that people can beat this terrible disease.
I was appointed a Minister in the Home Office and in the Ministry of Justice. It is not always easy to be a Minister in two departments, as I am sure my noble friend the Minister is discovering. I soon realised that the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice are very different places. One notable difference was the lifts. Ministry of Justice lifts are much smarter than Home Office lifts; I will make no comment about them. But I was shown a button by my private secretary and given a code to key in. If I did so, the lift would immediately come down or up to me to ensure that I could get in it very quickly and rush off to vote.
I thought that I would try out this process when no one else was around. I keyed in the code and the lift hurtled down to my floor. The doors opened and out stepped the then Lord Chancellor—now my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham—my boss, who said that a sign had come up in the lift saying, “This lift is now under ministerial control”. However, it was not under his control, and indeed we discovered that very little was when we were in the department. He asked me what on earth could have happened and I suggested that he took the matter up with the Permanent Secretary. I did not own up that I had seized command of his lift.
I will continue to take the closest interest in matters to do with policing and criminal justice. I have recently set up a Commission for Smart Government, whose members include noble Lords from all sides of this House. It is focused on how we can make government more effective. One thing that we want to do is to look at how any Government can ensure that they are able to deliver. In the end, that is the imperative for Governments. I am reminded of one thing that a previous Lord Herbert—Lord Herbert of Cherbury, a poet, soldier, Member of Parliament and brother of the poet George Herbert—said in the 16th century:
“The shortest answer is doing.”
That is a motto that any politician, and certainly any Government, would do very well to remember. In the end, people will judge us not by what we say or promise but by what we do and are able to deliver. There can surely be no more important task for any Government than to make their people safe, and that is why this Bill is so important and why I am so pleased to be able to speak at Second Reading today on this short but important piece of legislation.
In conclusion, perhaps I may say something about the Bill and the Grenfell disaster. The tower was built in 1974—it is, or was, younger than almost every Member of your Lordships’ House. It was not an old building but a relatively new one. The truth is that many wealthy people around the world live in tower blocks, but it would be surprising if they had faced the same situation or the same risk, because the towers in which they live would have been equipped in a very different way. That is the truth of the matter. It is right that we now take every step to ensure that no tragedy of the kind that we saw at Grenfell, in which 72 people lost their lives, could ever happen again.
At the root of what happened, an injustice was revealed—a social injustice about the conditions in which some people were living and in which others would never have considered living. That, in the end, is why there is a wider agenda to level up in this country. It is an agenda that the Prime Minister has fully committed himself to, and it is one that I will proudly support.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, we have been treated to a maiden speech from my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs of great weight and great good humour. It had valuable insights on many issues—for example, on the countryside, on new technology and, indeed, on my noble friend Lord Mancroft.
My noble friend comes to us with a distinguished and formidable record in the other place, particularly on rural issues, on policing and on criminal justice. Indeed, he was a Minister for policing and for criminal justice in the other place. I am sure that we all look forward to him participating fully in the activities of the House. I know that he will take a particular interest in issues involving the countryside, equality, the operation of democracy and combating tuberculosis. We all wish him well in his future here. I am sure that it will be a long and distinguished one. On a personal note, I also wish him well with my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham when he catches up with the debate.
Turning to the Fire Safety Bill, first, I thank the Minister for his introduction. I know that he takes matters concerning Grenfell and fire safety more widely very seriously. I also know that he was the leader of an adjoining council, so he knows the local situation very well.
We all recall the early morning of 14 June 2017 very well. It is seared on our memories. It represented, in human terms, the greatest loss of life in a residential fire since World War Two, with the loss of 72 lives— 72 lives that should not have been lost. Our thoughts are always with the families and survivors, and with the people who, since the fire, have consistently offered, in human terms, their all. I refer to the public services, particularly the fire service, people in the local community and in faith communities, and officials from government, particularly from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I was a Minister in the department at the time, so I have awful, but very clear, recollections of that night, as, I know, do many noble Lords who are participating in this debate.
It is right that we say that there will be a memorial on the site of the Grenfell Tower in due course and that the local community—Grenfell United and others—will be leading on that. It is also right that the greatest memorial that we can offer the people of Grenfell and those who have fought since the fire to right that wrong is a legacy that ensures that this can never happen again. The Government have, quite rightly, moved in many ways—with the independent inquiry under judge Sir Martin Moore-Bick and with the regulations review of building safety led by Dame Judith Hackitt. We still await news on criminal prosecutions. Although I recognise that this is, in a sense, quite separate from government, we have given—and I was able to give—information and publish how many people had been interviewed under caution in relation to this matter. The Minister might not have details of that to hand. If he does not, I would appreciate it if he were able to write to me saying something on this matter, with a copy being sent to other participants in this debate and placed in the Library. Understandably, responsibility for what happened that night remains a very real concern.
The Government have also moved to put in place fire protection measures, and the use of combustible ACM has, quite rightly, been banned. The remediation of unsafe buildings is happening, but herein lies the rub. I suspect that we all agree on what needs to happen —I cannot imagine that there is any great difference on that—but the issue is the speed with which it is happening and needs to happen.
Understandably, there was a time when interim safety measures needed to be put in place—but that surely was only for the interim. The very use of the word “interim”, which we continue to use as a Government and as a country, indicates that we are not there yet, so I shall press the Minister on this. The key issue here is speed in remedying what needs to be remedied. I think that he mentioned that 74% of building remediation had been started or completed in relation to the removal of ACM. Is he able to give the percentage for the amount that has been completed, rather than started or completed? That would be a very useful statistic for us look at.
The Queen’s speech quite rightly committed the Government to two Bills. We have heard quite a lot from the Minister about the draft building safety Bill, and we have also heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, about remediation measures in Wales put in place by Senedd Cymru. I again emphasise to the Minister that it is useful to work alongside the devolved Administrations, particularly in this instance with Wales. I am sure that is happening, but it would be useful to know what lessons and partnership work are going on with Wales, so that we can tackle these scourges together—because I am sure that the aim is one of unity in terms of what we need to do.
Unsurprisingly, I am a strong supporter of the Bill. I am pleased that we are dealing with the ambiguity of what is covered by the term “building” and that it will cover external walls, and therefore cladding, flat entrance doors, balconies and so on. It is obviously right that we have that clarity. I also very much support there being a responsible person for each building to take forward responsibility for this and to make sure that we act in the right way. These are aims that I am sure we can all support. But I come back to the issue of speed. We keep saying “at pace”, but it needs now to be not a moderate pace but a fast pace. I am sure that we all have that haunting thought that we do not want to see anything like Grenfell ever again. The way that we can prevent that is by moving at a fast pace in terms of removal of cladding, and in the admirable array of things that the Government are doing. The only thing they need do now is accelerate that.
One issue that has not been touched on yet was discussed in the other place when my honourable friend Sir David Amess moved an amendment on electrical safety. I thank Electrical Safety First, which has provided me with a valuable briefing on this. It is important to note on this issue that, although our focus is quite rightly on ACM cladding, which certainly led to the spread of the fire—there is no doubt about that—nevertheless the trigger for the fire, as it has been in many other fires, was an electrical fault, as it was at Lakanal House and Shepherd’s Court, where there was another serious fire, although thankfully not one that led to fatalities. Over 14,000 fires a year are caused by electrical faults, so I will be pressing the Minister on what we are doing with regard to checking the safety of flats in tower blocks, of which there are hundreds of thousands, to ensure that electrical appliances are periodically checked for safety. That will minimise the risk of electrical fires, and it is something we could usefully do. I look forward to looking at this in more detail perhaps in Committee. In the meantime, I would be interested in what the Minister has to say.
In short, I strongly support the Bill, as I am sure I will the building safety Bill. My one real concern is pace. It needs to be fast, and we need to accelerate now. As the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said, it is now some 34 months since the fire, and we must move quickly. Otherwise, I will be pressing the issue of electrical safety. But I know that the Minister is totally committed to this, as is my right honourable friend in the other place James Brokenshire. I look forward to working with them and others to make sure that we have a piece of legislation of which we can all be proud and which I am sure we will improve in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, and welcome him to this House. I look forward to his future contributions. It is also an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. When he was a Minister he took very seriously the responsibilities which arose following the Grenfell fire, some of which we are debating today.
The fact remains that it is three years since Grenfell and 11 years since Lakanal House, and this is the first piece of substantive legislation that has been before Parliament. It is needed. We need to resolve the ambiguities in the fire safety order and clearly define responsible officers, their work and the parts of the building which will be subject to their responsibilities and to professional inspection.
I know that the Minister tried to do this to some extent in his opening remarks and in the letter that we received today, but we needed a report on the totality of progress on all of these issues post Grenfell, so that we could see where this Bill fits in with other initiatives. We have referred to the building safety Bill, which is still in very early draft form. Some people are saying that there is a clash of definitions of “responsible person” between that draft Bill and the Bill before us today. We must be clearer about how this all fits in with the Government’s consultation Building a Safer Future, the related safety strategy proposed by the Minister’s department, the implementation of the inquiry’s first stage and of the Hackitt report, and the progress on the proposed new regulator.
Specifically in the Grenfell case, we also need an indication of progress on potential prosecutions of the managers of the building and the suppliers. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, referred to the evidence reported in the press today about the person who would be deemed to be something like the responsible officer in Kensington and Chelsea, who clearly did not have a clue about their responsibilities and the regulations. The same applied to the representative of the major supplier. This is not an overregulated industry but a seriously underregulated industry, and those regulations that exist are not properly enforced. We need to look at all these aspects together, and some others as well.
My noble friend Lady Wilcox referred to sprinklers and the progress there. The case is not the same in Wales as it is in many authorities around England. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, referred to electrical safety, and rightly said that the majority of domestic fires are caused by electrical faults. Inspection and enforcement of regulations in that area are also necessary. Whereas with gas there is a mandatory responsibility on landlords to inspect the gas installations, there is not one for white goods and other electrical installations within multi-occupied buildings more generally.
There is also some obscurity as to which pieces of legislation apply to which buildings. This Bill apparently applies to all multi-occupied buildings, whereas some of the other proposed legislation and regulation applies to buildings over 18 metres high, and that limit has been queried. We are also unclear as to how many buildings and landlords we are referring to. In the impact assessment for this Bill there is a pretty wide range of figures for buildings—2.2 to 3.2 million individual flats—and for the number of landlords, both private and social. So the House deserves a much more strategic report from Ministers on this whole area.
There are also wider issues. At the end of the day, whatever regulations come forward must be professionally enforced, and we must have adequate numbers of professionally trained inspectors. Regrettably, in the fire service there has been a cut of over 20% in recent years. That cut needs to be reversed. In particular, there is nowhere near a sufficient number of qualified and experienced fire inspectors to fulfil the clearer responsibilities in this and the other Bill. The Fire Brigades Union has indicated that there are fewer than 1,000 people who are even remotely qualified to carry out such inspections, which is about half the number there were a decade ago. We need a training programme and a recruitment programme to train up firefighters and others to fulfil these professional roles.
Of course, this may grow, because while in the Bill we are talking about tightening restrictions, the proposed new planning changes will allow, for example, conversion of office blocks to residential use, and adding storeys to existing buildings. If we are not careful, and do not have a robust and effective system of enforcing the use of safe materials and the safe design of the structure of the buildings, that will increase the potential danger of unsafe buildings.
The problem is not only with the fire service and fire inspectors. One of the other areas most drastically cut by many local authorities in the past decade has been building regulations enforcement, and the numbers employed there. The enforcement of standards of materials and the application of materials, as well as of the design of buildings, is clearly inadequate in almost every local authority.
With regard to materials and equipment, it is not just cladding that we should be worried about. There is also, for example, the issue of fire doors. In its briefing for the Bill, the LGA—I declare my interest as one of its vice-chairs—claims that thousands of non-compliant doors have been delivered to local authorities and housing associations in recent years. It estimates the replacement cost at £700 million. That is an absolute scandal. I know of nobody who has been prosecuted for failure to supply compliant doors.
The impact assessment on the Bill makes no mention of the significantly increased resources for both personnel and training that will be required to make it, and related measures, effective in carrying out their job. So there is a significant number of wider questions that we need to address in this context. I will support the Bill; I think it is necessary. But we need a clearer indication of how it fits in with other such measures.
Even in this limited Bill there is a serious omission. We need to mention the role of residents—tenants and leaseholders—and the need for them to be informed, and to have their concerns taken seriously by building owners, managers and suppliers. Let us remember that Grenfell residents were warning of the dangers of the refurbishment years before the tragedy happened—in terms of the cladding, the loss of firewalls and the increasing space for a fire to spread, and also of the potential dangers of the “stay put” evacuation advice. All were pointed to by the residents, and all were ignored.
More widely, the effects of the uncertainty about the safety of the buildings in which they live is causing widespread anxiety among all residents. Leaseholders also face potential substantial economic loss, as the value of their property falls and the availability of affordable insurance recedes because of safety fears. Tenants and leaseholders need to be listened to, and their role needs to be reflected in this Bill and in related legislation.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. He said that we needed to see the totality of what the Government are proposing, and also to listen to residents. In both respects, I entirely agree with him. I should declare that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. May I also add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, on his excellent maiden speech? We look forward to hearing more of his contributions in the months ahead.
I support this Bill. It brings extra clarity to defining who is responsible for managing the reduction of fire risk for residential buildings in multi-occupation. The proposed clarification of the scope of the 2005 fire safety order is to be welcomed, as it will clearly include building structures, external walls and common areas. I strongly welcome, too, the wish to address problems caused by less resistant entrance doors on some residents’ flats. The proposals in the Bill are measured and proportionate, and while we may wish to examine in Committee issues debated in the House of Commons that were not progressed, it is my view that the Bill should pass.
My noble friend Lord Stunell raised a number of important issues, particularly in relation to the rights of tenants and occupiers of flats in high-rise blocks to be listened to. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made the same point a moment ago. My noble friend also talked about the financial burden faced by many leaseholders through no fault of their own.
As my noble friend also said, this Bill has to be seen in the context of the forthcoming building safety Bill. And may I say that I think it will prove beneficial to have placed that draft Bill into pre-legislative scrutiny? These two Bills are related. Both seek to address systemic deficiencies identified after the appalling Grenfell Tower fire, and to prevent such a tragic ever happening again.
The revelations that we have heard from the inquiry hearings are worrying. They have shown that cost cutting has been too dominant a consideration in building construction of high-rise blocks, and that there have been major failures in the testing of materials and in the enforcement of fire regulations. This Bill is a start in addressing that deficiency. In all respects, public safety and the minimisation of risk must come first.
So the aims of the Bill are very important. But is the Minister confident about delivery? Once this Bill and the building safety Bill are in place, will local government and the fire services have sufficient powers to make this Bill effective? Has there been confirmation of this from organisations affected? I am concerned about, for example, entrance doors in tower blocks. How will responsible persons have enough power to ensure that individual flats owned by leaseholders have adequate fire safety protections, given that their doors join common areas?
Responsible persons are rightly required to review their fire risk assessments, and in buildings with no cladding there is likely to be sufficient professional capacity to assist in undertaking those reviews. But how are responsible persons to get the expert resource necessary to update the fire risk assessments of all buildings that do have external wall cladding systems? Are there enough qualified people to do the job? If not, what are the plans to increase training and, following that, numbers of staff?
I hope that the building safety Bill will be properly integrated with the amended fire safety order, to establish a building safety system that is easy to understand and easy to implement. Doubt about responsibilities must be avoided. For example, it has been suggested that there are differences between the fire safety order’s concept of a responsible person and the proposals for an accountable person and a building safety manager contained in the Government’s response to the Building a Safer Future consultation response. Will the Minister confirm that such differences in interpretation will be avoided, and that clarity will be paramount in the Bill and in regulations?
Since the Grenfell fire, the Government have allocated money to alleviate some of the critical problems related to ACM and other cladding, and they created a building safety fund worth £1 billion in June this year. Despite this, overall spending is low and there is confusion over entitlements. In addition, many owners of flats can face a lengthy wait to sell properties, because surveyors need to get evidence required by mortgage lenders on the construction of their flats, on whether there is external cladding, and on whether there is an external wall survey—which often may not exist.
The situation is not helped by the sheer amount of work to be done, and by the complexity of the responsibility chain, with so many different organisations and tenures involved across the public, voluntary and private sectors. I hope that the Minister understands the urgency of resolving this problem.
I have one final point, which my noble friend Lord Stunell also talked about. I have raised before the issue of whether there should be a public register of fire risk assessments. There is a very strong case for having one, and I raise the issue again, in the hope that the Minister might take a further look at it.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, and I welcome my noble friend Lord Herbert to this House.
On the face of it, this is a straightforward Bill that will clarify the scope of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 to better identify and enforce against fire risk in multi-occupied residential buildings. In reality, of course, the situation is far more complicated, for lying behind this piece of legislation is the devastation of the Grenfell Tower fire and the knowledge that 72 people lost their lives simply by virtue of the fact that they were at home at the time. By definition, a home is somewhere that should provide protection, not sow the seeds of a person’s death.
I welcome the Bill, as it will significantly improve the safety of millions of people around the country. It is, however, only one part of a raft of measures to improve standards. There is the building safety Bill, and another key element in this process is the fire safety consultation, which closes in less than a fortnight and includes proposals to implement all the recommendations made by Sir Martin Moore-Bick in his excellent phase 1 report.
I am afraid I do not agree with the argument put forward in the other place that a number of those recommendations should be included in the Bill. As they should, the recommendations incorporate significant change. Sir Martin himself said that it was
“important that they command the support of those who have experience of the matters to which they relate.”
It was therefore essential to consult, not least because the Government are legally obliged to do so, given that the vast majority of the recommendations will require implementation in law.
However, I completely understand the anger and frustration at the lack of pace. As has been mentioned today, it is more than three years since the fire and nearly 12 months since the recommendations were first made. I ask my noble friend the Minister to give a clear timeframe for when and how the recommendations will be implemented. When will the Government respond to the consultation, and when can we expect the regulations that will enable many of the recommendations to be put in place? When does he expect the building safety Bill to be introduced?
Together, these measures will significantly improve fire safety standards. I pay tribute to all those from the Grenfell community, particularly Grenfell United, whose members spend their time campaigning on this issue solely so that what happened to them does not happen to anyone else. At the very least, we owe them some reassurance as to when these much-needed changes will be brought about.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has withdrawn so the next speaker is the noble Lord, Lord Storey.
Lord Storey (LD) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, on his excellent speech. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
We all know the frightening power and effect of fire. It can cut through the natural and physical environment like a knife through butter, leaving a trail of destruction and devastation, whether in the bushfires of Australia, the forests of California or the ruthless way that it burnt through Grenfell Tower, leaving families mourning loved ones. As the Minister said, we still remember those individuals who so tragically lost their lives.
It is important that we all know the value of fire safety and take necessary precautions to prevent fires. As a head teacher, I would educate the children about the danger of fire and carry out regular fire inspections, even unannounced. The Merseyside fire service was invaluable in coming to talk to children and carrying out fire safety inspections. I fear that reductions in local government finances meant that this was drastically scaled back. Could the Minister inform the House whether it is a statutory responsibility to carry out fire safety checks at schools and colleges, and does that still take place annually?
I welcome the Bill, as I am sure we all do; each and every measure that improves the safety of people who live in high-rise blocks has to be welcomed. However, with its narrow focus on cladding and fire doors, it must be obvious that there are a series of other fire safety issues. Those of us who have followed the painfully slow response to the Grenfell tragedy will have been shocked at the state of a block that had been refurbished and the finger-pointing that is now going on as the inquiry continues.
The excellent Library briefing sets out the exact scope of the Bill. It will
“amend the Fire Safety Order 2005 to clarify that the responsible person or duty-holder for multi-occupied, residential buildings must manage and reduce the risk of fire for … the structure and external walls of the building, including cladding, balconies and windows … entrance doors to individual flats that open into common parts”.
While those two aspects are welcome, they are just two of the many aspects of building safety that need urgent attention.
As I am sure we will hear, the Bill will also enable the Government to introduce secondary legislation. We will also be told of a task and finish group that has been be established to provide a recommendation on how the Bill will be commenced. That the Government are taking advice is welcome, but I urge them to act more quickly than they have in implementing those recommendations in the Hackitt report that do not lead to lengthy consultation. How many of the recommendations have already been implemented? When do the Government plan to implement the Bill once Royal Assent has been granted? What is the timeline for publication of the secondary legislation that will flow from the Bill once it is on the statute book?
During the debate in the other place, the Government referred to the draft building safety Bill, which is partly through the pre-legislative scrutiny stage by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee. That Bill, with many clauses and nearly 200 pages of Explanatory Notes, proposes a major reform of building safety, which is welcome, but it will take many months to reach the statute book and many years to fully implement. The residents of high-rise buildings cannot be expected to wait for years before they are able to go to bed confident that they are safe and sound. When might we expect to be debating that Bill? What is the Government’s schedule?
Fire safety is not restricted to tower blocks, of course. This building, although only three storeys high, represents a particular challenge to the excellent fire safety team that we have. I am aware of the comprehensive work that they are doing to keep us safe. The House of Lords must be unique, not only for the quality of the debates that we have but because of the age of the building with its national treasure status, its amount of wood and the rabbit-warren nature of its many passageways. It demands a high level of planning to prevent a fire or emergency but also to deal with one should such a situation occur.
The Members along my corridor include those who use wheelchairs and guide dogs. Other Members would require varying degrees of assistance to evacuate the building. This Bill, with such a narrow focus, will have no direct impact on us: there is no external cladding other than the scaffolding—which seems to be a permanent feature—and there is no problem with our fire doors, but these are just two elements of a safer building. However, we are all working in a building that requires many safety measures, not simply in order to comply with the law but to keep us safe in the event of fire or emergency.
In concluding, I will make a point about the safety of electrical appliances. The Minister is on record as stating:
“The Government are committed to ensuring that the electrical products that people buy are safe”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/9/20; col. 442.]
More than 500,000 Hotpoint and Indesit appliances have been recalled, with more machines added as recently as April 2020. As Lesley Rudd, the chief executive of the charity Electrical Safety First, said,
“It is alarming that five months into this recall, we are only now hearing of these extra models which pose a threat to owners.”
This new discovery throws into question the robustness of the original investigation.
Finally, I endorse what the Minister said in his opening remarks. Clearly, he takes this matter seriously. As he says, it is in everybody’s interests to get this right.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs on his excellent maiden speech. We will greatly benefit from his expertise in so many areas. I should also congratulate him on his good fortune in choosing a debate where there is such a relatively generous time limit. I remember well showing him around the other place when he first arrived there in my capacity as a senior Whip. If I were still in that capacity, I might have gently pointed out that he pushed that time limit to the boundaries. However, I am sure that he will be delighted not only to know that your Lordships’ House is a far gentler place but to discover that I am more likely to be a member of the awkward squad these days than an enforcer. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Sanderson of Welton on such a thoughtful and knowledgeable speech.
I welcome this Bill, and although I am aware that it is not strictly the vehicle to address the very serious issue of electrical safety, I would like to highlight my concerns and those of many others whom we have already heard from—including my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth in an eloquent speech and the noble Lord, Lord Storey—about the fires caused by electricity. Of course, this Bill addresses what happens if a structure is on fire, but we must look at what causes the fire in the first place. Some 57% of house fires are caused by electrical faults. As we have already heard, my esteemed colleague Sir David Amess brought forward an amendment in the other place that seems to me to be eminently sensible.
Over the past three years, accidental electrical fires in high-rise buildings have risen consistently year on year, which is frankly shocking. It is important to state that these fires are not all caused by the appliances themselves but by misuse. In a previous life, I ran my family retail business, including an upholstery department. Noble Lords might well remember that there was rightly a lot of concern about the smoke and danger of certain foam within upholstery. The fires were not caused by the sofas or the chairs themselves; they occurred for other reasons, such as people falling asleep with a lighted cigarette or faulty electrical equipment. Educating people about the dangers is paramount.
We must do whatever we can to avoid the chance of another Grenfell tragedy reoccurring. With the newly created role of responsible person for any high building, that person should also be given the task of compiling a register for all white goods in the building. This would ensure that when a recall occurs—and sometimes they occur a little late, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, has just said—anyone with a defective appliance could be quickly alerted and the safety risk resolved. My noble friend told us that he would be bringing forward more measures in the draft building safety Bill. I earnestly hope that this issue will not be ignored there. I cannot think of a better person than my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh to be taking this through your Lordships’ House.
Lord Monks (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest in that, in my long stint at the TUC, I worked closely with the Fire Brigades Union on many issues, including fire safety. I commend to the House today the notes of evidence that have been widely circulated by that union. Some of the points that I will make—and many others have already made them—will reflect some of those made in the FBU’s evidence.
Grenfell, of course, exposed many failings about the fire risks in buildings. Very worryingly, we know that there are plenty of other potential Grenfells still around. The noble Lord, Lord Herbert, in his excellent address, got it dead right when he hit upon the issue of inequality: there are plenty of apartment blocks around the world that house the better off in which these problems have never existed. The inequality of the two types of provision is rather stark. This Bill is a welcome step to improve matters, and I am among all those who have spoken so far in support of it.
I want to touch on a number of issues with a view towards improving the Bill. I hope that the Minister will have an open mind to the constructive suggestions that are being made in this debate and will no doubt come up again in Committee. The first concerns resources, as a number of speakers have already said. The number of firefighters has fallen in a decade by 20%. When the Bill’s measures come into force, I pose the question: will there be enough staff and other resources available to cover the new amount of extra work? There are around 4,000 tower blocks for the inspectors and advisers to cover. Looking at the landscapes of many of our cities at the moment, I suggest that there are many more going up, even despite the recessionary period we are in at present. Will there be enough people around with the necessary expertise to handle this increased workload? The FBU is obviously worried about that, and I am interested to learn what the Government think about it.
My second point concerns the impact assessment. It took into account the views of the National Fire Chiefs Council and individual brigades, as I still call them. However, it missed out the FBU, and I would like to know why that was the case. It is in the front line when these fires occur. Like the tenants, its voice needs to be heard and respected. Related to that, can the evidence submitted by the fire and rescue services be published?
Does this Bill cover all houses and other buildings converted into flats, and how will the inspectors prioritise their visits? Will they visit the high rises first? There will also be some conversions around that are in need of some regulation if things are to go well. At the moment, as the Local Government Association has pointed out, there are relatively few fire experts to take on what could be an enormously complex and highly skilled task. What are the plans to recruit and train on a bigger scale?
The impact assessment seems to estimate that the additional cost of the Bill could be up to £2.1 million. Really? Is that the cost of the additional fire safety regime proposed in this Bill? Have I got it right? Do I understand the figures correctly? It certainly seems to be very low, given the enormity of the challenge that people inspecting buildings are likely to have. What are the fire and rescue authorities saying about costs and how they will be apportioned?
Finally, I hope that the Government and the other fire authorities will learn quickly from Grenfell the need to talk to tenants about problems. Residents are as likely as anybody else—and more likely than most—to uncover problems and hazards. They live with them and, unfortunately in the case of Grenfell, they die with them.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, there have been some excellent speeches this afternoon; I will keep my remarks brief and try not to duplicate too much what has been said. First, I join others in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, to the House. His was an entertaining and erudite speech and I know that we all enjoyed it.
Poor building regulations and a hopeless inspection regime led to the awful Grenfell tragedy. It is now clear that so many buildings could have suffered a similar fate, with a dreadful loss of human life. Nine out of 10 blocks are failing cladding checks. Here I declare an interest as part owner of one flat in a block still awaiting a test. But how many blocks have been inspected? Today the Minister repeated that all high-rise residential buildings will be inspected or reviewed by the end of next year; that is many months away, and much could happen between now and then. This is not a speedy enough response to an issue that is putting lives at risk. Can the Minister explain why there is such a lack of urgency on this? Also, can he clarify the distinction between inspections and reviews?
There are, as others have said, just 1,100 fire safety inspectors. The number of firefighters has fallen hugely—by 12,000 in just a few years. With the Covid situation meaning that many people’s jobs are in jeopardy, surely this is an opportunity to invest in reskilling people to take on those valuable roles.
Many of the people in these high-rise buildings wish to move, not just because they are fearful for their safety. Growing families needing more space and the pressures created by working from home, meaning that another bedroom-cum-study is required, are just two of the reasons why people living in high-rise flats may wish to move. But they are finding it impossible to sell. As others have remarked, those who normally lend on such properties are refusing—mortgages are simply not available. People could be trapped in their unhappy situation for years if there is not more action to get these buildings cleared or dealt with.
The Government have provided funds to help put right these faulty buildings, but is £1.6 billion ever going to be enough? We know that it will not be. Will the Minister consider how the Australian state of Victoria is dealing with this issue? There have been significant state loans and a new fund, backed by developer levies, to enable owners to put their blocks right. The state government is determined, in pursuing the developers and builders responsible for these faulty buildings through the courts, to get them to pay for their bad work. The state is also making sure that every high-rise building has been inspected. It is then able to prioritise the way in which putting things right is done. Perhaps we in this country could, through local authorities, train up a new battalion of inspectors so that these buildings could be examined quickly, work prioritised and a new fund set up to fund that work, with the Government chasing the guilty through the courts to get them to pay the bills.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, and also as co-president of London Councils, the body that represents all 32 London borough councils and the City of London.
I join with other speakers in welcoming the Bill, which is long overdue, and I share their questions and interests. For the sake of brevity, I will not repeat them, but I am looking forward very much to the Minister’s response and to learning a little more about the future proceeding of this Bill and, more particularly, the timetable and consideration for the Bill that will follow it in due course.
I declare another interest today, as a patron of Electrical Safety First, the charity that takes a particular interest in this area. In that context, I welcome very much the points that have already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, my noble friend Lord Storey, and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. It is a subject that I am sure we will return to at a later stage, quite probably when we consider the building safety Bill.
I want to say a little more about the subject because it is important here. As others have said, electricity causes more than 14,000 house fires a year. The Grenfell Tower fire was caused by faulty wiring to a fridge-freezer. In 2016, a flaw in a tumble dryer led to a fire at Shepherd’s Court in west London, which ripped through five storeys. The fire at Lakanal House has already been referred to—it was also caused by electricity. There are around 4,000 tower blocks in the UK with nearly half a million flats, so probably more than a million residents live in those tower blocks throughout the United Kingdom.
Electrical Safety First’s analysis of government data shows that accidental electrical fires in high-rise blocks have been steadily increasing between 2006 and 2019. In an excellent article in the Times this morning, the chief executive of Electrical Safety First referred to what she described as
“tenure lottery on safety in tower blocks”,
with
“a mixture of tenure types from privately rented homes, owner occupied and social housing that leaves individual flats bound by different regulations.”
She went on to point out:
“Unless every unit is subject to the same safety regime, the entire block and all those living in it can be put at risk from a single flat.”
Tenants living in the private rented sector are now protected—or soon will be—by mandatory five-yearly electrical safety checks. Indeed, I recall that that provision —the ability to make those regulations—was introduced by amendments from the Government during the Lords stages of the Housing and Planning Bill. I mention that as a hint to the Minister that these opportunities arise and should perhaps be seriously considered and sometimes taken. Surely now is the time, and this Bill the opportunity, to introduce five-yearly mandatory safety checks in tower blocks, regardless of tenure.
As I have already said, the fires at Grenfell Tower, Lakanal House and Shepherd’s Court, all in London, were caused by faulty white goods. Despite the efforts of manufacturers and retailers, consumers are reluctant to register their white goods and to respond to any recalls. This poses an obviously high risk in tower blocks and needs to be addressed. Electrical Safety First has therefore proposed that the newly created role of responsible persons for any high building should be given the task of compiling and maintaining a register of every white good in the building. This would ensure that when a recall occurs, anyone with an affected appliance could be quickly alerted to the recall and encouraged to act on it. This Bill, although intentionally limited in its purpose, provides an appropriate opportunity to do that.
On 7 September, during the Report stage of the Bill in the other place, amendments to give effect to these proposals were moved by the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Fire Safety and Rescue Group, David Amess, to whom reference has already been made. Those amendments received warm support from Members of all parties taking part in that debate. In his reply, the Minister referred to the provisions of the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016 and to the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020, to which several noble Lords, including me, have already referred. However, he clearly recognised that this did not fully meet the concerns expressed in the debate and went on to say that
“we will look across Government at whether there are any gaps in the current regime and proposals to strengthen accountability in this area … if there are still gaps, we, like so many Members, want to see those filled effectively”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/9/20; col. 442.]
I and other speakers today have highlighted at least two such gaps and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. The comments in the other place were made over three weeks ago. Can the Minister today give us an update and tell us what gaps the Government have identified so far? When will the Government take the opportunity offered by this Bill and the building safety Bill that will follow to bring amendments to fill those gaps?
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
May I first join with others in congratulating my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs? He is someone I did not have the pleasure of being contemporaneous with in the other place, but who I did have many connections with when he was operating as the public affairs officer for the British Field Sports Society and when he was setting up Countryside Alliance. I am sure that background will be useful in the work he will be doing in our House. His speech was excellent, and I congratulate and welcome him.
I am sure this Bill—though short—is necessary. It follows the terrible events of Grenfell Tower, which other Members have spoken about. It is also a response to the still unacceptable number of fires that occur disproportionately in buildings of over two floors in height—about twice as many as in ordinary homes. Interestingly, where there is the permanent presence of a caretaker or the installation of fire prevention equipment such as sprinklers, as is the case in sheltered housing, the incidence is fortunately much less. This is particularly significant because of the preponderance of more vulnerable and accident-prone residents in such accommodation. I am therefore pleased the Bill places an emphasis not only on the structure and fire resistance of buildings but on the responsibility of individuals.
Whatever such responsibilities are placed on individuals, it becomes necessary for them to be as focused and precise as possible. For instance, identifying and recording accurately and continually who is a building owner or manager is something which will prove a test. How will this be achieved and established, and by whom? This legal liability emanates from the Building (Amendment) Regulations 2018. However, I am not sure it has been shown to be sufficiently robust and reliable. Local fire and rescue services are under pressure at the best of times, especially with the levels of paperwork and administration now required, so the obligation to share information about the design of external premises— walls, for instance—is open to misunderstanding and misapplication if the resources are inadequate.
The responsibility of building owners or managers to undertake regular inspections of flat entrance doors must be rigorously followed up to be of real effect. Deciding who exactly is responsible is critical at all times. I appreciate that leaseholders are excluded from liability, but that simply places a greater priority on being certain of the identity at all times of those who are liable. Again, we come back to proper, easily accessible records being available so that, if it is necessary to pursue matters, this can be done quickly and effectively to ensure something is done to put things right.
I know of the concerns that have already been touched on, from the Fire Brigades Union among others, about the enforceability of these new provisions and how we obtain accurate knowledge of the number and location of premises affected. Sometimes establishing responsibility is tricky, because records are not always clear as to how many landlords there are who should be accountable. Even with the new powers, we will need to train and retain sufficient fire safety officers to carry out the important inspections that are necessary.
In 2018, combustible materials were banned from the construction of high-rise homes. However, as we know, there are many buildings constructed before then where tenants are presently very concerned about when the necessary safety work to restore them will take place. In the meantime, some problems have been identified in refinancing or marketing those properties. I hope that those concerns can be alleviated before too long. While we are discussing the building safety Bill today, it is worth saying that, once that is law, we will have a more substantial and joined-up approach to safety in high-rise residential buildings.
I also appreciate that, as the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower inquiry are pursued, we will need a number of pieces of secondary legislation in place. The Minister has already indicated that. I hope that they will deal in particular with matters that have come from the first part of the inquiry. These include: more regular inspections of lifts and lift mechanisms; regular reviews of evacuation plans for buildings and policies in place; educating and informing residents in a clear and understandable fashion, because misunderstandings for residents have led to them being put in extra danger; and of course enforcement of standards of internal flat entrance doors.
At the start of the Second World War, my late father was, for a while, a proud member of the National Fire Service. I have always admired firemen and firewomen and I am still very proud of them in the duties they pursue, which are so much more complicated today. They save lives, sometimes placing themselves in great danger. I know the Minister shares my view and his opening remarks demonstrated his admiration for the fire services. We must in this Bill, and in other attached legislation, do our very best to give those people the appreciation and support that they truly deserve.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, fire safety has become a serious subject in recent times. The Grenfell Tower disaster has shone a light on the subject. The LGA has been calling for councils and fire services to be given effective powers and meaningful sanctions to ensure residents are safe, and feel safe, in their homes. This Bill will be an important step in the right direction. However, there are concerns about the practicalities of the Bill: for example, how it will align with building safety proposals from the MHCLG and the costs imposed on councils and other building owners.
The most important part of the Bill is whether it will protect lives. Local Government must be reimbursed for any additional costs arising out of the changes mandated by this Bill. The Bill is created by the Government and local government and their tenants must not be made to pay for the changes. If the Government do not provide funding, local government will have to raise local taxes.
It is important to state that members of the fire service do heroic work, often putting their own lives in danger. We must not forget the builders who do not follow the rules and use unreliable material which causes fires. Every building must follow the fire officer’s advice and the building rules provided by the local authorities. There must be a close relationship between the fire department and the local authority before planning permission to build is given.
Baroness McDonagh (Lab)
I too welcome the Fire Safety Bill and thank the Minister and the Government for bringing it forward. At this stage, I have more questions than answers after reading it. Perhaps the Minister will bear with me as I go through them: I have five.
The first is on scope and the definition of premises. Clause 1 refers to when
“a building contains two or more sets of domestic premises … the building’s structure and external walls and any common parts”
and
“doors between the domestic premises and common parts”.
In reality, does that apply to an HMO? Many of us who are politically active will now be used to knocking on the doors of terraced houses which housed one family but now house a family in each room, so that there are five or six families. We are all very worried about the safety of these premises. A second HMO-style point is about the growing numbers of houses in multiple occupation through the changes to “Supporting People”. When cuts came to the housing benefits of people with severe physical and learning disabilities in 2011-12, we saw more private landlords housing people with those disabilities in HMO-style properties. They would be vulnerable, so will the scope of the Bill apply to them?
My second question is about impact assessments. My noble friend Lord Monks also asked about this. All legislation is framed and depends on the research put together and the impact assessments. I have found it difficult to find the external impact assessments that went into writing this legislation. It might be that I have not looked in the right places. Can the Minister point me to them and, if they have not yet been published, whether they can be?
My third question is about the number of properties this legislation will apply to. The two assessments I have seen from government are that there could be 1 million properties, or 2 million. I have a bit of an issue with that if we are building capacity for a service. I understand a fluctuation of 5% but not one that can fluctuate by 50%.
My next question, the fourth, is about scaling the number of fire inspectors. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and my noble friend Lord Whitty both asked questions relating to this area. How are these numbers of fire inspectors to be trained and scaled? Can the Minister tell us whether his department envisages that this training will take place via the fire service? Will it be done in large part by firefighters or by the private sector? This matters because it would require us to put standards and training into the Bill if a private-sector supplier, with little experience in this area, was to take on such a responsibility for all our costs. I am not being an ideologue about these matters but we understand that if we get these things wrong, they can go very badly wrong. I know that the Minister will understand the problems there were when the Government privatised the probation service; that service had to be brought back in-house.
We know, too, in this country that outside the public sector few private sector organisations have trained people over time. This is why we have a skills problem in many areas. For example, if I looked for qualified electricians who could work underwater, there are very few left in this country—and they will all be in their late 50s and early 60s, because virtually none have been trained since the Coal Board was disbanded in the 1980s. How we train and supply people will matter.
My last and fifth question is around Grenfell. I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, and congratulate him on his maiden speech. I very much agree with the sentiment he expressed due to the tragedy at Grenfell. However, the Bill will not change now the temporary nature of properties that have such inflammable cladding. I absolutely concur with all the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft. Three years on, I do not understand how this matter has not been dealt with or how these premises still have a waking watch. That is a medieval term, from a time when buildings were much more flammable. In the 12th and 13th centuries, the City of London did away with flammable materials such as thatched roofing. It feels incredibly difficult to understand how this has not been addressed after three years. When the Minister comes to address the points that many of us are raising, can he give us a little more detail about the landlords who have not removed the cladding? What type of landlords are they—social, local authority or private sector landlords? Please can we have some more information?
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I too extend my warm welcome to my noble friend Lord Herbert and thank him for his excellent maiden speech. I acknowledge, as others who spoke earlier in the debate did, that along with other major proposals by the Government the Bill is a major step, aimed at preventing disasters such as the horrors of the Grenfell Tower fire. I welcome the Bill’s introduction and its aims.
However, I have some concerns, which I know others share, regarding the practicalities surrounding it—in particular, how it aligns with the MHCLG safety proposals that are being prepared. I also have concerns, as many others have, at the cost that it may impose on councils and other owners of residential buildings. It would be helpful if my noble friend could provide some comments or thoughts on the possible cost of all the proposed works. The Government should not make councils and other freeholders responsible for issues which are beyond their control. To ensure that the aim of the Bill—to protect lives—is successful, national government must reimburse local government for additional costs arising from operational changes mandated by the Bill.
The Bill makes duty holders responsible for fire doors, even if they are owned by leaseholders. Requiring councils to inspect fire doors is likely to prove unworkable in some cases and extremely costly. Duty holders, as referred to in the Bill, are required to review their risk assessments. This task is unlikely to be onerous where buildings do not have external cladding but there is a worry, which my noble friend has acknowledged, that there is insufficient expertise and expert resource to update fire risk assessments for all buildings that have external cladding.
As my noble friend the Minister also mentioned, the Government have set up a task and finish group to look at this issue specifically. We look forward to seeing the results of its deliberations. I believe that there is a severe national shortage of fire engineering expertise. What plans do the Government have to alleviate this problem?
The Government are holding a consultation, which will conclude in October this year, before amending the 2005 fire safety order. MHCLG is preparing the building safety Bill. The Government must provide assurance that that Bill will be fully aligned with the amended 2005 order to create a workable building safety system. There is concern that the effectiveness of the Fire Safety Bill could be undermined by subsequent reforms in the building safety Bill.
There is uncertainty surrounding the relationship between the fire service and the new building regulator to be established under the building safety Bill. The establishment of a national regulator may take staff away from the fire and rescue service. The building safety Bill and the Fire Safety Bill may become overly bureaucratic. Can my noble friend the Minister give an assurance that any new arrangements will not hamper the fire service’s role in ensuring safety in residential buildings?
Earlier in the debate, I was very pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and others raise the issue of the safety of electrical appliances and white goods. I share these concerns and hope that my noble friend the Minister can tell the House whether the checking of appliances is being considered for inclusion in legislation.
Other noble Lords have mentioned an important omission in the Fire Safety Bill: the rights of residents. Nothing in the Bill supports the rights of residents to make complaints or receive a copy, in layman’s language, of the fire risk assessment for their building. Can this important point be addressed?
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as recorded in the register: I am a councillor in Kirklees and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I thank the Minister for our meeting earlier today to discuss the Bill, which is an important step forward in righting the cavalier practices of some of those involved with the construction industry. It is a step in the direction of putting people’s safety first and foremost. We on these Benches welcome it. We welcome the fact that some of the bitter lessons of the Grenfell tragedy, as exposed in the estimable Hackitt report and phase 1 of the Grenfell inquiry, are being learned and acted on, albeit that it has taken far too long to get this far.
It is a pity that the Bill is not as detailed in its response as I would have hoped. I appreciate that further secondary legislation is expected, but people who live in potentially high-risk buildings need action now, as many noble Lords have said. As my noble friend Lord Stunnell so rightly said, residents need to be at the heart of these changes. While the construction industry builds and moves on, it is the residents who are left carrying the can—and the significant costs of the errors, as my noble friend Lord Shipley pointed out. That is not right and must be put right.
As we have heard, this short Bill seeks to extend the powers of the fire safety order 2005 to include outside walls, including cladding, windows and balconies. This therefore gives a clear duty to responsible persons to assess and manage the fire risk. It provides for powers of enforcement to be given to the fire and rescue authorities. All that is positive. However, as my noble friend Lord Stunell explained, this lack of detail leaves many questions unanswered.
Who will do the fire risk assessments, given that there are so few trained personnel currently? The Fire Brigades Union estimates there are fewer than 1,000 fire safety officers. How will standards be regulated? Will there be a register of fully trained and certified fire assessors? Third-party accreditation of assessors is a vital part of this new regime, and the rapid development of skills courses in colleges and universities is urgently needed to fill the gaps. What do the Government intend to do about that? As many noble Lords across the House have pointed out, this is a deficiency in the Bill. Lives literally depend on accurate and informed fire assessments. I am sure that the Minister will want to demonstrate how this requirement is to be met.
Then there is the question of the building materials used and construction techniques employed. The Hackitt report exposed the lamentable standards that applied prior to Grenfell. How can residents in flats be assured that materials do not breach combustible standards and are thoroughly and completely tested before being deemed fire safe for use? Who will make sure that gaps in ill-fitting window replacements are not filled with inflammable filler? Who is going to make sure that doors opening on to communal areas are fitted properly and not altered?
This Bill gives us the answer as to who will be responsible and accountable but it does not give us the answer as to how this will be achieved, with so few fire assessors and with fire and rescue authorities that have faced budget cuts of 28% in the past 10 years. There is a cost to fire safety. Grenfell brutally and tragically exposed the consequences of cutting safety corners. Can the Minister give us a categorical assurance that the costs of fire safety enforcement will be fully covered?
My noble friend Lord Tope and other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, raised concerns about electrical safety, which surely must be considered closely and could have been included in this Bill. Why have the Government failed to respond to the cause of the Grenfell tragedy at the same time as responding to its building failures? I say this to the Minister: if not now, when?
There is a huge task facing fire assessors. Many millions of buildings need to be reassessed. The question then has to be: what guidance will the Government provide to help with prioritisation? Official government guidance will surely be of help to those residents who are trapped in buildings with cladding that does not meet fire standards. Their fear is that they will be unable to sell until they are able to produce a fire safety certificate. I suspect that mortgage providers will similarly be reluctant to provide a loan until the essential work is done.
The building safety Bill, currently in draft form only, refers to buildings over 18 metres high. This Fire Safety Bill includes all dwellings. This is a recipe for confusion when clarity must be at the heart of all safety legislation. Will the Minister ask his colleagues to consider reducing this confusion before that Bill is considered?
I hope the Minister is able to provide answers to satisfy those of us who think that this may well be a lost opportunity to deal with the implications of improving fire safety requirements in all buildings. There is consensus across this House that the Bill will be supported. Unfortunately, there is also consensus that there are omissions and that there is a lack of detail.
The direction of travel is supported, but the route being taken is too slow. Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and my noble friend Lord Stunell, raised the importance of accelerating change to show that lessons have been learned, and implemented, from the tragedy of Grenfell. Let us put Grenfell residents at the heart of our thoughts as first steps towards greater safety are taken.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, first, we remember the 72 people who lost their lives in Grenfell Tower in the fire on the night of 14 June 2017. I pay tribute to the firefighters, and to other emergency services, who acted so bravely on the night of the fire, as well as other contractors, civil servants, local government officials and the wider civil society, including the faith communities who came together with the local community after that terrible night. I join the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, in paying tribute to the work that firefighters and other emergency services have done in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic.
I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as follows. I am vice-president of the Local Government Association, chair of the Heart of Medway Housing Association and non-executive director of MHS Homes.
At the start of my contribution this afternoon, I want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, on his excellent maiden speech. I never served in the other place, but I was able to get a photograph taken here, with the instruction of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, including myself as Lord Kennedy of Southwark from the Labour Benches, the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, from the Conservative Benches, and the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo of Southwark, from the Lib Dem benches. The local paper reported, “Southwark’s got all benches covered”.
The noble Lord brings a wealth of experience to the House with his time as a Home Office Minister in the other place and his career outside Parliament, which will prove to be invaluable in our deliberations on this Bill and many other measures. I agree with the noble Lord’s comments about the conditions some people have to live in and the need to tackle that social injustice. I welcome the noble Lord to the House, and I look forward to getting to know him in the coming weeks and months and to his further contributions to our debates.
I want to place on record my thanks to several organisations for their briefings, which have proved so helpful to me in preparing for this Second Reading debate. These include the Fire Brigades Union, the Local Government Association, the National Housing Federation, Electrical Safety First, the Association of British Insurers and the House of Lords Library.
I also want to make clear, at the start, that the Official Opposition are supportive of this Bill. Our only issues are that we should be going further with greater speed, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, made reference to, and that since the fire at Grenfell Tower over three years ago this is the only legislative action that has been taken so far, as my noble friend Lord Whitty pointed out in his contribution. The pace of change in relation to the enormity of the challenge is disappointing. As we seek to make changes to the procedures and the mechanisms in place, a quicker pace is needed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson of Welton, asked important questions about the timing of much-needed changes. When are they going to be introduced? She also recognised the frustration of many with the pace of change. Professionalism and being properly qualified, certified and accredited to the job have to be themes running through the new regime being put in place. These are not matters that can be done on the cheap or by unqualified or inexperienced people. Those are points I have been making consistently since that terrible night, and I will continue to do so.
We also need a complete change to the attention given by the authorities when residents, tenants and leaseholders raise concerns about safety, so that they are not ignored, as they often are, and as they were by Kensington and Chelsea Council when Grenfell residents raised many times their safety fears. When we get to Committee, I, and other colleagues on these Benches, will propose amendments that we think will make improvements and strengthen the good intention of the Bill.
When the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, responds to the debate, can he please tell me how he sees the Bill, the fire safety order and the building safety Bill all working together effectively to improve building safety when both Bills are Acts of Parliament? We want clarity with respect to roles, responsibilities, duties, liabilities and enforcement, because without that we have the risk of further problems and complications undermining the good intentions of the Government.
One example I would give the noble Lord is that there must be no confusion between the roles and responsibilities of the fire safety order’s responsible person, the new accountable person and the building safety manager, which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, spoke about. Where we have confusion and a lack of clarity, we run the risk of buck-passing, a failure of process and procedure and a risk to people’s safety and their lives. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is right about the need for a complete change of culture, to plug gaps and to be relentless in the pursuit of delivering a complete package of reforms, which are urgently needed.
Turning to the specifics of the Bill, Clause 1, as we have heard, amends article 6 of the fire safety order, and it will apply to premises where the building contains two or more domestic flats. This extension covers the structure and external walls, including doors and windows in those walls and anything attached to those walls, along the common parts of the building, and to the front doors of people’s properties. This is an important clarification, which I welcome.
Some concerns have been raised about when access is needed to inspect the front doors of residents’ properties, along with the windows or possibly balconies, and, when access is not given willingly, the power for the building owner to get access to the property. Will the only process to seek an order from the court? That can be lengthy. I am not convinced it gives the urgency needed for the inspection to take place. For example, you could have access to 50 flats in a block with no problem whatsoever. All the external walls and communal areas are inspected, but there are two flats where access is refused despite repeated requests, so the building cannot be regarded as compliant until a court-granted order is executed, the inspection takes place and everything passes. There must be a better, quicker way to deal with that problem.
This is also a problem for social landlords any type of landlord or building owner. The issue was raised in the other place by the honourable Members for Orpington and Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. The Bill also provides for fire and rescue authorities to take enforcement action against responsible persons if they have failed to comply with their duties under the fire safety order, which risks getting bogged down if occupants in one or two properties are not being co-operative.
That also brings me back to a point that I mentioned at the start of my contribution today. Fire inspectors must be professional and properly qualified; there is no doing this role on the cheap. This is a key role in the compliance and enforcement of legal obligations for fire safety duties on responsible persons.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, is right about the need to keep records, so that liabilities are clearly established and it can be demonstrated who has and who has not done their job, and action can be taken to ensure that they do it. We want proper processes and procedures to ensure that residents, tenants and owners are properly aware of all matters with regard to their safety in their home.
The Bill will increase the workload of fire and rescue services. The impact assessment does not specify how many inspectors carry out fire audits and enforcement action in England, but in 2019-20 only 963 staff were competent to carry out full inspections, 706 to serve an enforcement notice and 546 to serve a prohibition notice contract—but we had 1,724 fire safety inspectors two decades ago, as my noble friend Lord Whitty referred to. Clearly, that is a great diminution in the number of people who are able to do this work.
My concern here is that, to bridge the gap between the resource we have at present and the resource we need to deliver the compliance and enforcement orders, corners will be cut and less-qualified or unqualified persons will be given roles that they are not competent to do, instead of proper investment and training to deliver competent officers. If would be good if the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, could assure me that that is not the intention, that only properly qualified people will be used, and that action will be taken to increase the number of qualified inspectors. Can he also assure me that he and his colleagues have a clear understanding of the complexity of the inspections that need to be undertaken?
I suggest that there should be a recruitment programme to increase the number of operational firefighters and fire safety officers in respect of premises covered by this order. There will be an additional cost for these additional inspections and these enforcement actions. Can the noble Lord in his reply to the debate confirm that these costs will be fully funded by the Government and there will not be any fudging on this? It would be wrong to place extra burdens but not fund them or expect the council taxpayer to pick up the costs through a precept levied on them.
Clause 2 provides for a delegated power whereby the Secretary of State in England and the relevant Welsh Minister can change or clarify the types of premises falling within the scope of the order. I am fine with that, and it is good to see that we will be using the affirmative resolution procedure to approve the regulations.
My one area of concern is Clause 2(5), which states that
“the relevant authority must consult anyone that appears to the relevant authority to be appropriate.”
Can the noble Lord give me an assurance that that will include all the fire authorities in England, bodies such as the National Housing Federation, the Local Government Association and relevant local authorities, and not just the National Fire Chiefs Council? I would also want the relevant Welsh Minister to consult with the fire authorities in Wales and bodies such as the Welsh Local Government Association.
My noble friend Lord Monks rightly raised the question of the consultation process and how the view of the Fire Brigades Union will be taken into account. They are the hero firefighters we all praise, so we should be asking them what they think. They are the people who run into Grenfell Tower and other burning buildings when everybody else is trying to get out. Can the noble Lord confirm when he responds to the debate that the FBU will be fully consulted by the Home Office when drafting the appropriate regulations?
My noble friend Lady McDonagh raised important questions about the scope, impact assessments, training and who will do the important work of these inspections, and, like other noble Lords, she raised the speed of the reforms which are needed. I also concur very much with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, in that regard.
I have a few other issues to raise which I hope the noble Lord can respond to shortly but, if not, I hope he will be able to respond to the points in a letter to me and copy it to other Members of the House.
In the weeks after the Grenfell Tower fire, the Government conducted industry fire safety tests known as BS 8414 tests on external wall systems using ACM cladding of different levels of combustibility, in conjunction with different types of insulation. The tests were also conducted on glass-reinforced plastic composite fire doors following the discovery that those used in Grenfell Tower were not fit for purpose. While some of the test information has been made public, the Government have not published the full test reports. If testing programmes are to continue, they need to be published so that everyone can see the full reports. In that way, the building owners will be able to see and quickly identify defective doors and take remedial action much more quickly and cost effectively. Can the noble Lord agree to look at that issue and come back to me?
In 2013, Wales was the first country in the world to require sprinklers in all new-build homes from October 2013, and in January 2016 it further upgraded that to include all new care homes, sheltered housing and other rooms for residential purposes. My noble friend Lady Wilcox of Newport set out how urgent action was taken in the aftermath of the Grenfell tower fire in Newport, whose council she led. The work done there was to the credit of the council, Newport City Homes, the Welsh Government and Senedd Cymru. The Government are making moves in the right direction in respect of sprinklers, which is to be very much welcomed, but they should seek to do what has been done in Wales and introduce sprinklers in all new buildings that are built in England.
It is a fact that very few people have ever died in a fully sprinklered building. When looking at fires, Home Office data confirm that almost half of the accidental fires in England are due to electrical accidents and incidents, and that those who lose their lives are disproportionally the elderly and the vulnerable. In Committee we should therefore spend some time looking at what can be done to improve the regulations in this respect, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, said in his contribution.
As the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, said, Sir David Amess, the Member for Southend West, raised this issue and proposed amendments in the other place. We should examine these issues in detail and see whether we can make sensible, proportionate improvements that improve the safety for residents in high-rise blocks. It would be very welcome, and I associate myself very much with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in that regard.
We should also consider whether it is appropriate to have gas into high-rise residential buildings. I remember that, when my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley was a local councillor in Lewisham, there was a serious gas leak under a tower block in Brockley, which she represented. Thankfully, it was dealt with by the London Fire Brigade and British Gas, but the whole block had to be evacuated and urgent work done to remove the build-up of gas under the building. An explosion would have been devastating.
In conclusion, this has been a good debate, with lots of agreement and a genuine desire on the part of all noble Lords who spoke to improve safety, protect people and property and to get this right. I suspect that we will have a few differences of opinion, but I really want to improve the Bill, as do all other noble Lords in the House. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank everyone across the Chamber for contributing so constructively to this Second Reading debate. There have been a number of powerful contributions, but it is clear that all noble Lords who have spoken today have rightly focused on the safety of residents. Ultimately, what matters is saving lives from the terrible impact of fire. I will address many of the points raised, although time will likely preclude me from providing a substantive response to all of the questions raised by noble Lords. Prior to that I will make a few comments.
As Members know, I have only relatively recently started in this post, but it underlines the importance that the Government place on building and fire safety that we now have a Minister working across two departments with the aim of driving forward these important reforms. I commit today that the package of reforms that has been mentioned will be driven at the fastest possible pace.
There have been a number of criticisms today about the lack of action from the Government since the Grenfell fire. I have outlined in the all-Peers letter and in my opening speech the measures the Government have undertaken, which have been supported by an unprecedented level of funding that has been made available, not just to support remediation of cladding but to improve the fire safety capability of fire and rescue services.
We are driving forward a once-in-a-generation change. The Bill is the first legislative step in this process and, as noble Lords can already see, we are committed to delivering the Grenfell recommendations through regulations following on from the fire safety consultation. As I have said before, the building safety Bill, which is currently subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, will deliver extensive and much-needed building safety reforms.
I extend my personal and sincerest welcome to my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs and offer my congratulations on his fine maiden speech. He brings formidable intellect and a first-class record of delivery as a Minister. I look forward to his contributions and to working with him in future. He was very eloquent about the social injustice involved in the Grenfell fire tragedy.
My noble friend Lord Kirkhope asked how individuals or businesses can determine whether they are a responsible person under the fire safety order. The order clearly sets out who is a responsible person, and their duties. To make it easier for individuals to confirm whether they are a responsible person, we are looking at ensuring that easy-to-understand guidance is available to aid self-identification.
I thank my noble friend Lady Sanderson for highlighting the importance of implementing the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 recommendations in full. We have made that commitment, as I said in the all-Peers letter. We have a statutory duty to consult on the proposals to deliver these recommendations, and the responses to this will help us get the legislation right. I reassure all noble Lords that this Government are and have always been committed to implementing, where appropriate, legislation for the inquiry’s recommendations, as was set out in our manifesto.
The noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, asked whether HMOs are in scope. They are clearly in scope, except for the domestic premises within that. The noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Whitty, also raised the issue of scope. This is for all multi-occupied residential buildings, not just buildings over 18 metres, which is a difference from the building safety Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, also asked about impact assessments. An impact assessment has been carried out for both this Bill and the fire safety order consultation. I can direct her to that if necessary.
My noble friend Lord Bourne wanted some statistics, and I am happy to give him some. So far, 50% of the 458 buildings have completed remediation or removed the unsafe ACM cladding.
My noble friends Lady Sanderson and Lord Bourne, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, all raised the need to get the package of reforms right. I will provide information on the implementation of the fire safety consultation and the building safety Bill as far as I can, because that package of measures—together with the creation of a new regulator, which already exists in shadow form in the Health and Safety Executive—is how we will coherently reform the system needed to ensure we never see this tragedy happen again.
I reassure my noble friend Lady Sanderson that we are committed to delivering the reform and bringing the legislation forward to underpin this. The fire safety consultation, as she mentioned, will close on 12 October. Following on from this, we aim to publish a response in early 2021. Where these proposals require legislative changes, the intention is to deliver those through regulations in spring 2021 where appropriate, and, where amendment to the fire safety order is required, through primary legislation in the draft building safety Bill. That Bill is currently subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, which should conclude by the end of the year. We will look to finalise it for introduction to Parliament as soon as practical.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised the subject of access to information for residents. This is covered in our proposals in the fire safety order consultation: responsible persons have to provide comprehensive information to residents, including sharing fire risk assessments with new responsible persons. There is always a golden thread of continuity in providing that information.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, wanted information on the timing for the commencement of the Fire Safety Bill. Recognising the operational implications that the Bill could have, we have established a task and finish group made up of operational experts in fire safety. Its role is to advise the Government on the most optimal way of commencing the Bill. The Home Office received the group’s advice earlier this week. Its broad recommendation is to implement the Bill’s provision all at once and to take a risk-based approach to do that. We are considering a number of more detailed policy and operational issues; I intend to set this out in more detail in Committee.
The noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Shipley, my noble friend Lady Eaton and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, all mentioned the burden that could fall on leaseholders in many cases. We recognise this issue and are working on measures to address these concerns as part of the process of finalising the building safety Bill as it passes through the other place and this House.
The noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, asked what funding had been provided to support the fire and building safety reforms. I mentioned in my opening speech that £30 million of additional funding will be provided to fire and rescue services and the National Fire Chiefs Council this year in response to the Grenfell Tower fire, and I have gone through the elements of that funding package.
The noble Lords, Lord Whitty, Lord Monks and Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, all mentioned the concerns raised by the Fire Brigades Union on this Bill, particularly on capacity issues and funding. Fire and rescue services have the resources they need to do their important work. It is the responsibility of each fire and rescue authority to assess the risks in its area and determine how best to allocate its resources effectively across all its prevention, protection and response functions to mitigate the risks facing its community. This includes deciding the number of fire safety officers needed to deliver its fire safety enforcement duties under the fire safety order. As I have stated, the Government are investing £30 million of additional funding to help with this approach.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady McDonagh, and the noble Lords, Lord Stunell, Lord Whitty and Lord Shipley, and my noble friend Lord Kirkhope, mentioned issues around shortfalls of fire engineers and fire risk assessors. We are working with the sector to develop a plan and a clear approach. We are also funding the British Standards Institution to develop guidance and work with professional bodies on training.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, on the speed of carrying out these fire risk assessments, I say that we will take a risk-based approach. That is the advice we have received. I also point out to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, that there is no intention to have anything other than properly qualified fire safety officers carrying out the fire risk assessments. Indeed, we are also looking at plans to build the capacity to carry out the assessments needed for high-risk buildings, as we recognise that there is a shortage of fire engineers. There are plans afoot to work with professional bodies to do this.
My noble friends Lord Bourne and Lord Randall, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, raised electrical safety and the importance of thinking about the causes of these fires and how we respond to them once they have occurred. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked what the Government were doing with regard to electrical equipment and appliances. The Office for Product Safety and Standards was created in 2018 to lead and co-ordinate the product safety system, including responding to incidents and recalls. The Government have also provided £12 million a year of additional funding for product safety regulations since 2018.
The new Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020 are now in force and will apply to new tenancies from 1 April 2021. These regulations require that electrical installations be inspected and tested by a qualified person at least every five years. Social landlords are expected to comply with the decent home standard by the Regulator of Social Housing. This includes homes being free of hazards, including electrical hazards, as set out under the housing health and safety rating system. In the social housing Green Paper, we asked whether new safety measures in the private rented sector should be extended to the social sector. We are considering responses to the consultation and will bring forward a social housing White Paper soon.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tope: let us work together and see whether there are specific gaps that we can address through appropriate legislation. The building safety Bill may be a vehicle in which to address some of the gaps that we may be able to plug. I look forward to working with him constructively on these matters. We are happy to meet Electrical Safety First at officer level and discuss further our approach.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned flat entrance doors. Regarding entrance doors to communal areas, under the fire safety order, the occupier of any private domestic premises should co-operate with responsible persons to enable them to carry out their duties, which include assessing the full fire safety risks for flat entrance doors. Our fire safety consultation seeks views on whether the provision under the fire safety order ensures the effective co-operation between the occupier of any domestic premises and the responsible person. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, also raised difficulty of access. Most of the powers in that area come under the Housing Act 2004.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, gave a characteristically positive overview of what is happening in Wales. I make a commitment that we will work with all the devolved Administrations in ensuring that our approach takes in all the best practice that we can learn. I noted her point that a White Paper will be published. However, the context in Wales is different from that in England. There are only 147 high-rise residential buildings in Wales and well over 11,000 in England. The sheer scale and magnitude of the issue is much greater here. However, I make a genuine commitment to her and my noble friend Lord Bourne that we will learn lessons from the Welsh Assembly.
My noble friend Lord Bourne and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, raised the progress of the path to justice and asked about the number of people interviewed under caution in relation to the Grenfell Tower tragedy. I shall have to write to noble Lords on that matter. We all want to see justice done for the 72 people who lost their lives.
I have not been able to respond to all the substantive points raised by noble Lords. Where that is the case, I will make sure that I respond in writing. Noble Lords should feel free to contact me. Although I appreciate that some would wish us to go much further, I welcome the cross-party support for the provisions in the Bill. Where noble Lords wish to go further, in most instances it is not the case that we disagree but that we see it as something we are seeking to address either through the fire safety consultation or the draft building safety Bill, already published.
This Government are steadfast in their determination to see this Bill enacted and implemented as quickly as practicable. I commend it to the House and beg to move.
Bill read a second time.
Fire Safety Bill
Thursday 29th October 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 132-I Marshalled list for Committee - (26 Oct 2020)
“(1C) Where a building contains two or more sets of domestic premises, the things to which this order applies include electrical appliances.(1D) The reference to electrical appliances means any appliances specified by regulations made by the relevant authority.(1E) Schedule (Electrical Appliances) to the Fire Safety Act 2020 applies to paragraphs (1C) and (1D).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that the Fire Safety Order applies to electrical appliances where a building contains two or more sets of domestic premises.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, this amendment is also in the names of my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge and the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Whitty. I am delighted that Peers of such distinguished service and experience are able to support these amendments and I look forward to their contributions. I thank the Minister for his engagement and commitment on this issue. I know that he has given a briefing on this; I have apologised to him that I was unable to attend that briefing as I was engaged in a debate in Grand Committee at the time.
I welcome the Bill, and these amendments are intended to be proactive and to help prevent fires caused by electrical ignition. Similar amendments were tabled in the Commons by my honourable friend Sir David Amess.
I thank Electrical Safety First, a charity that is dedicated to electrical safety and which has helped in the presentation of this case.
These amendments are intended to build upon the Government’s new regulation for the private rented sector, the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020, which as the date suggests are obviously of a very recent vintage and which provide for mandatory checks every five years. I commend those regulations and believe that this legislation presents an opportunity to build on them.
As I said, this is an attempt to be proactive and to prevent fires happening in the first place. I accept that the Government are giving some consideration to this issue and I am grateful for that. My amendments are designed to ensure that electrical appliances are registered with the responsible person for high-rise domestic dwellings and to introduce mandatory checks for all residents, whatever the tenure of their home.
One anomaly of the present position is that some flats—those that are privately let—will have mandatory five-year checks. Some currently will not: the social tenants and the owner-occupied. I do not believe that that difference can be easily justified. It could be that one flat is having checks while the one next door is not.
According to Electrical Safety First, electrical faults cause more than 14,000 fires a year—almost half of all accidental house fires. There are around 4,000 tower blocks in the country, containing over 480,000 individual flats. Unless every unit in a high-rise building is subject to the same safety regime, the whole building is at risk from a fire emanating from one single flat, as we have seen.
New analysis of government data by Electrical Safety First reveals that nearly a quarter of accidental electric fires that occurred in high-rise buildings over the last five years in England were the result of faulty appliances and leads, as well as faulty fuel supplies, which can include electrical wiring in a property. These amendments would see a responsible person record the presence of white goods to minimise the risk that faulty goods can pose in densely populated buildings. Keeping a record of the appliances in use would also mean that faulty recalled appliances could be removed or repaired. Mandatory five-yearly electrical safety checks in tower blocks, regardless of tenure, are included in the amendment.
As I said, current regulations that we passed recently mean that privately rented flats are required to have these electrical safety checks but other tenures are not, which has in effect created a tenure lottery in buildings, which often include owner-occupied, privately rented and social housing properties.
These provisions for checking electrical safety would be undertaken by competent registered electricians. I am aware of the concerns and interest of the Fire Brigades Union and I welcome its engagement. I assure the union that there is no intention through these amendments that fire officers would undertake this work. They have other, very important jobs to do, which they are doing very well.
More worrying analysis shows that over the past three years, accidental electrical fires in high-rise buildings have risen consistently year on year. High-profile tower block fires have been previously linked to electrical sources, including the Lakanal House fire, where an electrical fault with a television caused a fire that claimed the lives of six people, and Shepherd’s Court, where a faulty tumble dryer led to extensive damage to an 18-storey building. While other factors certainly accelerated the Grenfell Tower fire, it must be highlighted that its primary immediate cause was of course an electrical source of ignition, subsequently confirmed by the Grenfell inquiry phase 1 documentation.
It is important to note that some fires are caused not by appliances themselves but by misuse of them. That is why, despite these amendments, education is certainly important, and why the Home Office in conjunction with Electrical Safety First runs a week of educational awareness-raising with the public through the Fire Kills campaign on the proper use of electricity and electrical appliances. I certainly welcome that, and it is a necessary thing to do, but it is not in itself sufficient.
Recent tragic events have demonstrated the fatal risk that electrical accidents and incidents pose to people in their homes, particularly in high-density housing such as tower blocks. The work of Electrical Safety First and others has helped ensure that tenants living in the private rented sector are now protected by mandatory five-yearly electrical safety checks in their properties. That law was recently brought into effect. Such measures are crucial in bringing down the number of electrical accidents and incidents, and saving lives. We believe that the time is right to include individual dwellings in tower blocks in this regime, regardless of their tenure.
I appreciate that this is a short Bill to amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, which focuses on non-domestic measures, to cover domestic homes. This means that homes within high-rise blocks are affected by the proposed legislation. This offers an excellent and straightforward opportunity to ensure that all who live in such buildings are brought under the same safety regime. Given this, the newly created role of a “responsible person” for any high-rise building should be given the task of compiling a register of every white good in the building. This ensures that when a recall occurs, anyone with an affected appliance can be quickly alerted and the safety risk resolved. Relying on consumers to register and respond to recalls in those buildings, when the potential risk is so high, must be considered wholly inadequate.
The Government can therefore improve the Bill through a number of measures that seek to improve electrical safety in homes. Amending the Bill provides an opportunity to make immediate differences to the safety of people who live in multi-occupied high-rise buildings. Electricity causes fires and the Government need to consider seriously the electrical sources of ignition. I am pleased that these amendments enjoy broad-based support. This is a time for all of us to come together to provide a safer environment for high-rise buildings by the introduction of mandatory safety checks. I hope that the Committee will support these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will speak in favour of the amendment in the name of my noble friend, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, to which I have added my name, as have the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Whitty. I should have also added my name to my noble friend’s Amendment 24, which I fully support.
As I mentioned at Second Reading, the issue of electrical appliances and their safety, especially as a potential cause of household fires, should be a major concern. We should do whatever we can to try to reduce those fires caused by electrical faults. The two amendments, introduced so eloquently by my noble friend, would be a valuable tool in trying to achieve that.
Hand in hand with measures for mandatory checks, we should also do what we can to educate the public on electrical safety. My noble friend mentioned that. I pay tribute to a scheme that used to run—I am not sure that it still does—in the London Borough of Hillingdon when I was the Member of Parliament for Uxbridge. Primary school children went into a series of locations or rooms, perhaps a kitchen or bathroom, to identify potential hazards and dangers. I remember saying at the time that the scheme should be not just for primary school children but for adults, too. Sometimes people are not aware of the problems that can be caused by all sorts of household appliances. We should all be aware that the labour-saving devices that we take for granted can also be potentially dangerous. We should therefore do whatever we can to try to eliminate the possibility of electrical fires because we know the devastation that they can cause.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I strongly support these amendments and the requirement for a regular mandatory check on electrical appliances, broadly for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, explained to the Committee. I pay tribute to the campaign group Electrical Safety First, which has given me some information on the issue. As the noble Lord has said, the fires at Lakanal House in Camberwell, Shepherd’s Court and Grenfell were all triggered by faulty electrical appliances. Whether it was dangerous cladding, compromised firewalling or poor evacuation procedures that led to multiple deaths, electrical appliances triggered the fires in the first place. Indeed, more than half of the fires in dwellings in this country are related to electrical appliances.
These amendments would require regular checking of the standards and appropriate use of white goods in all multi-occupied properties. There are already mandatory gas checks on most such buildings for gas supply and the correct use of gas appliances. That is largely because people and regulators have long recognised that gas is dangerous. Yet, these days, electricity is the greater hazard. In multi-occupied multi-storey buildings, if there is a problem in one flat or unit, that is a potentially lethal problem for everyone in that structure.
We should explain that the amendment to regulations would in no way reduce the central responsibility and liability of the manufacturers to ensure the safety of their products; nor should any responsibility be taken away from users to follow instructions and not use equipment irresponsibly or inappropriately. However, the continued use of recalled products, dangerous wiring arrangements, damaged circuits and inappropriate placement of white goods requires regular inspection. There is also a requirement on landlords, tenants and leaseholders to have knowledge of that inspection to help reduce hazards. Failure on their part to facilitate inspection or to take action in the light of that inspection will rest primarily with the owner and manager of the building. That is how it should be. I strongly support these amendments.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, first, I remind the Committee that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I support both amendments in this group. My noble friend Lord Tope, who is a signatory to Amendment 1, is unable to take part today but I know that he is looking forward to debating the issues raised in both amendments when we reach Report.
As we have heard, evidence from Electrical Safety First tells us that electrical faults cause more than 14,000 home fires a year. That is almost half of all accidental house fires. Logically, therefore, the more electrical appliances are checked, the lower the risk will be of a fire breaking out and then spreading to other people’s properties. This is not just a matter of building safety but about preventing fires breaking out in the first place.
I suggest that the general public have a right to expect that Governments of all persuasions should be willing to legislate to ensure high standards of regulation to improve public safety. Those who live in blocks of flats have a right to expect that they are living in a safe environment and that the owner of their block has undertaken the necessary safety checks within it, in this case to electrical appliances within that block.
The proposal in this group of amendments is for checks at least every five years. That is justified. If I drive a car that is over three years old, I have to prove every year that it is roadworthy by having an MOT check. This is to protect other road users, not just me and my vehicle. The same principle should apply in shared buildings where electrical appliances that are a fire risk could cause damage to other properties and to their occupants in that shared building.
I therefore conclude that the fire safety order should apply to electrical appliances where a building contains two or more sets of domestic premises. That seems reasonable. For high-rise residential buildings, in particular, it is important that a responsible person should keep a register of white goods in the building for which they are responsible, that they ensure that white goods are registered with the manufacturer for recall, should that be necessary, and that safety checks are conducted at least every five years.
Any privately rented home in a block of flats of mixed tenure will now be subject to electrical safety checks. It seems odd that in a high-rise block of mixed tenure, only the privately rented properties will be subject to the 2020 regulations. I would be grateful for the Minister’s explanation as to why that is, and to know whether the Government will act now to address that anomaly.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
My Lords, I, too, declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. We all share the object of improving the safety of residents and protecting them from the hazards of fire. The Bill is a most welcome contribution to this aim, and provides much-needed clarity about the responsibilities and duties of building owners.
My noble friend’s amendment has been tabled with the best of intentions. On Second Reading I mentioned my concern about the potential for fire hazards from white goods, as did others. I therefore looked with great interest at my noble friend’s amendment. Although I share the concern behind the two amendments regarding fire hazard posed by faulty electrical appliances, this amendment would transfer the responsibility for that issue away from the manufacturers and owners of such appliances, to the responsible person and the fire and rescue service.
The requirement for the responsible person to keep a register of electrical appliances and to check whether they are subject to a recall notice would be completely impractical, particularly in social housing, where the responsibility of the local authority or housing association has significant implications, especially in relation to keeping a register of all electrical appliances.
Surely the responsibility for the safety of electrical goods should sit with the manufacturers. Recent legislation created a national regulator, the Office for Product Safety and Standards, to lead and co-ordinate the product safety system, and respond to safety incidents and recalls. The Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016 place strict legal obligations on manufacturers to ensure that electrical equipment is safe before it enters the marketplace. An added concern was gaining the co-operation of occupiers and to private properties. There are potential problems of access rights, and ECHR issues.
Clause 86 of the draft building safety Bill imposes duties on residents regarding maintenance of electrical equipment, and I feel it would be better if the aims of the amendment were seen in relation to general electrical safety checks, and were part of that Bill’s safety case provision.
Fire statistics show that 34% of accidental dwelling fires in 2019-20 were caused by misuse of equipment or appliances, with a further 15% due to faulty leads. However, faulty electrical goods, although unacceptable, are not the primary source of fire fatalities: 23% of fire fatalities are linked to smokers. However, even if it were possible to fulfil all the obligations created by my noble friend’s amendment, we would always need to recognise that fires often start in kitchens—and Amendments 1 and 24 will not negate fire danger in kitchens.
Lord Best (CB) [V]
My Lords, this important Bill commands extensive cross-party support. The amendment, with leadership from the noble lord, Lord Bourne, also has backing from all parties, and I can now add support from the Cross Benches. I think we have all been helped by input from the Electrical Safety First charity, from whose excellent briefing I note that the failure of electrical appliances is the underlying cause of some 57% of the fires in homes, as with the Grenfell Tower tragedy, in which a fridge-freezer caused the fire.
Although electrical product companies endeavour to alert customers when they need to recall appliances—as with the more than 500,000 white goods subject to recalls from Hotpoint and Indesit alone—there are many reasons why the message does not get through: people move and take appliances with them; recall notices get lost; people buy second-hand goods, and so on. There are a lot of electrical products out there with the potential to start new fires at any time.
Amendment 1, in combination with the proposed new schedule, provides two levels of assurance, both of which seem eminently suitable and practical for high-rise buildings in particular. These involve, as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, keeping a register of electrical appliances and having a five-yearly electrical safety inspection of all flats, not just those that are privately rented.
We need to consider possible criticisms, and I shall take up one or two of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton. Would these measures, however necessary, be expensive to administer? Would they be costly for residents? Would they be intrusive into people’s private space? Adding the task of maintaining a register of residents’ appliances would increase the workload of the responsible person with fire safety duties, but the increased workload should be modest, and a tiny supplement to service charges should cover this.
I stress that the amendment would not add to the duties or responsibilities of the fire and rescue service; rather, it would assist the service by reducing fires. Local authorities would have oversight of the requirement for inspections, but they already have enforcement duties in respect of privately rented flats. Moreover, the work involved should not be onerous, as the apartment block’s managers, and the responsible person, in particular, will want to retain oversight of the building’s electrical safety.
As for the quinquennial inspection, I gather from managing agents in the private rented sector, who are already dealing with electrical safety inspections, that costs can be much lower than the £200 we have heard about for a five-year certification. There will be economies of scale in covering flats in a tower block, compared with costs for a check-up and certificate for a one-off private property. The inspection requires a qualified electrician but not a fully fledged surveyor or electrical engineer. I think £50 per unit, equivalent to £10 per annum, could be achieved in due course. Such a payment may be more than helpful in alerting the occupier to any potential hazards and providing peace of mind derived from the knowledge that one’s neighbours are much less likely, unwittingly, to cause a disastrous fire.
Some have argued that applying this obligation to home owners is a step too far. There is little objection to social landlords being required to meet standards demanded of private landlords, and the Regulator of Social Housing will not only insist on comparable standards but will ensure they are enforced. But there are sensitivities about placing the same obligations on home owners—leaseholders and shared owners—in these apartment blocks. However, this represents a free checking service for the resident to ensure that they are not harbouring an unsafe appliance that was the subject of a recall. The key point is that the actions of each resident, whether a tenant or an owner, affect all the other occupiers in the same building. While I am a firm supporter of mixed tenure development, as I know the Minister also is—it seems essential that these safety measures cover all apartments in a mixed block, irrespective of the tenure of the residents therein.
In conclusion, I strongly support the amendment—and I am delighted that we have a Minister responsible for the Bill who has the knowledge and the skills to take this forward, noting its support from all parts of your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Couttie (Con) [V]
My Lords, I want to speak against this amendment. I remind the House of my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I know that everyone in this Chamber is concerned about fire safety and united in their desire to ensure that tenants are safe in their homes. As other noble Lords have said, the terrible tragedy at Grenfell Tower and other significant fires in multi-occupied blocks were caused by faults with electrical devices. Naturally, we all want to make sure that such disasters can never happen again.
As the ex-leader of Westminster City Council, I know at first hand that local authorities and the housing associations they work with are entirely at one with us on this goal. However, I also know at first hand what practical and financial challenges the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Bourne would have. I agree with the comments made by my noble friend Lady Eaton.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests, as recorded in the register, as a councillor in Kirklees and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for tabling these amendments to include provision for improving the safety of electrical appliances in the Bill. I thank my noble friend Lord Tope, who has campaigned on this issue for many years and, unfortunately, is unable to speak in this debate. Electrical Safety First has provided an excellent briefing, with important evidence on the need to include this issue in the Bill.
To those of us who are not familiar with all the facts, it came as something of a surprise that over half of all accidental fires are caused by faulty electrical appliances. As we now know, the tragic fire at Grenfell was caused by a faulty appliance. Of course, there are stringent requirements for manufacturers to build in safety features and for landlords in the private rented sector to do safety checks. However, many people are obliged to buy second-hand refurbished appliances, which may be safe at the time of purchase but have a greater probability of failing within the five years specified for checks.
My noble friend Lord Shipley, speaking on behalf of my noble friend Lord Tope, explained that checks on appliances will, logically, reduce the number of fires caused in this way. He used a good analogy: cars need MoTs to ensure the safety of their owners and other road users, and therefore so should white goods. The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, made a strong argument for putting the onus for the safety of electrical appliances on manufacturers, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, further pointed out the risks in manufacturers’ recall of faulty appliances. All this shows that this is a complicated matter, but complexity should not be used to prevent the problem being addressed. The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, would extend and clarify the existing safety check requirements. I urge the Government to consider accepting them.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, chair of the Heart of Medway Housing Association and a non-executive director of mhs homes. Amendment 1, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, with cross-party support, and Amendment 24, also in the name of the noble Lord, seeks to put improvements and protections for people living in high-rise residential buildings in the Bill.
As we have heard in this short debate, electricity causes more than 14,000 fires each year—almost half all accidental house fires. The amendments seek to provide practical protection for residents living in high-rise buildings, which total more than 1 million people. We are all sadly aware of the tragic and sometimes fatal consequences of people caught in fires in their own homes. As we have heard, these amendments would build on the regulations that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, worked so hard to introduce. It took some time for them to come into effect; the noble Lord was always committed to them and I always pushed him to bring them in sooner, but we are grateful to him for this work. I also join him in paying tribute to Electrical Safety First, which is a great charity that highlights the problems we have with electrical fires and how we need to ensure that electricity is made as safe as possible for us all.
These regulations go further and extend the protections in the regulations introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, so that tenants living in high-rise buildings will benefit from mandatory electrical safety checks every five years, with records kept by the responsible person and made available to the fire services, local authorities and, importantly, the residents association if one is in place.
In introducing the amendment, the noble Lord made a powerful point, in that those who live in a high-rise block of flats include social tenants and owner-occupiers, neither of whom need electrical safety tenants, but private tenants would now need checks. If you are not checking the whole building, it is not safe at all. That is an important and powerful point, so I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, addresses it in his response.
Secondly, these amendments would require the responsible person to keep a register of white goods in the high-rise buildings for which they are responsible. I am supportive of these proposals, as we need high standards to keep people safe from the risk of fire started by electrical ignition. We have already mentioned the tragic incidents in recent years—not only Grenfell but Lakanal House and Shepherd’s Court—but equally I accept that there can be issues with getting access to flats and keeping the register of these goods up to date, which can provide a logistical challenge for people. There is also the question of new and second-hand goods.
I entirely accept that the product recall system is not working well. The London Fire Brigade had its Total Recalls campaign, which highlighted the problems with the recall system. We need something better than we have now because, as I said, keeping track of white goods is a huge challenge. Whether we accept these amendments or not, what we have at present cannot continue. We have to do something else.
I hope that, when the Minister responds to the debate, he sets us on that path. I suggest that he facilitates a meeting between Electrical Safety First, his officials and Members of this House who want to discuss how we can find a practical solution to the serious point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. I also suggest that the London Fire Brigade in particular is involved in those discussions because of its campaigning work. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this debate and his delivery of that meeting.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, I would say first that we do need to look at the effective Berlin Wall between social housing and private housing, and in mixed sustainable communities where there are different tenures, we need to look at how we can ensure consistency and thus the safety of all residents. I am of course prepared to meet the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, Electrical Safety First and other groups as soon as possible.
I thank my noble friends Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Lord Randall of Uxbridge and the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Whitty, for the amendment. This is clearly an important issue. Faulty electrical appliances are often the causes of fires in high-rise residential buildings, a point that has been made clear. However, before turning to the amendment, I would like to explain the work being done across government to improve electrical safety in residential buildings.
As my noble friend Lady Eaton pointed out, in 2018 a new national regulator, the Office for Product Safety and Standards, was created to lead and co-ordinate the product safety system including responding to safety incidents and recalls. The Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016 place strict legal obligations on manufacturers to ensure that electrical equipment is safe before it is placed on the market and to ensure that manufacturers monitor products already on the market where appropriate and undertake sample testing of equipment. There are criminal sanctions for those who do not comply. Importantly, the draft building safety Bill proposes an obligation on residents to keep electrical installations and appliances that they are responsible for in their property in working order. There is also a provision for the accountable person for a building to take action where they or a competent person have reasonable grounds for believing that a resident or their landlord is failing to meet this obligation. In addition to this, the Home Office’s “Fire Kills” campaign plays an incredibly important part in promoting electrical fire safety messages, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Bourne.
The new Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020 are now in force for new tenancies and will apply to existing tenancies from 1April 2021. These regulations require that electrical installations must be inspected and tested by a qualified and competent person at least every five years, as highlighted by noble Lords, and that an electrical installation condition report be provided to tenants and local housing authorities on request.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on why mandatory checks apply only to private housing and not to public housing, the situation is that social landlords are expected to comply with the Decent Homes standard from the Regulator of Social Housing. This includes homes being free of hazards, including electrical hazards, as set out under the housing health and safety rating system. In the social housing Green Paper, we asked if new safety measures in the private rented sector should be extended to the social sector, including electrical safety checks. We will bring forward a social housing White Paper soon. I will however take the issue away for further consideration, I have already offered to hold a meeting, and I will provide an update on Report.
My noble friend Lady Couttie raised the practicalities of the implementation of such a system by registered social landlords and local councils with a large amount of council stock. I want to reassure your Lordships that we will continue to work across government to identify any further gaps in the electrical safety regime.
I now want to explain some of my concerns with this amendment. In particular, it does not achieve its intended effect. For example, there is doubt that the amendment would result in electrical appliances in private dwellings being brought within scope of the fire safety order. I suspect that this was not the intention. In any case, my noble friend will be aware that domestic premises are specifically excluded under the fire safety order, so this amendment intends to significantly broaden the scope of the legislation. I am also concerned that it proposes to require occupiers to provide access to the responsible person to enter the private dwellings. This would result in a significant level of intrusion and the implications of this need to be carefully thought through before any decision is made to legislate on the issue.
The proposed new schedule also intends for the responsible person to keep a register of electrical appliances for their building. This proposed duty will have a significant impact on the responsible person. For local authorities, and indeed all responsible persons, I do not want to create this additional burden. It is unrealistic to expect responsible persons to have an up-to-date register of electrical appliances for their building. This will also have a significant impact on fire and rescue services, who will need to check whether the electrical appliances register is accurate, which could involve inspecting all homes in a block of flats.
Given the assurances that I have provided, coupled with my commitment to provide an update on the next steps with regard to the social housing White Paper, along with my commitment to the meeting requested by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, I would ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the discussion of these two amendments in the first group. I think that there is a genuine desire across the Committee, even in those who have raised difficulties in doing something. Unless I am wrong, there is a recognition that we should be doing something to reduce fire deaths and to provide for safety with regard to electrical goods.
Some very clear facts have come across. High-rise blocks of flats are increasing, notwithstanding the presence of the person overseeing the safety of goods. Legislation has been introduced to help to protect private tenants—it does not extend to social tenants—and owner-occupiers. I do not believe that we should be in a position where we are protecting private tenants and owner-occupiers but not social tenants. I note the points made by my noble friend about social tenants, but if there is a genuine desire to do something, this legislation will provide that opportunity.
Let us take a look at the legitimate concerns that have been brought forward, which I recognise, and see how we can overcome them. That, to me, is the right way of moving. I do not think that there is a real threat of intrusion because this is about providing safety for everyone in our country, which is very desirable. I welcome my noble friend’s acceptance of the suggestion of a meeting and I would be pleased to take part in it. We can look at doing something genuinely to ensure that we do not face the horrific fire incidents that we have seen in the past. We can find a way of providing some safety and security.
I listened particularly to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, who certainly knows what he is talking about; as is commonly known throughout the House, he really does understand this area. At this stage, I will withdraw the amendment, but I will certainly come back to it on Report to look for some movement on how we can provide genuine security from electrical fires for all those living in high-rise blocks.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 2. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Clause 2: Power to change premises to which the Fire Safety Order applies
Amendment 2
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“( ) Regulations under subsection (1) may not amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 to apply the Order to domestic premises in buildings under five storeys in height.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment to enable the House to discuss fire safety measures that apply to low-rise domestic buildings, which have a lesser fire risk, and how the powers under Clause 2 may be used to implement Grenfell inquiry recommendations.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry that I was not able to speak at Second Reading. However, I am glad to rise to move Amendment 2, which is probing in nature but very serious. It reflects one of the problems that has arisen from actions taken following the Grenfell tragedy. One consequence of Grenfell is that cladding on many dwellings, especially high-rise flats, will have to be treated and/or removed if their safety is to be assured. Initially, statements by government Ministers implied that cladding on buildings of over 18 metres was in question, but subsequent remarks have implied that buildings of lower height could also be affected. The proposed order, of course, goes beyond cladding. It covers balconies and windows and the entrance doors to individual flats. These are often made of wood, as they have been since virtually the dawn of time, and the advice from consultants and so on is that they need to be replaced or fireproofed under the new regime.
All of this will be a very expensive process. Rough estimates reveal that the cost per dwelling can easily reach tens of thousands of pounds. In many cases, it is not clear from where the money for the changes needed will come. Freeholders, leaseholders and government look on in horror at the implications. As a consequence, a substantial part of the housing market is effectively frozen. Buyers will not purchase unless they can be assured that they will not be caught by these extra costs, or at least until any costs can be reliably quantified. Many people simply cannot move because their dwellings cannot be sold until the impasse is resolved.
The problem is aggravated by the use of the now-infamous external fire wall review form developed by the RICS, no doubt in an effort to be helpful. The perverse effect of this was debated in the other place. There is a shortage of people qualified to undertake such surveys and the delay leads to the collapse of house sales. So the young who want to move somewhere bigger, for example when they have a baby, the old who want to trade down and release capital, and the unemployed who want to move to get work elsewhere, are all frozen. Mortgage providers are unwilling to lend on what are now seen as distressed assets.
This is a nightmare. We, the Conservatives, are the party that believes in home ownership and has made promises on housing, which I stand behind 100%. I do not like to attack the Government, but this problem does not have negotiating ramifications. It is straightforward and domestic. The Government have a clear duty to minimise the problem and map a way forward out of the morass. Indeed, though they were made for the best of reasons, their statements created the problem in the first place.
My Amendment 2 deals with only a small part of the problem but Rome was not built in a day. Reducing the scope of a problem is worth while; we could do that in this Bill with my noble friend the Minister’s agreement. My thought is that the risk posed by cladding and balconies in low-rise buildings is much less than in high-rise ones. To be blunt, it is easier and quicker to get out if there is a fire, and it seems disproportionate to apply such onerous requirements to low-rise buildings. If we can make clear that buildings below a certain height—with fewer than five storeys, say—will not be covered by future requirements for removal or changes to cladding, that part of the market will be unfrozen, which would be a major step forward. I am open as to how this can be achieved, though limiting the height of buildings to which the new rules will apply is one obvious possibility.
I will also speak to Amendments 20 and 21 on an impact assessment. The Home Office produced an impact assessment as part of the consultation on the proposed new fire safety order, but regrettably not for the Bill itself. It does not touch on the troublesome dynamics that I have raised. It covers familiarisation costs for responsible persons, businesses and the public sector, ongoing assessments and audits by competent individuals and some remedial costs, although my impression is that these are underestimated. The impact assessment quotes a total of more than £2 billion, partly because of the huge number of premises involved, but it is striking that, of the 1.7 million premises on the central estimate, 1.596 million are below 11 metres and 87,000 are below 18 metres—hence my proposal.
When I headed up the deregulation unit—which we named the better regulation unit under its Labour chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Haskins—we were always worried about getting the detail wrong and imposing huge and needless burdens in response to disasters. This, I fear, is a living example; with the distractions of Covid, this could be a prime example of this deplorable tendency.
Further, we all care about fire safety; that is what this Bill is about. My late father-in-law was a fire officer, including during the Blitz. I am a well- known supporter on these Benches of health and safety; I have campaigned on the problem of faulty Whirlpool tumble dryers and worked with the then BEIS Minister responsible to tackle it. Now we must find an urgent way of coping with the terrible problem of the freezing of part of the housing market because of the Government’s statements. This might even be done through an amendment to this popular Bill.
We must find a way through. In pursuit of that, I have three detailed questions for my noble friend the Minister, broadly suggested to me by the National Residential Landlords Association. First, how do the Government propose that risk assessments for buildings of five storeys or fewer be undertaken? Secondly, do the Government agree that for properties with a lower risk, for example smaller properties in multiple occupation, there is scope for the responsible person to be defined as competent to undertake a fire risk assessment? Thirdly, there have been issues regarding the availability of qualified and appropriately insured fire engineers who are able to undertake safety reviews. What assessment has been made about the need to ensure that there are sufficient trained assessors and that professionals have access to insurance so that they can undertake the necessary assessment without concerns for their personal liability?
I very much look forward to the Minister’s comments and the debate. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for these probing amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I understand her point: they are clearly important and they help our further consideration of the Bill. In particular, her identification of the need for trained assessors seems extremely important; I think that we will deal with that a little later this afternoon.
Amendment 2 relates to low-rise domestic buildings—that is, those of four storeys or fewer. I am not clear why, because they are lower than a high-risk block, they should be deemed a lower risk. Surely we are trying to stop fires breaking out; that is not related directly to the height of a building. Added to that is the fact that, sometimes, building height is quoted at different levels for different purposes. Sometimes it is done on the basis of height; sometimes it is done on the basis of the number of floors. I would appreciate some greater standardisation so that we do not face discussions on 18 metres or 11 metres, the number of floors and so on.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said—this is important—that the Government must map a way forward. I hope that the Minister will bring some clarity on this in his response. As the noble Baroness said, it is terribly important not to get the detail wrong. In our consideration of this amendment—as we know, it is a probing amendment—it would be helpful to consider it as part and parcel of our intention to get the detail much better than it has been in the past.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for not being in the Chamber when my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe opened her remarks. I rise to speak in support of Amendment 2 but I will focus my remarks on Amendments 20 and 21 in particular, which deal with the need for impact assessments.
I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for setting out so clearly the rationale behind her amendments. I begin by explaining why this issue is so important to me personally—in short, there but for the grace of God go I. Contrary to the damaging impression given by the Lords Commission’s inept decision to cut the attendance allowance and reduce significantly the eligibility to claim it—just at the time when the Chancellor introduced the furlough scheme to reduce stress—many noble Lords are not millionaires and have given up well-paid jobs to serve their country in your Lordships’ House. I have never earned a huge amount of money, so as a former leaseholder in the shared ownership part of a new-build development, I do not know how I could possibly have coped with the uncertainty, stress and immense costs currently faced by leaseholders.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am keen to ensure, as many noble Lords will be, that the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry can be implemented speedily. A key element of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, seeks to clarify whether the powers in Clause 2 can be used to introduce regulations via the affirmative procedure. This seems an eminently sensible proposal for a route to be used to act on some of the many recommendations from the Grenfell inquiry when it is published. I hope the Minister will be able to agree that this amendment as a way forward for the Grenfell inquiry is one that the Government are willing to use.
Although the Government have responded to some of the consequences of the Grenfell tragedy, there is much more to be done. Three years is a long time to wait for those directly affected and for those trying to live with the considerable financial and emotional consequences: for instance, those living in modern high-rise blocks in my part of the country in Leeds, who are paying considerable sums each month for a waking watch. I agree with my noble friend Lord Shipley that building height and number of storeys do not, on the face of it, affect fire risk. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify the difference in height or number of storeys when he responds to these questions.
Other amendments later today explore several of the issues in the noble Baroness’s amendments, which demonstrates to me that many of us consider that fire safety risks for existing buildings need to be fully debated. The Government need to come forward with a proposal. I look forward, with hope, to the government response to this interesting amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendments 2, 20 and 21, all in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, have enabled us to debate the issues that pertain to low-rise domestic premises under five storeys, and how people are kept safe. Although these buildings are not high-rise, they can still present significant challenges for the residents. We need to make sure that they are safe.
It is a fact that fires often occur on the lower levels of premises. That is obviously quite logical. In most cases, the kitchen and living room, where you have the electrical equipment, are on the ground floor. You usually go upstairs to the bedrooms, where there is less equipment. If fires occur in these smaller blocks of flats—modern blocks, for example, or conversions of large houses—the risk and the issues are still relevant. I remember on a visit to the London Fire Brigade headquarters a couple of years ago, we were given a briefing on the problems of four or five-storey modern blocks, where there had been serious fires, huge damage to property, risk to life and limb and risk of serious injury.
In her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, raised the problem of people trapped in properties covered in cladding and other materials about which serious concerns have been raised. They cannot sell their properties and they cannot get a mortgage if they want to buy them. These are very serious problems for those people, and we need a solution. The solution, for me, is that we have to get the material off. One of the problems we have, certainly in more modern properties, is that when properties are built, the builders give guarantees, and insurance policies are taken out based on the quality of construction. We now have the problem—this has been discussed many times before—that guarantees are not being honoured and insurance policies are being disputed and not paid out. That creates a huge problem for people who have bought a property or built a property as an organisation. We must deal with that issue. If you have given out a guarantee or issued insurance, it is unacceptable that you can walk away and say, “Sorry, we’re not paying this out, we’re not going to deal with this”.
I hope the Minister can tell the House what discussions he and his department are going to have with the insurance industry and the people who give construction guarantees. That is what we have to get right. If you guarantee that these properties have been built properly, I would assume that proper due diligence has been done and you have ensured that they have indeed been built properly, and if there are problems, you should pay out. We need to get these things sorted.
Amendments 20 and 21 would require that proper consultation take place, and ask the Secretary of State and the relevant Welsh Minister to report back to Parliament and the Senedd Cymru respectively. That is very sensible. A theme running through today’s debates is that consultation is really important to get these things right.
I thank the noble Baroness for tabling these amendments. She has raised an important issue and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, will respond to the questions asked.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for raising these important issues and facilitating this useful debate. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in it.
On Amendment 2, regarding the exclusion of low-rise buildings from the fire safety order, the order places duties on the responsible person to protect those lawfully on the premises from the risk of fire. These duties include carrying out and maintaining an up-to-date fire risk assessment that is specific to their premises, and ensuring that they have taken suitable and sufficient measures to mitigate the potential risk of fire. That is a continuous process whereby emerging fire risks need to be kept under review as part of the fire risk assessment process. These duties apply to buildings within scope of the order. That includes all premises apart from those that are expressly excluded; domestic premises are one such category. The Bill clarifies that the fire safety order applies to the structure, external walls and flat entrance doors in multi-occupied residential buildings.
While I understand the intention behind my noble friend’s amendment, I am afraid I do not think it has quite the effect she intends. Domestic premises are already excluded from the scope of the order, so an amendment ensuring that they be excluded is not necessary. The buildings within which such premises sit are not excluded, in order to ensure that people living in such buildings have the protection they need to keep them safe. To exclude a category of buildings such as those less than five storeys high would remove that necessary protection.
Furthermore, it would be wrong to assume that the height of a building is the key determinant in its risk of fire, as has been noted. Certainly, it is a factor, but the potential risk is determined by many other factors that are nuanced and unique to each building. In that respect, I would like to refer to some of the fires we have witnessed since the tragic events at Grenfell Tower. In July 2018 a fire started on an external balcony on the third floor of the Orwell Building in West Hampstead, a six-storey block of flats. In September last year a fire destroyed a four-storey timber-framed block of flats in Worcester Park. Just a few months later, a fire spread via the high-pressure laminate coating on The Cube, a student accommodation block in Bolton. Mercifully, none of these fires resulted in casualties or fatalities, but clearly, they present lessons that need to be learned.
I am happy to put on record that the Government have no intention of excluding multi-occupied residential buildings of any height, including those that are low-rise, from the scope of the fire safety order. We will deliver on our commitment to strengthen the order as a proportionate legislative response to the risks of fire in high-rise residential buildings. However, we must also ensure that we do not discount the potential risk of fires in low-rise buildings. We must ensure that the responsible person continues to take a thorough approach when conducting their fire risk assessment.
Our fire safety consultation included proposals for implementing the legislative recommendations made by the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s phase one report. Most of these recommendations concerned creating prescriptive new duties for those responsible for high-rise residential buildings, and in some instances, we have actually gone further than the inquiry’s recommendations. For example, we proposed in our consultation that responsible persons should provide information to their local fire and rescue services on the level of risk in the design and materials of the external wall structure and mitigating steps they have taken, which goes further than the inquiry recommended.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Government published the draft building safety Bill on 20 July. The proposed scope of the new regime in that Bill will apply to higher-risk buildings. On day one of that new regime, it will cover all multi-occupied residential buildings of 18 metres or more in height, or more than six storeys, whichever is reached first. The building safety Bill will allow a flexible legislative response to building safety risks as it will provide for the Secretary of State’s modifying the scope of the legislation and even changing the height threshold for multi-occupied residential buildings in order to bring them into the scope of the new regime as higher-risk buildings. For residential buildings outside the scope of the building safety Bill, the Housing Act 2004 will remain the primary means by which standards are enforced.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
I have received a request from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, to speak after the Minister.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, warranties, guarantees and insurance should, in many cases, be the way forward in resolving these problems, but, sadly, some construction companies, warranty providers and insurance companies are seeking to get out of their obligation to provide what people have paid for. That is not acceptable, and I hope that the noble Lord can tell the Committee what he is going to do about it. At a minimum, he should say that he will get the Association of British Insurers and warranty providers in and make it clear to them that, if they are providing insurance and guarantees for buildings that have been constructed, the Government expect them to face up to their obligations in providing the things that people have paid for, and that walking away is unacceptable.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his further point. I hope I can reassure him that my noble friend the Minister and the Housing Minister will be meeting the NHBC to discuss those very points.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate, and I am especially grateful to my noble friend Lord Shinkwin for his very moving example. I also express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their support.
The Minister has confirmed that discussions are ongoing on insurance, warranties and other issues, which are important, but I point out that those relate largely to the future rather than the past. We have a past problem in this area—I describe it as “frozen”—which is obviously the reason for my probing amendment.
This afternoon, there has been a recognition that there is a problem here. Perhaps I could go backwards, thanking the Minister for his answers. I particularly thank him for his answers on the impact assessment, which were very satisfactory. On the website, you come up first with the impact assessment for the fire safety order, but that is the main impact assessment anyway. I was quoting extensively from it and I think that he will find it very useful, but it shows the volume of premises that we are talking about—those under 18 metres or 11 metres—so we have a problem.
The Government are rightly focusing a lot of attention on high-rise flats. The money that has been made available —I think that well over £1 billion was mentioned—is obviously welcome, and that has been focused on trying to get the cladding sorted as far as possible, because it is a great area of tragedy. However, the point about Committee is that you need to look at the detail of the regulations and make sure that you do not cause problems in other areas. Obviously, fires tend to start at the bottom of buildings—I very much understand that—but I think that you need to look at the risk, and my questions were specifically linked to that. It is a case of trying to make the system as sensible as possible so that, for example, responsible officers can, in appropriate circumstances, carry out risk assessments. At the moment, that does not seem to be happening. It seems that they are not doing it because they are worried and are trying to get in a consultant, and that leads to the “frozen” problem that I described.
I would be very happy to talk further about some of those points and the workstreams that the Government are looking at. I felt that the Minister was saying, “We are going to be very fierce on fire safety and I care about fire safety”, but if a lot of people suffer perverse effects as a result, you have to think about how you are going to help them too, and how you are going to deal with that.
That is why I was slightly disappointed in the response to the amendment. It is only a probing amendment, so the fact that it does not quite work is not surprising. I am not an expert in this area. However, I am an expert in trying to balance consumer and business interests to get sensible regulation through this Chamber by looking at the detail. I would be very happy to help in any way I can to try to make sure that we solve some of these difficulties, either through later amendments or by coming up with something particular here. I emphasise that this issue is urgent; it is not something that can be left for another year.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 3. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anybody wishing to press this or any other amendment in the group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 3
Lord Stunell
“(5) Before making regulations under subsection (1) the relevant authority must—(a) consult anyone that appears to the relevant authority to be appropriate;(b) carry out an assessment of the impact of the amendment on the required number of fire safety assessors and whether that requirement is met;(c) carry out an assessment of the cost implications of the amendment, and who will be responsible for those costs; and(d) lay before Parliament a report outlining how the requirements in paragraphs (a) to (c) have been met.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to monitor capacity for effective implementation of the Bill, and places additional requirements on the appropriate authority such as an assessment of associated costs and required personnel, before regulations under subsection (1) can be made.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I think that the noble Lord might need to unmute or increase the volume, or perhaps position himself more closely to his microphone.
Lord Stunell (LD) [V]
Perhaps the noble Lord can tell me whether the situation has improved. Is he able to hear me?
Lord Stunell (LD) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 3 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. The Bill was of course discussed at Second Reading and is a long-overdue framework Bill, with a potential reach far wider than the high-rise residential blocks at the centre of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. I thank the Minister for the very open-handed way in which he has talked to Members on all sides of your Lordships’ House about the Bill and its intention.
We know that every multi-occupied home is in scope, from terrace houses to high-rise executive duplexes. It will impose significant duties on a scarce group of professionals—fire safety engineers. It will also impose significant duties on building owners of many different levels of professional competence and probity, and potentially it would impose significant costs on the occupiers of homes—renters, leaseholders and owner-occupiers—as commented on in the previous discussion by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
In other discussions today, we shall be looking at the functions and duties in more detail, but the intention behind Amendment 3 is to probe whether the Government have understood nearly clearly enough how much work they have to do before the Bill can become operational.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the National Housing Federation, the representative body for housing associations in England. I thank the Minister for his briefing on the Bill, although, sadly, because of my technological ineptitude, I was able to access only a part of it, but it was very good of him to do that and it was very helpful.
The fire at Grenfell Tower has had a profound impact, certainly on our sector. Ensuring the safety of residents is the number one priority for housing associations. They are taking urgent and comprehensive action to inspect buildings with safety concerns and to remediate them as a priority in line with Dame Judith Hackitt’s recommendations. I therefore welcome the Bill and its aims of ensuring the safety of residents in multi-occupied buildings.
I will say a few words about points raised in other amendments, but I particularly support Amendment 4, in the name of my noble friend Lord Kennedy, because it seeks to ensure maximum consultation with all interested parties. Housing associations are committed to working with government and all other partners to achieve our shared aim of keeping residents safe and ensuring that a tragedy such as the fire at Grenfell Tower never happens again.
None the less, as others have said, there are challenges in implementing the Bill’s proposals. There is severely limited capacity to effectively inspect and remediate external wall systems, not just in our sector but in sectors such as inspection and construction, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, emphasised. The scale of this work cannot be overestimated.
It is important at this point to emphasise potential challenges in both capacity and resource if everyone is to work with government towards a risk-based approach in transitioning to the new requirements. In order to ensure a just and deliverable transition, would the Minister consider staggering implementation, using risk as the determining factor to prioritise when the buildings move to adopt the new regulations in the Fire Safety Bill and in the draft building safety Bill? Does the Minister accept that it is critical that the Government co-ordinate limited resources and capacity for remedial works to ensure that these are directed first at buildings that need them most? Does he accept that only the Government can fulfil this role?
Proposals in other amendments to update and strengthen the fire safety order would be welcome, as would proposals to clarify responsibilities, improve the competence of fire risk assessors and clearly define higher -risk workplaces. The new regulatory system must strengthen building safety standards for multi-occupied residential buildings covered by the FSO but outside the draft building safety Bill’s more stringent regulatory regime.
Finally, the Bill seeks to clarify duty-holders’ responsibilities for inspecting flat entrance doors. Right of access to uphold this duty is imperative. Unfortunately, in a small minority of instances, access is repeatedly denied and the duty-holder must seek a court injunction to gain the necessary access. The court process is lengthy and, as we know from recent reports, subject to ever-lengthening delays. There are then additional safety risks for everyone in the building as a result of how long it takes to gain access through the courts. Does the Minister agree that there needs to be a strengthened process to take account of the urgency of the safety inspections and works required under the regulatory changes that will come from the Bill?
The Bill needs support, but it also needs improvement. I hope that the Minister will address the need for inspection of all buildings to be based on a prioritisation of risk and that he will consider other amendments tabled by noble Lords; for example, on the need for fire risk assessors to be properly accredited and on the need to clarify the definition of a responsible person. It is clear that we on these Benches, and the Government, seek the same goal: to put right the flaws in the building and fire safety regimes and to give residents confidence that they live in a secure environment. I wish this Bill fair wind: it is needed urgently.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stunell has made a characteristically well argued and factually detailed contribution in moving Amendment 3. The basis is this: that the practical implementation of new legislation is as important as the legislation itself. Fine words butter no parsnips, as the saying goes.
The Grenfell tragedy taught us, I hope, that the concerns of tenants and residents must be listened to. At Grenfell, concerns were ignored, with horrific consequences. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in his amendment, seeks to list potential consultees. There is always a risk in this that some valuable contributions may not be heard because they were not included in the list. Constructors should be among those who are consulted, and I thank the British Woodworking Federation for its detailed briefing, as referenced by my noble friend when proposing the amendment. Hence I prefer the more general statement in our Amendment 3, which is much more open-ended.
Experts are invaluable, fire safety assessors never more so. In the debate in the House of Commons, the Minister stated:
“I share honourable Members’ alarm at the existence of unqualified fire risk assessors”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/6/20; col. 51.]
The fact that vital fire risk assessments are being carried out by people not qualified to do so is something that we should be taking very seriously. Later amendments seek to close any possibility of unqualified assessors by creating a public register of those certified to undertake the varying demands of the role. As my noble friend has pointed out, there is always a cost attached to improving safety regulation. The question then is: who will be required to meet that cost?
It is surprising that those who have constructed buildings in the last decade are not currently being required to meet the majority of the costs of putting right their errors. Perhaps the Minister can say whether the construction firms are seen as being a significant part of the solution to those leaseholders now facing potential costs in the tens of thousands to make their homes safe.
In response to the last group of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, stated that construction firms and insurance companies are expected to contribute towards these significant costs—which is good news. Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain how quickly this will occur and what actions the Government are taking to ensure that decisions will not be long drawn out, as, for many, three years with no light at the end with the tunnel is already far too long. How much can these leaseholders expect to be paid from the government funding?
I look forward to the Minister’s response to these important questions.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I very much support Amendment 3, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. My own amendment in this group is very specific. It is about ensuring that relevant organisations are properly consulted and that, after consultation, a report on the findings is laid before Parliament. I hope that the Minister will be specific about consultation on changes made by the Bill to the fire safety order, because we must go much further than the National Fire Chiefs Council. I am looking for commitments to consult local authorities, trade unions, including the FBU, and representatives of tenants and residents.
I noted the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in respect of my amendment, and refer her to (e), which adds
“any other bodies deemed relevant”.
The point of my amendment was to highlight that certain organisations must be consulted, along with any others that the Secretary of State is minded to.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is particularly appealing in respect of the requirements set out his proposed new subsection (5)(b) and (c). As the noble Lord set out, the potential implications of the amended fire order for individuals and organisations are huge.
We obviously support the intentions of this Bill very much, but one of our concerns is the question of who will be doing all this work. What will be the qualification requirements and levels? There is no quick fix to that. I am sure that I and other noble Lords do not wish to see a race to the bottom, with people who have very limited skills being authorised to undertake assessments and inspections, because that is a route to disaster and no lessons will have been learned. We need properly skilled, properly qualified people undertaking this work. There will be new obligations, and there must be a process, a route to achieving them, without cutting corners. Proposed subsection (5)(b) in the noble Lord’s amendment sets us off in the right direction.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their amendment on the consultation required when introducing any changes to premises to which the fire safety order applies. I agree that it is important that we get the implementation right when introducing any changes to the types of premises falling within the scope of the order. It is sensible that we make sure that there is capacity to assess any new premises type, and that the cost of any changes is identified before using the provision to introduce this.
The importance of costs was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. Of the additional £30 million funding for fire and rescue services to implement the findings of the Grenfell inquiry, £20 million goes towards fire protection. We will look very carefully at the recommendations of the competence steering group on the level of competence required by fire safety officers to carry out fire risk assessments. However, I will also write to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, on this matter, before Report. There will be an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of these matters as part of the passage of the secondary legislation that would be required to effect any changes to premises types within the scope of the order.
I agree with the principle of consulting relevant persons before enacting any changes or clarifications to the order in respect of the premises that it applies to. Clause 2 of the Fire Safety Bill provides a broad requirement to consult with appropriate persons. I agree about the importance of consulting with many of the organisations that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, has pointed out. It is important that we consult broadly with local authorities and trade unions, the National Housing Federation, representing social landlords, the NRLA, and the ORPM, which represents managing agents. The noble Lord raises an interesting point, and I accept that he is seeking reassurance on that wide-ranging consultation. We will take it on board as we move to Report.
As it stands, the wording of Clause 2(5) contains a broad consultation requirement. This will include the stakeholders that both I and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned, and others that are deemed appropriate. The specified list in the amendment identifies certain groups whose identities, or the way in which they are formally referred to, could change over time. This would risk rendering the legislation out of date, creating a need for future primary legislative changes. The current approach in the Bill is future-proof and will ensure that relevant groups are not omitted. If the need arises to use this clause, we will consider who is appropriate and whether a full public consultation would be the most suitable approach to make sure all interested and potentially affected groups have the opportunity to comment. We just need to find the right legislative way to ensure the objectives of noble Lords. With that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Stunell.
Lord Stunell (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank all those who have participated in the debate for their support for the general idea that we ought to know what we are doing before we do it. I do not think that that is a particularly extreme requirement and I was extremely pleased to hear the Minister indicate that he very much wants to follow that course. I think we have highlighted some of the big-picture issues and some of those we shall come to in the next group of amendments, so I will not rehearse them at this point.
I am pleased that the right atmosphere has been created for us to look really seriously at how this scheme is going to work. It is essential that we do not launch a dud: it has to work, and that means a lot of deliberate thinking has to be done rapidly and we have to deliver a massive skills, development, training and recruitment effort in order to make it happen. That is, perhaps, only one out of three things that are missing at the moment and that need to be done. So, I thank noble Lords, particularly my colleague and noble friend Lady Pinnock for her strong support, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for some very useful cross-fire. I appreciate that and I look forward to working right across the House to see the Bill developed better—and quickly. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 5. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in the group, to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 5
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Duties of owner or manager
The relevant authority must by regulations amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) to require an owner or a manager of any building which contains two or more sets of domestic premises to—(a) share information with their local Fire and Rescue Service in respect of each building for which an owner or manager is responsible about the design of its external walls and details of the materials of which those external walls are constructed;(b) in respect of any building for which an owner or manager is responsible which contains separate flats, undertake annual inspections of individual flat entrance doors;(c) in respect of any building for which an owner or manager is responsible which contains separate flats, undertake monthly inspections of lifts and report the results to their local Fire and Rescue Service if the results include a fault; and(d) share evacuation and fire safety instructions with residents of the building.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would place various requirements on building owners or managers of buildings containing two or more sets of domestic premises, and would implement recommendations made in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 1 Report.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we come to a substantial group containing Amendments 5, 6, 7 and 9 in my name, and Amendments 15, 16 and 17 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.
Amendment 5 seeks to make progress in respect of the recommendations of the first phase of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. It is disappointing that progress has been so slow, frankly, on all these matters following the tragedy at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017, some 40 months ago. We have on record pledges from Ministers to implement in full the recommendations in the report of the first phase of the inquiry, but the Bill before us today does not include any of the provisions or measures called for in the inquiry to be implemented. When the Bill was before the other place, the Government did not take the opportunity afforded to them to correct this. They opposed moving forward and instead said that they would launch a consultation. The consultation was launched in July and ends this month, a full year after they pledged to implement the recommendations of the inquiry.
I hope the Minister can set out for the House the timescale the Government are working to, as people have waited far too long for legislative action. Will he say why the Government are not even prepared to include the simplest of the recommendations the inquiry called for in this Bill—recommendations such as the inspection of fire doors and the testing of lifts? There is an urgent need for these recommendations to be implemented and the Government need to act with much more speed.
Amendment 6 returns to points I made previously today and at Second Reading. The fire safety Order requires regular fire risk assessments in buildings, but there is no legal requirement for those conducting these assessments to have any form of training or accreditation for this work. Although this service can be commissioned from council-run building control services, numerous private providers compete for the work and their numbers have rapidly expanded since the fire at Grenfell Tower. Numerous experts have criticised the poor quality of the work in building control and fire safety. As I have said before, we do not want a race to the bottom, where anybody can set up and say they are an inspector with very little training to do the work.
I want to hear from the Minister today that we will ensure that when fire assessments are done, we will have people who are properly accredited and able to do the work. Although I accept that there are some voluntary accreditation schemes, it is sadly the case that the use of unregistered fire inspectors is commonplace. The lack of training and accreditation in this important area of work is, frankly, unacceptable. The Government should be using this Bill to legislate for higher standards and greater public accountability in fire inspections.
Amendment 7 requires the schedule for inspecting buildings containing two or more sets of domestic premises to be based on a prioritisation of risk. At present, there is no guarantee that the schedule for inspections will be based on any sort of risk analysis rather than an arbitrary distinction between types of buildings. This was raised in the Commons by my honourable friend the Member for Croydon Central, who said that many experts and stakeholders have “significant concerns” over how the Bill would be implemented. She drew attention to reference by the Minister in Committee to:
“The building risk review programme, which will … ensure that local resources are targeted at those buildings most at risk”.—[Official Report, Commons, Fire Safety Bill Committee, 25/6/20; col. 62.]
I agree, but it should also be pointed out that local fire and rescue services know their area well, and know the buildings where there is greatest risk. It should be they who decide the priority list.
Amendment 9 would require the UK Government, for England, and the Welsh Government, for Wales, to specify when a waking watch must be in place for buildings that contain two or more sets of domestic premises and have fire safety failures. There are still major issues around removal of flammable ACM cladding from tower blocks. A significant number of buildings remain covered, more than three years after the Grenfell Tower fire, and other types of dangerous cladding have also been identified and not yet removed from buildings.
I accept that coronavirus caused many contractors to stop work on cladding sites, while others have not even begun work because of legal disputes, including, as I mentioned in a previous debate, disputes over guarantees and insurance payments. These delays mean that residents are in buildings that are unsafe, which cannot be right, or face extortionate fees for removal. Guidance from the National Fire Chiefs Council suggests waking watches should be a temporary measure, yet some residents have been forced to pay for waking watches for years, with some put in place immediately after the fire at Grenfell Tower, more than 40 months ago. They can cost up to £10,000 a week.
Amendments 15, 16 and 17 have considerable merit. I am happy to offer my support to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and will listen carefully to her when she speaks to them. I hope the Minister will give a full response to all the amendments and I beg to move.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 15, 16 and 17, variously in the names of myself and my noble friends Lady Pinnock and Lord Shipley. Again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his helpful remarks and support: as his amendments show, we have similar views.
Our debate on Amendment 3 prefigured many of the matters covered by our three amendments here. Our intention in tabling them is to get into the Bill some of what I expect we will be told by the Minister are the good intentions of the Government in the first place, and to make them real and concrete. This is a new policy area for the Government, and a new direction of travel—more regulation not less. It is both very necessary and very welcome, and we on the Lib Dem Benches are not just willing but eager and keen to help the Government produce the best Bill possible.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have added my name to most of the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Kennedy. He has explained the objectives of the proposed new clauses extremely well, so I will not add much to that. I particularly emphasise the need for the accreditation and professionalisation of fire assessors to instil some degree of confidence in the advice which owners, tenants and leaseholders receive. On the definition of responsible persons, this takes us some way forward to adopting my noble friend’s amendment. It is also important that the Government ensure that the terminology used here is the same as that in the draft building safety Bill, and in existing regulations, so that we avoid any confusion or ambiguity over who is responsible for what.
I did not sign up to Amendment 9 in the name of my noble friend Lord Kennedy. That is not because I disagree with the wording on the Marshalled List. I support that but it could be misinterpreted. My noble friend has already referred to the concerns in this respect, and the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, referred to them in an earlier debate. This amendment deals with waking watch and the whole concept is that if a building has been designated as a fire risk, we need constant checking on the safety of that building. But many tenants and leaseholders find that the waking watch arrangements are used as a reason to delay improving the basic physical safety of the building. Moreover, they are faced with substantial costs on the operation of a waking watch. I do not intend to undermine my noble friend’s Amendment 9. However, it needs to be put in a context where the cost does not fall on the tenants and leaseholders but on those who are genuinely responsible for the lack of safety in the building. Waking watch is not an alternative to the amelioration of that physical condition.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I strongly support all the amendments in this group because they would help improve standards immensely. My name is attached to Amendments 15 and 17.
The purpose of Amendment 15, which is also in the name of my noble friend Lady Pinnock, is to secure an up-to-date public register of fire risk assessments, to be kept and made available on request. I see this proposal as a matter of significant public interest and of vital concern to those who live in a shared accommodation block, particularly one which is high-rise. As my noble friend Lord Stunell pointed out, they have a right to know that their building is safe. I raised this problem previously when I discovered that such publication can be excluded under freedom of information legislation. Surely all those who live in tower blocks have a right to know about the fire safety of their block, so I wonder what further assessment the Government may have made of the rights of those who live in such blocks to further information.
On Amendment 17, there is a clear case for a prohibition on freeholders of a building passing remediation costs for their building on to leaseholders or tenants. We know that following Grenfell, as we have heard, so many leaseholders have found themselves being asked to meet huge remediation costs. In addition, many owners cannot sell their homes because they have not got—and cannot get—the right certification on the construction of their building. Preventing the provisions of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, leading to further costs for leaseholders or tenants must be an absolute priority for government.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak against Amendment 17. The purpose of this clause is to prevent freeholders passing on remediation costs to leaseholders and tenants through demands for one-off payments or increasing service or other charges. This issue is of understandable concern to leaseholders, who are not to blame for the situation. The problems arise from the behaviour of product suppliers, the building industry and the failure of the regulatory system over many years.
The Building Safety Bill, which has already been referred to this afternoon, makes provision for a building safety charge. That Bill will need to make provision for leaseholders to be protected from unaffordable costs, as the Minister recognised in his evidence to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill.
Amendment 17 does not make provision for freeholders to recoup the cost of work, so it will not help leaseholders who collectively own the freehold of their block—nor will it help councils, housing associations or other freeholders who, equally, are not to blame for the failings of the construction industry and successive Governments of all political colours. I cannot support this amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
We can see the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, but unfortunately we cannot hear him. I am going to call one more time, then move on. Lord Bhatia? No. Clearly there are difficulties there. I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I look forward to the Minister’s response to these amendments, which all seek to add detail carefully so that the positive purpose of this Bill is not marred by the inadequacy of its implementation.
The biggest investment people make in their lives is in a home. All sorts of checks are currently required or advised prior to purchase and a mortgage offer. One of these is not readily available. It should, and will, be; the question is whether it will come via a legislative requirement or pressure from home buyers. As my noble friend Lord Stunell said, it is much better for the Government to demonstrate their commitment to fire safety by enabling a public register of the fire status of buildings for accuracy and ease of access.
When the Government’s own Minister in the Commons has decried the existence of unqualified fire risk assessors, why is there an apparent reluctance by the Government to address the issue face on? I do not understand why the issue that was acknowledged by the Government during the Commons debate has not been addressed. I hope that the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and myself will provide the Government with the way forward. I hope that the Minister will agree to a meeting prior to Report to discuss these important practical concerns about a Bill that has our wholehearted support.
The third of these amendments, regarding costs—I have signed it alongside my noble friend Lord Shipley—may not have been in the purview of the Bill when first constructed, but where, if not here, will the issue of who pays for fire risk remediation work be settled? Leaseholders in newly constructed blocks of high-rise flats in Leeds and across the country in despair. They currently pay significant sums of several hundred pounds each month toward the cost of a waking watch, while the costs of remediation—the removal of flammable cladding materials—will run into tens of thousands of pounds per householder. Meanwhile, their homes are worthless. They are not able to move and are in despair. This is through no fault of their own. Where the fault lies is for the Government and, no doubt, the courts to determine. However, the Government have some responsibility in seeking a fair and just remedy that will not bankrupt innocent leaseholders and will assess the responsibility of construction companies.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
First, I draw attention to my commercial and residential property interests as set out in the register. I should have done that some time ago, so I apologise to noble Lords.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his amendment on the duties of an owner. However, before turning to the points made, I want to put a few comments on the record. The Grenfell Tower fire was a national tragedy. For nearly six years, I was the leader of the neighbouring borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, so I was affected personally by it. In fact, our town hall served to help people in the community and give them shelter on the night of that event. I point out that it was the greatest loss of life in a residential fire since the Second World War. From the outset, I want to make it clear to this House, as I did in my all-Peers letter, that the Government are, and have always been, committed to implementing and, where appropriate, legislating for the inquiry’s recommendations. An unequivocal commitment to doing that was set out in our manifesto.
In some areas, we are going further than the inquiry’s recommendations, for instance on the information about cladding, building plans, lift checks and smoke control systems. In other areas, we are seeking to implement the recommendations in the most proportionate, pragmatic and effective way. The vote in the other place in no way signals that this Government have altered this commitment in any way. I will set out our approach on this issue.
It is right that we consult before we act with legislation on the Grenfell recommendations. This is not just because we have a statutory duty to do so. It reflects Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s own view on the need to ensure broad support for his recommendations and an understanding of the practical issues associated with implementing them. In his report, Sir Martin noted that it was important that his recommendations
“command the support of those who have experience of the matters to which they relate.”
Our 12-week consultation did just that. It gave all those affected—residents, responsible persons, including building owners and managers, the fire sector and enforcing authorities—the opportunity to make their voices heard. I am pleased to say that they responded, with more than 250 responses received.
This amendment is not necessary and will not speed up the legislative process; it would simply require us to make regulations on the specified areas in the amendment relating to the sharing of information, flat entrance doors, lifts and personal and emergency evacuation plans. We already plan to lay regulations on these areas; we do not need further primary legislation to do that. Subject to the outcomes of the consultation, we intend, where possible, to use secondary legislation under Article 24 of the fire safety order to implement the recommendations. Our intention is to introduce these regulations as soon as possible after the Bill has commenced.
I hope that this explanation of the Government’s plan to implement the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s phase 1 report has gone some way to satisfying honourable Members in the other place and noble Lords. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.
On the other amendments in this group, I agree there is a clear need for reform in relation to fire risk assessors. Other amendments focus more on capacity issues, whereas these rightly shine a light on competence. As was set out in the other place, a lot of work is already in hand, and industry has largely been leading the way. The industry-led Competence Steering Group is looking at ways to increase competence and capacity in the sector. I am very pleased that the group recently published its final report, which includes proposals on creating a register of fire risk assessors, third-party accreditation and a competence framework for fire risk assessors. The Government are carefully considering the detail of this report and its recommendations.
The Government are also working with the National Fire Chiefs Council and the wider fire sector to take forward plans for addressing both the short-term and long-term capability issues within the sector.
I want to share the Government’s views on this amendment. First, it is important we establish a basic principle of competence so that everyone carrying out an assessment should be appropriately qualified. This is regardless of whether they are a fire risk assessor or other fire safety professional, such as an engineer. We put forward a proposal on this in the fire safety consultation, which closed on 12 October. Considering the merits of accreditation will be a more detailed process. For example, assessing external wall systems with cladding will sometimes require significantly greater expertise than is likely to be that of a specialist fire engineer. It is our view that we should implement a competence requirement first and then look at the best way to increase professionalism across the sector.
Secondly, this amendment, understandably, would have the effect of applying an accreditation requirement to individuals undertaking fire risk assessments only in buildings with
“two or more sets of domestic premises”—
for example, in multi-occupied residential buildings. It would not cover all other premises within scope of the fire safety order, including, for example, care homes and hospitals. The risk is that if this amendment is passed, it will create a two-tier system whereby such premises would require an assessment from an accredited fire risk assessor but all other premises covered under the fire safety order would not. This would mean we would have to legislate further to ensure parity. I do not believe that that was the noble Lord’s intention in tabling this amendment. I can assure the House that work is already in hand to address competency issues, and we will take forward our proposal in the consultation to strengthen the competence requirements within the fire safety order.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for raising the important issue of prioritising enforcement action in respect of the risk of buildings and targeting of resources, which I also covered earlier in the debate on amendments relating to commencement. The task and finish group has told us to start in one go and then use a risk-based system, so I hope that will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. I note that this amendment was raised in the other place; our position on this, which I will set out in a moment, remains unchanged.
The amendment is unnecessary in the context of established operational practice, which ensures that enforcement authorities target their resources appropriately and according to risk. The fire and rescue national framework for England requires fire and rescue authorities to have
“a locally determined risk-based inspection programme in place for enforcing compliance with the”
fire safety order. The framework also sets out the expectation that fire and rescue authorities will target their resources on individuals or households who are at greatest risk from fire in the home and on non-domestic premises where the life safety risk is greatest. The national framework for Wales includes similar provisions.
Enforcers are obliged to have regard to similar requirements in the Regulators’ Code, which states that all regulators should base their regulatory activities on risk and use an evidence-based approach when determining the priority risks in their area of responsibility. In addition, the building risk review programme, which will see all high-rise residential buildings reviewed or inspected by fire and rescue authorities by the end of 2021, is a key part of this work. The programme will enable building fire risks to be reviewed and data to be collected to ensure that local resources are targeted at buildings most at risk.
The Government have provided £10 million in funding to support fire and rescue services to deliver the Government’s commitment to review all high-rise residential buildings over 18 metres—or six floors and above—by the end of December 2021. This funding will also strengthen the NFCC’s central strategic function to drive improvements in fire protection and is in addition to a further £10 million grant to bolster fire protection capacity and capability within local fire and rescue services.
I reiterate that we are aware of the capacity issues. Our approach to commencement has been informed, as I said, by the recommendations of the task and finish group, co-chaired by the National Fire Chiefs Council and the Fire Sector Federation, which brought together fire safety experts, building managers and representatives of the wider fire sector, who considered capacity and risk in the context of commencement of the Bill.
I have set out the Government’s position on this issue and why we consider this amendment unnecessary. For the reasons set out above, I ask that the amendments in this group not be pressed.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for raising the issue of waking watches, which has a profound impact on the lives of many people. The amendment places a duty on the relevant authority to specify whether a waking watch is necessary in event of “fire safety failings”. It is unclear how this would work or what it would mean. One interpretation is that the relevant authority would have to try to specify a list in regulations of all the potential circumstances where there had been a fire safety failing and then establish whether each of those individual failings would require a waking watch to be put in place.
Such a duty on the relevant authority would be disproportionate and onerous without necessarily being effective. It would largely remove or reduce the ability of a responsible person to consider the specific circumstances of the premises and other fire protection measures in place, all of which can vary considerably from building to building. The other risk of this wording is that such a list could be prescriptive. What if there are specific individual circumstances, or a combination of various failings, that do not fall within the list? The common-sense view may be that a waking watch should be put in place but such a decision could be inhibited by legislation. Restricting the responsible person’s discretion to assess exactly what is required in each situation would not be right. A decision on the use of waking watch should be taken on the basis of the individual circumstances of each case.
I can provide reassurance that we are taking forward work on waking watches in conjunction with the National Fire Chiefs Council, which I will briefly outline. The National Fire Chiefs Council revised its guidance relating to waking watches, a copy of which I have here, on 1 October. It now provides very clear advice which supports the fire and rescue services and its implementation on the ground by the responsible persons. The updated guidance now advises responsible persons to explore cost-benefit options with leaseholders and residents. It also encourages the installation of common fire alarm systems, which means reducing the dependency on waking watch wherever possible. The guidance also emphasises that residents can carry out waking watch activities when fully trained, if necessary. However, we assume that in many cases a common fire alarm system will suffice.
On 16 October, we published data on the costs of waking watches which provides transparency on the range of costs, allowing comparisons to be clearly made. It also highlights the importance of identifying at what point waking watch costs exceed the cost of an alarm system, in an attempt to help reduce interim costs for leaseholders and residents. The calculations show that having a common alarm system pays back within seven weeks, compared with paying for the average cost of a waking watch.
Our aim must ultimately be to reduce the need for waking watches and the costs that they bring. A key plank of this is to progress remediation. It is the pace of remediation that matters, and despite having a global pandemic, I am pleased that, with the help of the mayors of our city regions and local authorities, we have seen the pace of remediation increase in removing the most dangerous type of cladding—aluminium composite material. The projection is that over 90% of buildings will be on site or will have remediated the cladding in question, which is great progress, with over 100 starts over the course of this year so far. As a Minister with joint responsibility for fire and building safety, obviously, I attach the highest priority to ensuring that all buildings with unsafe cladding are remediated.
On Amendments 15 and 16, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for raising important issues regarding establishing public registers of fire risk assessments and fire risk assessors. I will address fire risk assessments first. The fire safety order sets a self-compliance regime. There is currently no requirement for responsible persons to record their completed fire risk assessments, save for limited provision in respect of employers. If they fall within that category, they are required to record the significant findings of the assessment and any group of persons identified by the assessment as being especially at risk.
The creation of a fire risk assessment register will place upon responsible persons a new level of regulation that could be seen as going against the core principles of the order, notably its self-regulatory and non-prescriptive approach. There is also the question of ownership, maintenance and where the cost of a register such as this would lie. A delicate balance needs to be struck. There are improvements to be made here but we need to ensure that they are proportionate.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I have had a request to speak from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I do not disagree that the amendment should be withdrawn. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, my noble friend Lady Eaton and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, have drawn attention to the problem that I raised earlier about leaseholders caught by the Government’s Grenfell-related changes being unable to afford repairs or waking watches and/or unable to sell their properties. In some cases, the leaseholders are joint owners, as my noble friend Minister has just said.
Will my noble friend agree to a meeting to map the way forward before Report? This could look at the options to see whether primary legislation—which I think he is reluctant to pursue—secondary legislation, fire brigade or health and safety guidance or changes to the regulatory codes would work. There has to be a risk assessment and we need to make sure that this is possible.
I have some experience of dealing with these fire difficulties. As noble Lords will recall, this used to be the responsibility of the fire brigade and then it was all changed. I oversaw that transition. I also know from experience in China how wrong you can get things, particularly if you do not consult. I remember that China did not consult on changes to fire safety laws. They were not aware that most modern premises had sprinklers. As someone has already said, sprinklers limit what you have to do with fire safety measures. It is a modern approach.
I should find a meeting helpful, perhaps to limit the number of amendments that it might otherwise be necessary for us to put forward on Report.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I thank my noble friend for making those points and representing the deep issues faced by consumers. Essentially, there are three. Thousands of leaseholders are facing the terrible situation that their property is valued at nothing. They have put in their life’s savings to buy a property, and they cannot remortgage or move. The pace of remediation has now slowed because of an inability to get assessments carried out by the relevant person or because they do not feel that they have insurance cover to do it. That is another issue. At the same time, because the pace of remediation has been affected, they face interim costs. I pointed out that they could be dramatically reduced, in most instances, by putting in an alarm system.
My noble friend is quite right—I have had these discussions with the insurance industry—that there are great measures, such as sprinklers, that reduce risk and ensure that a building is safer. That is why the Government legislated to put in sprinklers in all new builds above 11 metres. I am happy to meet my noble friend and any other noble Lords on these important issues, because we all share the objective of finding the right approach to deal with these great issues that face many hundreds of thousands of leaseholders in high-rise residential buildings up and down the country.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it was good to hear the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, in responding to this debate. I have no doubt of his sincerity in wanting to address the issues raised by the first phase of the Grenfell Tower inquiry, but my view, held with equal sincerity, is that we have not moved as quickly as we should have. The Government have moved too slowly. They need more urgency in dealing with the issues that arose from the fire at Grenfell Tower, which took place on 14 June 2017—some 40 months ago.
Capacity to deliver the requirements is an issue, which has been raised in a number of groups of amendments, as is the qualification level of the people undertaking this work. We must have professionally qualified experts undertaking such important work. If unqualified people are approved to do work arising from the Bill, it would show me that the Government have not learned the lessons. This is a slippery slope to further failures in the future. If one more life is lost, it will be one life too many. It is really important to get this right.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, mentioned sprinklers; she is absolutely right. Sprinklers have been in new homes, flats and halls of residence in Wales since 2011. It was the Labour Member Ann Jones who passed the legislation through the Welsh Assembly, some nine years ago. That is one case where the Government could learn from what has happened in another institution in our United Kingdom.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. As in other debates, we have highlighted significant outstanding issues. The Government should take this opportunity to reflect on the issues that have been raised in Committee; I hope that they will agree to come back on Report and actually move on some of them. Although we all want to make progress, speed is the issue for us and we want to move forward where we can. As I said before, it is 40 months since the tragedy of Grenfell Tower.
I will come back to this and many other issues on Report. I will make it clear to the noble Lord now: if we do not see some progress, we will divide the House many times on Report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 8. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 8
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Meaning of responsible person
The relevant authority must by regulations amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) so that in article 3 of that Order (meaning of responsible person) it is specified that where a building contains two or more sets of domestic premises, a leaseholder shall not be considered a responsible person unless they are also the owner or part owner of the freehold.” Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause aims to clarify the definition of “responsible person” to ensure that, where a building contains two or more sets of domestic premises, leaseholders are not considered a responsible person unless they are also the owner or part owner of the freehold.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 8 in my name seeks to clarify the definition of a “responsible person” to ensure that, where a building pertains more to a set of domestic premises, leaseholders are not considered a responsible person unless they are also the owner or part owner of the freehold.
The fire safety order requires building owners and other responsible persons to undertake regular fire risk assessments. These changes mean that the safety of elements such as cladding will need to be considered in any fire risk assessment. As I said, my amendment aims to clarify “responsible person” to ensure that leaseholders are not considered a responsible person unless they are also the owner or part owner of the freehold.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing this group of amendments. I have listened carefully to the debate so far; some excellent arguments have been made in favour of going even faster than the Bill does. I support it, but, as I shall try to outline, there is an argument for going faster.
My interest in the Bill is in fire detection and suppression. I worked on the Channel Tunnel, and after the Notre Dame fire we had some interesting debates in your Lordships’ House about how to detect fires in the roofs of old buildings and how to extinguish them. I was disappointed to be told, “Well, we’re putting fire detectors in the roof, but there’s no access to extinguish a fire.” I still worry about that because, as we all know, the biggest risk to old buildings from fire is when the contractors are in.
The Bill is about the domestic environment; I welcome it. My amendment is a probing amendment about including sprinklers and mists in the definition of firefighting equipment. Mists are very effective and useful, and would be a comparatively low-cost installation for anything between the Houses of Parliament and the buildings that the Bill covers.
I am impressed by mists, even compared with sprinklers. I am aware that many experts on old buildings say that they should not have sprinklers in them because they destroy the contents of the building. That is true—but at least they enable the building to survive. Mists do not destroy the contents, but preserve them to a much greater degree. They are good with electrical fires—which is what we are talking about here—and also with fuel and chip pan fires. I am told that one nozzle, with a small pipe, will cover 16 square metres of building.
I look at a building, whether it is a big one or someone’s property, and I think, “If you can put in a water mist system using a small pipe, it is not that different from installing a ring main for electricity.” Perhaps we should look at making water mist installations a requirement in all habitable buildings in the same way as we require electricity to be put in them—most of the time, anyway.
I know that there is a downside and that it will not happen through this Bill or indeed for many years, but the costs are low and the damage caused is much less than that caused by a fire or by sprinklers. In his response, I would like the Minister at least to say that he will look at this, particularly for domestic rented, leased and privately owned properties, as well as considering the options for new build along with existing ones. I think that we should start the process now because, as we heard at the beginning of this debate, some 14,000 electrical fires are started every year. Many of them could have been and could be avoided if a water mist system were installed.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. He is not responding, so we will come back to him. I call the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in relation to the responsibilities of leaseholders. It is important that this is reflected in the terms of the Bill. Leaseholders are not the responsible person unless they happen to be co-owners or co-freeholders, and as we heard in the debates on earlier amendments, leaseholders are being faced with quite substantial costs. It would be wrong if the legislation allowed an interpretation whereby in certain circumstances they were the responsible person. They are not. The owners or their agents are the responsible person and we should make that quite clear.
I also strongly support the principles of the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. Like him, I am astonished that at the moment, the regulations relating to domestic dwellings and indeed other buildings do not include a requirement on new build and major refurbishments for the installation of sprinklers.
Perhaps I may divert slightly from the question of high-rise domestic buildings. When I was at primary school in the 1950s, the school burned down. The fire actually started in my classroom. The report on that fire suggested that a simple sprinkler system would have quickly suppressed the fire and saved the building. As a result, when we returned to school, we were accommodated in temporary huts. Those temporary huts, in 1952, were required to have a rather crude sprinkler system. I was astounded to find out that in the year 2020, there is no such requirement for school buildings and no such requirement for high-rise buildings and premises in multiple occupation. That is something that should be addressed, if not in this Bill, at least in the batch of measures being brought forward by the Government in the wake of the Grenfell tragedy.
I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this issue because it needs to form part of the Government’s thinking in relation to the overall response to fire safety problems. I hope that at some point the Minister can indicate where that proposition will end up. I would strongly support such an addition.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I apologise that I could not participate at Second Reading. I had wanted to raise carbon monoxide detection—a silent killer production of combustion—with fire detection, but I understand it is outside the scope of this Bill. I would like to speak to Amendment 8, to which I have added my name. Let me explain why.
I remain haunted by seeing the blazing Grenfell Tower from my daughter’s window, and I have every sympathy with those whose flats all over the UK find their leasehold purchases are now valueless and are still paying out their mortgage and charges. Back in the 1970s, we financially squeezed ourselves to buy our first flat, only later to find it was built with high alumina cement and, until deemed safe, completely worthless. That is why I feel a commitment to others caught in this plight. This amendment would bring further clarity to the meaning of a “responsible person”, and ensure that leaseholders who are not also freeholders are not made liable or responsible for any remediation work needed as a result of poor building and development decisions on flats which they believed, and were told on checks, comply with building regulations. I want to read the Minister’s response to the previous amendment very carefully, as I hope that it allays some of my concerns, but I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has raised some ongoing questions.
The huge costs of fire safety checks, materials testing, removal and replacement of dangerous materials, and the retrofitting of sprinklers and other fire safety equipment, all currently fall to leaseholders. Let me illustrate this with information from one such leaseholder. For residents of three blocks of flats in Baltic Avenue, Brentford—which probably should never have been signed off—fire safety checks have been quoted between £15,000 and £24,000, the mock testing of current cladding and insulation will cost £50,000, and rectifying all identified issues has been initially quoted to be at least £6 million. The previous group of amendments highlighted the huge burden on leaseholders, so who is responsible? This is surely the responsibility of developers and their team of architects, builders, et cetera, and the freeholders—and what about the banks that earn an income from the loans?
As the Minister has pointed out, he is well aware of the crippling costs, and he is clearly committed to doing something about the many leaseholders living in flats that are currently valueless, that cannot be sold or re-mortgaged. Many leaseholders are already financially stretched and bought their flats using the Help to Buy scheme, but if they cannot afford to pay for the fire safety checks they need to obtain an ESW1 form, Homes England will not value any properties bought under the scheme. Despite living in flats that are valued at zero, many leaseholders still find themselves having to cover interest payments on a loan that was given on the basis that if it fell in value you paid less. If the flats are worth zero, have all these loans been reset to zero, and are we sure that that has happened?
Even more seriously, these leaseholders are now suffering real mental health problems, not only from the financial burdens but because they know they are stuck in flats tonight that could go up in flames at any moment. The removal of cladding and other dangerous materials really is a matter of life and death. All this means that insurance costs will be sky high for buildings that are still considered to pose such a high risk. Can the Government give us some evidence of really speedy action?
In July, the housing Minister agreed that all costs should not have to be met by leaseholders and should be met by the developers or building owners. Many leaseholders believe the Government have changed their position, saying that leaseholders would still have to foot some of the bill, but they just do not have the money to do it. This amendment rectifies this by being absolutely clear about who is responsible for what, and that is why I support it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I am going to try to call the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, again.
Lord Stunell (LD) [V]
I am here. I apologise for not joining the Committee earlier but we had some kind of IT glitch.
I want to look at another important aspect of who the responsible person can or should be. The problem that I want to guard against is the absentee responsible person: the anonymous set of initials from a remote managing agency with a non-responding website and no phone lines, or the international property holder registered in the Cayman Islands or Bermuda. I want to press the Minister to commit to ensuring that every responsible person is a real person, not a company or a corporate body, and that that person has a functioning terrestrial address and a phone number based in the UK—in short, that they can always be held accountable, can be assessed and if necessary trained to deliver their statutory obligations, and has the skill and intention of communicating effectively with residents in the properties for which they take responsibility. We do not want to add absentee responsible persons to all the existing problems of absentee landlords. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, the “responsible person” definition has a key duty in this legislation, which is why I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, which seeks to clarify it. I apologise to the Committee that a lack-of-sound issue has meant that I was not able to hear the contributions by the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley or Lord Whitty, or the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, so my remarks are going to be quite basic as a consequence.
I agree with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that it is not just or practical to expect a tenant or leaseholder, unless they are owners or part-owners of the freehold, to fulfil the responsibility of being the so-called responsible person. I agree completely that it is important to have no room for uncertainty as to who is indeed the responsible person.
My noble friend Lord Stunell has just raised the very important issue that the responsible person has to actually be a person, not an entity—someone with an address and a telephone contact within the UK. I cannot imagine how awful it would be if the responsible person were some distant corporation based in the Cayman Islands, a fire arose and there was no obvious route to seeking a practical or legislative remedy for that disaster.
I have heard a little about the importance of water sprinklers and water misting in high-rise blocks, and of course I know that in 2009, Wales introduced a requirement for that. I look forward to learning what others have said about this important issue when I read Hansard, because I understand that it has been a priority of the fire and rescue services for a long time. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for this amendment, which seeks to amend Article 3 of the fire safety order. It seeks to remove leaseholders from being a responsible person unless they are also owner or part-owner of the freehold for the premises in question. It is important to remember that the fire safety order places the onus on the responsible person to identify and mitigate fire risks. In multi-occupied residential buildings, the leaseholder of a flat is unlikely to be the responsible person for the non-domestic premises. The exceptions to that would be where they own or share ownership of the freehold, which is acknowledged in the amendment. However, a leaseholder can be a duty holder under Article 5 of the fire safety order, which provides that the responsible person can be determined by the circumstances in any particular case.
Depending on the terms of a lease or tenancy agreement, the responsibility for flat entrance doors could rest with the building owner, having retained ownership of the doors, or the tenant/leaseholder as a duty holder. The lease can also be silent. Accepting this amendment would undermine the principles of the order and could have the unintended consequence of leaving a vacuum in terms of responsibilities under it. That, in turn, could compromise fire safety.
We will look at the responses to our fire safety consultation, which contained specific proposals to support the identification of responsible persons, with a view to ensuring that they are not the entities described by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It also contained proposals to support greater co-operation and co-ordination between multiple responsible persons within a single premise. The Government are also committed to providing guidance on this issue. That, alongside our legislative proposals in the consultation, will support all those with responsibilities under the order in understanding and complying with their duties.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for tabling Amendment 18. Water-based systems can be an effective and appropriate fire-fighting tool in the event of a fire, and they command broad support across the fire and rescue service and the broader fire sector. However, a water-based system is just one of many measures that can be adopted to counter the spread of fire within a building.
The amendment seeks to ensure that responsible persons for multi-occupied residential buildings consider the installation of sprinklers or water-mist systems as “appropriate fire-fighting equipment” options. On the retro-fitting of sprinklers or water-mist systems, it is up to the responsible person to decide whether those are appropriate mitigating measures.
Noble Lords may be aware that earlier this year the Government amended approved document B to require the provision of sprinkler systems in new blocks of flats over 11 metres in height. This amendment will come into effect next month to ensure that this is the new standard for buildings of that height in the future.
For existing buildings, the fire safety order requires the responsible person to maintain and keep in an efficient state and working order fire-fighting equipment, which may include water-based systems. In blocks of flats where these are not present, retro-fitting water-based systems may not always be a cost-effective solution, if they are desired at all by residents. Existing guidance suggests considering alternative fire safety measures, taking into account the absence of sprinklers.
The Government do not support using the fire safety order to promote one form of equipment over other measures which, depending on the building, might be more effective. The fire safety order rightly places the onus on the responsible person to have regard to the specific characteristics of their building in determining which fire-fighting equipment and mitigating measures are appropriate to ensure the safety of relevant persons.
It is important that the legislation leave open the range of options available to responsible persons, who, with the support of competent professionals and government guidance, which we are reviewing, are best placed to make those decisions based on local need. Some building owners may decide to install sprinklers as part of their overall fire strategy, while others might choose alternative measures, provided that they are effective. Nevertheless, the Government will review our fire safety order guidance for responsible persons, including references to fire-fighting equipment and other fire safety measures available to them.
I hope that I have provided sufficient reassurance and that the noble Lord is content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken in this debate, which has been very useful. In particular, I thank the noble Lord for his response.
I agree very much with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about the need for swift action. As we have discussed on previous amendments, there is the whole issue of building owners, insurance, guarantees and warranties, and we need to get to the bottom of that. I know that in the weeks ahead the noble Lord will be meeting people who are concerned about that, and that is very good.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that the responsible person must actually be a person. It cannot be a company or some entity, particularly one based on the other side of the world. It must be a real person in the UK, and we must have their name, address, phone number and email address so that we know exactly how to get hold of them. That is really important.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley spoke about the importance of sprinklers. The Government have made some progress on that, which is good, but they should look carefully at what has happened in Wales. Since 2011, no new home has been built without sprinklers. That measure was brought forward by the Labour Member, Ann Jones, following a Private Members’ ballot and it has been a really good thing. The Government should look at the initiatives of other institutions in the United Kingdom to see how these things work; that is one they could learn from.
With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 10. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 10
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Review of Scottish and Northern Irish legislation covering similar matters
Within 24 months of the day on which this Act is passed, but no less than 12 months after the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a review of legislation covering similar matters to this Act enacted by the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would ensure that the Government considers legislation covering similar matters to this Act enacted by the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendments 10, 11 and 12 in this group are in my name. Amendment 10 requires the Government to consider legislation covering similar matters to those in the Bill that has been enacted by the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. The Bill covers England and Wales only, since Scotland and Northern Ireland both have separate legislation in place under their legislative competences. The Government should work with the devolved Governments to share best practice and consider which legislation works best, and what should be in place where they alone have legislative competence.
Amendment 11 requires the Government to consider the Bill’s impact on local authority finances. The LGA and local authorities are concerned about the impact of the Bill on their finances, as we have raised in previous debates. An analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, commissioned by the LGA, found that councils in England are facing a funding gap of more than £5 billion by 2024 to maintain services at current levels. This figure could double amid the huge economic and societal uncertainty caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. This is a serious situation. It is therefore vital that councils are fully compensated for new requirements and burdens resulting from the Bill. As I have said before, the Government too often place extra burdens on local government, without a commensurate level of resources to deliver them. That is certainly not acceptable when looking at something as important as the Fire Safety Bill. It needs to be properly addressed when we consider matters of such importance.
Amendment 13 requires the Government to consider whether there is a skills shortage in the United Kingdom, in relation to the requirements of the Bill. Skills have been discussed in relation to many amendments. The lack of qualified professionals has already been raised today, along with the fear that, to get around it, we will have a race to the bottom, allowing unskilled people, who are not professionals, to undertake the work required of the Bill.
Britain has a skills shortage, particularly in higher technical skills, due to a number of reasons, including cuts to further education. The CBI said that two-thirds of businesses worry that they will not have the skilled posts to fill the work that needs to be done. The Government should make it clear whether they believe there is a sufficient skills base in the UK for the purposes of fire safety. If they do not believe that there is—and that may well be the logical conclusion—they need to set out what they will do to ensure we have the right skills base. I look forward to the Minister answering those points in his response. I beg to move.
Lord Stunell (LD) [V]
My Lords, I offer my support to Amendment 12, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, which looks to have a UK-wide, or at least England-wide, skills audit. There is clear evidence, particularly for matters relating to infrastructure, construction and this topic specifically, that there is a serious deficit in skills and training, and in the attractiveness of the industry to new entrants. There are many reasons for that but discussing them would be a different debate.
Clearly, if the Bill is to be a success, not just in its initial moments but in the ensuing years, there needs to be a steady stream of well-trained and fully experienced professionals—not just in the white-collar sense, but professionals who can deliver and install changes to buildings on a very big scale. It matches the parallel demands being placed on the construction industry from the move to improve the energy performance of homes and buildings in general. Again, a massive programme of investment is in train and planned by the Government.
This skills audit is urgently needed. I dare say the Minister will talk about the Construction Leadership Council and the various work being done on that front, but it needs a level of intensity and urgency that cannot be held by just one trade association or government advisory body. It must be a central driving initiative of the Government themselves. Although we all sincerely hope the current economic circumstances will turn and improve dramatically next year, they strongly suggest that there will be opportunities to recruit and upskill people who have to make career changes. The Government can and should seize this moment to make sure upgrading skills and recruiting new entrants is taken as a serious opportunity, consequent upon the passage of the Bill. I strongly support what is set out in Amendment 12.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, mindful of my interests as declared at the opening of Committee, I support Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, although an additional cost must not be imposed on local authorities as a consequence of the requirements of the Bill. It is well documented that many local authorities are already facing very challenging circumstances as a result of the costs of dealing with the local impact of the pandemic. This is on top of years of deep cuts in government funding.
The new burdens agreement between central and local government is supposed to ensure that the costs of new duties required by the Government are met by the equivalence of the costs. This amendment seeks to underline this commitment and to ensure that sufficient additional finances are made available. The consequence of failing to do so would undermine the purposes of the Bill, for which there is unanimous support.
There has already been an extensive debate on skills shortages and the definition of competences during consideration of other amendments. Many noble Lords have expressed their concerns. I wish to underline the importance of this issue, which has been expressed throughout Committee.
Amendment 10 seeks to ensure that the Scottish Government consider similar legislation. It highlights how Governments across the UK are slowly beginning to mirror a federal system. I find this fascinating. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 10 seeks to introduce a review of Scotland and Northern Ireland, to take place no later than 24 months after Royal Assent on the Fire Safety Bill, which would subsequently be laid before Parliament.
From the outset, I remind the Committee that the Fire Safety Bill applies only to England and Wales. Fire safety is a devolved matter. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, does not consider the vastly different fire safety regimes in place in Northern Ireland and Scotland. It is unlikely that the Scottish Parliament or Northern Ireland Assembly could make an equivalent legislative provision to reflect the fire safety legislation in England and Wales. In any event, the review proposed would not have any legal effect in either Scotland or Northern Ireland as the Bill extends and applies to England and Wales only. Such a review would be to no purpose.
I accept that noble Lords have an interest in fire safety in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. However, these matters are the responsibility of the respective devolved Governments, who are best placed to provide an update.
The fire safety regimes in Scotland and Northern Ireland are significantly different from that of England and Wales. There is no direct equivalent of the fire safety order in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Existing fire safety legislation does not have the same features as in England and Wales. This includes a review of the fire safety regime for high-rise domestic buildings in Scotland and delivery of the recommendations from that review. A single source of fire safety guidance for those responsible for these buildings is now available online and fire safety information has been delivered to residents in all high-rise buildings in Scotland. I have been in close dialogue with Kevin Stewart, my opposite number in the Scottish Parliament, about the issues we have been debating in Committee.
I am pleased to inform the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that the Scottish Government have today published a formal response to the Grenfell phase 1 report. I look forward to reading it. It is an important step in advancing fire safety in Scotland.
In Northern Ireland, a cross-body building safety programme group has been established and is sponsored by the Department of Finance. The group will consider what actions are necessary in Northern Ireland to improve and develop building safety and how best to incorporate relevant recommendations arising from the Grenfell public inquiry phase 1 report. The group is in the earliest stage of development, identifying relevant representative group nominations to centrally co-ordinate the Northern Ireland response from an operational, regulatory and legislative perspective.
I turn to Amendment 11 and thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for raising the issue of the Bill’s potential impact on local authorities. Obviously, we should mention not just local authorities but fire and rescue services. On a point of principle, we are very clear on the purpose of the Fire Safety Bill, which is to clarify that the structure, external walls and flat entrance doors in multi-occupied residential buildings are within scope of the fire safety order. However, this should not prevent local authorities from acting under their existing powers to address safety risks in multi-occupied residential buildings. They have a duty under the Housing Act 2004 to review areas of risk relating to social housing for which they are responsible, which we would expect to include issues relating to both fire and building safety. With regard to the private rented sector, local authorities also have a duty to take enforcement action if they consider that a serious category 1 hazard, including fire, exists on any residential premises.
We expect that the initial impact on local authorities and fire and rescue services under the Bill to be limited, with the focus being on responsible persons updating fire risk assessments on high-risk buildings, as considered under the risk operating model. I will address this in more detail when responding to amendments on commencement. The costs of the Bill have been set out in the published economic impact assessment. This shows that the costs are shared across all responsible persons for high-rise residential buildings, the majority of which are privately owned rather than social housing. We will keep the impact on local authorities under consideration in future spending reviews as work progresses on fire and building safety in their capacity as both landlords and enforcing authorities. I will also give an undertaking that we will consider the impact on local authorities of the Bill and consultation in line with the new-burdens principles. I should also inform noble Lords of the additional funding support being provided. We have invested £20 million in funding fire safety protection and a further £10 million for the fire risk review programme.
As regards the draft Building Safety Bill, we are planning measures to strengthen the fire safety order, and the impact of these on fire and rescue services and local authorities will be considered. I should warn noble Lords that the Bill will have about 140 clauses, whereas this Bill has three clauses, which we seem to have spent several hours debating in some detail.
Amendment 12 calls for a review of fire skills 12 months after the passing of the Bill. Significant work has been undertaken by the industry-led Competence Steering Group and its subgroup on fire risk assessors and fire engineers, to look at ways in which to increase competence and capacity in these professions. This includes proposing recommendations in relation to introducing a register of fire risk assessors, a competence framework and a system of third-party accreditation for fire risk assessors. The final report from the CSG was published on the Construction Industry Council’s website on 5 October and the MHCLG, the HSE and the Home Office are considering the recommendations of the report in detail.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will be aware that we recognise the concerns raised by the fire risk assessor sector on its capacity and competency to undertake and update fire risk assessments for the buildings in scope of this Bill. We want to ensure that we will take a proportionate approach to commencing the Bill that limits any potential impact on the fire risk assessor sector. The noble Lord has raised a very important issue with this amendment. The Government have been working with the fire risk assessor sector to develop a clear plan to increase its capacity and capability. The Home Office and the MHCLG are jointly funding the British Standards Institution to develop technical guidance to support professionals to assess the fire risk posed by external wall systems. This guidance will support industry to upskill more professionals to take on this work and will increase the quality and consistency of these assessments.
Although this amendment is in line with our plans to develop the capacity and capability of the sector, I do not think that this work needs to be enshrined in legislation. I also think that a slightly longer timeframe for such a review of 18 to 24 months would be more appropriate, as such a period would allow for more meaningful change, given the need to recruit against the background of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Finally, I emphasise that understanding the skills shortage and having a plan to address that, as raised by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Stunell, must be a driving mission of this Government. Therefore, I would be happy to meet with the noble Lords in relation to Amendment 12 before Report to discuss the ongoing work that I have outlined. In the meantime, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken in this short debate and thank the Minister for his response. All the issues that have been highlighted here are important; I will look carefully at what the noble Lord has said, particularly on skills. We need to ensure that in this new regime we have properly skilled, competent professionals doing this work. As many of us have said before, there should be no race to the bottom, and it is really important that we do not have unqualified people doing this work. On the issue of funding the fire service and local government, there are issues about the capacity of local authorities and the fire and rescue services to do the work, so funding is important. We need to see that done well.
On the noble Lord’s comments in respect of learning from institutions in other parts of the United Kingdom, there are many examples where one particular part of the United Kingdom might do something a different way, and that sometimes might be better than the way we do it here. It is good that we learn from those, whether it is sprinklers in Wales or what they do on modern slavery in Northern Ireland or in Scotland, or the way we do things here in England. We need to ensure that we all learn from each other. If the Minister is meeting ministerial colleagues in other institutions, that is a very welcome and a good thing to know. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 13. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 13
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Application of the Fire Safety Order to short-term lettings premises
(1) The relevant authority must, by regulations under section 2, amend article 2 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) (interpretation) as follows.(2) In the definition of “domestic premises”, after “one such dwelling);” insert—“but does not include any premises let to persons for gain as holiday or short-term accommodation during the occupancy of the premises by such persons.””Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment will clarify that the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 applies to holiday lets.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 13 in my name sets out to highlight what may be a gap in the protection afforded by the fire safety order. The fire safety order does not apply to domestic premises, other than bedsit properties or houses in multiple occupation, so hitherto the protection afforded by the order did not extend to houses in respect of residential blocks. It effectively stopped at the flat’s front door. The order applied only to the common parts and the planning and arrangements for escape through those common parts of the building.
It appears to be the position of the Government—and I stand to be corrected if I am wrong—that they have always assumed that where someone lets their property for a period of time through Airbnb or some other website, which they otherwise use as their residence, or do so for part of the year, then during the time that the flat is let through Airbnb or some similar organisation, the flat is subject to the protections of the order. However, I doubt that this can be a correct interpretation of the order as it currently stands: domestic premises are defined in the order as all those premises, and parts of premises, occupied as a private dwelling which are not used in common by the occupants of more than one such dwelling.
If a person lets out his private dwelling for part of a year, or just a room in that private dwelling, it is difficult to see why or how the premises ceases to be a private dwelling; with a room let out through Airbnb it certainly does not mean that that room or the whole premises are being used in common by the occupants of more than one dwelling. If we look at the terms of service provided by Airbnb, there is talk of “guests” and the statement:
“You understand that a confirmed booking of an Accommodation (“Accommodation Booking”) is a limited licence granted to you by the Host to enter, occupy and use the Accommodation for the duration of your stay, during which time the Host (only where and to the extent permitted by law) retains the right to re-enter the accommodation according to the agreement with the Host.”
Having guests in your private dwelling where you retain the right to re-enter is not a typical situation that the law treats as your property ceasing to be a private dwelling because you have let it out.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)[V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for proposing this amendment and for giving us an opportunity to raise a serious if unintended deficiency in what fire safety law covers through the 2005 fire safety order. Far too often, attention is drawn to these matters only when they have terrible consequences, when it is essentially too late. I give great credit to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for raising the issue in a timely fashion. To the best of my knowledge, it would be in time to save lives rather than deal with the consequences.
I am keen that the Minister should reflect very carefully on the excellent speech made by my noble friend Lord Kennedy, and that, if he cannot provide a comprehensive assurance from the Dispatch Box, he should tell the House that the matter will be taken back to the department and full consideration given to it. I hope that the Government will either accept this amendment or introduce their own amendment.
Identifying the cause of the absence of any agency doing any oversight investigation, regulation or consideration of online rental accommodation led to a clear view from the relevant agencies that they were not required to do so. In investigating why the amendment was so necessary, and why I am so keen to support it, the answer became evident in the compelling legal opinion written by the outstanding leading counsel Richard Matthews QC, who is rightly acknowledged in all independent legal guides as not just in the top band of legal silks on health and safety, but by some as the very best legal mind in the country on those matters. He has not just been counsel for the Health and Safety Executive but has acted for the Crown in many fire-related prosecutions.
I say this just to emphasise the strength and merits of the legal arguments that my noble friend Lord Kennedy presented, and the fact that the Minister needs to ensure that his legal talking points have the right level of force and expertise to provide assurance to the House.
Richard Matthews’ opinion is that the fire safety order does not apply to domestic premises except those specifically defined in the order. The crucial question with regard to short-let holiday, business or other accommodation available through a variety of online or digital accommodation services—commonly known as Airbnb-type accommodation —is whether it falls within scope or ceases to be a domestic premises.
Mr Matthews’ advice could not be clearer. He states:
“I am firmly of the opinion that a house or flat that is let on the specific terms of the licence through Airbnb or similar accommodation for a short period of time does not necessarily by operation of the law thereby cease to be a domestic premises occupied as a private dwelling. Furthermore, I am very firmly of the opinion that a room or space in a house or flat that is let on the specific terms of the licence through Airbnb for a short period of time, whether the remainder continues to be occupied by the host as a residence, does not thereby cease to be a domestic premises occupied as a private dwelling, nor that it thereby becomes premises used in common by the occupants of more than one such dwelling. In addition, I am further of the opinion that both the Government’s written parliamentary response and its Do you have paying guests? guide are both inaccurate in this regard, and an apparent assertion that whenever anyone pays to stay in a property other than to live there as a permanent home, then the property is not a domestic premises occupied by someone, not necessarily a paying guest, as a private dwelling, is wrong as a matter of law.
Nothing demonstrates that his interpretation of the law is incorrect, which explains the fact that there has been no enforcement.
There is a clear, though unintended, gap, and it should be plugged as soon as possible. The onus must be on Airbnb hosts, and similar types of host, to have made the assessment or, where necessary, sought professional advice, to protect their paying guests. In addition, fire authorities should have some knowledge of where these properties are, or at least consider whether there is a need for inspection if a particular block or premises is being used within these terms. I strongly support the correction of the anomaly in the Bill that the amendment provides, to clarify the roles and responsibilities of temporary landlords in respect of fire prevention measures in their properties.
Finally, there is one other significant matter, which Mr Matthews’ extensive legal research and experience also uncovered, that should be addressed. It is that the 2015 smoke and carbon monoxide alarm regulations, which were brought into force at a time when the service provided by Airbnb and other such companies was well established and well known, for Airbnb premises to be within the ambit of the smoke and carbon monoxide regulations by reason solely of a licence obtained by Airbnb, such a licence would have to amount to a tenancy granting the right to occupy the premises as the guest’s only or main residence. An Airbnb will not have the effect of putting premises outside the ambit of the smoke and carbon monoxide regulations within that protection. I would be grateful for the Minister’s assurance that this too—which is surely another unintended lacuna—will be remedied, as well as the one addressed by the main amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, the phrase “unintended consequences” comes to mind in Amendment 13. This short amendment seeks to ensure that there is clarity in connection with short holiday lets that use either part or the whole of a building, and it is one that we support. I am no legal expert, but the issues just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, must be considered and a definitive answer provided by the Government.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for seeing that there is an omission in the Bill and a possible unintended consequence, and for tabling the amendment so that we can have this discussion. I hope the Minister is able to respond positively.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for raising the important issue of the treatment of short-term accommodation and holiday lettings under the fire safety order, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this brief but important debate. The noble Lord is absolutely right to draw attention to the constantly changing models and companies through which people might rent out their accommodation, particularly in this year of staycations when, I am sure, people have been staying in many more domestic properties in the UK.
As the noble Lord noted, domestic premises are expressly excluded from falling within the fire safety order. Article 2 of the order provides a definition of domestic premises which states that, to be considered as such, it must be occupied as a private dwelling. That is the key bit: the fire safety order applies at any time when the property is being leased or rented because it is not being occupied as a private dwelling. In effect, the property becomes a non-domestic premise when rented out and falls within the scope of the safety order. That is the Government’s view of the legal position. Under the fire safety order, owners of these types of premises have a duty as the responsible persons to undertake a fire risk assessment and put in place fire precautions that are adequate and appropriate to manage the risk of fire, and the fire and rescue services are the enforcing authorities for the order in such accommodation.
Anyone who provides accommodation for paying guests can also find helpful information on the GOV.UK website, which the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Mendelsohn, mentioned. The noble Lord mentioned by name the Do You Have Paying Guests? guidance, which is for people who are responsible for small and short-term accommodation. I can tell noble Lords that the guidance has recently been updated and that the new version will be called Making Your Sleeping Premises Safe from Fire, which will be a short guide for sleeping premises, small businesses and small blocks of flats. That is the part of the tranche 2 FSO guidance review, which will be published alongside the laying of secondary legislation. I hope that when the noble Lord sees that, it will assuage some of his concerns.
We do not agree with the legal position of Mr Matthews that the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, read out; if a property is rented out through Airbnb and so on then it falls within the scope of the fire safety order. I hope that reassures the noble Lord that the fire safety order already applies in the scenario that he outlines in his amendment, and that he will therefore be content to withdraw it. We will certainly be happy to continue discussing this point as we approach Report.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have had no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in this short debate. The Minister has confirmed that the Government’s view is that the fire safety order applies when the property is used for a paying guest. The question that therefore arises is: does the person providing the property know the obligation that they have created for themselves? Do the sites that let these properties out for them understand that? Do they know their responsibilities? Have they made adequate provision to ensure that when the property is being let, it is safe? Are people aware of the ways in and out of the property, what the fire precautions are and so on?
There is another point here. How does a fire authority know that all these properties in its area are being let and used, and how can they do inspections? Just think how many properties must be let in London. How will the London fire brigade or the local authority ever know which properties they are? How can they ever do any inspections? How can anyone ever be responsible? If no one is responsible, either the order is wrong or we have not created the conditions for the order to be effective.
Those are really serious issues, so I hope the Minister will look at them between now and Report. It is not just an anomaly; it is potentially a disaster waiting to happen, and we need to do much more than we are now. At this stage, I am happy to withdraw the amendment, but I will bring it back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come the group beginning with Amendment 14. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this, or any other amendment in the group, to a Division should make that clear in the debate. This amendment was to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Porter of Spalding, but he is not able to join us today, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
Amendment 14
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Fire Safety Code of Practice
(1) The relevant authority must by regulations amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) as follows.(2) In Article 26(2) (Enforcement of Order), at the end insert “and any Code of Practice made pursuant to Article 50”.(3) In Article 50 (Guidance)—(a) in the title, at the beginning insert “Code of Practice and”;(b) after Article 50(3) insert—“(4) The Secretary of State must issue a Code of Practice with the aim of securing that—(a) all fire risk assessments of higher-risk residential buildings necessary to comply with this Order are carried out as soon as practicable and before those which are lower-risk, and(b) privately-owned and publicly-owned buildings are equally able to access the resources available to carry out such work.(5) Before issuing a code under this Article the Secretary of State shall—(a) publish proposals, and(b) consult such persons as he or she thinks appropriate.(6) Before issuing a code under this Article the Secretary of State shall lay a draft of the code before Parliament.(7) Where a draft is laid before Parliament under Article 50(6), if it is approved by both Houses of Parliament—(a) the Secretary of State may issue the code in the form of the draft, and(b) it shall come into force in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order.(8) A failure to comply with a provision of a code shall not of itself make a person liable to criminal or civil proceedings; but a code—(a) shall be admissible in evidence in criminal or civil proceedings, and(b) shall be taken into account by a court or tribunal in any case in which it appears to the court or tribunal to be relevant.(9) The Secretary of State may amend any code of practice issued pursuant to this Article by publishing proposals for the amendment of the code and consulting on those proposals and seeking the approval of Parliament in the same way as for the first code, but a code issued under this Article shall continue in force until it is amended.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and the others in Lord Porter's name, would require the Government to introduce guidance in the form of an approved code of practice, before commencing the Bill. The approved code of practice must seek to ensure that the limited resources available to carry out the reviews of fire risk assessments required by the Bill are allocated between buildings on the basis of risk.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am very happy to move this amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Porter of Spalding. I shall speak to Amendments 14, 19 and 23, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Porter, and also to Amendment 22, in my name, in this group.
For many years, the Local Government Association has been calling for councils and fire services to be given effective powers and meaningful sanctions to ensure that residents are safe, and feel safe, in their homes. This is an absolute priority for councils. The introduction of the Fire Safety Bill is welcome, and I hope it is an important step in the right direction. But there is concern about some of the practicalities of the Bill, which has led to the noble Lord, Lord Porter, tabling Amendments 14, 19 and 23.
Many building owners, including councils, will need to review the fire risk assessments on their properties as a result of this Bill. It is right that they do so, because where cladding systems are on residential buildings, we must be sure that they are safe and that appropriate measures are in place if they pose a risk. It also takes forward one of the recommendations of the review of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. To make sure that this new duty can be delivered, we need to ensure that there are enough specialists to review the cladding systems. It has become clear that there is likely to be a significant shortage of assessors to carry out these reviews. Indeed, many of those qualified to conduct normal fire risk assessments do not have the specialist skills necessary to include external wall systems in a risk assessment. Insurers are also reluctant to provide professional indemnity cover for this sort of work. This leads to several potential problems. First, responsible persons, including the councils, may be unable to fulfil their obligations under the Bill. Secondly, there is a risk that a demand/supply imbalance drives up the cost of assessments, adding to the burdens on the housing revenue account or the taxpayer. Thirdly, if owners with sufficient resources pay the higher cost to get all their buildings assessed, irrespective of the risk to residents, high-risk buildings with less well-off owners will be left at the back of the queue—and that queue could last for some years. Finally, delays in some buildings obtaining fire risk assessments could compound the problems caused by the inability of residents to obtain EWS1 forms and the consequent effects of this on mortgage applications, even in buildings that have safe cladding systems.
The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Porter, seek to ensure two outcomes: that responsible persons are protected in law, where they are genuinely unable to review their fire risk assessments, and that higher-risk premises are assessed before lower-risk premises. The precise method of doing this will be set out in the code of practice. It will rely on risk assessment tools which take account of the various factors that increase the risks fire poses in a block of flats—for example the height, if they have sprinklers, and the number of escape routes. This is being developed, as we know, by the National Fire Chiefs Council and the Fire Industry Association.
This tool should allow buildings to be placed in various categories of risk, with each category to be given a different level of priority and a different deadline to complete its assessment. In order to get these effective deadlines, the Government need to undertake research to establish a clearer picture of the number of buildings likely to be affected in different categories and the number of assessors available. This is unlikely to happen before the Bill commences, so either the Bill needs to be delayed or deadlines need to be capable of being changed relatively quickly.
A balance will have to be struck between commencing the Bill as soon as possible, so that the fire service can use its powers, and assessing the disparity between the number of fire risk assessments that will need be reviewed and the capacity of the fire risk assessment industry to do so. Parliament needs to make this judgment, and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Porter, includes a requirement for the approved code of practice to be laid before both Houses for scrutiny.
The tragedy that unfolded at Grenfell Tower must never be allowed to happen again. We need a building safety system that works. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Porter, seek to ensure that, on the issue of fire risk assessments, we have a practical set of proposals agreed by this House. I hope that the Minister will respond positively and I am very happy to move the amendment on behalf of the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group and I acknowledge the sterling work done by the noble Lord, Lord Porter, over the past three and a half years to improve building safety following the Grenfell fire. The central aim of the amendments is to ensure that resources are used to best effect in reviewing the fire risk assessments required by the Bill. The criteria for prioritisation must be based on anticipated levels of risk, so the process and the code of practice outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Porter, seem appropriate to meet this objective. That said, I hope the Minister has understood the concern of many speaking today that improving fire safety needs faster outcomes, and that nothing in this group should mean longer delays for assessments that are felt to be less urgent.
Finally, Amendment 22 is obviously key to the delivery of the intentions behind this group, because it requires sufficient fire safety inspectors to be available, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has emphasised. It is a clear duty of government to ensure that enough qualified inspectors are available, and I very much hope the Minister will shortly confirm that this is indeed the Government’s intention.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Porter, is not able to move his amendment today, as his is a good idea. A fire safety code of practice would draw together many of the issues raised elsewhere in the debate into one place. I am confident that there will be, of course, prioritisation of buildings at risk, but this amendment would ensure that this is set out and therefore legitimised. Sharing the costs of fire risk assessments according to assessed risks is another important element of fairness that has to be acknowledged, and putting it in the Bill, as this amendment does, is wholly positive.
Throughout today’s debate, it is clear that there is full support for the Bill and its purposes. All the amendments seek to do is to improve it for the benefit both of fire safety and for residents’ peace of mind. I look forward, therefore, to the Minister’s response.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Porter for his sterling efforts regarding building and fire safety, and for his leadership over many years in local government and as a former chairman of the Local Government Association. I thank him for tabling amendments on a proposed improved code of practice to support the commencement of the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for stepping up in his stead, and for his amendment, which would ensure that the Bill is not commenced until the Government have completed a full review of the capacity of fire safety inspectors to undertake the duties set out in the Bill.
I will respond to the amendments relating to commencement guidance. As noble Lords are aware, the Home Office established a task and finish group, chaired jointly by the National Fire Chiefs Council and the Fire Sector Federation, whose role was to recommend the optimal way to commence the Bill. Members of the group were drawn from local authorities, housing associations, private sector developers, the fire sector and selected fire and rescue services. My noble friend is aware that the Local Government Association was represented—as I said, he served as chairman until July last year.
The Home Office received the group’s recommendations on 28 September. It advised that the Bill should be commenced at once for all buildings in scope on a single date, subject to prior conditions being met: first, that responsible persons should use a risk-based tool to develop an effective strategy to prioritise their buildings for an updated fire risk assessment—a tool is currently being developed by a sub-group of the task and finish group; and, secondly, that the Government issue statutory guidance to ensure that this tool is used by responsible persons.
I thank the task and finish group for providing its expert views to the Home Office. I understand the intention behind this amendment: that guidance—whether or not it is defined as a code of practice—needs to have the appropriate legal status to ensure effective use of the risk-based tool by responsible persons. I am aware my noble friend also has concerns that fire engineers and competent professionals might increase their fees, making it difficult for social sector landlords to get expert advice on buildings that may be high-risk.
This Government want to ensure that the resources of fire engineers and other competent professionals are targeted to buildings based on risk. Equally, this Government want to ensure that there are no delays to commencing the Bill. I am sure this is a view we all share. The Government are concerned that this amendment will delay the commencement of the Bill; for example, it would place a statutory duty on the Government to undertake a public consultation on a draft code of practice and to lay the final code before Parliament before the Bill and the code come into effect by order. This process will delay the Bill’s commencement until at least summer 2021.
I do not consider that guidance alone will resolve my noble friend’s concerns about how fire engineers and other competent professionals prioritise their resources. The right building blocks need to be put in place to create system change. That is why we are working with the fire risk assessor sector to develop a clear plan to increase its capacity and capability. The Home Office and MHCLG are jointly funding the British Standards Institution to develop technical guidance to support professionals to assess the fire risk posed by external wall systems. This guidance will support industry to upskill more professionals to take on this work and increase the quality and consistency of these assessments.
We continue to work closely with the joint chairs of the task and finish group, as well as the LGA, to ensure that the Government provide a proportionate response to their advice.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, aims to ensure that the Bill is not commenced until the Government have completed a full review of the capacity of fire safety inspectors to undertake the duties set out by the Bill. The Bill clarifies the role of fire and rescue services in enforcement against responsible persons who have not adequately assessed the fire safety risks of a building’s structure, external walls or flat entrance doors in multi- occupied residential buildings and, where appropriate, put in place general fire precautions. The amendment aims to ensure that before the Bill is commenced the Government undertake a review of the fire and rescue services’ capacity to carry out inspections and, where appropriate, take enforcement action in line with the clarification the Bill provides.
Fire and rescue services have the resources they need to do their important work. Decisions on how resources are best deployed to meet their core functions are a matter for each fire and rescue authority. This includes deciding on the number of fire safety officers needed to deliver their fire safety enforcement duties under the fire safety order.
The amendment is unnecessary as the Government issued an impact assessment for the Bill, which considered the impact on fire and rescue services. The impact assessment sets out that additional work for fire safety inspectors arising from the Bill will cover reading and reviewing of relevant parts of the updated fire risk assessment and, where appropriate, undertake a visual inspection of the external walls and flat entrance doors. Our central estimate of the additional cost to fire and rescue services is £5.9 million over the 10-year period assessed.
Overall, fire and rescue authorities will receive around £2.3 billion in 2020-21. Stand-alone fire and rescue authorities will see an increase in core spending power of 3.2% in cash terms in 2020-21 compared with 2019-20. The Government have invested a further £30 million of funding in fire and rescue services and the National Fire Chiefs Council this year. This includes: £10 million allocated to fire and rescue authorities to improve protection capability and undertake more audits of high-risk premises; £7 million to allow fire and rescue authorities to respond effectively to the findings of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry; £3 million to bolster the NFCC’s Grenfell improvement capacity and capability and to drive strategic change from the centre; and £10 million to deliver the Government’s building risk review programme and to form a central protection hub within the NFCC.
The National Fire Chiefs Council published a revised competence framework document earlier this year for business fire safety regulators to assist fire and rescue services in assuring the competence of their fire safety staff. This work will support common competence standards across fire and rescue services’ protection staff.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister so I call the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I was very happy to move this amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Porter of Spalding. He is highly regarded in this House and in local government, where he led the LGA for many years with distinction and was respected by councillors of all parties and none.
There have been constant themes this afternoon: the effectiveness of this order; the need to make sure that it works properly; the competence of the people who will have responsibilities under the order and who they are; and the resources available to local authorities and others to ensure that they can deliver what they are responsible for. I am sure that we will come back to these issues on Report. However, I am pleased to hear that the Minister is prepared to talk to the noble Lord, Lord Porter, on the issues he raised in this amendment; I know that the noble Lord will take these matters up with him between now and Report.
At this stage, however, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Porter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Fire Safety Bill
Tuesday 17th November 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 132-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (12 Nov 2020)
15:43 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 8 - Ayes: 269 / Noes: 250 - Amendment 8 agreed.
17:24 - Division on conducted remotely on Amendment 10 - Ayes: 284 / Noes: 267 - Amendment 10 agreed.
18:10 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 13 - Ayes: 275 / Noes: 262 - Amendment 13 agreed.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Fire Safety Bill is important legislation that I strongly support, as I do the building safety Bill, which is in draft form and which I believe your Lordships’ House will receive early in the new year. The motivation behind the amendments I am proposing is that there should be a safer home environment—a motivation shared, I believe, by the whole House. Specifically, the amendments refer to high-rise blocks; that is the spur.
I thank my noble friend Lord Randall and the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Whitty, who are also signatories to the amendment and have given strong support. I also thank many others for their strong support and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Best, who, unfortunately, is unable to speak today. I thank the Minister for making time to discuss these issues; I know he is sincere in his desire to do something constructive to move matters forward on checks in tower blocks. I also thank Electrical Safety First, an excellent charity dedicated to reducing deaths from fires caused by electrical accidents. It has been magnificent, and I would like to thank Rob Jervis-Gibbons in particular but also Lesley Rudd, Ron Bailey and Martyn Allen for their help.
We need to translate the good intentions of the whole House into action, and there are some important facts to bear in mind. Approximately 7,000 domestic fires per annum are caused by faulty electrical goods; that is 53% of domestic fires. Many of these are in high-rise blocks and, in those circumstances, they are particularly treacherous. We can all recall Lakanal House in 2009, Shepherds Court in 2016 and, of course, tragically, Grenfell Tower in 2017—all confirmed to be caused by electrical ignition.
My amendments essentially focus on two proposals, as they did in Committee. First, mandatory five-year electrical system checks in high-rise blocks—just high-rise blocks. The model for this is what is being done currently in the private rented sector, just introduced by the Government this year: I endorse that move. It applies, of course, to all the private rented sector, essentially, not just high-rise blocks. My amendments would apply just to high-rise buildings—those over 11 metres high—but would apply to social tenants and owner-occupiers as well as private tenants. I ask myself why social tenants should be excluded: I am a strong believer in the levelling-up agenda, which the Government also are strongly behind. It should apply to owner-occupiers too, of course.
Social tenants are a large part of the residents of high-rise blocks. In Grenfell, they constituted the vast majority of residents, for example. I should say, and I congratulate the Government, that I am pleased to see, in the social housing White Paper issued today, moves not just in relation to smoke and carbon monoxide alarms—I see that consultation is opening on extending that into social housing, quite rightly—but also consulting separately on ways to ensure that social housing tenants are protected from harm caused by poor electrical safety. That is certainly welcome. The wording confirms the direction of travel. What is at issue, of course, is the pace, the speed: that is what we need to pick up. This is something that should be done expeditiously. The most sensible course of action in high-rise blocks would surely be to mirror the checks in the private rented sector for all residents of tower blocks, to provide for the safety of everybody in those tower blocks.
I should say in passing that I certainly endorse other actions that have been taken to help protect and guard against fire. The Home Office “Fire Kills” campaign is very welcome and is supported by the charitable sector. The building safety Bill that is coming down the tracks provides, in Clause 86 currently, that responsibility should be placed on residents for electrical goods and their safety. I welcome that but, of course, it is not sufficient in itself and will not protect, in the way that this would protect, against the fires that we are all too familiar with.
The second of the two main proposals in my amendment would require that a person responsible for fire safety, who is of course being designated in this legislation, should be responsible for a register of electrical goods. The majority of fires are caused by faulty electrical goods, and many of these are goods that have been subject to recall by the manufacturer. The fire at Shepherds Court, for example, was caused by a faulty tumble dryer that was subject to a recall. The purpose of the register would therefore be to identify these goods and ensure that they were recalled and either refitted or replaced. The person responsible for fire safety would be able to distribute information to residents, and there is a precedent for such a register in student accommodation throughout England.
I know that we all recall graphically the Grenfell Tower tragedy: it is forged on our individual memories, just as it is seared on the nation’s conscience. I look to my noble friend the Minister, who I know is sympathetic, to provide some clear way forward, indicating the seriousness of the Government’s intentions and the intention to move decisively on this agenda in the building safety Bill, possibly with a working party to move the agenda forward quickly. I beg to move.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to support my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and I was delighted to put my name to his amendments, together with the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Whitty. My noble friend has expressed very clearly and eloquently what his amendments are about. I also welcome the very constructive discussions we had with the Minister. As my noble friend Lord Bourne said, I believe that he understands fully what we are trying to achieve.
It seems strange to me and, I am sure, to many others, that the rules for private tenants are stronger than they are for social tenants. This inequality of responsibility should be addressed. That applies also to owner-occupiers, of course. As my noble friend said, in high-rise buildings the majority of tenants are, indeed, social tenants, and I think they need as much help as they can get in ensuring the safety of their premises and, of course, the safety of their neighbours.
On the issue of a register, again, I think this is extremely important. We have heard that this is already in place for student accommodation. I feel that there is a real problem: perhaps we should consider, with both of these proposals, that there is a huge number of, presumably, second-hand electrical appliances in existence. People will be buying them not necessarily from retail outlets; they may be buying them on eBay or elsewhere, and they will not necessarily be having them tested appropriately. This is something that I think we have to look at. Having somebody responsible for maintaining that these items are safe is, I think, of paramount importance.
I welcome the social housing White Paper that was published today, particularly the provisions around these matters. Even if we cannot get exactly what we want today—and I understand that the Bill may not be the ideal vehicle for these amendments—I look forward, when the building safety Bill comes before your Lordships, to being in a position to implement these excellent ideas and proposals from my noble friend.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I begin, as always, by declaring my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and co-president of London Councils, the body that represents all the London boroughs and the City of London. Particularly in respect of these amendments, I should declare my interest as patron of the charity Electrical Safety First.
I apologise that I was not able to be present in Committee when the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, moved and debated these amendments. We debated this issue fairly fully at Second Reading; we certainly covered amendments very similar to these in Committee—which I have read, even though I was unable to participate—and I have been very pleased to add my name to them again. I do not think I need to repeat today all the things that were said very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. The key points have been made; I think that they are understood and I believe that they are generally accepted.
We have made reference a number of times, and again today, to the fires that happened not only at Grenfell Tower but at Lakanal House and at Shepherds Court. In all those buildings, a significant number of residents living there were owner-occupiers. They were not tenants in the private sector or the social sector; they were owner-occupiers.
In a way, this is key to these amendments. In a high-rise block—these amendments apply only to high-rise blocks—there is what has been described as a tenure lottery. There is a mixture of tenure, yet, by the nature of a tower block, every resident in it—regardless of their tenure—is equally at risk from these dangers. We owe it to all of them, not to any particular sector, to provide as best we can not only to deal with the risks after they have happened but, even more importantly, to prevent them happening in the first place. That is the object of all these amendments.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I fully support all the amendments put down by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. Many of the points have been made by my cosignatories already.
On the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, clearly this does nothing to undermine the essential responsibility of the manufacturer—and to some extent the retailer—in the safety of appliances. Indeed, some of the liability rests with the user or householder if they use them irresponsibly or unsafely or do not return them when a recall has been issued. However, it is also the case that the owner or manager of the building is responsible for all the tenants, leaseholders and owner-occupiers who occupy that building. If there is a fire, differential tenure is hardly relevant; the rules should be the same for all forms of tenure. An electrical fault could arise anywhere and could affect any neighbour in the block, as we have tragically seen all too often. It is important that a high-rise block is covered, with responsibilities to the owner or manager, regular clear inspections and a list of equipment. Electrical systems are presently dealt with differently from gas; there is a requirement for gas inspections for everybody. We need to require the owner to take account of the potential damage to others within his or her building.
Obviously, we hope the Government will take this up as rapidly as possible. There are issues around who bears the cost and whether this is the appropriate Bill for these clauses. The latter seems odd to argue; this is the Fire Safety Bill. We are arguing that it should include provisions about the single most frequent cause of fire and measures that have already been identified in the Grenfell inquiry. These are most relevant here. I understand the Minister might prefer to see them in the forthcoming building safety Bill, but they are not there; the fact that the provisions in these amendments are not in the pre-legislative version of the Bill at the moment, although some aspects of electrical safety are, makes us doubt the speed with which these clauses would be brought into operation. It would be much better if they were in this Bill.
On cost, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Best, who wanted to speak in this debate but was somehow precluded. He calculated that, even if inspection costs for carrying out the regular inspection were £100, that would be £20 a year over five years, or 20p a week per premise, which would go on the service charge to leaseholders and tenants in one way or another. That is a minimal cost for a major contribution towards everybody’s safety. It would not be logical for the requirement on the owner for inspection to be postponed until the building safety Bill comes through, but it would be better than nothing. If we can be given an absolute assurance, I will accept it as second best, but it really should be in this Bill to prevent fires starting now. I support all these amendments.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I first declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a chartered surveyor with some 45 years of experience in dealing with the management, maintenance and condition survey of properties, as well as matters of tenure. I apologise to the House for not having been able to participate directly on previous stages of the Bill. Many noble Lords will know that I have been following this extremely closely and have written to many of them, including the Minister.
Turning to the thrust of these amendments, I entirely agree with the purpose of the amendment on electrical systems: to make regular periodic tests and inspections of fixed electrical installations most desirable. However, with leases in long-leasehold tenure, the leaseholder is typically responsible for what is in the flat and is identifiably unit-specific to that bit of accommodation. Typically, that also applies to other conducting media and conduits such as drains, extraction ducts and water supplies. Some items are centrally operated, such as fire alarms and detection equipment, which may be within the flat and may be differently treated, but such provision does not always pertain to rack-rented letting. Straightaway, the legal obligations between different types of tenure, which are established in the case of long leasehold in their long leases, and therefore in their title, are not consistent across what I might call the flatted sector.
I also have concerns about the scrutiny and enforcement of the regulation, which in the past has sometimes been patchy. The issue is one of resources. The capacity, competence and finance are often insufficient or inadequate in the areas where the responsibility lies, or, in some circumstances, the responsibilities may be split. The Government must address these in the context of the Bill, because the subject matter is vital in terms of human safety, and too important to be left to chance, but I wonder how secondary legislation will deal with overriding established practices set out in the legal arrangements for tenure and occupation.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, is very enthusiastic about electrical appliances. I am a little less enthusiastic, not about the objective of greater safety, but about the practicality. There should be a clearer cut-off between what is “system” and what is “appliance”. For instance, a hardwired electrical hot towel rail is regarded as appliance, not system. There should be a clearer definition, so that anything with a square pin plug on the end of its lead falls under “appliance”. Again, there are issues to do with things such as cookers, which are also hardwired.
I note and largely agree with the views of the LGA regarding the enforceability in real life, and the shifting of responsibility, in my definition, from the primary leaseholder or occupier of the unit, who is in charge of the items in the building, unless they have been supplied by the lessor or manager from inception. There is an assumption that there will be some degree of occupier co-operation. Logging the appliances on a register may capture the inventory at a moment in time, but that does not procure accuracy without continuous updating, so there are issues there as to how much time and energy are to be taken up with doing this. Some modern service lettings include white goods, and possibly many other smaller items, and, to give the example of holiday accommodation, typically the owner of the accommodation provides all the white goods and appliances, but even that does not stop someone coming along with their own appliance, which may not be tested. The same thing applies for normal rentals.
Therefore, accuracy is an issue. Retrofitting the sort of standard that might apply in circumstances where all the white goods and appliances are pre-provided by the lessor would be extremely difficult. If the intention is to include everything that might be caught under a normal PAT test, that will be extremely detailed, with a high turnover of items within any five-year period. If occupiers of flats are not obliged to declare all relevant items whenever exchanged for another, or whenever a new item is brought in, this could create an impossible task for managers. Therefore, if the Minister agrees to this amendment, in detail or in principle, some of these issues must be addressed.
I suggest a phased approach, to allow for the most at risk and the most dangerous situations to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. Here, I am with the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, but for the rest, one must ensure that the arrangements are put in place in a workmanlike manner, that they are practical and, particularly, that manufacturers and retailers be locked into the chain of compliance. Also, there has to be a cultural change, so that every occupier of a high-rise block realises that they have a responsibility and an input, and that they are pivotal in procuring safety and ensuring that they do not misuse—or fail to maintain and clean—their appliances or operate them in unsuitable locations. I recognise, approve and agree with the thrust of these amendments, but I remain concerned about some of the detail.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest, having lived for nearly 20 years as a private tenant in—under the definition in this amendment—a high-rise block in London. I am trying to work through how a register would apply, because I have never solely rented. It has always been part of a multiple-occupancy residency within a council-owned block where a private owner has bought a property and then leased it out to the likes of me.
The amendment seems to be approaching this the wrong way around. The poorer one is, the more one will be buying second-hand goods and not buying direct from manufacturers, particularly with white goods. Systems of registration can never easily apply with that. The Government should be looking at the opportunity—although it cannot be fitted into this Bill at this moment—whereby there is an incentive at local authority level for there to be certificates of competence in relation to properties that are being let out, in relation to electrics and gas, so that one can see that the standard has been met. Such a system would quickly isolate those who were not prepared to have the relevant certificates in place, who would then become the primary targets for enforcement investigation. It seems that the market could assist in a significant part of the solution if it was required to parade its worthiness in an effective public way in terms of the safety of a property.
Under this definition, this building would be a high-rise building. In planning terms this is one building, with at least two occupied residences; there may be more that I am unaware of. That is not necessarily an argument against this amendment, and might even be one in favour of it, to fast-forward some of the building changes that are needed in here. However, rightly, the focus has been the Government’s focus. I make no criticism whatever of this or of contributors in this debate, in terms of traditional high-rise. However, while I am in favour of the Government’s approach in wanting more office-style or above-shop conversions over the last 20 years, often these buildings were not designed as accommodation, and, having seen first-hand some of those which have been done over the last 20 years, if they are badly designed, the fire risk seem disproportionately high. That aspect of “above-shop”, which could be two, three, four or storeys in some cases, in terms of accommodation, needs more attention from the Government, and potentially, more powers for local authorities.
Finally, in the context of Clause 1—I hope that the building safety Bill is the appropriate place for this—the fire risk in fixed Traveller sites and park home sites is a different kind of problem. The problem could be immediately outside the property. Park home sites in particular may be constrained by a perimeter wall, and the fire risk comes from the lack of space therein. I have direct experience of challenging that, and it has been fiendishly difficult to do anything about it in law. I hope, as the Government move the building safety Bill forward, that the question of properties on fixed Traveller sites and park home sites will be looked at, including in the context of fire safety. More can and should be done there.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I strongly support this group of amendments, and it is good to see cross-party support for them.
At previous stages of the Bill, I spoke on the importance of increased electrical safety checks. In view of what we are now hearing from the Grenfell inquiry, such checks of electrical systems and appliances in high-rise blocks are vital. As the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said, there should be a safer home environment and we should be translating good intention to action. I strongly agree. He reminded us that almost half of domestic fires relate to an electrical fault, and also of the precedent of a register of electrical equipment in student housing blocks.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, made a number of points on second-hand electrical equipment, which I hope the Minister will note. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, explained that the cost is minimal. This derives, in part, from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Best, in Committee, where he identified how the cost could be much lower than people had thought. My noble friend Lord Tope called for a clear commitment from the Minister on what action the Government are proposing and when they are proposing to implement it.
It has been said that the legislation will be complicated to enforce. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, made a number of detailed points about the responsibilities of leaseholders and those with other kinds of tenure. I hope the Minister responds to those points, particularly in view of the distinction that may have to be drawn between systems and appliances. The points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, will be very helpful in drafting regulations. He said that we need a cultural change; that has to be right.
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, has personal knowledge of living in a residential block as a private tenant. That experience will clearly be helpful to the proceedings of the House. He raised a number of important issues on design, which I hope the Minister will note.
It is important to understand the issue properly. It is surely the right of tenants and leaseholders of high-rise blocks to feel more secure. This is a public safety issue. I cannot understand why checks are required in the private rented sector but not for high-rise blocks, except where the property in that block is privately rented. I hope that we hear something helpful on this from the Minister in a moment.
Finally, there is going to be a responsible person. I am fully in support of that, but such a person needs responsibilities to undertake. This group of amendments presents some responsibilities that seem central and core to the duties and obligations of a responsible person. For that reason, I fully support this group of amendments.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, as this is the first time I am speaking on Report today, I refer the House to my relevant registered interests—namely, as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, chair of the Heart of Medway housing association and a non-executive director of MHS Homes Ltd. I support the Fire Safety Bill. My main concern across the whole Bill is the speed with which we are moving forward. That is the main issue for me with this and other amendments.
I fully support the amendments before us today in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and other noble Lords. I tried to sign up to these amendments, but I was too late; all the spaces had already gone when I contacted the Public Bill Office. I have made it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, that he has my full support, and I pay tribute to him for raising these issues, as he did on 29 October during the consideration of the Bill in Committee. I also put on record my admiration for the charity Electrical Safety First, and Robert Jervis-Gibbons and his colleagues, for all the work they do to highlight the danger of electrical fires to both property and people. Through their campaigning work, we have managed to make progress in recent years in the area of fires started by electrical ignition.
In speaking in this debate, noble Lords mentioned the fires at Lakanal House in Southwark, Shepherds Court in Shepherd’s Bush and Grenfell Tower—all examples of the tragedies that electrical fires can cause. We need to ensure that action is taken. As has been clearly set out to the House, these amendments are intended to build on the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020, which provide for mandatory checks in the private sector every five years. Those regulations were good news, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, deserves credit for all his work in bringing them into force.
What now needs to be addressed is the tenure lottery that has been created, as private tenants in a building will be covered by the regulations but social tenants and owner-occupiers will not. There are three types of tenure, but only one would be required to have electrical safety checks. You can see the problem: if you have a block of flats but only some of the properties are tested, covered and confirmed as safe, or have remedial work that is needed and undertaken, but others are not checked, the building is then not safe. How can some properties be required by law to be checked, when others are not? That has to change. I suggest that, to be certain the building is safe for all dwellings, it would need to be checked by a competent person. If it is for only some of the dwelling, you cannot deem the building to be safe.
The amendments before us also provide for a responsible person, which is a new role that I fully support, to be brought into being to compile a register of every white good in a building. This would ensure that, when a recall of a product occurs, we can quickly identify all the affected appliances and the safety issue can quickly be resolved. This does not take away responsibility from the people who sell the appliance or the manufacturers, but it is another important safety measure.
The Government may take the view that they cannot commit to this, at this stage. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, has not indicated that he wishes to test the opinion of the House, but I hope to have a considered opinion from the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, on these important amendments. I also hope that the noble Lord and his team will look at what goes on in other parts of the world—certainly in Australia—where there are much stricter regimes about electrical white goods than elsewhere. They need to be looked at because, clearly, if this can work in other parts of the world, it can work here. All these amendments are about keeping people safe, and I fully support them.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my relevant commercial and residential property interests as set out in the register. I thank my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth for his amendment, which shines a light on the important issue of electrical safety. Indeed, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for his clear focus and mission to prevent fires happening in the first place as a result of electrical faults as absolutely the key. I also thank my noble friend for the constructive meeting that we had on this issue last week, involving my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I recognise the covering fire received from the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Whitty, for this amendment, and in particular, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, mentioned, the work of the Electrical Safety First organisation. I commend the latter for the work that it is doing to raise awareness of the risks of electrical fires. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Mann, for pointing out the issues around second-hand electrical goods; this is a particularly difficult area to regulate and something that we need to look into.
I will not reiterate all the points that I raised in Committee, but I will mention two concerns that I have in relation to this amendment. First, I note that the wording has changed to focus on high-rise buildings, but I am still concerned that it would not have the effect that my noble friend seeks to achieve. In particular, it is doubtful that the amendment would result in electrical appliances in private dwellings being brought within the scope of the fire safety order. This in turn will thwart the amendment’s underlying objectives for systematic checks on electrical appliances and for the responsible person to keep a register of appliances, as required by the additional schedule proposed in this amendment.
My other concern is that the amendment risks delaying the implementation of necessary reforms to fire safety regulation. A number of concerns have been raised in both your Lordships’ House and the other place about the pace of reform to fire and building safety legislation. We now have a package of reforms: this Bill, the upcoming fire safety order regulations, and the building safety Bill. The amendment would impact on the delivery of this package of legislation, and in particular on the fire safety order regulations.
A lot of the detail of this amendment is left to be implemented through regulations, and the work that this would require would lead to significant delays in our being able to deliver other key recommendations from the Grenfell inquiry. The answer to addressing the concern about electrical safety lies in the work that is being undertaken across government, which includes a number of strands. I will not repeat all of the work that I referenced in Committee but will pick out some key aspects.
A regulatory regime is in place on product safety, underpinned by legislation and overseen by a national regulator, the Office for Product Safety and Standards, which was created in 2018. This regime places responsibility for the safety of products on those actors best placed to ensure this before products are placed on the market. The draft building safety Bill reflects the role that all parties have to play in ensuring the safety of high-rise dwellings, from the developer to the accountable person to the residents themselves, and electrical safety is an important part of this. As mentioned by a number of noble Lords, there are standards for electrical checks in private rented accommodation, which require that electrical equipment is checked at least every five years. This is already in place for new tenancies and will apply to existing tenancies from 1 April 2021.
I recognise the concerns expressed by a number of noble Lords with respect to there being no mandatory checks on social housing. The inequality between social and private housing was raised by my noble friend Lord Randall and the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy. I am pleased to say that today we have published a social housing White Paper, which sets out our charter for social housing residents. It includes a commitment to undertake a consultation on keeping social housing residents safe from electrical harm. Among a range of issues, this will consider extending the safety measures already in the private rented sector to social housing.
I assure my noble friend that the Government take the issues raised in his amendment very seriously indeed. In that regard I am happy to give him a firm commitment that, outside the Bill process, my officials will engage Electrical Safety First and other key stakeholders in an official-led working group to inform the content of our consultation. Given the assurances that I have provided, I ask my noble friend to agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, I first thank everybody who has participated in the debate on the amendments in this group. It has been a very worthwhile discussion, and every noble Lord who participated added something valuable. It is clear that there is broad support within the House for action, and a recognition of the inequality that exists between private tenants on the one hand and social tenants—and indeed owner-occupiers—on the other hand.
I note what my noble friend the Minister said in relation to some of the detailed points in the consideration of the amendments that may cause concern; clearly they are matters that could be looked at. I agree with my noble friend the Minister on the importance of what has happened today in relation to the White Paper, although I note that there is no timescale attached to that. Before I withdraw my amendment, which I am minded to do, I will press my noble friend a little on two matters. First, would he be willing to meet with me and the other signatories to the amendment ahead of the building safety Bill to see how we can dovetail what we are seeking to do here with that Bill? I know from discussions with him that he felt that that Bill was a more appropriate medium to use, so I seek that from him.
Secondly, I thank him very much for the undertaking that he has given to meet with Electrical Safety First, along with officials, to consider the proposals in the social housing White Paper as to possible timescales. He will understand that we are now three and a half years after the dreadful events of Grenfell. The social housing White Paper has been a long time forthcoming, for reasons that I do understand, and we are now looking at a future consultation; we do not—and I am sure he does not—want this stretching out a long time into the future. So I will just press him a little bit on those two matters before I withdraw my amendment.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am very happy to give my noble friend the assurance that we can meet together before the introduction of the building safety Bill. Indeed, as soon as I have more information about the timescales in relation to the social housing White Paper being turned into legislation, I will be able to provide that to my noble friend. I am happy also to agree to meet with the Electrical Safety First organisation; I would find that very constructive indeed.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, I know my noble friend and I know his sincerity so, with those undertakings, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 5. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Clause 2: Power to change premises to which the Fire Safety Order applies
Amendment 5
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“( ) The consultation under subsection (5) must involve—(a) local authorities;(b) relevant trade unions including but not limited to those representing firefighters;(c) relevant organisations representing firefighters;(d) bodies representing tenants and residents of impacted properties; and(e) any other bodies deemed relevant by the Secretary of State.( ) A report detailing the findings of the consultation under subsection (5) must be laid before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that any consultation must include local authorities, trade unions, and representatives of tenants and residents.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, this is an issue that I raised in Committee, and I confirm that I have no intention of dividing the House on it this afternoon. I have tabled it again to give the Minister the opportunity to put beyond any doubt that the organisations that I have listed will be consulted, without question, because they are important in their different ways. I accept the point that has been made before that things change over time, but I think it is a reasonable assumption that we will have local authorities, trade unions representing firefighters and other workers in the sector more generally, and associations representing tenants and residents, for the foreseeable future, and that consultation must go much wider than the National Fire Chiefs Council.
Amendment 6 from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, is a probing amendment, as the noble Baroness makes clear in her explanatory statement, allowing the Minister to offer clarity to the House. Again, I welcome the amendment made in that spirit by the noble Baroness and I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. I think that he and I agree on the value of consultation in many different arenas.
My probing amendment relates to an appalling situation arising as an indirect consequence of the Grenfell tragedy. As a direct result of that fire, vast amounts of cladding, especially on high-rise blocks, will have to be removed. The requirements for improvement consequently imposed on those concerned—freeholders, leaseholders and so on—affect a very large number of multiple-occupation dwellings, unnecessarily, some might say, whatever their height. As a consequence, surveyors, insurers and mortgage lenders, all financially involved, have become very concerned by their clients’ potential unquantified exposure to risk and are taking steps to minimise it. Inevitably, they are taking a cautious view. Wooden features such as staircases and partitions—used since the dawn of time and much more sustainable than steel or plastic derivatives—are often viewed with suspicion.
A particular uncertainty is what the remedial action will cost and who will bear that cost. There is currently no good answer to that concern and, as a consequence, much of the market is effectively frozen. Thus, many properties are in practice unsaleable, with knock-on effects on people’s financial viability and the mobility of workers. As I emphasised in Committee, this is a nightmare for the young who want to move when they have a baby, for the old who want to trade down to something smaller and release capital for their care, and for the unemployed who need to move to get a new job.
I explained all that in Committee, and I think it would be fair to say that, although the Minister, in responding, accepted that there was a problem, he said nothing about how it might be solved. I hope that we can move a step forward today and that the Minister will be able to say something that will ease up the market in respect of at least some of the dwellings where the fire risk is small. Standing back, it is apparent that the Bill takes us in the wrong direction on this issue, because it provides for an increase in the number of requirements and regulations without providing a way forward on the threat to the housing market and our reputation as supporters of home ownership, which many people aspire to.
To be more specific, first, can the Minister provide a clear trajectory for the implementation of the Bill, the revisions to the fire safety order and the building safety Bill to reassure us on consistency and show how the uncertainty and unintended consequences for leaseholders arising as a result of these changes will be kept to a minimum?
Secondly, what assessment have the Government made of the availability of qualified assessors and fire safety engineers to account for the increased demand that will arise from the Bill? How can they help in this regard?
Thirdly, can the Government develop a system, such as you might see in the health and safety area, referenced earlier, that allows non-professionals involved in managing multiple-occupation properties to do the necessary risk assessments and give the assurances needed for the market to move? The EWS1 system—designed, I believe, to help with the mortgage problem—has, unfortunately, had a perverse effect.
Fourthly, can the Minister say anything to unfreeze properties—for example, those of a low height where the risk is much less?
This is a very difficult issue and I know that my noble friend the Minister, with his experience of local government, understands the issues and has been trying very hard. I welcome the considerable funds made available to deal with the most serious high-rise cladding issue and the progress that is therefore being made. He should also be thanked for his wider efforts to improve the housing sector and build more homes. However, the problem that I have described, with support from my noble friend Lord Shinkwin in Committee, is a very serious one and we need action now. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will be winding up on this group, I should like to say that I, like my noble friend Lord Bourne, would appreciate a further meeting on how we tackle this matter before the new order and the building safety Bill proceed.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has made a number of helpful and very important points. Amendment 6 seeks clarification from the Minister on a number of problems in relation to leaseholders and the impact on the housing market of the current problems with selling properties. I, too, look forward to the Minister’s response, as it would be helpful to us all to have an up-to-date understanding of his thinking.
We shall, of course, address this matter on Amendment 13 as well, as it is central to the future management of high-rise accommodation, or the less high-rise accommodation that nevertheless still suffers from some of the problems of the high-rise blocks. As the noble Baroness said, we need a way forward for the housing market in solving the problems of some leaseholders. I entirely agree with that, and I hope that forthcoming meetings will be able to address those issues.
Amendment 5, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, is entirely sensible. Of course it is right to consult properly and fully in developing legislation, so I assume that the Minister will be able to confirm this afternoon his entire agreement to this amendment because it is so eminently sensible.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, although I certainly agree with the thrust of Amendment 5, it is Amendment 6, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that I really wish to address.
Many of my years in the property profession have been spent in survey inspections, with a spell in estate agency and mortgage valuations and brief periods in block management, and I have spent a good deal of time on the forensic identification of defects. Therefore, I feel reasonably well qualified to support the noble Baroness, and I thank her for raising this important issue, which affects the residential sector. Rightly, she referred to the indirect effect of the Grenfell tragedy. That is a matter on which I have been in constant contact with the Chartered Association of Building Engineers, of which I am a patron and which has been very helpful in identifying various matters in respect of the Bill.
As the noble Baroness said, the effect on the residential market for flats in particular, and over a very broad spectrum by age and type, is now apparent. This has affected security for mortgage lending, exacerbated by the prospect of large and, as the noble Baroness said, unquantified remediation bills. Some sort of game of pass the parcel seems to be in train as to who will end up picking up those bills. It affects buildings insurance cover and premiums, and interim measures such as “waking watch” are racking up huge costs. These and the likely shortfall, as I see it, in the provision for remediation made by the Government—welcome though that is, but nevertheless there is a shortfall as against the widening scope of the buildings that might ultimately be affected—have seriously affected the ability to sell flats. It is not clear that this is in any way confined to high rise, as I am increasingly aware, as one of my children attempts to sell a flat in a four-storey modern and, I believe, conventionally constructed block.
A few days ago, a lady emailed me to say that she is a resident of a sister block to the one in Worcester Park which burned down last year. She is completely stuck with a currently worthless asset and no apparent movement on remediation. The latest Sunday Times carried an article about this, graphically illustrating the issues and defects that have been found to be present in a number of remaining identical buildings that are still standing.
Before this gets yet more problematic and starts affecting potentially a far wider range of properties than at present, the Government need to use their powers and influence to get all the interested parties round a table—constructers, lenders, insurers—and point out, as the noble Baroness said, the reputational as well as economic and social damage that needs to be contained beyond the issue of direct liability and who shoulders that, and require their active co-operation to resolve this in a constructive manner and not leave vulnerable homeowners, to put it bluntly, hung out to dry.
I appreciate the criticism of the EWS1 form, but it came about because of a particular need to do with mortgage lending. It is now being required for a much wider range of purposes, for which it was never intended. Why? Because it was the only tool available. The Government could step into this obvious void and make sure that some other form of certification solution was provided. But they, or somebody else, would have to take responsibility for that, and I realise that that is an issue. Meanwhile, the potential liabilities make it ever less likely that those without specific accreditation to do the necessary inspections will be willing to undertake such work and, indeed, they may not be able to get professional indemnity insurance either.
The Government need to get ahead of the curve here. If these measures are rushed into effect with full force immediately and without additional steps, there will be more serious disruption and collateral damage to come. I suggest there be a phased and managed approach aimed at containing the ill effects, restoring trust and confidence, above all, in the measures being put in place and limiting financial loss while dealing, most importantly, with the most pressing issues where residents’ safety is at the greatest peril. None of this is without risk; nor is the normal “Not my responsibility, guvnor” liability-passing response appropriate in these abnormal times, given the number of national issues we face and the effect on the wider economy.
This means temporary but probably arbitrary cut-offs, probably in height terms—11 metres may be the right figure for blocks of flats—perhaps with certain other definitions, then dealing with those and drawing the net more widely later on and inevitably, as one will, picking up legacy issues from older regulatory sign-offs on the way. Some sort of lower-tier interim certification, which the noble Baroness referred to, perhaps by a non-specialist, would enable low-risk properties to escape the contagion that might otherwise engulf the sector. I wonder if this is what the Minister will propose in Amendment 7. I will listen with great interest to his response.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests, as recorded in the register, as a councillor in Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I turn first to Amendment 6, through which the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has raised concerns about the inclusion of all multi-occupied domestic premises within the scope of the Bill. The issues raised relate to leaseholders who find that they are, in effect, unable to move as their property is within the scope of the Bill and, therefore, that the fire risk exists but is not quantified. The later amendment in my name explores these issues in more detail.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, spoke on behalf of the Minister and confirmed that the Government intend that all multi-occupational buildings are within the scope of the Bill and the fire safety order 2005. He also argued in Committee that the height of a building is only one factor in assessing fire risk, and others have given recent examples of fires in such buildings that support that argument. The issue, then, is about prioritisation, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has so expertly explained, and what actions the Government are able to take to minimise the impact on properties deemed low priority and, therefore, presumably of lower risk. It is that issue that the Minister needs to clarify. Will the Government bring forward regulations or guidance to demonstrate the criteria to be used to fire assess properties? Can these be used by leaseholders to demonstrate low risk, and thus release their property from being frozen out of the housing market? I look forward to the Minister’s response to these concerns.
The other amendment in this group, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raises issues about consultation. It lists consultees, as a very similar amendment did in Committee. My colleagues and I are always in favour of the widest possible consultation on any issue. However, there is an inherent risk in a list that becomes exclusive while intending to be inclusive. The list of consultees is one which we would expect, however, to be involved in all relevant consultations. As my noble friend Lord Shipley said, the list is inherently sensible, so I hope the Minister will be able to accept such a list. Again, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for raising the issue of engagement to make sure the right groups and organisations are consulted on any changes or clarifications to the types of premises that fall within the scope of the fire safety order. The Government have given this matter further consideration since Committee stage. I support the noble Lord’s aim of ensuring that the widest range of groups are given an opportunity to comment. It is sensible to seek views from all groups impacted by any future changes, which is why Clause 2 of the Fire Safety Bill provides a requirement to consult anyone appropriate, which is likely to include all the parties highlighted in the amendment.
Robust policy-making can be achieved only by reaching out to all sections of the fire sector and other interested parties, such as responsible persons and residents, not by relying solely on the expertise of certain groups. To be clear, of course we will consult with the National Fire Chiefs Council but equally, we will consult with the Fire Brigades Union and with tenants’ and residents’ associations.
The Government are committed to considering the most appropriate means of conducting any future consultation before making any regulations—regulations which Parliament would have an opportunity to scrutinise, should it so wish. It remains the case that the specified list as presented identifies groups whose role, name or function may change over time, potentially creating the need for future primary legislative changes or making such provision ineffective. However, the Bill as drafted safeguards against this while ensuring that relevant groups are not excluded. I want to assure your Lordships’ House that we recognise the importance of consulting relevant stakeholders, but the wording of Clause 2 already allows us to do just that, without the need to be prescriptive in the way the noble Lord’s amendment suggests.
I turn now to the very important consumer issues raised by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. I had a meeting with my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Shinkwin, and I am very happy to commit to a further meeting before the introduction of the building safety Bill. These are huge consumer issues, and I praise my noble friend for being a champion of the consumer. We recognise that many leaseholders’ properties have been valued at zero, they are waiting for remediation of their properties and they are unable to remortgage or to move. They are effectively trapped, and the Government recognise that that is a considerable issue for them. We also recognise that the costs of historic building safety and fire safety remediation will be considerably more than the £1.6 billion already committed. It is important to address that in a way that is affordable to leaseholders, and there are only certain ways of doing that. We will make announcements on that in due course.
Equally, we recognise that the pace of remediation is important. I have talked to many people in the social housing sector about the fact that they have probably overspent on waking watch. I am very pleased that we provided guidance on waking watch, the cost of which is exorbitantly high; it can be replaced by a fire alarm system within six or seven weeks, which reduces some of the costs of interim measures. I draw the attention of those using waking watch for extended periods to the most recent guidance from the National Fire Chiefs Council and the work on waking watch costs. I am very happy to commit to a further meeting.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response to this short debate and for putting clearly on the record his views on consultation, which I fully support. As he said, it is important to have a wide range of appropriate consultees.
I also fully support the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. We cannot allow people to continue to live in properties that are, effectively, worth nothing. I hope that the meeting referred to will take place, but it is also important that when builders construct these buildings and give warranties and guarantees, they are upheld. It cannot be right to allow builders to walk away from their obligations under warranties and guarantees have given; they need to be held accountable. I hope that the Minister will take back that very important point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 7. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 7
Lord Greenhalgh
“Risk based guidance about the discharge of duties under the Fire Safety Order
(1) Article 50 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1541) (guidance) is amended as follows.(2) After paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) Where in any proceedings it is alleged that a person has contravened a provision of articles 8 to 22 or of regulations made under article 24 in relation to a relevant building (or part of the building)—(a) proof of a failure to comply with any applicable risk based guidance may be relied on as tending to establish that there was such a contravention, and(b) proof of compliance with any applicable risk based guidance may be relied on as tending to establish that there was no such contravention.”(3) After paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) Before revising or withdrawing any risk based guidance in relation to relevant buildings the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”(4) After paragraph (3) insert—“(4) In this article—“relevant building” means a building in England containing two or more sets of domestic premises;“risk based guidance” means guidance under paragraph (1) about how a person who is subject to the duties mentioned there in relation to more than one set of premises is to prioritise the discharge of those duties in respect of the different premises by reference to risk.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that, where the Secretary of State issues risk based guidance under the existing duty to ensure the availability of appropriate guidance, proof of compliance or a lack of compliance with that guidance can be used in legal proceedings. It also requires the Secretary of State to consult before revising or withdrawing risk based guidance.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 14. In Committee I made a commitment to set out during today’s debate the Government’s position on how the Fire Safety Bill will be commenced. Your Lordships’ House is aware that the Home Office established an independent task and finish group, chaired jointly by the National Fire Chiefs Council and the Fire Sector Federation, which brought together interested parties from across the fire and housing sectors. Its role was to provide a recommendation on the optimal way to commence the Bill. The group advised that the Bill should be commenced at once for all buildings in scope. I have accepted this recommendation to commence the Fire Safety Bill at once for all buildings in scope on a single date.
The group also recommended that responsible persons under the fire safety order should use a risk-based approach to carrying out or reviewing fire risk assessments upon commencement by way of using a risk operating model, and that the Government issue statutory guidance to support this approach. I also agreed to this recommendation, which will support responsible persons to develop an effective prioritisation strategy for such assessments, which will be supported by a risk operating model currently being developed. The Home Office, with support from the National Fire Chiefs Council and the Fire Sector Federation, will also host this model once it has been finalised.
The government amendments tabled today intend to take forward the provision of statutory guidance to support this approach. These amendments ensure that the risk-based guidance which will be issued by the Secretary of State to support commencement of the Bill for all relevant buildings will have the legal status to incentivise compliance with it. It does this by stating explicitly that a court can consider whether a responsible person has complied with their duties under the fire safety order by compliance with the risk-based guidance. Equally, if a responsible person has failed to provide evidence that they have complied, it may be relied on by a court as tending to support non-compliance with the duties under the order.
The government amendment also creates a provision to allow the Secretary of State to withdraw the risk-based guidance, but this can be done only after consultation with relevant stakeholders and appropriate persons. Our rationale for inserting this provision is that we believe that a point will eventually be reached where, having followed a risk-based approach to prioritisation, responsible persons will have assessed all the fire safety risks for the external walls of their buildings in direct consequence of the commencement of the Bill. At that stage there may no longer be a need for the guidance to remain in place. I assure your Lordships’ House that the Government will commence the Bill at the same time as issuing the guidance. Amendment 14 achieves this effect.
I thank my noble friend Lord Porter of Spalding for his amendment in Committee, which would have placed a duty on the Secretary of State to issue an approved code of practice to support the commencement of the Bill. I had a very constructive discussion with my noble friend and officials from the Local Government Association last week, and I am pleased that he supports our approach and agrees that there should be no delay in commencing the Bill.
One of the issues that the task and finish group considered was how responsible persons will be able to update their fire risk assessment where there is limited capacity in the fire risk assessor sector, primarily fire engineers, to advise on external wall systems. This underlines the recommendation for a risk-based approach to an all-at-once commencement, on which we are acting. Our approach sends a signal to the fire risk assessor sector, mainly fire engineers, that their expertise should first be directed to where it is needed most: to the highest risk buildings.
I draw attention the statement of the Fire Sector Federation, which supports our approach to commencement. It said that
“the introduction of further new measures … using systematic risk- based guidance, will lead a prioritisation approach towards helping to identify the fire risk status for a … building such that those presenting the highest threat to life are afforded the highest priority”
for “remedial action.”
I thank all members of the task and finish group for their work in developing advice to the Home Office and my officials. I consider that the group has provided an optimal solution to commencing the Fire Safety Bill, allowing the Government to introduce the provisions at the earliest opportunity. It is important that we continue the good work undertaken with relevant stakeholders on the task and finish group, with a view regularly to monitoring the effectiveness of the risk-based guidance and risk-operating model. My amendments seek to take forward the recommendations from operational experts in the field of fire safety. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, the proposed risk-based guidance set out in the amendment is extremely welcome, particularly if it means what I think it means: assessment not only by building type but in relation to the specifics. The risk-operating model is especially welcome in this respect, and I thank the Minister for tabling the amendment. When is the guidance likely to be finalised? It is linked to the Bill coming into force and it is important that it be done as soon as possible, subject to reasonable scrutiny. We need reasonable certainty and to calm financial, insurance and property market fears.
Knowing the limited scrutiny that secondary legislation receives, can the Minister give an assurance that the guidance will be unequivocal—in clear, jargon-free and plain English, capable of consistent application and not liable to misleading or alternative interpretations? I say that with some feeling, having had to deal with matters of regulation over many years. Can the Minister also say whether there will be consultation on the details —in the knowledge that, within reason, the sooner this measure is brought in, the better—and whether there will be parliamentary scrutiny of it?
I particularly welcome the Minister’s reference to the signal that will be given to the accreditation sector and the insistence on indicating priorities. Getting capacity will clearly be an issue and the person responsible for a building—as happens in some employment situations—does not necessarily need to be an externally trained professional.
I will raise one further issue. A member of my family, as I mentioned earlier, has a flat in a relatively low-rise block in a London borough. I spent a bit of time on the borough’s website looking for details of the 2006 planning consent that governed its construction. Unfortunately, all the information—bar the notice—was missing from the website. I was told that I could make an application; it is not clear whether or not I would have to pay for that.
The other aspect of this is the information that goes into building control, which should be the details of how the building is to be constructed. If people are to be able to make a reasoned assessment of the safety or otherwise of their building, having that constructional information is rather important. The standard approach, however, is that building regulation information is not readily accessible on demand and may involve copyright issues where plans are provided. This may be fair enough, but there is an overriding need to know. If the architect, or the approved inspector—or whoever might have this information, since it might not be in the local authority records—cannot be traced, the only solution, which may have to happen anyway to some extent, would be for someone to take intrusive steps to open up parts of the building for inspection.
That basic information, which at some stage must have gone into the public domain or been used for an approved building regulation inspection, needs to be rounded up. Can the Minister offer any comfort or reassurance that steps will be taken to make sure that this essential information is recovered and available to those who need it?
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, has withdrawn from speaking to this group of amendments so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, these government amendments, as described, seek to clarify what evidence of culpability, in relation to compliance with the regulations, is required. The very fact that government amendments have been tabled to the Bill at this late stage shows the importance and value of the scrutiny work of this House.
As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has just said, a risk-based approach is essential to ensuring that high-risk buildings are prioritised and to calming financial sector fears. The timing of the publication of the guidance to which the Minister has referred is vital if the implementation of the changes in the Bill, and the guidance, are to take effect as soon as possible. These are important additions to the Bill, and we support them.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am very happy to support government Amendments 7 and 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh. These amendments respond to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Porter of Spalding, whose amendments I moved in Committee because he was having connectivity issues.
I have read the briefing from the Local Government Association, which confirms its support for the government amendments but reflects the concerns it raised about the fact that there were far too few fire risk assessors competent and insured to carry out the fire risk assessments of buildings with external wall cladding systems required under the Fire Safety Bill. We need to implement these powers quickly, and this is a reasonable way forward. The LGA is happy and I, too, am happy to support what the Minister is proposing today.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. I will address a couple of points. I assure the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that I will endeavour to see that the regulation is written in plain English that even I can understand. In response to the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I agree that the timing is important, and guidance will be available at commencement.
These government amendments ensure that the risk-based guidance issued by the Secretary of State to support commencement of the provisions in the Bill that apply to all relevant buildings has the right legal status to incentivise compliance. These amendments also ensure that the Government can commence the Bill for all relevant buildings as early as possible after Royal Assent and at the same time as the risk-based guidance is issued.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that there should be no delays in bringing this Bill into force. I thank the task and finish group for all its hard work in developing the advice to the Home Office, which I consider the optimal solution for commencing the Bill. It is important that we get this right, which is why we have listened to the views of the experts who will have to implement the Bill. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
We now come to Amendment 8. I remind noble Lords that Members, other than the mover and the Minister, may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 8
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Duties of owner or manager
The relevant authority must by regulations amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) to require an owner or a manager of any building which contains two or more sets of domestic premises to—(a) share information with their local Fire and Rescue Service in respect of each building for which an owner or manager is responsible about the design of its external walls and details of the materials of which those external walls are constructed; (b) in respect of any building for which an owner or manager is responsible which contains separate flats, undertake annual inspections of individual flat entrance doors; (c) in respect of any building for which an owner or manager is responsible which contains separate flats, undertake monthly inspections of lifts and report the results to their local Fire and Rescue Service if the results include a fault; and(d) share evacuation and fire safety instructions with residents of the building.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would place various requirements on building owners or managers of buildings containing two or more sets of domestic premises, and would implement recommendations made in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 1 Report.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 8 in my name seeks to make progress in respect of the recommendations of the first phase of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. I intend to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.
It is disappointing that progress has been so slow, in all matters, following the tragedy at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017. That is a matter of huge regret and, quite frankly, unacceptable. I have stood at this Dispatch Box for years urging the Government to move forward on all aspects of the tragedy with greater speed and urgency, but that plea has so far not been answered. We have on record pledges from Ministers to implement the full recommendations in the report of the first phase of the inquiry, but this Bill does not include provision for any of those recommendations to be implemented. That is most regrettable.
When this Bill was before the other place the Government did not take the opportunity to correct this, and opposed bringing it forward. Instead, they said that they would launch a consultation. The consultation was launched in July and ended last month—a full year after they pledged to implement the first phase recommendations. That highlights the problem: we are not moving quickly enough. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, will explain to the House why the timescale that the Government are working to is so slow. People have waited far too long for legislative action.
I do not understand why the Government are not even prepared to include in the Bill the simplest of the inquiry’s recommendations, such as the inspection of fire doors and the testing of lifts. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why when he responds to the debate. These recommendations need to be implemented urgently. The Government need to do more and act with greater speed.
We remember that terrible night of 14 June 2017, with its dreadful loss of life and the ruin and devastation caused to the lives of those left behind. The physical scars may have healed, but the mental scars remain. It is beyond belief that, more than three years later, we have seen so little action.
This is the third piece of legislation from the Government. Today, people are still living in blocks of flats covered with ACM cladding; there are schools, hospitals and other buildings covered in it as well. Three years after the Grenfell Tower disaster, people will go to bed tonight having to rely on a waking watch. The cladding scandal has people trapped in their homes, unable to sell them and with the unimaginable worry that they are living in buildings which are potential death traps.
We ask the Government to take the long-overdue action to which they have committed themselves. It is urgent, necessary and right. Everyone concerned demands that these safety changes are put into effect. There is no justification for delay. The Government have given no reason for not acting immediately. They say that they want to do it not in this Bill but in the building safety Bill. That is just not acceptable, and I hope that the House will reject it. I beg to move.
Lord Stunell (LD) [V]
My Lords, I strongly support the eloquent plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, that we should get on with what everybody knows needs to be done. No one is apparently objecting to it, but the Government have not yet acted. The sense of impatience in your Lordships’ House is much more strongly felt by those who live in blocks affected by ACM and by all the terrible flaws in building construction revealed during the Grenfell inquiry and in Dame Judith Hackitt’s responses.
Amendment 8 systematically lists some of the key requirements that Dame Judith’s report strongly commended and recommended be done. The Government came to your Lordships’ House—not once, not twice, but at three-monthly intervals, for two years—promising that everything would be implemented and that this was a high priority. I am afraid to say that opportunities have been missed. The draft building safety Bill is silent on these issues, so it is not simply a case of saying that it will come up there: it does not. The opportunity has also been missed to include it in this Bill.
Among the recommendations is the inspection of individual flat entrance doors. We all know that tenants and leaseholders have individual views about personalising their accommodation. Not surprisingly, many flat doors do not comply. A survey in July showed that, of the roughly 750,000 fire doors in buildings of this type, perhaps as many as three-quarters needed some action to make them compliant. There is a potential risk to the residents in block after block after block. The Government are now resisting Amendment 8, which sensibly includes the core requirements of Dame Judith’s report for making our buildings safe. We have to wonder exactly how sincere the Government are in their frequent, powerfully expressed commitments, which, unfortunately, they do not seem willing to implement.
Just this last week, I have been looking with members of the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service at what needs to be done to satisfy the requirements emerging from the Grenfell inquiry. They told me that they have been inspecting high-rise buildings in Greater Manchester—as you would expect—with considerable diligence. Having reassessed the situation based on their professional knowledge, they have already required a number of those blocks to completely change their evacuation procedures. Surely it is time that these sensible requirements were included in legislation. It should not just be up to particularly diligent fire authorities to make residents safe, but to owners, leaseholders and the building industry.
Here is the opportunity for the Minister to accept the strength of the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. Will he come back at Third Reading and include provisions along these lines? If not, I shall certainly be joining the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in the Lobby at the end of this debate.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Shipley.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Stunell. There have been—and still are—legislative opportunities for the Government to act. When the Minister sums up, I hope that he will urgently clarify the Government’s plans.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, said in introducing this group, progress has been disappointingly slow. He went on to say that it is “beyond belief” that, three years after the Grenfell fire, action is so slow. He is absolutely right. The general public will become increasingly worried by the deeply disturbing revelations of the Grenfell inquiry.
This amendment seeks to implement recommendations made in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry phase 1 report. Surely that is the right thing to do as a matter of urgency. This new clause would clarify the duties of an owner or manager in relation to a building with two or more sets of accommodation to provide information on its construction to a local fire and rescue service. Secondly, it would introduce annual inspections of individual flat doors. This is an essential change, given recent experience and the growth of our knowledge about the state of so many entrance doors. This clause would also require monthly inspections, and for evacuation and fire safety instructions to be shared with the building’s residents. What on earth can be wrong with these proposals?
There is nothing in this amendment which should be surprising or problematic. Frankly, the general public would expect nothing else. If the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, decides to press this matter to a vote, I shall certainly support him.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, this amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is fundamental to the effective implementation of the principles of this Bill. The role of the responsible person is one of the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry phase 1 report which was published more than a year ago. I quote from the recommendations in the report:
“No plans of the internal layout of the building were available to”
the London Fire Brigade
“until the later stages of the fire … It should be a simple matter for the owners or managers of high-rise buildings to provide their local fire and rescue services with current versions of such plans. I therefore recommend that the owner and manager of every high-rise residential building”—[Inaudible.]
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am afraid that we are having a little trouble with the noble Baroness’s connection. If she turns off her camera, perhaps that will help with the audio feed.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
The report continued:
“I therefore recommend that the owner and manager of every high-rise residential building be required by law:
a. to provide their local fire and rescue services with up-to-date plans in both paper and electronic form of every floor of the building identifying the location of key fire safety systems;
b. to ensure that the building contains a premises information box, the contents of which must include a copy of the up-to-date floor plans and information about the nature of any lift intended for use by the fire and rescue services.”
So last year, the Grenfell inquiry report asked for the speedy introduction of these recommendations. A year later, we are waiting.
I know that the Government have stated a firm commitment to implementing the recommendations of the inquiry, and the amendment seeks to rectify this absence of government legislative action. As my noble friend Lord Stunell so wisely said, we all agree that this action needs to be taken and we are all impatient for it to be put in place.
The Government said that this was a high priority. However, even the building safety Bill is silent on the matter. How then can we be assured that it is a high priority for them? Here we have an opportunity to show intent, as a consequence of that tragic fire at Grenfell, to ensure that others do not endure what Grenfell residents endured. If the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, pushes this amendment to a vote, we on this side will vote in support of this vital change.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the Grenfell Tower fire was a tragedy of epic proportions. It was the largest loss of life in a residential fire since the Second World War. We have to recognise that a lot has happened and that a lot of actions have been taken by the Government since that event over three years ago.
The Government took early and decisive action to announce an independent Grenfell Tower inquiry. They took decisive action to start the Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety, led by Dame Judith Hackitt, and they took decisive action to establish the building safety programme. The Government took decisive action in setting up a comprehensive aluminium composite material—ACM—remediation programme. They took decisive action in setting up an independent expert panel to provide advice to government and building owners. They took decisive action in providing £600 million to help with the remediation of ACM high-rises. They took decisive action in providing a further £1 billion to remediate high-rises with other forms of flammable cladding. They took decisive action to ban combustible cladding on buildings within the scope of the ban. The Government took decisive action in introducing a protection board.
I accept that the pace of remediation has been slow, but I point to the progress that has been made this year in particular. This was a year when we had a global pandemic with two national lockdowns, and nevertheless we have seen a considerably greater number of on-site starts in those buildings—high-rises with the same cladding as Grenfell—and we are on track to see that around 90% of buildings will either have had the cladding removed or people will be on-site to complete that in a matter of months. That is real progress. This is cross-party; I thank Mayor Burnham, and Mayor Khan in London, but also the local authority leaders for their work to make sure that there has been real pace in the remediation this year. It is not easy to continue these construction programmes in that sort of environment.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for the amendment on the duties of an owner or manager. It is important that we discuss this amendment given the attention it has already received in the other place and in Committee in your Lordships’ House. I know that the noble Lord and other noble Lords have strong views on this issue and wish to see the Grenfell inquiry’s recommendations implemented as soon as possible. I share that intention. However, the Government do not consider that this amendment provides the most effective means of giving effect to the inquiry’s recommendations.
I hope to reassure the noble Lord that our shared objective can be achieved without the need for his amendments, which may in fact work against the swiftest possible implementation of the recommendations. I reiterate, as I said in my all-Peers letter and in Committee in your Lordships’ House, that the Government are, and always have been, committed to implementing and, where appropriate, legislating for the inquiry’s recommendations. This was a manifesto commitment and I am determined to ensure that we deliver on it.
I will set out our approach on this issue. It is right that we consulted before making regulations to deliver the Grenfell recommendations. As I set out in Committee, this was not solely because we have a statutory duty to do so—but we do, and this amendment is not in keeping with that duty. It also reflects Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s own view on the need to ensure broad support for recommendations and an understanding of the practical issues associated with implementing them. Our 12-week public consultation, which closed on 12 October, is allowing us to do just that. I am pleased to say that over 200 responses were received. It is important that we consider carefully those responses before finalising the precise policy detail to implement these new duties. Due consideration has to be given to the views of those who have submitted a response to the consultation.
I will highlight an example of that. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord prescribes a minimum set period for checks of both fire doors and lifts. As we consider our responses to the consultation, other approaches may be suggested that may provide more practical and proportionate options which are no less effective. The amendment may hinder our ability to deliver what may be a better solution for the safety of residents. I hope that is not the noble Lord’s intention, but I ask him to reflect on that fact. Understanding and acting on the consultation responses will ultimately help us to produce better, informed legislation, which we will deliver through regulations under the fire safety order as soon as possible after the Bill is commenced.
I reiterate that this amendment is not necessary and will not speed up the legislative process. It requires us to make regulations to amend the fire safety order to introduce new duties on the face of the order, but we consider that we already have the ability to implement such new duties through the power in Article 24 to make regulations, which we plan to use to implement a number of the Grenfell inquiry recommendations. Our intention is to introduce these regulations as soon as possible after the Bill is commenced.
I am also concerned about the impact of the misleading media coverage—even in recent media coverage written by Pippa Crerar that quotes the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark—after this amendment was voted on in the Commons on the Grenfell community’s faith in our commitment to deliver the Grenfell recommendations. I reassure the Grenfell community that the Government remain absolutely steadfast to their manifesto commitment to implement the inquiry’s recommendations.
I think that all noble Lords are seeking the same thing—the swift implementation of the Grenfell inquiry’s recommendations—and that is what the Government are committed to. While I understand the spirit of the amendment, it will not do that and may risk undermining our efforts. As such, I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions in this important debate. While I have no doubt of the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, on all these matters, it is most disappointing that again the Government have failed to take up the opportunity afforded to them to implement the recommendations of the first phase of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. They have said, and repeated today, that they are fully committed to implement those recommendations. What is the problem preventing that? The Government have repeatedly said that they are fully committed to doing so, but for some reason they will not do it. It is not good enough.
One goes home and reads or sees on the television the shocking revelations in the second phase of the Grenfell Tower inquiry, and, sadly, nothing that the noble Lord has said reassures me on these matters. The Government are not taking the decisive action that has again been referred to. It is three years and five months since the fire. I hope that the House will take decisive action and agree with my amendment. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 9. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 9
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Application of the Fire Safety Order to short-term lettings premises
(1) The relevant authority must, by regulations under section 2, amend article 2 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) (interpretation) as follows.(2) In the definition of “domestic premises”, after “one such dwelling);” insert—“but does not include any premises let to persons for gain as holiday or short-term accommodation during the occupancy of the premises by such persons.””Member’s explanatory statement
The new Clause will clarify that the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 applies to holiday lets.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 9 tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn, seeks to insert a new clause into the Bill. This is the same new clause I proposed on 29 October in Committee on the Bill. The clause seeks to plug what is in effect a gap in the legislation: the protection afforded by the order. I am sure that this will be of concern to all.
The fire safety order applies to the common parts of buildings and to the planning and arrangements for escape through those common parts. The position of the Government on these matters when we last considered this new clause was that, where someone lets a property for a period, at that point it is covered by the fire safety order. When it reverts to a normal dwelling house, it is not covered and does not need to be covered. The guidance from the Government is confusing to say the least. Last time we discussed this, I referred to the guidance from the Government in the document called Letting Rooms in your Home: a Guide for Resident Landlords.
In the fire safety order, Article 26 states:
“Every enforcing authority must enforce the provisions of this Order … in relation to premises for which it is the enforcing authority”.
But just look at large cities such as London. It surely must be of considerable doubt that the proper authorities have anywhere near the capacity to carry out the required inspections. How will they even know which properties come under the order, and at which time? In even greater doubt would be whether the owner of such a property has read the guidance and has any idea of their responsibilities under the order if their property is being used on sites such as Airbnb.
As I mentioned when this amendment was last debated, using freedom of information requests has revealed that no fire authority—not a single authority—has ever done an inspection of an Airbnb property, and the relevant authorities have no idea how many properties would come under the order. People renting property on a temporary basis should be properly protected. That means the owners or hosts understanding their obligations and demonstrating that to the people renting the property from them on a temporary basis.
My final point is that we are talking about people’s homes. There will be no fire escape: none of the fire safety measures you would find in a hotel, for example. The law is deficient in this regard. I hope the Minister will reassure us that he accepts there is an issue here and that the Government will work to sort out the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I first associate myself with the excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Kennedy, who put the case extremely well. Perhaps it would be helpful if I provided some of the legal underpinnings of why this is an issue that requires plugging. In that regard, I would also like to offer my deepest thanks to the distinguished leading counsel, Richard Matthews, who has provided us with a lot of excellent legal advice on the underpinnings of this. When I spoke about him in the last session, I may well have done him a disservice by talking only about his skills in fire and health and safety matters and underplaying his overall exceptional status as a well-regarded QC in all matters of regulation and criminal defence relating to businesses. His advice has been extremely helpful and I hope that the Government have had time to reflect on what it means and the implications of it.
Case law, frankly, is clear about the Government’s assumption that a private dwelling ceases to be one under a short-term let and that, therefore, this is covered by the fire safety order. The Government have made a number of statements on this in the House and have published guidance, Do You Have Paying Guests?, in this regard. In Do You Have Paying Guests? the Government’s position is expressed: when anyone pays to stay in your property, other than to live there as a permanent home, the property is not a premises occupied as a private dwelling.
Such guidance is not capable of establishing, as a matter of law, that whenever anyone pays to stay in a property, other than to live there as a permanent home, the property is not a premises occupied by someone as a private dwelling. Furthermore, such guidance is not capable of creating a duty in law extending the operation of the articles of the fire safety order to all such premises where anyone pays to stay in this way; nor is it capable of amending the definition of “domestic premises” in the fire safety order to incorporate the definition of what apparently makes premises temporarily no longer domestic premises.
This point is strongly embedded in existing case law. Looking at, in particular, the elements related to definitions of “private dwelling”, “occupation” and “occupier”, it would be worth making noble Lords aware that case law, in the case of private dwelling, is recent and relevant. There have been a number of landmark cases, including Caradon District Council v Paton, which had some very emphatic judgments expressed by Lord Justice Latham and Lord Justice Clarke. In relation to the occupation and occupier elements, the Court of Appeal judgment by Lord Justice Lewison in Cornerstone Telecommunications Infra- structure Ltd v Compton Beauchamp Estates Ltd in 2019 is of course highly relevant.
What these case law examples identify is that the following considerations come from those points. First, particularly in regard to land and property, occupation can be simultaneous with another occupier and does not require either a continuing or exclusive physical presence. While a contract is not wholly determinative, the fact that a licence to occupy is limited and preserves extensive power of re-entry for the host, coupled with the temporary limitations of the licence, means that the host, particularly if, at other times, they are in occupation of the premises as a private residence, continues to be in legal occupation of the premises as a private dwelling during the period of the limited licence of the guest.
Therefore, of course, this, along with other considerations that come from those case law examples, demonstrates that there is a clear gap in the law. Whatever the intention of the Government to ensure that such short-term lets come under the fire safety order, in law, specifically definitionally and under case law, they do not; that obligation is simply not there. So this amendment plugs that gap, and I hope that the Government are highly sympathetic to it and more than willing to consider how they may integrate this into the Bill.
Finally, another matter raised previously, which is not part of this amendment but does not fit neatly into this Bill, is that there should be some consideration of other elements that are missing in law, which again seem to be omissions due to the nature of the short-term letting business. One of those relates to smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, which fall under the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015. These specifically talk about the objective that landlords in the private rented sector in England should ensure that a smoke alarm is installed on every storey of a rented dwelling when it is occupied under a tenancy and that a carbon monoxide alarm is equipped in any room that contains a solid, fuel-burning combustion appliance. They also require landlords to ensure that such alarms are in proper working order at the start of a new tenancy.
Because short-term lets fall outside this definition, there is no obligation to ensure either that there are such smoke and carbon monoxide alarms or that they are working. To verify this, during the course of the week I went on to a site and found adverts for short-term lets of a number of properties that ordinarily should, even for building regulations or insurance purposes, have such things, which were explicit in saying that they did not have these devices. Therefore, it is very clear that in operating the law this is a clear error. This is not what the intention was, but this is another definitional problem. I do hope that the Government will be forthcoming in looking to clear up these clear gaps.
Lord Tope (LD)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for raising this issue today, and to the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for explaining it so fully and clearly. We have come a very long way in a fairly short time from the days when it was thought to be a good idea for people going on holiday for, say, a month to let out their home for a month to help cover the costs of the holiday, and everybody was happy. I recall lively debates in your Lordships’ House during the Deregulation Bill, as it then was, when we did away with the requirement for planning permission to be granted if a home in London was to be let for more than 90 days. That was thought to be one of the regulations that should be done away with, and so it was.
Although this may have happened anyway and is not a consequence of that, there has been an explosion—perhaps I should not use that word, but that is the way it has been—in the number of properties being let, initially primarily in central London, then increasingly spreading to the suburbs of London and now, for some time, throughout the United Kingdom, particularly in areas of high visitor attraction. Properties that are no longer, frankly, people’s homes, are let; probably most of these properties are not lived in by anybody who could conceivably be called an owner-occupier, as the people living in them change, often quite literally night by night.
If you talk to the Covent Garden Community Association, for instance, they will give you some considerable horror stories of the sorts of things that go on in that particular part of central London. We see whole blocks of flats where there is not a single resident—or, worse, there is a single resident surrounded by people who change on an almost nightly, and certainly weekly, basis. So it is a considerable issue, far wider than the very important one raised by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Mendelsohn, and I am grateful to them for spotting this particular loophole, if it is a loophole—this gap in the legislation.
We need to recognise that, for better or for worse—probably for better and for worse—it is no longer simply a question of people letting their home while they are away for a temporary period. This is now big business, and there seems to be a significant and important gap in the legislation. I hope the Government will, if not agreeing to this particular amendment, certainly recognise that this is a very important issue throughout the country, that it needs to be dealt with very urgently, and that this is an opportunity to do so.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest here, as a co-owner of holiday cottages. I reassure noble Lords that for many years now these have been subject to precisely the type of matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, such as electrical system and appliance safety and smoke and carbon monoxide detection, which lie behind the amendment. To be honest, this is no more nor less than good practice; however, success depends on how intrusive the measures might be under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order. There are, as I mentioned earlier, some good precedents for a degree of self-assessment.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in ably moving this amendment, referred, I think, to hotel standards in comparison with Airbnb. I suggest that trying to apply hotel standards for something that is purpose-built for that type of operation, and with the numbers involved, is probably a different situation. However, some of the principles undoubtedly apply. One of the most important factors is that, unlike the homeowner in their own flat, the visitor is not necessarily familiar, at any rate initially, with the layout of the building. It so happens that every time I have to rent a property such as an apartment, or take a hotel somewhere, I usually make it my business to work out where the fire escape is, because one hears so many horror stories about these things. Generally, it is fine, but I make that point.
The point has already been made [Inaudible.] flip in and out of principal or second home status largely undetected. A point arises as to whether, in every case, the mode and category of occupation by somebody who is paying to stay is actually different, whether they are a tenant on a short-term holiday or something even shorter than that, such as Airbnb. The important thing is that the amendment does not need to capture premises that are outside the intentions of noble Lords or, for that matter, fail to capture those that should properly be brought into it.
If I may digress, I make a plea for consistency in the way some of these regulations are applied. I shall use electrical systems as an example. Recently, I was alerted to the need for a certain type of electrician qualification because of a query from building insurers. It transpired that accreditation for an electrician to self-certify their own installation work does not automatically permit them to inspect and certify somebody else’s. Even electricians do not understand this, let alone householders, so knowing what to ask for is a science in itself, and I think that sort of thing needs to be resolved. To stay on that subject, just about every electrician I know is already tied up doing landlord testing, so getting anything in addition done is not at all easy, because there is not the manpower capacity in the system. Personally, I would not want some quick-fix form of training and accreditation on electrical matters, other than by somebody who had a background and a proper qualification in electrical installation.
Finally, however safe the system may be, occupiers bring in equipment of their own, or may do things that are unsafe. There should be a certain amount of saving provisions for that sort of eventuality. I think of a typical example: you go and do your regular inspection of a holiday home and you find that the cover of the smoke alarm is dangling, with the battery missing. It may be that somebody removed the battery because it was bleeping—although, because you put the battery in only three months ago, that is not a terribly likely situation. Then it occurs to you that perhaps the battery was needed for some child’s toy and it was removed for that reason. Occupiers can do silly things, particularly when their minds are on holiday. If the noble Lord were to press the amendment, I am not sure at the moment which way I would vote, but I do think there is an issue about compliance in this case that needs to be addressed.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, between them my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, have shown how complex this situation is and why we need much greater clarity to ensure that such premises as are referred to in this amendment are covered by the fire safety order and everything that flows from it.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I have considerable anxiety at the way in which the Airbnb model has mushroomed—Airbnb itself and other less identifiable organisations and individuals. Flats in both private and social housing have effectively become short-term let premises, with a continuous rotation of people moving in and out. I have, in other contexts, frequently in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who raises this frequently, been concerned for wider reasons, such as the effects on the housing market, environmental concerns. But in this context, there is also a safety concern.
The leaseholders, who are normally the owners of these flats, have quite frequently decided to make a business out of them. In terms of social housing, it has quite often been the people who have inherited what were once right-to-buy flats, or have bought them and turned them into a business. I have queried on previous occasions whether that is strictly legitimate, and quite what the role of the tax authorities is in this area, but in this context we are talking about safety. I am aware that in some of those flats, the leaseholders, sometimes in conjunction with the organisers of short-term lets, have changed the format of those flats—in effect dividing them up, increasing the number of bedrooms and, in some cases, knocking down walls and changing layouts, thereby compromising firewalls. More frequently, to allow for multi-occupancy, and in some cases for such things as disco equipment—because some of these flats are used not so much for tourist families but for parties and worse—the electrical systems are altered to cater for that clientele.
The requirements that would normally be on the owners to inform the occupants of the safety provisions and evacuation procedures, and to provide for detection instruments—smoke alarms, et cetera—are not observed in the often radical conversion to a different purpose than that of being a family home. If such premises can be seriously and dangerously subdivided, then there is a real risk here.
We have to be clear whose responsibility it is. In most cases, the responsibility is on the leaseholder, or it may be on whoever is supposed to inform the occupants of the safety provisions. Either way, if, for example, you are in a large block and a few of the flats in it are let by Airbnb or similar, you are a danger to the rest of the occupants. It is once again necessary, irrespective of the form of tenure, to ensure that all temporary as well as permanent inhabitants are made safe and do not impact on the safety of other families and occupants in neighbouring flats. It may be complex, but the outcome and intention are clear. We need clarity, consistency and to make sure that such premises are safe and covered by the legislation.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raised important concerns about the application of fire safety legislation to properties that are, in part or in whole, let as holiday lets. It was unfortunate that the Government were not able to return on Report with a comprehensive response in the form of a government amendment, which would have accepted that there is confusion about the applicability of the legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has rightly raised these concerns again. What must not happen is that the growing sector of short-term lets falls into a grey area of the legislation, and that the Government wait for a serious fire incident to accept that omissions need to be closed.
The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, has provided expert legal advice on this matter, which demonstrates that there is a gap in the legislation. It is complicated, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, explained. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, raised further concerns about potential subdivisions of dwellings. However, the amendment proposes a way forward to close a gap that all noble Lords agree exists in the fire safety extent of the current and proposed legislation. I will listen carefully to what the Minister says in reply and I hope that he seizes the opportunity to put this matter right. I look forward to his response.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Mendelsohn, for raising again this important issue—the treatment of short-term accommodation and holiday lettings under the fire safety order—just as they did in Committee. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Like them, I want to ensure that anybody staying in short-term or holiday accommodation is assured that their premises fall within the scope of fire safety legislation, and that there is a requirement on the owner to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that they are safe from the risk of fire during their stay.
The noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Mendelsohn, mentioned the Do You Have Paying Guests? guidance that the Government issued. That was published in 2008 and is being updated, not least—as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said—because of the growth of this type of short-term letting that we have seen since then. As part of that update, we have consulted many in the tourism sector, including Airbnb and similar platforms. It might reassure noble Lords to know that Airbnb has provided advice to its hosts in the past, including a leaflet that was drafted in partnership with the National Fire Chiefs Council, giving tips for those who use that platform on how to comply.
Turning to the law, the fire safety order applies to non-domestic premises. The responsible person for each premises is required to undertake a fire risk assessment and put in place adequate and appropriate precautions to manage the risk of fire to those lawfully on the premises. The question here is whether domestic premises, when let through peer-to-peer online platforms or similar means, continue to be domestic premises. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for sharing the legal advice that he cited in Committee and again today on this point.
Richard Matthews QC submits that, if they are let as holiday accommodation, domestic premises do not necessarily cease to be domestic premises. A fire safety order would therefore not apply. As I explained in Committee, we had a different interpretation of the definition of domestic premises in Article 2 of the fire safety order but, as we said we would, we have taken the points raised by noble Lords and Mr Matthews on board and carefully considered them. To that end, the Home Office sought further legal advice, which acknowledges the points made by Mr Matthews and noble Lords that this is a complex issue with some legal ambiguity. That we are having this debate makes that point forcefully.
I hope I reassure noble Lords by setting out that the ambiguity is not a matter of arguing that either all or none of the premises are within the scope of the fire safety order, but that they must be considered case by case. I agree that ambiguity on such an important issue as this is not helpful. We want to ensure that fire safety legislation is clear, robust and properly protects the public. It is clear that further consideration of the points that noble Lords have raised is needed to ensure that the fire safety order captures the various types of premises let through peer-to-peer or similar platforms in a workable, practical and fair way.
Given the complexity of that undertaking, we do not believe that this Bill is the right vehicle through which to resolve it. It will, quite rightly, require consultation with interested parties, in both the fire safety and the tourism sectors. Doing that would delay the passage of the Bill, but we agree with noble Lords that that work needs to be done and I am happy to commit to undertaking it. I hope that noble Lords who have spoken today will continue to work with us as we do that, and that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, feels able to withdraw his amendment as a result of that reassurance.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, clarity and consistency are important here. In particular, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn for first bringing this matter to my attention and enabling us to table the amendments in Committee. There has been good engagement from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and I am genuinely grateful for that. I am also grateful for the meeting we had a couple of days ago and the response that the noble Lord gave to the issue we raised today.
We all accept that there is a problem. I am pleased that we acknowledge that and that the Government are going to look at it in detail. That is a good outcome, so I thank the noble Lord for that. At this stage, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 10. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 10
Baroness Pinnock
“Public register of fire risk assessments
(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision for a register of fire risk assessments made under article 9 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) (risk assessment). (2) Those regulations must provide that the register is—(a) publicly available, and(b) kept up-to-date.(3) Regulations under this section are—(a) to be made by statutory instrument; and(b) subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would enable prospective and current renters, leaseholders and owners to check the fire safety status of their home, by accessing a public register similar to the EPC register.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 10, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shipley, seeks to establish the provision, in law, of a public register of fire risk assessments. I will speak also to Amendment 11 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stunell, which seeks to establish a public register of fire risk assessors. Amendment 12 in this group, in the name of my noble friend Lord Stunell, is on permitted developments. My noble friend will be speaking about this in detail. I say at the outset that the Liberal Democrats support the Bill wholeheartedly but feel that there are opportunities for improvement, some of which are within the amendments in this group.
I thank the Minister very much for the opportunities that he has provided to discuss these and other amendments. They have been very useful, and we have been able to talk around some of the issues raised.
I turn to Amendment 10. Energy performance certificates are mandatory and open for potential home- owners to view. EPCs are now an accepted part of house buying and renting, and that requirement is having a significant impact on home energy improvements. Why, then, cannot the same process be used for an issue that can literally be one of life and death?
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and I thank her for moving her amendment.
On the question of registers, I certainly agree that some list of assessments should be held for regulatory compliance reasons. However, there are likely to be several assessment bodies. Although something like the register of energy performance certificates, referred to by the noble Baroness, might be appropriate, I hope that the basis of assessment does not change every few years, as has happened with EPCs. I also hope that the standard of those accredited will be based on those with a professional standing and a working knowledge of construction. That standard was not adopted with the accreditation of energy inspectors, and I am sure that the noble Baroness would agree with me on that.
Beyond the minimum for regulatory purposes, it would probably be necessary to avoid a register that contained sensitive information. It is fair to say that some of the information that could be in a fire risk assessment might be sensitive. Therefore, it should not just be an online, free-public-access provision—at least, not in its full form.
It is also worth bearing in mind that this will, to a degree, for ever be a work in progress, so the register will not necessarily be accurate and up to date—but of course that is the situation with EPCs. However, somebody would have to maintain it. I think that that could be done only by a central government body, and that would have resource implications.
The really important thing is that occupiers and managers of buildings know that an assessment has been carried out, that it is in date and that occupiers in particular have the right to see it, and that any competent authority may do so as well.
Turning to Amendment 11, on the question of a public register of assessors, it is likely that many bodies will offer accreditation. Again, a central register would have to be held by some public agency if convenient public access was to be a reality. In practice, certifying bodies will themselves hold records of those accredited. I am not entirely convinced that others beyond occupiers, prospective purchasers and relevant public authorities need to have access to the register, and the public knowing that this matter is in hand, with enforcement of the need to carry out assessments, starting with those at greatest risk and progressing through the housing stock, would seem a fair balance.
The issue immediately before us, which has already been touched on, is the assessment of competence and, more particularly, capacity. This cannot be dealt with immediately. Not only does trainer capacity need to be built but issues to do with professional indemnity cover need to be resolved. I have already flagged up a number of these issues with the Minister, particularly the question of accrediting already competent professionals with a knowledge of construction. Therefore, the point was well made by the noble Baroness but there are issues that need to be taken into account.
On Amendment 12, in this group, I would much have preferred the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, in whose name it stands, to speak before me. This concerns one of the shortcoming issues that seem to be common in permitted development rights developments. Shortcomings in terms of living space, amenities, local environment, open green space standards and so on are all too frequent, and the health outcomes for occupants are also often very poor. Some of the buildings subject to conversion to residential have been quite unfit for that purpose. I have inspected some, so I can say that from professional experience. None the less, these projects have been signed off, although I suggest that that does not get owners off the hook on compliance more generally and that all developers who think themselves protected by completion certificates should think carefully about that. There is certainly an issue here.
In the meantime, ensuring fire safety in these permitted development conversions is a matter of top priority, particularly because they happen to house some of the most vulnerable people in society. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Stunell (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 10 and 11, but will speak more fully on Amendment 12, as prefigured by my noble friend Lady Pinnock and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton.
Amendment 10 requires there to be a national published risk register, of which the two key requirements we have set out are that it should be publicly available and up to date. I understand the noble Earl’s concerns that this would always be a work in progress, but fire safety is always a work in progress. If we are talking about annual inspections, keeping a fire risk assessment up to date should come with the job.
If every landlord, designer, building contractor and construction operative always acted in strict compliance with the spirit and letter of every part of the existing regulations, this amendment would be superfluous. In my former professional life, I spent some years supervising building construction work; in case every anecdote about shoddy builders has bypassed your Lordships, I can confirm that such strict compliance is rare. However, one thing I thought sacrosanct was compliance with fire regulations. Even if the brickwork was shoddy and the plumbing a nightmare, at least the fire doors would fit. I now know I was wrong.
The picture emerging with devastating force from the evidence given to the Grenfell Tower inquiry is that at every level, from client and specifier to designer, contractor, subcontractor, and, as it now seems from the evidence this week, even specialist suppliers of critical components, it was not just a case of a few unfortunate errors because of lack of skill or experience but in some cases deliberate efforts to defeat the rules—even safety-critical rules on which many lives depended.
In the months and years since that terrible fire, evidence has been accumulating that this was not a one-off event in a particular building that happened to have a terrible outcome. There now seem to be, right across the country, many hundreds of buildings containing thousands of homes that are not just non-compliant, but pose a real and significant risk of harm to the people who live in them.
None of this would have emerged had the horrific events of that night not brought it very starkly to light. There was no transparency or openness to inquiry but a dismissive casualness in handling the legitimate concerns of those who had worries. In the case of the residents of Grenfell, those who had practical observations of non-compliant building work were completely swept aside. There was certainly no register you could check to show that your home was not a death-trap.
That underlines a significant truth: when those with power and authority find out about bad things and high risks that do not affect them but have a great or even fatal impact on the vulnerable and the weak, their natural reaction is to keep the news to themselves in order to avoid trouble and expense and to hope for the best. We must decisively end the hoarding of bad news on fire safety by the informed and powerful and empower the vulnerable who carry the risks and sometimes pay the ultimate price of life itself.
From now on there will be fire safety assessments. That is a very good thing, but it is essential that those assessments are in the public domain. I take the caveats that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has rightly made about privacy, security and so on, but the essentials of a fire safety certificate should be available for public inspection. They should be at least as public and accessible as an energy performance certificate from which you can discover how much insulation I have in my loft and I can discover how much the noble Earl has in his. We put up with that because of the greater good; we ought to be ready to put up with the same sort of thing for the far greater good of saving life post Grenfell.
It is unacceptable for landlords and building owners to hoard that assessment to the detriment of those to whom they rent and lease their properties and whose lives are in their hands. Grenfell Tower residents’ legitimate and specific fears about weaknesses they could see with their own eyes were swept away by those in authority. No one knew if any assessment had been made, what it said or what should be done about it, and who should rectify the faults disclosed.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to support the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, on their amendments in this group. Both have comprehensively explained the intent of their amendments and, as I said, I fully support them. If the noble Baroness decides to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 10, I can assure her that the noble Lords on these Benches will support her in that endeavour.
Amendment 10 is particularly important as it talks about the public register of fire risk assessments, and I fully support it. As we heard from the Grenfell Tower fire inquiry and from elsewhere, the complete lack of important information about buildings is a huge issue. This amendment requires the Secretary of State to make provision for a register of fire risk assessments that is publicly available so that tenants and residents can see it. Importantly, the amendment also requires the register to be kept up to date. The relevant regulations would be brought before Parliament and subject to parliamentary procedure. I very much agree that there must be a safety-first approach to fire risk, and that is why I fully support these amendments.
Amendment 11 provides for a public register of fire risk assessors, which we have talked about. This amendment again raises an important issue that has arisen in a number of amendments throughout our consideration of the Bill; namely whether people are sufficiently qualified to do the assessments. Like many other noble Lords, I am concerned that we must never have fire risk assessment on the cheap. We need to have properly qualified people who know what they are doing and who can spot and correct the problems. A publicly available and up-to-date register of such people will make the difference.
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, in speaking to Amendment 12, again made the point about permitted developments. It is absolutely right that fire safety and the work of the fire authorities is paramount when we are building buildings.
I fully support all the amendments in this group. As I said, if the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, tests the opinion of the House on Amendment 10, these Benches will support her.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord for raising this important issue on establishing a public register of fire risk assessments. The fire safety order currently places no requirement for responsible persons to record their completed fire risk assessments, save for in limited and specified circumstances. The self-regulatory and non-prescriptive nature of the fire safety order is the cornerstone of the legislation. It provides for a proportionate approach to effective regulation of fire-related risks across the wide range of buildings that fall within its scope.
I do, though, agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that it is of paramount importance that residents have access to the information they need to feel safe and be safe in their homes. However, the creation of a fire risk assessment register would place a new level of regulation upon responsible persons that could be seen as disproportionate. There are also questions in relation to the ownership and maintenance of such a register and where the costs would lie. There is a delicate balance to be struck.
The Government do, however, acknowledge that there is work to be done and that improvements can be made in respect of the sharing of important information with residents and other relevant persons. That is why the fire safety consultation set out a range of proposals to ensure that those persons are provided with vital fire safety information.
First, the fire safety consultation proposed to change the current position that a responsible person does not have to record their fire risk assessment by including a proposed new requirement on all responsible persons to record their full fire risk assessments. This would provide a level of assurance that their duty to complete a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment has been fulfilled. In addition, the consultation also included proposals for responsible persons to take steps to provide vital fire safety information to residents, including the fire risk assessments on request. We are considering responses to the consultation to ensure that we take the needs of residents into account when establishing the final policy approach. The full consultation can be found online at GOV.UK and we will publish a response at the earliest opportunity.
I turn now to the related amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, which seeks to create a public register of fire risk assessors. I agree with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that there is a clear need for reform in relation to fire risk assessors to improve standards. That is why the Government included a proposal for a competence requirement for fire risk assessors and other fire safety professionals in the recent fire safety order consultation.
Noble Lords will recall that, in Committee, I mentioned the work of the industry-led competency steering group and its subgroup on fire risk assessors. The group published a report on 5 October, which included proposals in relation to third-party accreditation, a competence framework for fire risk assessors and the creation of a register of fire risk assessors. The working group recommend that the register should be compiled from the existing registers and should be easy to use, with open public access to records of individuals and organisations. It is right that industry leads this work and continues to develop the competence and capacity of these professions.
I wish to assure your Lordships’ House that the Government are committed to working with the fire risk assessor sector to develop a clear plan to increase its capacity and capability. However, it is necessary to establish this basic principle of competence before we consider how the sector can be further professionalised. Again, the responses to the fire safety consultation proposals will inform the approach on issues relating to competence.
The right approach is for the Government to first establish a basic principle of competence and consider the competency steering group’s and subgroup’s proposals in relation to a register of fire risk assessors. The Government’s position is that this work should continue to be led and progressed by industry. We will support industry in taking forward this vital work.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I have had no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. No? It will be slightly unfortunate if we cannot get the noble Baroness on the line—perhaps not for the Government but for others. Lady Pinnock, are you with us?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, also has his name to Amendment 10. With the leave of the House we could perhaps hear from the noble Lord, if he can be reached. No? It seems that we have a technical problem. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn for 10 minutes until 5.15 pm.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may recapitulate. We return to Amendment 10. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is now on the line and very much in presence. I call on her to make her remarks and to indicate whether she intends to press her amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
I thank noble Lords for that brief wait while technical glitches were sorted out, and I thank everyone who has contributed to our debate on these important issues of public transparency and accountability in terms of fire safety. I especially thank my noble friend Lord Stunell for his knowledgeable and powerful argument, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his expert input. I assure him that I totally accept the detailed points that he raised and, if we have an opportunity for this amendment regarding public registers for assessments, I am sure that they will be properly considered, and in detail.
I listened carefully to the Minister and I thank him for being so clear in his response to these amendments. I heard him accept the need for, and principle of, transparency in supporting fire safety. Unfortunately, he was unable to go on to say that the Government would accept a register of fire safety assessments so that people can see the issues relating to the properties they live in. He said that householders could ask for fire assessments, but they would have to be on request. I reflected that that would not work well for the residents of Grenfell, who repeatedly raised issues of fire safety and were unable to be heard. A public register would have given huge strength to the concerns that they raised.
Given that the Minister has, unfortunately, been unable to give me an assurance that the Government will provide for a public register for fire safety assessments, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 13. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press the amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 13
Baroness Pinnock
“Prohibition on passing remediation costs on to leaseholders and tenants
(1) The owner of a building may not pass the costs of any remedial work attributable to the provisions of this Act on to leaseholders or tenants of that building.(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a leaseholder who is also the owner or part owner of the freehold of the building.”Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this new Clause is to prevent freeholders passing on remediation costs to leaseholders and tenants, such as through demands for one-off payments or increases in service or other charges.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, many tenants and leaseholders in blocks with cladding that is now known to be a serious fire hazard find themselves in a very bleak place indeed. This amendment seeks to address that. Leaseholders have purchased flats in good faith with building surveys, mortgage insurance and building warranties in place. They have done the right thing. Now, through no fault of their own, they are being threatened with additional service charges of several hundred pounds each month to pay for the so-called waking watch, a 24/7 in-person lookout for potential fires. On top of that, they are being asked to fund the considerable costs of remediation work to remove the dangerous cladding and replace it with a safer system. Figures I have seen for some of this work run to tens of thousands of pounds. How are leaseholders, who already have a hefty mortgage, supposed to afford, say, an additional £40,000 bill for the remediation work?
During the debate on an earlier amendment, the Minister referred to leaseholders being asked to pay only affordable costs. I am very disappointed if that reflects the Government’s thinking. Leaseholders should not be asked to pay towards remediation of problems that are not of their making in any way. The question that then arises is: who was responsible for including these dangerous cladding panels in the first place? The construction companies surely have some responsibility. The warranties that were provided on the building should surely cover errors made during construction. The people who do not have any responsibility are those currently being asked to pay the bills. This is not just and not right, and we have an opportunity today to take the first step towards removing the anguish and anxiety faced by homeowners and tenants in this position.
I thank the Minister for making time available for a very useful discussion of this issue, and I accept that the scale of the problem is very large and that the cost of remediation works will run to tens of billions of pounds. I also accept that the Government have made some attempt to relieve the financial pressure on homeowners by providing a £1.6 billion fund towards the costs. However, I suspect that that is just a small portion of the total cost. Perhaps the Minister can indicate the scale of the problem.
I bring us back to the basic question: who should take responsibility? Just yesterday, during the Grenfell inquiry, evidence was given by one of the suppliers of the cladding system about the misinformation provided to win the contract. Evidence has been provided that the Building Research Establishment had already shown the high flammability of these cladding systems. The Grenfell inquiry phase 1 report stated that
“there was compelling evidence that the external walls … failed to comply with Requirement B4(1) of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010, in that they did not adequately resist the spread of the fire having regard to height, use and position of the building. On the contrary, they actively promoted it.”
Clear evidence, then, of culpability during construction or refurbishment at Grenfell. Of course, we do not know if this is the case elsewhere, but we have sufficient information to demonstrate that those who pay for this extensive remediation must not be the tenants and leaseholders.
We on these Benches feel very strongly that there is a just and moral case for leaseholders and tenants not to be required to contribute to any of the costs. I will listen carefully to what the Minister has to say but if the Government do not accept the amendment, I will feel it necessary to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I listened to the Secretary of State on the “Today” programme this morning, in which I heard him say that the cost of removal and remediation of dangerous cladding from residential buildings should be as affordable as possible for lease- holders. This afternoon is an opportunity for the Minister to make clear what this means. I understand that builders and freeholders may have responsibilities in meetings such costs, but where a leaseholder is not a freeholder, why should they have a responsibility to pay out?
The uncertainty for so many leaseholders who are stuck trying to sell their properties or are worried about their possible financial exposure needs swift resolution. The amendment would protect leaseholders who are not freeholders, and tenants, from extra costs, be they single or staggered lump sums, increases in service charges or increases in rents. The responsibility for making safe a building with a fire risk should not lie with the leaseholders or tenants. The amendment would make it clear that it is unreasonable to expect them to be responsible for those costs when they are the ones exposed to risk through no fault of their own. I hope the Minister will agree that this amendment, which would protect leaseholders and tenants, is justified.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, this is an enormously complex issue, as I outlined in an earlier amendment. The current legal framework makes liability for the matters that have been referred to by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord a patchwork, and entirely uncertain of outcomes. So significant are the matters at stake that in a normal course of events it may be years before matters are resolved by the courts. We need a quicker fix than that, which is why earlier I suggested that the Government should take a firmer hand in this and not leave it to the industry and markets to sort out. In other words, there is a strong case for government intervention. I welcome this amendment, although not precisely on its own terms, because I think it has some potential flaws. However, certainly the opportunity to debate the issue is absolutely vital.
Lord Stunell (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the contributions of my noble friends Lady Pinnock and Lord Shipley and to support this amendment. I hope the Minister will see the strength of the argument and accept the amendment. If not, I regret that I shall also be seeking the opinion of the House on the matter.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his—as ever—very thoughtful and constructive contribution. I am sure the Minister is aware that this is a complex and difficult question with many different moving parts, which the noble Earl so eloquently summarised. The one set of people who are not moving are the tenants and leaseholders stuck in flats which they cannot sell. They may be putting themselves at considerable personal as well as financial risk. These tenants, residents and leaseholders have no control over the circumstances in which they find themselves. They played no part in the decision-making—or lack of it—that has left them stranded. They are the vulnerable people whom the mighty, the powerful, the professionals and those with big pockets have left stranded. Our amendment is saying, “Right, let us at least fix this bit of the moving parts—these bits of the equation.”
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that there is a much bigger set of problems to be confronted. I hope that the Minister will accept this and will say that the Government are going to launch a wholesale consideration. I suspect that this is of concern far beyond the Home Office. Perhaps some prime ministerial attention can be given to sorting out this difficult and complex area.
The key question is: who will pay for the necessary works? Our amendment is simple and, I hope, clear. The innocent occupiers—the renters and leaseholders of millions of homes across the country—should not be held to ransom by building owners. They should not be forced to pay for making their homes safe, when they should have been safe from the start.
I know that the Government have begun to face up to the excessive costs facing leaseholders. The Minister has a well-tried set of statistics which he will give us again. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, ticked that box for him by recounting them. I know the Minister believes—as I do—that far more remains to be done.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, mentioned the construction warranty guarantees. Most of them are turning out to be virtually worthless. At the same time, they are often sold to residents and leaseholders as though they were some kind of guarantee that, if things went wrong, they would be compensated. This is not so. For the moment, at least, they are not delivering. The rush of people disclaiming that their warranty warrants anything is remarkable.
That puts an interesting light on something the Minister said in discussion of the previous group. He said that we did not need registers or government oversight because self-regulation would deal with it. He said that was the way to go and they did not want to increase the regulatory burden on anyone. I know that is the Government’s mantra in general, but one of the few positive things to come out of Grenfell was the tearing up of that whole story—that regulation was for losers—and the understanding that regulation provides a safety net that secures people’s future. This is just another case where self-regulation failed and none of the industrial, insurance and construction sectors stepped up to regulate their own behaviour and safeguard tenants. No case at all, therefore, can be made that tenants and leaseholders should be the ones collecting the bill.
I shall not rehearse any of the hard-luck stories that we are familiar with, but a straightforward case can be made to the Treasury: the longer this issue hangs around, the longer it will take to put all the remedial work in hand. If there are arguments over who pays, it will not be done and, if it is not being done, the risk of another major incident—and all the public money that will be spent on that—looms in the distance. And it is not just that, of course: there are also the long-term costs of health and stress that will be loaded on to the NHS as a result of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of people finding that the home they live in is worthless. I wonder how many bankruptcies there will be. If you are a sole trader and the bank has a guarantee on your home, what is your position when you cannot get an EWS1 form? How does that leave you in terms of business survivability?
Today the Minister has talked about phasing things, going slowly and proportionately, and getting fire tests and so on, but every time that we have looked further than the end of our noses we have discovered that there is more stuff to do—an estimated 750,000 fire doors around the country, just for starters.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister can give millions of leaseholders some words of comfort and support in backing our amendment. If not, I fear that I shall join my noble friends in testing the opinion of the House.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 13, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, adds a new clause to the Bill that would prohibit the owner of the building from passing the cost of any remedial work attributable to the requirement of the Act on to leaseholders or tenants, except where the leaseholder is also the owner of the building.
As the noble Baroness has said, these leaseholders have done absolutely nothing wrong. They have actually done everything right: they have bought their property and are paying their mortgage, and they are being penalised for the failure of others. That surely cannot be right. The fact that their building has been given dangerous cladding has made their flats worthless. They cannot sell them but they still need to pay their mortgage. They cannot get the work done. They may be paying for a waking watch.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for their Amendment 13 on remediation costs. I often think that we need to apply a Daily Mail test to discover whether the opinion of the House will be tested. We have had an article in the Mirror from Pippa Crerar indicating one Division, and an article on this amendment from a different Mirror journalist—the online political editor. So I am not surprised that there will be a test of the opinion of the House.
I want to make clear the sincerity of our view that we need to understand the scale of the problem. Removing the cladding is like unpeeling an orange. You then find greater defects: the internal compartmentation issues, the missing firebreaks, and the issues around fire doors and wooden balconies. These historic structural defects will involve a colossal sum of money. We do not know how much; there are estimates and there are guesstimates, but we accept that there is a significant job of work to be done to deal with the historic defects that have accrued over many, many years.
As the Minister with responsibility for building—as well as fire—safety, I am regularly in contact with leaseholders hit with high bills for remediation to help make their homes safer. I fully understand the anxiety and distress that these people are going through. These are people who have done the right thing, investing their hard-earned savings into a home for themselves and their families, yet now many of them are facing unaffordable bills. I fully understand the intention behind this amendment, and I want to assure noble Lords that we are working very hard in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to improve the situation that people find themselves in.
Finally, we have already committed £1.6 billion to fund the removal and replacement of unsafe cladding on high-rise residential buildings, and we have been putting pressure on building owners to step up to the plate, as well as using warranties and recovering costs from contractors for incorrect or poor work.
However, I can assure noble Lords that we want to go further to protect people from unaffordable costs. Noble Lords will be aware that we published the draft building safety Bill on 20 July 2020. This includes important public safety measures; the Government are committed to progressing the Bill as quickly as possible so that reforms can be implemented in a timely manner. The Bill will be introduced to Parliament once the Government have considered the scrutiny committee’s recommendations.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is committed to updating our position on remediation costs when the building safety Bill returns to Parliament. Michael Wade, senior adviser to MHCLG, is accelerating work with leaseholders and the financial sector to identify financing solutions that protect leaseholders from unaffordable costs while ensuring that the bill does not fall entirely on taxpayers. We have had regular meetings with leaseholder groups, on this and a range of other issues, since the draft Bill was published.
While I support the underlying intention to protect leaseholders and have gone on the record today saying so, this amendment falls down in three main areas, which might make the problem worse rather than better.
First, the safety of residents in their homes is of the highest priority. This is the intention behind today’s Bill and all the Government’s wider work on building safety. There is a range of options for meeting the costs of safety-critical remediation work, which will be appropriate in different circumstances. It would be irresponsible to close off one of the potential routes to funding these works. This amendment risks leaving a building with known fire risks in a position where the work is not taken forward.
Secondly, this new clause would stop all remediation costs from being passed on to leaseholders. For example, service and maintenance charges would at present meet the cost of safety work required as a result of routine wear and tear, such as worn fire door closers. These costs would now fall to building owners—who are, in many cases, also not responsible for original building defects, as they did not build the property—rather than being determined by the terms of the lease.
Thirdly, the fire safety order is not the appropriate legislative framework to resolve remediation costs. The primary focus of the fire safety order is to place duties on any person who has some level of control in a premises—the responsible person or the dutyholder—to ensure that they identify the fire safety risks for the buildings they are responsible for and, if necessary, put in place general fire precautions. As I have said, we are looking to the building safety Bill to address the issues raised in this amendment.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his comment about orphan liability. He underlined the point that we need to keep the options open. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, for his comment about construction warranties. Typically, the market leader is the NHBC. I met the council very recently and, effectively, that is only a 10-year protection: two years for defects, with eight years insurance-based. While we are looking at ways of increasing the compliance period to align with the 10 years, it would be possible through other legislative means to extend the period, because I do not see why someone who has put their life savings into a home has such minimal protection when they purchase a property. I buy a pair of tweezers to take the hair out of my ears and they have a lifetime guarantee. When someone puts their entire savings into a home, they deserve protection over time. That is something we as a Government need to look to do, and will do in due course. This is not the moment to resolve this particular issue, but it is well noted.
I ask that your Lordships’ House recognises the complexity of this policy area, which cannot be solved through this amendment, and considers the assurances I have given today. For the reasons set out in my response, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. This is about saving thousands of householders from crippling debts when none of the fault for this awful situation is of their making: none of it. I accept what the Minister has said; this is a problem that is hugely costly and complex. However, Governments regularly—daily, probably—have to find solutions to complex and costly issues, and this is one. I trust that the Minister can find a fair and just solution to it.
I again thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, in particular for sharing his expertise in this matter. He has rightly pointed out that this is a difficult, complicated and knotty problem, but the principle must be right: somewhere in government legislation we need the principle to be accepted that these leaseholders and tenants have, in good faith, bought a flat, or are tenants or residents of a flat, and that these problems have arisen through no fault of their own. They should not, as my noble friend Lord Stunell said, be held to ransom for these problems when it is not their issue. They have every right to expect, as my noble friend said, to have bought a home that is safe, when they have all the guarantees and insurances in place.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who spoke about flats that are worthless and residents who are being penalised through no fault of their own. I thank the Minister for his reply, and I know that this is difficult. What I want him to do is to accept that the principle we are putting forward is the fair and just one. It is no good, to my mind, saying that nobody is going to expect house owners to have to pay anything more than is affordable, whatever that means. Worse still came from the lips of the Minister when he said that what is happening is that, when they take off the cladding, they are revealing and exposing further terrible defects. Frankly, that makes matters worse and the principle of what the amendment proposes more just.
I fully understand the Government’s intention to try and find a fair way to pay for this. My view, and the view of my colleagues, is that the costs should not fall on those who in good faith have bought their home and, through no fault of their own, are in this terrible and difficult situation. Good intentions are okay but the path to hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions. In this regard, good intentions are not sufficient. We need the principle to be accepted that none of the costs of the remediation of poor building works or poor standards and fire hazards should fall on leaseholders or tenants. Given that I have not had a sufficient reassurance from the Minister, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Greenhalgh
“( ) Section (Risk based guidance about the discharge of duties under the Fire Safety Order) comes into force at the same time as section 1 comes fully into force in relation to premises in England.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the proposed new Clause in the Minister’s name to be inserted after Clause 2 comes into force at the same time as Clause 1 in relation to premises in England.
Fire Safety Bill
Tuesday 24th November 2020
(3 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 132-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (12 Nov 2020)
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Fire Safety Bill, has consented to place her interest, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Motion
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, in moving this Motion, I want to thank all those around the House who have taken part in the Bill’s passage so far. I am proud that this is the first Bill I have taken through your Lordships’ House solo.
The Bill represents a significant step towards delivering meaningful change so that a tragedy like that at Grenfell Tower can never happen again. The Government are, and always have been, committed to implementing the Grenfell Tower Inquiry phase 1 recommendations. The Fire Safety Bill is the first legislative step in this process, and, as I have stated before, we are committed to delivering the Grenfell recommendations through regulations following the fire safety consultation.
The building safety Bill will also deliver significant change in both the regulatory framework and industry culture, creating a more accountable system. Taken together, the Fire Safety Bill, the building safety Bill and the fire safety consultation will create fundamental improvements to building and fire safety standards and ensure that residents are safe, and feel safe, in their homes.
Although this is a short, technical Bill, it is important to ensure we get the legislative sequencing right. I am therefore committed to delivering this Bill, which will pave the way for the Government to introduce regulations that will deliver on the Grenfell Tower Inquiry phase 1 recommendations. We received 200 responses to our consultation, and I thank everyone who responded. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, for his engagement with myself and the House in general as we have considered the Fire Safety Bill. The noble Lord engaged with Members of all parties and none in his friendly, engaging style. I very much appreciate that; it is the only way to do business in this House. I think the noble Lord will have a long career on those Benches, and I wish him well there. The Bill goes back to the other place in a much better state than it arrived here in. Important amendments have been passed. I hope the Government will reflect carefully on those amendments and not just seek to overturn them in the other place.
It was good that the noble Lord again confirmed that the Government are committed to implementing the first phase of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry report. I am delighted to hear that, and we have passed amendments to facilitate that. I will say to the noble Lord and the Government that it is ridiculous that the Government keep voting against the pledges they make at the Dispatch Box and had in their manifesto. I hope they will take that on board in the other place. Surely it is right that a public register of fire risk assessments is available and kept up to date.
Finally, we must end the leasehold and tenant cladding scandal. These are the innocent victims; they must not bear the costs. The costs must be borne by the people who built the building—the warranty provider, the guarantors and the people who signed the buildings off as being fit for purpose—not by the poor tenants and leaseholders. All the amendments agreed by the House have gone to the Commons. I hope they will do the right thing in the other place and not just oppose them and send them back. I thank everybody who engaged in this Bill.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, this short, two-clause Bill has provoked considerable interest across the House, which is surprising, as it is a Bill that seeks to remedy some of the system failures that led to the appalling tragedy at Grenfell Tower. I join in the thanks to the Minister for arranging meetings with those of us who wished, through amendments, to improve the Bill. I thank him very much for listening to the concerns we raised.
The Bill, as amended, provides greater protection for residents by implementing some of the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry phase 1 report and requiring fire risk assessments to be made publicly available for potential residents. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry is, little by little, exposing the building practices that resulted in flammable cladding being attached to Grenfell Tower—and many other buildings across the country—with such tragic consequences.
Currently, there is a crisis involving people across the country who are in constant fear and anxiety because they are living in flats that are encased in flammable cladding. Currently, it is the leaseholders and tenants who are expected to pay towards the costs of making their homes safe. However, we have passed an amendment to stop that outrageous practice. They have been sold homes that were deemed to be safe but are not, because of building failures. The cost of putting those failures right must not be theirs. The amendment we passed on Report puts that principle into the Bill.
Since Report, I have had many emails and messages from desperate and distraught residents of these flats. Some are being asked to pay way over £40,000 towards the costs of putting these cladding and other building failures right. It is not fair and it is not just. I hope the Government will be able to accept the principle set out in the amendment. I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a great privilege to be invited to make some concluding remarks on the Bill on behalf of the Cross Benches, especially as I was not able to participate in the initial stages. We have covered a huge range of issues, such as those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, on electrical safety, and those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and others, focusing on safety assessments and the perils of the deregulatory approach under permitted development rights. We have ranged from fire doors to liability issues and, of course, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the effect on the innocent who are blighted by the costs of remediating cladding systems.
As a technician, first and foremost, I am particularly grateful for how some of my own points were received. With Dame Judith Hackitt’s report ringing in our ears, even as we debated the Bill the ongoing inquiry under Sir Martin Moore-Bick reminded us of the construction culture that we need to address, along with the reputational challenges that have been the hallmark of what has come out post Grenfell. We must never forget the effect on those who were directly affected by that terrible tragedy. I pay tribute to the Labour Front Bench for constantly reminding us of the need for the Bill. I thank the Bill team and the Minister for keeping us on the critical path—expediting things at this stage is clearly an expression of our common wish.
Of course, some matters will now need to be reconsidered by the Commons, so it may not be the last we hear of this: the Bill needed improvements and I hope that, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the Commons will take due regard of the careful and considered points that have been raised in this House. Given the legacy of issues that have got us here, it is a tough call, demanding courage and a firm steer from the Government, and I hope the Bill will underpin that process.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I genuinely thank all Members of this House for their positive engagement. The Cross Benches, the Liberal Democrats, the Opposition —at the end of the day everybody wants to see a better Bill, and I certainly understand that. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I learned a lot from his contribution on behalf of the Cross Benches. It was incredibly thoughtful and practical, understanding that this requires a firm hand from the Government and that we need to have a coherent programme as we move forward.
I am well aware that the building safety Bill, which already has around 120 clauses, will be considerably longer, in its passage through Parliament, than this three-clause Bill. But I want to make the point that we have seen constructive and more opportunistic contributions, and I want to put them into three buckets. The very constructive contributions, as this returns to the other place, are around the competence and capacity of the professionals who will have to work with the system day to day. We not only want to have nice documents and a good fire risk assessment, we need to ensure that fire safety management works and that the people in the buildings know how to prevent these things from happening in the first place. The identification of a responsible person is also important. Accountability underpins all this, so that was very helpful, as was the discussion about the recording of fire risk assessments and their availability to occupants. Some of those points were incredibly constructive—there were more, but I put them in the “constructive and relevant” bucket.
Then we have the “constructive, but this is not the right legislative hook” bucket. Electrical safety is incredibly important, since its lack is the cause of many fires in dwellings. We recognise that we need to find the right vehicle, but this is not it and I think noble Lords accept that.
Then we had the more opportunistic comments. There is a real commitment to implement the phase 1 inquiry findings from this Government, from the Opposition Benches and from the Liberal Democrats, but we had to consult, and the fire safety consultation had more than 200 responses. We need to use that as the vehicle, through regulation, to ensure that the crisis that happened three and a half years ago never happens again. Although you can never say “never”, that is the purpose of these packages of reform and we stand by that commitment. We just want to find the most practical and proportionate ways of achieving that end point, by talking to the people who have to manage that system day to day.
Also more opportunistic were the comments around decades-long poor construction and poor quality. We are talking about decades of problems and, unfortunately, they are going to take a long time to resolve. The question of who pays for this remediation requires careful balance. We want building owners to be responsible for this. We want developers to build high-quality buildings, so that we do not have to remediate in the future to the extent that we do today, and that we face today with our future buildings. We want developers to pay, and they have paid. We have seen this with the ACM fund. However, the extent of how bad this is, beyond cladding, has not really been calculated. It has just been guesstimated, but it runs into many billions of pounds. Therefore, in wanting to have personal accountability but also appropriate action by the state, we have options.
Fire Safety Bill
Wednesday 24th February 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 24 February 2021 - (24 Feb 2021)
17:36 - The House divided: - Ayes: 345 / Noes: 226 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:47 - The House divided: - Ayes: 340 / Noes: 225 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendment 3. If Lords amendment 3 is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
It may be helpful for Members who wish to take part in today’s debate to know that there will be an initial four-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches. That gives people the opportunity to tailor their remarks accordingly.
After Clause 2
Risk based guidance about the discharge of duties under the Fire Safety Order
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 3, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 4, amendment (e) thereto, Government motion to disagree, and amendments (a) to (c) in lieu, amendments (f) and (g) in lieu, amendment (d) in lieu and amendment (i) in lieu.
Lords amendment 5, and Government motion to agree.
Kit Malthouse
It seems a long time since I spoke on this Bill in Committee in June last year. I am playing a small part in the Bill’s passage through both Houses, and I stand in today for the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who led on the Bill at Second Reading and on Report last year. I am sure everyone in this House wishes him a full recovery.
Lords amendments 1 and 5 were moved by the Government on Report following advice that the Home Office received from fire safety operational experts on how to commence the Fire Safety Bill. In Committee, I announced that the Home Office had established an independent task and finish group whose role was to provide a recommendation on the optimal way to commence this Bill. The group was chaired jointly by the National Fire Chiefs Council and the Fire Sector Federation, and it brought together experts from across the fire and housing sectors.
On 28 September, the task and finish group submitted its advice to the Home Office that the Bill should be commenced at once for all buildings in scope. The Government accepted this recommendation.
The group also recommended that responsible persons under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 should use a risk-based approach to carry out or review fire risk assessments, upon commencement, using a building prioritisation tool, and that the Government should issue statutory guidance to support this approach. The Government accepted this recommendation, which will support responsible persons. The Home Office, with support from the National Fire Chiefs Council and the Fire Sector Federation, will host the model once it has been finalised.
Lords amendment 1 will allow us to take forward the provision of statutory guidance to support that approach. The amendment ensures that the risk-based guidance, which will be issued by the Secretary of State to support commencement of the Bill for all relevant buildings, will have the appropriate status to incentivise compliance. It does this by stating explicitly that a court can consider whether a responsible person has complied with their duties under the fire safety order by complying with the risk-based guidance. Equally, if a responsible person fails to provide evidence that they have complied, it may be relied upon by a court as tending to support non-compliance with their duties under the order.
The amendment also creates a provision to allow the Secretary of State to withdraw the risk-based guidance, but this can be done only after consultation with relevant stakeholders. Our rationale for inserting this provision is that we believe a point will eventually be reached where, having followed a risk-based approach to prioritisation, responsible persons will have assessed all the fire safety risks for the external walls of their buildings. At that stage, there may no longer be a need for the guidance to remain in place.
I assure Members that the Government will commence the Bill at the same time as issuing the guidance, and Lords amendment 5 ensures that will happen. This amendment gained the support of the Opposition in the other place when put to a vote on Report. I also recall the comments of the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) in Committee, when she said this Bill should be commenced at once for all buildings in scope and that a risk-based approach, like the one modelled in her home town of Croydon, should be adopted.
One of the recurring themes during the passage of this Bill has been concern over the number of fire risk assessors with the skills to undertake work on external wall systems. The task and finish group considered this issue as it looked at how responsible persons will be able to update their fire risk assessments, given there is limited capacity in the fire risk assessment sector—primarily of fire engineers working on complex buildings.
The group’s recommendation for a risk-based approach to an all-at-once commencement, on which we are acting, is the most practical way to deal with what is a complex issue. Our approach sends a signal to the fire risk assessor sector—mainly fire engineers—that their expertise should be directed where it is needed most, to the highest-risk buildings.
I thank all members of the task and finish group for their work in developing advice to the Home Office. The group has provided an optimal solution for commencing the Fire Safety Bill, allowing the Government to introduce the provisions at the earliest opportunity. It is important that we continue the good work undertaken with those relevant stakeholders on the task and finish group to regularly monitor the effectiveness of the risk-based guidance and the building prioritisation tool. These provisions will allow us to take forward the recommendations from operational experts in the field of fire safety. I hope that hon. Members will support Lords amendments 1 and 5, as agreed in the other place.
Lords amendment 3 seeks to introduce a power that the Secretary of State must use to make regulations to establish and keep up to date a public register of fire risk assessments. As you have confirmed, Madam Deputy Speaker, this amendment engages financial privilege and will not be debated. The amendment invokes significant financial concerns. To provide a sense of the scale of costs, we can point to two things. First, based on the number of buildings requiring a fire risk assessment, our initial estimate is that the cost to the public purse of a public register of fire risk assessment is above £2 million per annum.
Secondly, these costs would likely be broadly commensurate with the expenditure of maintaining a database of energy performance certificates. That system was mentioned by Opposition colleagues in the other place, who stated that something similar should be introduced for fire risk assessments. The current database of energy performance certificates is housed centrally in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The current costs for this are around £2 million per year, but under private contractual arrangements used previously, they were approximately £4 million a year. Notwithstanding the issue of financial privilege, I sympathise with the intent behind the amendment, and we will not rule out doing this in the future. However, there is a need for detailed policy consideration prior to implementation of such a database, which makes this the wrong time to impose this measure in primary legislation.
I raise just a couple of points to underline our view that the amendment is not appropriate. The amendment would, in effect, create a legal duty on responsible persons to make publicly available the full fire risk assessment for all buildings falling within the scope of regulation owing to the fire safety order. In its current form, the amendment would potentially mean that anyone would be able to access the fire risk assessments for a wide range of premises, including schools, hospitals, care homes and Government buildings. We would have concerns over the risk that posed to security, particularly if the information was accessed by somebody with malicious intent.
Linked to the security issue is the level of information that could and should be made available if a system of recording fire risk assessments is created. For example, a fire risk assessment can often be technical and is very different from an energy performance certificate. It may, for example, prove more effective and transparent to publish a summary of a fire risk assessment, rather than the full document. However, the Government agree with the principle of residents being able to access vital fire safety information for the building in which they live, and we propose introducing legislative provision to allow them to do so in our fire safety consultation. It is important to take a proportionate and appropriate approach to sharing information with residents. However, I hope that hon. Members will understand my concerns and the reason why the Government will resist the amendment.
Lords amendment 2 would place in primary legislation several specific requirements on the owner or manager of a building that contained two or more domestic premises. I recognise that many in this House and the other place wish to see legislative change on this as soon as possible. The Government share that objective, which is why we committed to implementing and legislating for the Grenfell inquiry’s recommendations in our manifesto. The Fire Safety Bill is the first step towards this. It was always intended to be a short, technical piece of legislation designed to clarify that structure, external walls and flat entrance doors should be included within the fire safety order. We need to deliver on that as soon as possible, to ensure that fire risk assessments are updated to take account of the risks in those areas. We intend to implement the areas specified in Lords amendment 2 through regulations, and as such the amendment is unnecessary.
It is not helpful, I have to say, for the House to keep returning to this issue. It risks causing confusion, as we saw through misleading media coverage of Commons Report stage. It also raises doubts in relation to the Government’s commitment to implementation, when all along we have been crystal clear about our intentions. I reassure the Grenfell community, who I know were distressed by the publicity at Committee stage, and those in the House and the wider public that the Government remain absolutely steadfast in our commitment to implement the inquiry’s recommendations.
I am sure everyone across the House accepts the importance of consulting when proposing significant changes to legislation. The importance of that was underlined by the Grenfell inquiry chair, who said that it was important that his recommendations
“command the support of those who have experience of the matters to which they relate.”
Furthermore, the National Fire Chiefs Council’s published response to our fire safety consultation states:
“NFCC supports the Government’s approach to publicly consulting on how to implement the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 1 recommendations. This consultation provides an opportunity to gather wider views on how to practically deliver the recommendations in a way that brings the maximum benefits to public safety.”
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
I am glad that the Minister has confirmed that extra £3.5 billion, bringing the total to £5 billion. Will he confirm that this will fully cost the removal of the cladding, and that those leaseholders who live in high-rise buildings will not have to foot the bill?
Kit Malthouse
That is the case. I know that my MHCLG ministerial colleagues have been in this place and debated this extensively and, having made the case to the Treasury, it was gratifying to see this money come forward. It will assist those who are living in fear in high-rise buildings in particular, but also those in mid-rise buildings, who, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, will benefit from a financing scheme.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Unfortunately, leaseholders in my constituency have been left in the dark after the announcement the other day because, despite the co-operation between the Welsh Government and the UK Government on the details of this Bill, they have been unable to get answers on the crucial issues of the building development levy and the new tax and on whether there will be any new money for Wales in the proposals laid out by the Secretary of State. Will the Minister urgently respond to the letter from the Welsh Housing Minister, Julie James, which asks reasonable questions and sets out constructive solutions, and will he and his MHCLG colleagues meet me to discuss these issues and find a solution for leaseholders across the United Kingdom?
Kit Malthouse
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s impatience, and it is shared by us all across the House. The scheme is in development, as I understand from MHCLG, and I know that Ministers are working hard to get the basis, the foundations and the system in place so that the money can be distributed as quickly as possible. Happily, in terms of high-rise buildings, I think we are well over 90% that are either remediated or in the process of being remediated, but I completely agree with him that we need to work with all urgency to bring as much possible relief from the stress of living with this cladding in the future. I will certainly ask my colleagues at MHCLG to consider his offer of a useful meeting. I know they will be responding to correspondence from the Welsh Government as quickly as possible.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
I think we all recognise the frustration exhibited by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), which is shared across the House. Perhaps the Minister could explain what steps the Government are taking to make sure that the construction industry pays its fair share in the remediation and the future prevention of risk.
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As Members who have perhaps been in the House a little longer than he has will know, I was Housing Minister for a brief period of 12 months about 18 months ago, and the work started then of sitting alongside the construction industry to get it to stand up and fulfil its obligations to the people who were living in defective high-rise buildings in particular. A number of firms did and, from working with them through the Treasury, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and MHCLG, I know that there is a new atmosphere abroad. That is certainly part of the challenge that we face: it is not just about the regulation we are putting in place today, but a cultural change in the industry towards building safety so that it is now a full partner in facing the challenge for the future.
Government funding does not absolve building owners of their responsibility to ensure their buildings are safe. We have been clear that building owners and the industry, as my hon. Friend has just said, should make buildings safe without passing on costs to leaseholders. They should consider all routes to meet costs including, for example, through warranties and recovering costs from contractors for incorrect or poor work.
We have always been clear that all residents deserve to be and feel safe in their homes. We are working at pace to ensure remediation of unsafe cladding is completed, and we have an ambitious timescale to do so. As I said earlier, about 95% of high-rise buildings with Grenfell-type ACM cladding identified at the start of 2020 have completed remediation or had works on site by the end of last year. However, I am afraid the Bill is not the correct place for remediation costs to be addressed. It is a short but critical Bill to clarify that the fire safety order applies to the external walls, including cladding, and flat entrance doors in multi-occupied residential buildings. That means the responsible person must include those parts of the building in their fire risk assessment. That does not include the remediation of historical defects. It does not have the necessary legislative detail that would be needed to underpin such amendments in regulations. The Building Safety Bill is the appropriate legislative mechanism for addressing these issues, and it will be introduced in the spring. It will contain the detailed and complex legislation that is needed to address remediation costs.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend believe that incorporating these amendments might delay the Bill and mean that we cannot execute these measures now?
Kit Malthouse
I am afraid that that is the fundamental risk we face at the moment. We want to get the Bill on the statute book as quickly as possible. It forms the starting block of a complex web of legislation and regulation that is required to bring about changes in building safety across the whole country. I hope that Members recognise that the potential delay that may be inserted by a back and forth between the Houses over this particular issue is not useful. As I say, this issue should be debated during consideration of the Building Safety Bill, which will be brought forward shortly, and I know that Members will embrace that particular piece of legislation.
Kit Malthouse
I will make a little progress, if I may, just to outline why that is. These amendments, I am afraid, are not sufficiently clear or detailed to deliver on what Members say they wish to achieve. They would require extensive drafting in primary legislation, thereby, as we have just discussed, delaying the implementation of the Fire Safety Bill and the crucial measures it puts forward to improve the fire safety regulatory system.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all the work he did as Housing Minister to resolve this issue; we met on many occasions to discuss it. Does he agree that this amendment is self-defeating in that it puts the onus for any fire safety work back on the owner, who, given debts or the cost of that work, will simply walk away? These owners have probably paid a few thousand pounds per flat to collect, rightly, ground rent. If we put a debt on them for £40,000 per flat, they will simply walk away, and who will then carry the can for the work?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend speaks with some expertise in this area and has been a constant presence in debates on this matter over the past few years. He is right. The amendment is self-defeating given the number of, for example, freeholds that are held in limited liability vehicles, which could, in the position he points out, simply put themselves into some kind of insolvency procedure. That is why any measure along these lines would need to be scrutinised carefully and thought about in a little more detail before we brought it in.
Alongside all that, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has committed to taking decisive action to end the cladding scandal once and for all through the Government’s five-point plan to provide reassurance to homeowners and build confidence in the housing market. Funding will be targeted at the highest-risk buildings, in line with long-standing independent expert advice and evidence. Lower-rise buildings with a lower risk to safety will gain new protection from the costs of cladding removal through a long-term, low-interest Government-backed financing scheme. The Government are also committed to making sure that no leaseholder in these buildings will pay more than £50 per month towards this remediation. Let me be clear: it is unacceptable for leaseholders to have to worry about the cost of fixing historical safety defects in their buildings.
I ask hon. Members to recognise that while these amendments are based on good intentions, they are not the appropriate means to solve these complex problems. By providing unprecedented funding and a generous financing scheme, we are ensuring that money is available for remediation, accelerating the process, and making homes safer as quickly as possible. I give my assurance that the Government schemes to address these issues will be launched as a matter of priority and that we will provide an update on the underpinning details, as Members have urged us, as soon as we are in a position to do so. For the reasons set out, I hope that the House will see fit to support me in my aspirations with regard to these and other amendments.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the Policing Minister. I, too, put on record my best wishes to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who cannot be here to lead for the Government today. We all wish him a speedy recovery
I thank our fire and rescue services, who are going above and beyond to keep us safe and have worked tirelessly to protect us throughout the covid pandemic. I am grateful to Ministers, to officials and to House staff who have worked with us on this Bill. I give particular thanks to Yohanna Sallberg and Kenneth Fox, who have supported me, in particular, throughout the Bill’s passage. I thank Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and all those Lords who have led this Bill through the House of Lords, and ensured that Labour’s key amendment on implementing the Grenfell phase 1 recommendations was accepted there.
Every time we debate and discuss the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire, we hold the memory of those who died in our hands. We must be gentle and respectful, but we must also see the injustice, and honour those who died by taking action, and by not resting until justice has been done and everybody has a safe home that they can afford. I pay tribute to the campaigners—Grenfell United, the families, survivors, and the entire community—for their tireless fight for justice. I also pay tribute to those campaigners who are fighting every day for the hundreds of thousands of people who are trapped in unsafe buildings, and who face extortionate bills and are unable to move. The drumbeat of their lives is fear and anxiety. No Parliament can ignore that.
Thousands of people are working on this, but I particularly thank Ritu and Will from the UK Cladding Action Group, for their assiduous efforts. I thank the 200 people who joined our roundtable this morning, so that we could hear at first hand the horrors that this Government are wilfully enabling. As Ritu said, “we are fellow human beings in these buildings—your family, your friends, your colleagues.” To everyone who is affected, and who is living in fear and anxiety, I say sorry—we must do better.
As we have said throughout the passage of the Bill, we support it, but it is small and the only piece of concrete legislation we have had since Grenfell. That is not an adequate response to the biggest housing safety crisis in a generation. It does not even scratch the surface of the work that must be done to fix the wild west of building control and fire safety that we have seen played out with such horror over the past few weeks during phase 2 of the Grenfell inquiry. It has taken so long to get here, and at every stage we have had to drag the Government into action.
The Government promised to act swiftly after Grenfell, yet it took them almost three years to introduce this Bill. We waited 12 weeks just for them to bring the Bill back to consider Lords amendments. This is intended to be a foundational Bill. Its purpose is to provide clarity, and state what is covered by the fire safety order, which will inform other related and secondary legislation. In Committee the Minister said that the Government intend to legislate further, and he spoke many times of action still to come, as he did today. By this stage, however, we need more than vague commitments about secondary legislation. At the very least, we need a clear timetable from Government that sets out when further changes to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order will be delivered, when secondary legislation will be introduced, and when the Bill will be implemented.
In response to a deeply frustrated letter from Grenfell survivors in September, the Government said that the introduction of the Fire Safety Bill was a key priority, yet the Bill does not include provision for any of the measures called for by the first phase of the Grenfell inquiry. We would like many issues around improving fire safety to be included in the Bill, but many will now have to be introduced through the draft Building Safety Bill and by secondary legislation. We have no idea when any of those things will happen.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I have been asked to speak by my party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), and by other Members who have relatives who own such flats on the mainland. They have extreme concerns, and the fears that the hon. Lady has referred to about their properties, and what that means for the future. Although the Government have good intentions, I believe —as I think does she—that the Bill does not go far enough. Is she convinced by what the Minister has said, and if not, will she push the amendment to a vote?
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do not think the Government have gone far enough, and I do not accept the reasons why we are going at such a snail’s pace on something so important. I will come to what we think should be done about it.
The Government rejected many attempts to amend the Bill. The draft Building Safety Bill places various requirements on what is called the “responsible person” and refers to the fire safety order for the definition of that, but the fire safety order does not provide a definition of the responsible person. The draft Building Safety Bill even attempts to put into law a building safety charge. It is vital that the fire safety order makes it clear that there is no ambiguity around the definition of responsible person and that it does not mean leaseholders. However, the Government chose to reject that amendment.
The fire safety order requires regular fire risk assessments in buildings, but it includes no legal requirement for those conducting the assessment to have any form of training or accreditation. In Committee and on Report, we tabled amendments that would bring into force an accreditation system for fire risk assessors, rather than waiting for more secondary legislation. We also tabled an amendment to require the schedule for inspecting buildings to be based on a prioritisation of risk, not an arbitrary distinction of types and heights of building. On that point, I am glad that the Government have listened, having turned us down in the initial stages, and taken good practice from Croydon and other areas and introduced a risk-based approach to the Bill.
We tabled an amendment on waking watch to require the Government to specify when and for how long such measures should take place. Thanks to Lord Kennedy of Southwark, our amendment on implementing key measures from the first phase of the Grenfell inquiry passed in the Lords, despite the Government’s attempts to block it. The Government have made so many promises to address the fire safety crisis but failed to keep them. The families and survivors are still waiting for justice, and hundreds of thousands of leaseholders and tenants are still trapped.
As we debate the Lords amendments this afternoon, the Government face a choice on what they include in the Bill. They could do the right thing and fulfil their promises, or they could push the can down the road again—“We do care, just not quite enough, not quite yet.” There are two answers that thousands of people across the country are watching and waiting for today: will the Government change their mind and back the Lords amendment to implement recommendations from the Grenfell inquiry, and will the Government legislate to ensure that leaseholders—blameless victims of this crisis—do not have to foot the bill for measures to make their buildings safe?
Kevin Hollinrake
Although I understand the point behind the hon. Member’s position—I assume she will vote for Lords amendment 4—can she answer the point I made to the Minister? What will she do when the building owners simply walk away? Where will the costs go? Does she have a solution for that? Does she not accept that this amendment is fundamentally flawed and is not the right way to achieve what she wants to achieve?
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He is an expert in this area, and I very much respect what he says. The answer is that it is for the Government to resolve this crisis. It is not for leaseholders to foot the bill. We suggested a national taskforce, whereby the Government could take responsibility for assessing the costs of the remediation work and then find out who is responsible, so that, as with the polluter pays principle, we could get to the point where the people who were responsible for the problem were paying the bill. That is fundamentally what we are trying to achieve, because in law at the moment, those who can least afford to pay are the only ones having to pay. The Minister says that there are flaws in the way the amendment is worded, but he could have amended it.
Lords amendment 2 would place robust requirements on building owners or managers and implement the key recommendations from phase 1 of the Grenfell inquiry. The Minister said that he had concerns with the way the amendment was worded. Again, the Government could have tried to amend it and to fix some of the problems along the way, but have chosen not to do so.
The Government said that they would implement the Grenfell phase 1 inquiry recommendations in full and without delay, and Lords amendment 2 would be a straightforward way for them to fulfil that promise. It seeks to require the owners of buildings that contain two or more sets of domestic premises to do four simple things: to share information with their local fire and rescue service about the design and make-up of the external walls; to complete regular inspections of fire entrance doors; to complete regular inspections of lifts; and to share evacuation and fire safety instructions with residents. Those measures are straightforward and supported by key stakeholders. Indeed, a common response is incredulity that these measures are not already in law.
The Government have even tried to water down proposals on the evacuation of disabled people, as has been reported today. They have proposed requiring personal evacuation plans for disabled people only in buildings with known safety issues and a waking watch. It is only after legal action by the families of those who died in the Grenfell Tower fire that the Government have relaunched a consultation on this.
Stephen Doughty
I wholeheartedly agree with the points that my hon. Friend is making. I want to emphasise the importance of paragraph (a) of Lords amendment 2, on sharing information about the materials that a building is constructed of, because my constituents in Cardiff South and Penarth have real difficulties getting hold of, for example, architectural drawings and original “as built” drawings. There is simply no consistency in this across the UK, which means that fire and rescue services, let alone anybody trying to undertake works, have a much harder job.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I have had many similar cases in my constituency, with people just trying to get to the bottom of what the issues are, and meanwhile they cannot sell their flat and are facing fire remediation and waking watch charges, their insurance is rocketing and their lives are on hold. We heard from many such people this morning, and it really was very sad.
It is hard to understand why the Government have put forward a motion to disagree with Lords amendment 2. I heard what the Minister said, but my challenge is that he could have tried to amend our amendments if he had a problem with them, to make them work. The answer, “We will do these things, but later” is simply inadequate.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I think that we all share the same objective across the House. I certainly want the recommendations of the first phase of the Grenfell inquiry to be implemented as quickly and robustly as possible. I am afraid, however, that the hon. Lady is trying to make a political point, because my has made it very clear that we have a robust system in place. We have the Fire Safety Bill. We have already done the consultation on the fire safety orders, which will be coming out in the spring. Our methodology has been backed by the National Fire Chiefs Council, and the step-by-step process has also been backed by Dame Judith Hackitt.
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I do not doubt her sincerity or the work that she has done on this since becoming a Member of Parliament, but I fundamentally disagree. The step-by-step process might be the right process, but it is so slow. It is almost four years since the Grenfell fire, and it is a year since the recommendations were made. The consultation finished in October, and the Government are still considering the responses. It is painfully slow. Have we not seen with covid what is possible when we put our minds to something? Look at how tremendously quickly we have achieved amazing things through this year of trauma. I think that, with commitment, the Government could work faster on this.
Ben Everitt
We all share the frustration and want this to be done quickly, but it has to be done right. If it comes down to a choice between quick and right, we owe it to the leaseholders to do it right.
Sarah Jones
I hear what the hon. Member says, but whether we should have a system in law whereby we check that a lift is safe is really not that complicated. Of course there are experts, but throughout all stages of the Bill the Government and the Minister have referred to steering groups, taskforces and consultations, rather than actually implementing the recommendations. We could have gone much faster. The Government published the consultation on fire safety in July and it closed in October, but four months later they are still analysing the feedback. They cannot keep promising to act later; they need to act now. There really are no more excuses. There is no reason why this amendment could not be made. The Lords were right.
I will now move on to Lords amendment 4, to which many amendments have been tabled in an attempt to improve it and build on it. This morning I heard from many leaseholders in this very situation. They told me of their desperation, how their lives have been put on hold, how they face mental health issues, how their insurance has rocketed, how their waking watch costs are exorbitant, how they cannot get EWS forms and so cannot sell their homes, how they face costs of other fire remediation way beyond cladding, and how they live in blocks not covered by the Government schemes. Many of them face bankruptcy. They simply cannot understand the injustice of having to pay for things that were never their fault. They cannot understand how the Government do not get this and will not put it right.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
To echo the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt), it is about getting this right, rather getting it done quickly. Does the hon. Lady not agree that a lot of these policies that we are bringing forward have been measured, have been accepted by experts and are tackling the issue? It is right that we tackle those at most concern of not being safe first, and then follow through afterwards, rather than trying to do all of them at the same time and getting it wrong.
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I genuinely struggle to understand why the Government have not grasped the scale of this crisis and the quantity of people who cannot sell their flat, who cannot afford the costs that they are currently looking at, who cannot change jobs and who cannot get married or have children because their lives are on hold. Many are first-time buyers who have saved up, worked really hard and got their flat. If the Government would say today, “We will commit to legislate to say that lease- holders should not have to foot the bill”, we could accept that there was a commitment there, but there is not.
There is no commitment to say that leaseholders should not have to foot the bill. The words are said, but there is no action to put it into law. [Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that there is £5 billion, and that is true, but that does not cover the vast number of people who are still affected—the vast number of people whose lives are still on hold. One could say that some of them are perhaps traditional Conservative voters. We struggle on this side of the House to understand how the Treasury has not grasped the scale of this crisis and is not putting it right.
Stephen Doughty
I know for a fact that some of those affected are traditional Conservative voters. I have spoken to people from all walks of life, and they are in absolute anguish about this. They are being left in the dark. We had the announcement the other day—it was typical to announce a big sum of money and then not be clear about how much would come to Wales, how the system would work or when the money would come through. These people have been living in the dark and in anguish for months and for years, and it is completely unacceptable.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is completely right. There is the idea that someone would have a long-term loan where they pay £50 a month. If someone needs to pay off a £20,000 loan, and that loan stays with the building, they have no chance of selling their flat. Nobody is going to want to buy a flat with a bill that high.
Kevin Hollinrake
What evidence does the hon. Lady have for that claim? This is a maximum charge per unit per month of £50. If she understands how property transactions work, that is a maximum of £600 a year, which capitalises to about £12,000. I am not saying it would not affect the value of that property, but it does not make them unsaleable. It makes them far more saleable—I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—than they are today and actually affects the value by a relatively small amount.
Sarah Jones
The hon. Member said, “I am not saying it would not affect the value of that property”, and that is the key. This issue should not be affecting the value of the property when people have saved up for many years, worked hard, bought their flat and then through no fault of their own suddenly finds that the value of their property goes down because of the Government failure to deal with the problem.
Through successive lockdowns, the people in these blocks have gone to bed at night with the added pressure of sleeping in a building at risk of fire or being themselves at risk of bankruptcy and deep financial trouble. It is taking a heavy toll on people’s mental health and putting millions of lives on hold. Leaseholders have been trapped in this impossible position for far too long.
I hate that we are still having this conversation. I hate that I have stood here at this Dispatch Box time after time for years saying the same thing to Ministers, and I hate that good people on both sides of this House are saying the same things and it is still falling on deaf ears. The problem is not going to go away. The Government could legislate today to ensure that leaseholders do not pay by supporting the Lords amendment, the McPartland-Smith amendment or the Labour amendments. At this point, I do not mind which one they pick; I just want the job done.
Jim Shannon
One of the items that has been brought to my attention is that 57% of flats requiring remediation were purchased for under £250,000, which means that many of those people are living in negative equity in their properties. Does the hon. Lady agree that this is not about cake tomorrow, but about what happens today, and unless the Government accept the amendments that have been tabled, those people will feel that they have no hope for the future?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Member is absolutely right. We heard from a lady this morning that the cost of insurance for her small block had gone up from £30,000 a year to £500,000 a year. We heard from a lady who lives in a block in Kent—I know one Government Member has stood up for her in this place many times—where the residents have already spent £500,000 on a waking watch. It is quite extraordinary.
I was alarmed to see reports this afternoon that the Prime Minister’s press secretary, Allegra Stratton, has said:
“Our problem with McPartland’s amendment is that, far from speeding things up for constituents across the country who are worried about finding themselves in these properties, it would actually slow things down.”
That mirrors the intervention that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has made, and it is an absolute cop-out. We are four years on, and leaseholders are struggling. We think that 11 million people are affected by this—not necessarily those living in dangerous blocks, but those living in blocks where they do not know, because they have not got the forms sorted and they are paying more insurance. That is a huge crisis.
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady recall that in the Opposition day debate called by the Labour party just a few weeks ago, I asked the Minister, if our amendment is defective, why do the Government not take it, fix it, and make it work? They had the opportunity then. Does the hon. Lady think they should have done that?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: if there were any problems with these amendments, they could have been addressed by the Government through this process. They had 12 weeks between the Bill leaving the Lords and coming here to try to effect some of these things, but have chosen not to.
The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) are to prevent leaseholders from being billed for fire safety repairs. Labour’s amendments went further, because the McPartland-Smith amendments—supportive and good though they are—would not cover leaseholders in blocks where flammable cladding had been added at some stage following the building of the block. Labour’s amendments would have included, for example, Grenfell Tower, which was built in the ’70s but to which the flammable cladding was added later, in 2017.
In our amendments (f), (g), (h) and (i) to Lords amendment 4, we have sought to go even further, to make sure that the cost of fire safety problems from refurbishment jobs such as the cladding of Grenfell Tower cannot be passed on to leaseholders. Our amendments (f) and (g) would ensure that leaseholders cannot be passed on the cost of remediating problems issued under the fire safety order wherever the problem was created. Labour’s amendment (i) would ensure that the Bill protects leaseholders from the day it comes into law, instead of an unknown date in the future, and Labour’s amendment (h) would have ensured that if the fire safety order is extended in the future, the Secretary of State must publish an analysis of the financial implications for leaseholders—although that amendment was not selected today, as it was out of scope. [Interruption.] You are hurrying me along, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I am turning pages so that I can speed up, which I will of course do.
To conclude, Labour’s amendments in lieu are straight- forward. They are based on issues that the Government need to address and have pledged to do so, but have not acted on. The risk of fire and looming bankruptcy will not wait while the Government dither and delay, with inaction or failed proposals that keep many lease- holders in debt. Each amendment I have spoken to today corresponds to a broken promise from the Government.
Today is another chance for the Government to finally put public safety first, and bring forward a set of legally binding commitments to deliver on the promises they made to leaseholders and implement the recommendations of the Grenfell phase 1 inquiry. Blameless victims of this crisis, who are in dangerous homes and facing financial ruin, expect nothing less. As debates over the past four years have repeatedly shown, solving this issue fairly would command cross-party support, and today should be a day to deliver justice. It is not too late for the Government to put the British public first and do the right thing.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for concluding bang on time. As the House knows, this debate is limited to three hours, and one of those hours has now passed. I did say at the beginning of the debate that there would be a time limit of four minutes on Back-Bench speeches. I make no criticism of the Minister or the shadow Minister—if I were going to criticise, I would have stopped them long before now—and I appreciate that both hon. Members have taken a lot of interventions and dealt with a great many different matters, so it was necessary to spend the first hour in this way. But that does mean that, although there will be a limit of four minutes for the hon. Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), after that, the limit will be reduced to three minutes.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this debate. I would also like to send my best wishes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire).
It is a great pleasure to see the Minister in his place and responding to this debate. I listened to him very carefully and I detect a hint that there could be a compromise, for which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) have been calling for many months now. We are very keen to work with the Government. We are very keen for the Government to table an amendment in lieu, to accept our amendment today or, if the Minister feels so inclined, even to move our amendment to a vote to test the will of the House, but I imagine that, sadly, we will not have the opportunity to vote on what is called the McPartland-Smith amendment today.
I would like to pick the Minister up on the point he made about this Bill not being the correct place for the amendment. I believe it is, which I will come on to in a moment. I would also like to put on record that I, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen, those who have supported our amendment and the leaseholders themselves are all very clear that we have never asked the Government to pay for the full costs of remediation, or the taxpayer to bail people out. We just want the taxpayer to provide a safety net for leaseholders to ensure the fire safety works are actually undertaken; it has been nearly four years.
We want to be in a position whereby the Government provide the cash flow up front, and then they can levy those who have been responsible within the industry to recoup those funds over the next 10 years. That is our plan and objective. We would love to work with the Minister and the Government to get this resolved in the Lords. I say to the Minister today that their lordships have already agreed to re-table the amendment if it is not accepted. It will be tabled in the Lords on Friday. I am sure we will be back to discuss this later on—in a few months. So I hope that we can work in the in-between time to come to some solution together.
I am very proud to be the Chairman of the Regulatory Reform Committee. The Fire Safety Bill does amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The reason why the Bill is so important is that it creates a financial obligation on leaseholders to pay freeholders for the costs of remedying any fire safety defects on external walls and doors, such as cladding, but not limited to cladding, so it can include fire safety breaks and a whole variety of other issues. I assume that this is an unintended consequence. The Government do not want leaseholders to pay—that is very clear from what the Minister said earlier—but they are not sure how they can resolve the problem and get the works fixed without leaseholders actually paying.
From my point of view, we are very keen to ensure that leaseholders are not responsible. In terms of dealing with that order, we have to amend the Fire Safety Bill, because we cannot wait for the Building Safety Bill. The Fire Safety Bill creates this legal obligation. It creates the position whereby a fire authority, which is a competent authority, can order a freeholder to do the works. They have 21 days to agree to do the works and provide a timescale, or that is a criminal offence. Once they have had this direction from a competent authority, the leaseholders are then required to refund the freeholder for the works that are done. Up and down the country we already have thousands of leaseholders who are on the verge of bankruptcy—some have already gone bankrupt—just waiting and, before they actually get to the costs of remediation, paying £15,000 a week for waking watch in blocks of flats and excessive insurance premiums. The costs are huge.
I urge the Government to accept our amendment, to let us vote on it, or to work with us to ensure that we resolve this issue in the Lords and that leaseholders do not have to pay.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]
First, may I send my best wishes to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire)? When he was Secretary of State, he and I discussed our respective illnesses, and I really feel for him and his family at this very difficult time.
The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has discussed the issue of cladding remediation and fire safety works on many occasions. In June, we made it clear that
“residents are in no way to blame”
for defects from cladding
“and it is our view that they should bear none of the cost of remediation.”
We repeated those sentiments in our prelegislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill. Again, we said:
“The Government must recommit to the principle that leaseholders should not pay anything towards the cost of remediating historical building safety defects…for which they were not responsible.”
That is very clear.
The question is who should pay: the initial developer—the Government could help to co-ordinate action against them—the taxpayer, of course, or the industry as a whole? Unfortunately, the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland)—I very much agreed with the sentiments of his comments—and by the Labour Front Benchers seek to place responsibility on the freeholder.
For reasons that the Minister gave, those amendments cut across the contractual relationship between freeholder and leaseholder. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who raised this issue a number of times in the Select Committee when he was a member, showed that freeholders are often quite small companies that, where they were not responsible for the initial development, simply collect ground rent. If faced with the cost of remediation, they would simply walk away. Those amendments will not get the work done. That is the fundamental issue. We want to see it done without leaseholders having to pay for it.
Turning to who should pay, certainly, the Government have put on the table £3.5 billion in addition to the £1.6 billion, but that does not include anything other than cladding remediation. All the other works, which for many leaseholders are as substantial in cost as cladding remediation, are not covered, and of course that funding does not cover buildings below 18 metres.
The Government have come up with a loan scheme for buildings below 18 metres, but that places the loan charge on the freeholder. Surely, we are back to the same problems: if we cannot interfere with the contractual relationship between the freeholder and the leaseholder—according to the Minister, with respect to the amendments before us from the Opposition and the hon. Member for Stevenage, we cannot—then surely that is a problem for the Government’s loan scheme too, and if freeholders are going to walk away from a direct charge on properties, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said, they will walk away from a loan too. That is a real problem that the Government have to address.
I welcome that the Government are going to introduce a levy and a financial contribution from the industry, but we appear to be in a position where they cannot tell us whether the money raised from the levy will be in addition to the £3.5 billion or whether it will be taken from the £3.5 billion—in other words, that the Treasury will get some of that money back. That, to my view, would be wrong. The Minister is going to come to the Select Committee on 8 March; hopefully, we will be a bit wiser after that visit.
Finally, we have talked a lot about leaseholders, but what about social housing tenants? The National Housing Federation says that there is £10 billion of remedial work to be done in the social housing sector, and more for council housing properties, yet the only automatic right that social housing landlords have to any funding is for help with the removal of ACM cladding; everything else they are likely to have to pay for. Tenants are going to have to pay through rent increases, cuts to future maintenance or cuts to the house building programme, none of which is acceptable. So we have a perverse situation where the social housing landlord, as a freeholder, could be ensuring that tenants have to pay for the remediation of properties next door that have been subject to the right to buy. That cannot be right.
All these matters need resolving. We hope that the Minister does so on his visit to the Select Committee.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now move to a three-minute limit. I call Royston Smith.
Royston Smith
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have no axe to grind with the Government. They are my friends and colleagues. I like them and I get on with them, but I am not going to blindly follow them when I can see that the treatment of leaseholders is wrong.
First, in tabling our amendment, we have never said that we would ask for taxpayers’ money. We made that fundamentally clear right at the beginning, and it is worth repeating that. I know that many of my colleagues would have supported our amendment, but they were told that it would be an open cheque book and therefore they chose not to. Secondly, our amendment will not wreck the Bill. It will make it fair for the innocent lease- holders caught up in this crisis.
There are three parts to this, in my opinion. There is the moral issue. Who, in good conscience, could leave these people to pay huge insurance premiums, sometimes increased by over 1,000%, huge waking watch charges and crippling costs of remediation if we could do something to help? Who would do that?
Then there is the economic issue. When someone owns just 10% of their home, but they are responsible for 100% of the remediation cost, what do we think people are going to do? They will be saddled with tens of thousands of pounds-worth of debt while their home is valued at nothing. This part of the housing market is heading for collapse and thousands of leaseholders are heading for bankruptcy. The Government could and should prevent this from happening.
Finally, there is a political dimension. Successive Governments have put home ownership at the centre of Government policy. They have encouraged people to get on the property ladder. We have incentivised them through schemes such as Help to Buy and shared ownership. Imagine the howls of derision when the first Government Minister stands up and claims that we are the party of home ownership.
The recent Government announcement is very welcome, and I know that many people are grateful, but what sort of solution says, “We concede that it is not your fault, but we are only going to help half of you?” For those buildings over 18 metres, cladding will be removed for free, but not in buildings below that height. Worse than that, those people living in buildings below 18 metres will be saddled with unaffordable debt to pay for cladding remediation. Even worse, they will know that their taxes will be paying for their neighbours’ remediation.
Kevin Hollinrake
I absolutely understand the spirit behind my hon. Friend’s amendment. Will he answer the point that I made earlier? How would his amendment operate if the building owner walks away? Also, does he accept that his amendment would put somebody else on the hook for the costs of remediation, not just for historical defects, but for any defects in future?
Royston Smith
What I will do is refer my hon. Friend to two things that he has said. First, he said, “We will carry the can”, and he has now said, “Who is going to be on the hook?” It sounds to me like he is very happy for leaseholders to carry the can and be on the hook, but not to find a solution. The Government’s problem is to find the solution. Our problem is to say that leaseholders should never have to pay. That is not an unreasonable position for us to take.
In trying to help, the Government have satisfied no one and they have upset just about everyone. The leaseholders are not responsible for this. They know they are not. We know they are not. The Government know they are not and, therefore, the Government’s position is now untenable.
In conclusion, I appeal to the Government and to all my colleagues to think very carefully before they abandon thousands of their constituents, because I know this: they will not forget and they will not forgive.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) [V]
I am speaking in support of all the amendments before us that seek to protect leaseholders from having to pay. First, on the Minister’s argument that this will delay matters, I think that leaseholders are left perplexed by the Government’s position. One day Ministers say that the cost of fixing historical defects should not fall on leaseholders—the Minister said it again today—but on another day, they say that it should. The £50 a month towards the loans that the Government propose to give to buildings below 18 metres shows that that is their policy. I do not think that Ministers can criticise others who are trying to address the problem—I support the speeches we have heard from supporters of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland)—because the Government are completely unclear about what their policy is on who should bear the cost. It is clear to me that it should be the people who built the blocks.
On the argument that leaseholders who are also part-owners of the freehold may walk away from their flats, that is a very fair point, but exactly the same argument applies to loads of leaseholders who will not be able to afford to meet these costs. What this tells us is that if we are to solve this we must deal with the whole problem, not just part of it.
Secondly, to argue that this is the wrong Bill misses the urgency of the situation. Leaseholders are facing bills that they cannot afford now—waking watch bills now, insurance bills now—and they still face the prospect of being asked to pay to make safe homes that they bought in good faith. That is why we should take the first available opportunity to protect them from this great injustice.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
This Bill is very important to me and my constituents, and I want to pay tribute to the Grenfell community—the bereaved and the survivors. I want the Bill to be implemented as quickly and as robustly as possible so that it is not subject to any future uncertainty or challenge.
We need to get on with this. We need to stop all the ping-ponging between this place and the other place. It is very clear that there is a systematic scheme here. There is this Bill, which is very simple. We have had the consultation on the fire safety orders and the regulation. We need to get on with that. We need to implement that work and then get on with it. We then need the Building Safety Bill. That needs to come to this House and, again, we need to get on with it. We owe that to my constituents.
The first phase of the Grenfell inquiry report came out in October 2019, 16 months ago. We, collectively—both in this place and the other place—need to get this legislation implemented and make sure that these dangerous buildings are remediated. The more we talk, the more we argue, nothing gets done—and there are dangerous buildings out there.
We have a simple piece of legislation that we can get enacted. We have a big pot of money. The totality of the pot could be as high as £10 billion. Let us implement this legislation, let us start assessing and prioritising the buildings, and let us start spending this Government money. We have time to review the details of the financing scheme. I just want to make the point that, yes, the Government are taking responsibility for buildings over 18 metres, but there is a reason for that: buildings over 18 metres, according to all the independent risk assessors, are way more dangerous. They are four times more likely to have fatalities.
I empathise hugely with leaseholders, but there is still a subsidy in there for leaseholders of buildings between 11 metres and 18 metres. So let us just get on with this today. After that, we can review the details of the financing package and amend the Building Safety Bill, but this Bill is the first step and we need to get on with it.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]
It is shameful that this modest Bill is the Government’s legislative response thus far to Grenfell, almost four years after that tragedy took place. We might expect, therefore, that it would at least address the most significant and urgent wrongs that the Grenfell fire brought to the Government’s attention. The purpose of the Bill is to update the fire safety order and better manage and reduce the risk of fire. What better and more straightforward way of achieving that than to implement the recommendations of part 1 of the Grenfell inquiry, which deals with issues such as the inspection and maintenance of lifts and doors, and having proper systems of evacuation in place and communicated to residents? It is impossible to imagine those steps, backed by the moral and legal authority of the inquiry, not becoming law. That is the purpose of Lords amendment 2.
Although safety is the paramount concern, the treatment of leaseholders and tenants living in unsafe blocks is a wholly new scandal that this Bill will fail to address unless Lords amendment 4 is agreed today. Those tenants should not bear the cost of remedial work to their flats where they did not and could not have known the risks posed by their construction. The Government do not seek to deny that, but instead make a series of partial concessions. That is the wrong approach. We should start, as amendment 4 does, with the presumption that remedial costs attributable to the Bill should not be borne by leaseholders. They should not be borne by tenants or social landlords either, or by the rents of the least well off or the limited funds set aside for the provision and repairing of social homes.
The cynical disregard for the lives of our fellow citizens that Grenfell exposed will take years, billions of pounds and the concentrated efforts of the Government and industry to address. Building design, materials, construction, maintenance and inspection are all in the dock. Height is a factor, but so is who the occupants and users are and how they are taught to behave, especially in an emergency.
For the Government constantly to adopt a reductive approach to the crisis is irresponsible. This is not just about one or two types of cladding, buildings over 18 metres or residential buildings. Today is an opportunity not to address all those issues, important as they are, but to show a serious intent to act now on the most obvious faults and injustices. The Government should take it by accepting all the amendments before the House.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). This is a horrendously complicated issue involving cladding—ACM, high-pressure laminate and other forms of inflammable cladding—fire safety measures and the height of buildings. I warmly welcome the fact that the Government have come up with the money to remedy the most unsafe buildings—tall buildings—and the cladding that was put on them, which fails to provide safe accommodation to residents.
The reality is that the £5.1 billion will remediate only the unsafe cladding and will not do the comprehensive work. The issue then becomes one of the fire safety work that has to be carried out as well. There is no funding to provide for that, so it has to be paid for by someone.
I have a series of suggested tests that could apply. The first is that, emerging from the Grenfell inquiry, it is quite clear that the ACM cladding was illegal, so those responsible for developing the cladding and putting it on the building must pay for the remediation in all other buildings where that is the case. Similarly, for other forms of unsafe cladding, if those people fail to accord with the building regulations that exist at the time, they should pay the cost of removing and correcting it.
Leaseholders could not reasonably have been expected to foresee the fire safety issues when they bought the leases on their flats, so the fundamental issue is that they should not have to pay the cost of remediation, either of cladding or of fire safety defects. My hon. Friend the Minister said that he finds the amendments defective. My challenge to him, when he responds to this debate, is to make it clear from the Dispatch Box that the Government will bring forward proposals in the Lords to amend the Bill to make sure leaseholders do not pay.
The defence seems to be that the Building Safety Bill will eventually come through and be implemented. The problem is that we have sat through the pre-legislative scrutiny of that Bill and recommended at least 40 changes to it. It will take probably 18 months for it to reach the statute book, and then we have the secondary legislation. Leaseholders do not have the time: this work needs to be carried out now. The industry estimates that it will take some four years to implement all the safety works required. It must be made clear that the leaseholders are not the ones to pay.
Currently, leaseholders cannot insure or sell their properties and no one wants to buy them. We are in danger of freezing the housing market because of this problem. I urge the Minister, when he responds, to—
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
I, too, send my best wishes to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) and wish him a speedy recovery.
I have been listening to the debate and the various interventions. A question asked consistently in interventions from Conservative Members has been whether it is not best to put things right rather than act quickly. I remind those Members, as others have, that it is now four years on from Grenfell. Four years is a timescale in which we should have been able to address this issue and given people security and some form of confidence.
Confidence has been shattered by the failure to include in the legislation the recommendations from the first phase of the Grenfell inquiry. I share the view of the Fire Brigades Union that the Government seem to be doing the bare minimum to fend off bad headlines. I have not the eloquence to speak on behalf of my constituents and portray just how strongly they feel about this matter. They are really very angry—and, I have to say, distressed. They feel not only at risk but that their lives have been put on hold by their inability to sell their properties and move from them.
We have heard today about the £5 billion that the Government have allocated; my constituents, like those of other Members, are asking what happens if the money runs out—the costs so far have been estimated to be nearer £15 billion. In addition to that, just as the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, the money will not cover many of the defects that have now been found and the additional measures that have been demanded and required. My constituents are now being hit with potential bills from the developers—including the worst, Ballymore—for things such as rectifying wooden balconies and other defects that were not of their making. The idea of waiting for the Building Safety Bill is like “Waiting for Godot”, what with the time it takes to get the right type of Bill and then get the legislation through and implemented.
My constituents in lower-rise blocks do not see why they are being discriminated against. My constituents were blameless. They were failed by developers, regulators, suppliers of materials, inspectors—all of them. Many of those developers made fortunes out of developments in my constituency; it is they who should pay the cost of their own failures. I urge urgency, which is why I will support all the amendments that would protect leaseholders from being burdened with the debt caused by others who have failed us all.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to correct the historic wrongs, and I especially welcome my hon. Friend the Minister’s commitment to fundamentally change the culture in the building sector and to take a more robust, risk-based approach. Leaseholders are the innocent parties in this matter and rightly expect that the developers, builders and current landlords—some of whom were developers—along with the local building controllers, national regulators and component manufacturers, should be the ones to bear the costs.
My constituents have raised a range of their outstanding concerns that they feel still need to be addressed. They are concerned, first, that those responsible should take far more of the financial burden; secondly, that they have the unfair burden of massively increased insurance costs and waking watches; and thirdly, about the distinction between buildings above and below 18 metres and why they should be treated so differently.
To many people, a monthly cost of £50 may not be a great deal, but for many others who are already at their financial limit, the equivalent of a 13th month of mortgage payments is a huge burden that they can barely afford—if they can afford it. They want to be able to move on with their life—they may want to have a family, or move for work or for a whole range of other reasons—but they cannot. They feel trapped.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]
I too send my best wishes to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire). I have told the Government repeatedly that many residents in Salford face exorbitant fire and safety remediation costs—up to £100,000 per flat in some cases. I told them that even buildings under 18 metres were failing EWS1, and that many residents were being forced to pay thousands for measures such as waking watch, and increased insurance premiums.
On 10 February, I hoped against hope that the Government had listened—that they had heeded the recommendations of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, a range of sector bodies and MPs from across the political spectrum, and had decided finally to address this great moral injustice, to ensure an urgent national effort to make buildings safe, and to guarantee that no resident or leaseholder would ever have to pay for a crisis that they did not cause. Sadly, the Government did not listen. The extra £3.5 billion of funding announced was only for cladding removal, not for remediating fire safety defects, which usually accounts for the majority of remediation costs. Only buildings over 18 metres are eligible. Residents in all other buildings, including those even one metre under, will need to apply for a loan, and buildings under 11 metres will receive nothing at all.
My constituents are devastated. Every day, bills for interim fire safety measures and increased insurance premiums rack up. They cannot move or sell; they struggle to get credit; and, worse, some may face bankruptcy or homelessness. It is so bad that the UK Cladding Action Group reports suicides nationally, and 23% of those surveyed by the group had considered suicide or self-harm. My constituents are victims of systemic regulatory failure or, worse, corporate malfeasance, but the Government are making the victims take responsibility. This has to end today. I say to the Minister that his Government have a moral duty to agree to legislate for the principle that residents and leaseholders should not pay for historical fire safety defects. I urge him to support amendments to that effect today; to ensure that the Government lead an urgent national effort to carry out fire safety remediation by June 2022; to forward-fund that work; and to reclaim the costs from those responsible and via a levy on new development.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) [V]
I, too, thank the Government for the £5 billion that they have committed to targeting and helping to make safe these high-risk buildings. May we remember the lives lost in the Grenfell Tower tragedy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) for all she has done to fight for justice for the Grenfell Tower survivors. I volunteered to help; I first went there two days after the fire. The tales of the fires that consumed the outward escape mechanisms because of the cladding, and of the way the building was encased with flames, are not something I have wanted to speak about, but I feel that it is appropriate to do so today, because I see that the Government are trying to bring some justice to the victims and to future-proof the safety of social tenants in tower blocks, and I thank them for that.
My concern is the long-term unintended consequences of the high levels of fire safety regulations for private leaseholders. They are often young men and women who have saved their whole life to buy their first home. Oftentimes the flat is in London, and as leaseholders, they are now unable to leave that flat. Many of my constituents have written to me about their children in London who have purchased a flat and are now trapped. They can no longer afford the soaring costs of their debts, and some have even moved home to their parents in Beaconsfield because they cannot afford the financial burdens they are now under as leaseholders. I hope that we can continue to address this issue long term, but I want to see this legislation passed and this first stage accomplished. I appreciate and sympathise with many of the amendments, but I would ask that we just move forward and support the Government to ensure that this first level of safety is on offer for residents across the UK.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. We are in the middle of a building safety crisis, and post Grenfell, we must all play our part in ensuring that no one is ever unsafe in their home again. The amendments we are discussing are a step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to support those that enhance protections for leaseholders, but the Bill is a missed opportunity to enshrine in law further amendments to protect leaseholders.
The issue I want to draw the House’s attention to is interim costs of temporary fire safety measures that leaseholders have to put in place while they wait for the start of long-term remedial work, such as the replacement of dangerous cladding. They have to put those measures in place, because they have been told by the fire authorities that their buildings are too unsafe to live in without them. The vast majority of these interim costs are not covered by any Government assistance, and hundreds of my leaseholder constituents in Vauxhall are already paying out, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
The amendment that I tabled to the Bill would have ensured that building owners could not pass these interim safety costs on to leaseholders. These costs are extortionate, involving eye-watering sums of money. Thousands of pounds are being paid by ordinary, working people, and it is money that they just do not have. How can that be right or fair? I am sure that my honourable colleagues do not need reminding that this building safety crisis was not caused by leaseholders. They are the innocent victims, caught between an industry that has failed them and a Government who are unwilling to go the full distance. Ensuring that leaseholders do not pay these interim costs is not only morally right, but essential if they are not to face financial hardship or ruin. The building industry and the Government must take full responsibility for protecting leaseholders from these interim costs. No leaseholder should have to pay a penny for making their home safe.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) [V]
It is with deep sadness, but also with optimism, that I speak today—sadness because I recall only too clearly the shock of hearing about Grenfell Tower. That shock turned to horror when I went to pay my respects in person. I stood by those charred remains, the dense and acrid smoke heavy in the air, with an inescapable horror at the awareness of what was mingled in the smoke and the dust, at the horrendous loss of life, and at the harm to so many who still carry the terror and fear of that night.
Housing has been my lifelong passion and was my career before I came into Parliament. My interest in and deep commitment to it continues, as shown in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I chair the New Homes Quality Board, which is bringing in a new code of practice and a new homes ombudsman. It complements the serious and vital work of Dame Judith Hackitt on the building safety regulator, as well as the essential remit of the Fire Safety Bill.
This Bill is not the whole solution to the Grenfell tragedy, but it is an essential and important technical Bill that needs to be brought in as a matter of urgency. That is why today we must not confuse the purpose of this Bill and the immediate necessity of bringing in laws to protect every person in every constituency, whether they live in a terraced home, a bungalow, or a low, medium or high-rise building. Back in 2017, I called for leaseholders to be protected against remediation costs in high-rise buildings where cladding such as Grenfell’s had to be removed. I therefore welcome the Government making that happen through a £5 billion investment for that activity and for building safety; it is the right thing to do.
I called for changes in obligations, and for the ability of fire services, councils and Government to intervene in fire safety matters, so that where there were known problems—for example, with doors or common areas—they could be corrected. The Bill will put that right, and it will give authorities the power to intervene and protect lives. That is what the Bill is all about. I commend the actions of the Housing Secretary and the Government in recent months, and encourage them to look at a broader review of the rights of leaseholders and renters alike, but I welcome the Bill. It is the right thing to do, and it needs to be urgently concluded.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
I have spoken previously on the nightmare facing residents in the Wicker Riverside complex in my constituency, who were evacuated before Christmas with no notice because of multiple fire safety failings. We got them back, and I thank Lord Greenhalgh for his assistance with that, but their problems remain. They face waking watch costs of up to £600 a month, which for some is almost twice their mortgage payments, and they are still waiting for huge bills for works that they anticipate will be needed to make their homes safe. Nearby leaseholders in Daisy Spring Works received a bill this week for £7,000 to cover compartmentation works, to be paid within 28 days, on top of £10,000 of previous costs, with bigger bills yet to come. In the Metis building, the removal of ACM cladding will be covered by Government funding, but leaseholders still face bills of up to £50,000 to make good other faults.
Of course, there are others across my constituency and the country who are in the same situation. In all these cases, they are expected to pay simply to make their homes safe by putting right the mistakes of others. That is the central wrong that we have an opportunity to remedy today by supporting the amendment of the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and the amendments tabled by those on the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that the Government will not try to prevent a vote, because Ministers know that there is a grave injustice here that must be remedied. They must know, too, in their hearts that the action they have taken so far falls well short of what is needed.
This is a huge problem. We should start from the basic principle that those who are responsible for the failings should be responsible for putting them right. In any other consumer purchase, a dangerous item would be recalled by the company that made it and repaired or replaced at no cost to the person who bought it. The same principle should apply here. Leaseholders in these buildings have not just been let down by developers; they were people who exercised due diligence, undertaking all the checks that were needed before they bought their flats, but they were let down by comprehensive regulatory failure, which was the responsibility of successive Governments. That is why we must step in and ensure that their homes are made safe as a matter of urgency. Of course we should seek to recover as much of the cost as possible from the developers and others responsible, but the principle must be that leaseholders pay nothing, either now or in the future, through any loan scheme. Many leaseholders have stretched their finances to the limits to buy these homes. Some have become bankrupt already, and others are facing ruin and unimaginable mental strain. This is wrong and we can begin to put it right today.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
The cladding issue is of great importance to many of my constituents, particularly in Portishead. They understand that a balance must be struck between the problems of leaseholders caught in the cladding trap and the interests of taxpayers at a difficult time for the public finances. We know that the Government will publish more details of the financing scheme when further discussions with the Treasury are completed, so we still have time to make changes. Although it would be completely improper to ask the taxpayer to, in effect, sign a blank cheque, it has to be a basic principle that those who have to undertake changes purely as a result of change in government regulation should have any remediation underwritten. As these changes will affect dwellings irrespective of their height, such support should be available to all. Where changes are required not as a result of change in government regulation but because of faulty workmanship or frank dishonesty in the declaration of materials used, all costs should fall directly on developers, builders and insurers—indeed, there may be occasions when criminal sanctions are required. Although it is generally unacceptable for taxpayers to pay in these circumstances, there will have to be exceptions, particularly when the developers in question have gone out of business and leaseholders have no other options from which to seek redress.
We must also see a number of practical issues resolved, including through urgent Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors guidance on EWS1 certification and the speeding up of the training of qualified staff able to conduct EWS1 assessments. We need building societies and banks to take a realistic and constructive attitude to the buying and selling of these properties, especially when a taxpayer safety net is being deployed to provide greater certainty. We also need the Association of British Insurers to provide realistic guidance to its members, so that on top of the financial worries they already have leaseholders are not subjected to the added anxiety about the failure to insure their properties. As I have said in the House before, we have to ensure that surveys are factually accurate, as we have seen too many examples of shoddy practice that adds both financial cost and unnecessary worry for w the leaseholders concerned.
We all understand the problems facing the public finances and we all welcome the £5 billion of taxpayers’ money that the Government have already put forward. What we need to see as soon as possible are fair and equitable solutions for all those caught in a trap not of their own making.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]
Lords amendment 4 is about protecting blameless leaseholders from the extortionate costs of fire safety remediation. I tabled it initially in Committee and it has been re-tabled by Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Pinnock in the other place. I thank the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and their colleagues, who have improved upon it, and I support all these amendments. Hundreds of thousands of people affected by this fire safety scandal are counting on us to put our party political differences to one side and work across party lines to protect them. The Government have made three claims today. They say that this Lords amendment should not be dealt with now, that it is defective and that it will delay this Bill. Let us address those in turn.
First, the Government say this Bill is not the time and place to protect leaseholders, and that they should wait until the Building Safety Bill. The Government are wrong. From the date this Bill comes into force, leaseholders will be required to pay for any costs incurred consequent to a notice by a competent authority. If they receive a notice from a fire service or a local council in relation to the external wall of a building of two or more dwellings, those leaseholders will be liable to pay from day one of the Bill taking effect. Leaseholders cannot afford to be hit with huge costs, and that is why this Bill is exactly the right Bill to address the issue, and it is why leaseholders cannot wait any longer.
Secondly, the Government say that the various amendments under consideration today are defective. Well, why have they not proposed their own amendments to solve any defects? I first tabled this amendment on 25 June last year, which is eight months ago, and I note that the Government have failed to bring anything forward in all that time.
Thirdly, the Government say this amendment could delay the Bill. With respect, that is a bit flippin’ rich, given that it has taken three and a half years to bring forward a Bill that extends to a whole two pages.
We cannot end the whole fire safety scandal today, but we can protect leaseholders from having to pay for it. I call on the Government to put all the amendments to a vote, and I call on all Members of this House to put our party differences to one side and to vote for them all.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) [V]
I start by sending my very best wishes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire). We want to see him back soon, but it is good to see this Minister, my Hampshire neighbour, leading the debate today.
Owning your own home is a very British dream, but it has turned into a nightmare for thousands in the aftermath of Grenfell. That is why there is such strength of feeling across the House today. Our thoughts will always be with those lost in the Grenfell tragedy, with those who are grieving and with those who survived, but there are now thousands more who are dealing with the building safety consequences of those events.
In the UK it should not be high risk to buy a home in a block of flats built and marketed by a reputable house builder under strict building control regimes, only to find that the professional and regulatory checks have been a fiction. That is a situation in which hundreds of my constituents find themselves.
It is clear from today’s debate that no one wants residents to pay for this disgraceful behaviour, that there cannot be a blank cheque from Government, and that those who caused the problem have to pay for the works that are needed. The only question is how we achieve all that, so I warmly welcome the Government’s announcement of an additional £3.5 billion to fund remedial work, a grant scheme for low-rise buildings, a builders levy and a property developer tax. This will be of some reassurance to leaseholders, and a start to making sure that those responsible for the failings are made to pay for what they did wrong.
I accept the argument of my hon. Friend the Minister that this may not be the right place for further assurances on remediation costs and, given his undertaking to look at this further in the Building Safety Bill, I will pause my support for the amendments today. He has been constructive and helpful in his contribution.
In the meantime, the Government have to show how funding promises will work in practice. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for working with me to identify how funds will flow for the waking watch relief fund and remedial works. Making this work in practice has to be a ministerial priority in the coming weeks.
There also needs to be complete transparency from Homes England on which buildings have been accepted into the scheme, and that if eligible costs legitimately increase from the initial assessment, applicants can claim from the fund for a cost variation. Above all, these plans need to be in place as quickly as possible, and the Government need to tackle the insurance problems that many leaseholders now face.
Remediation works will not happen overnight, but it is in no one’s interest to delay this Bill, which includes provisions from my 2018 fire safety ten-minute rule Bill. If there is not clear progress, more action will be needed in the Building Safety Bill when it is considered later this year.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) [V]
I rise to speak in support of Lords amendment 4 and the amendments tabled by those on the Labour Front Bench. I also express my support for what is colloquially coined the McPartland-Smith amendment. The common thread is to urge the Government to ensure that freeholders do not unjustly pass fire safety remediation costs on to leaseholders and residents. Too many of my constituents are living in dangerous homes, facing huge financial and legal liabilities for remediation of building safety defects not of their making. Too many are suffering anxiety and stress from living in blocks with ACM and other types of cladding, whether in New Providence Wharf, New Festival Quarter or Indescon Square, to name just a few. Residents have contacted me in despair, devastated that they have been hit with huge bills for work to make their buildings fire safe. They have described the nightmarish situation they are in, living in unsafe homes that they cannot sell, with no idea when they will be made safe. Meanwhile, developers such as Bellway and Ballymore have continued to make huge profits, thanks to Government inaction, privatisation, and deregulation of the housing sector.
The cladding scandal must end. How is it possible that so many residents are still living in blocks that are unsafe? This is the reality of what so many people are enduring on a day-to-day basis, trapped in a never-ending game of buck-passing between the Government and the developers. No one wants to take responsibility; no one wants to pay to resolve the situation; and each looks to the other to step up. However, what is clear and indisputable is that people in my constituency and all over the country bought homes in good faith to build their lives in. I urge the Government today to rethink their approach and finally do the right thing by people who are having a really difficult time, and support amendments to the Bill.
I also express support for Lords amendment 2, which would place robust requirements on building owners or managers, and implement recommendations from phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. We need to be sure that the Grenfell Tower fire never, ever happens again. Years have passed since the catastrophe, and still no one has been called to account. When will we ever get answers? When will victims ever get justice? The truth is that decisions stretching back years have led to the gutting of the UK’s fire safety regime, and the failure to regulate high-rise residential buildings properly for fire safety.
I conclude with this: our constituents and our communities need much more decisive action than we are getting from this Government. It is absolutely not fair that leaseholders or residents are left to pay for building safety works that have not arisen because of any fault on their part, and it is unacceptable that people continue to live in their current state of limbo in unsafe buildings. I plead with the Minister today to end this impasse, and finally do the right thing.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) [V]
I am pleased to make a small, short contribution to this afternoon’s debate and, like so many others, wish my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) all the best.
For many in Wimbledon, the dream of home ownership —the aspiration to have a home—has gone from a dream to a nightmare because of these cladding and safety problems. I listened carefully to the Minister, and he is right: it is our duty to protect and provide legal certainty to leaseholders who are facing these issues through no fault of their own. As such, I warmly recognise and welcome the efforts of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Housing Minister, who have provided an extra £3.5 billion to make a total of £5 billion. I also recognise that this is for cladding, and that a number of other remedies will be required. On that basis, the principle must be that the defector must pay.
The Government have rightly said on a number of occasions that the costs must not fall on the leaseholder, and, in making the extra contribution to the fund, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he was taking a risk-based approach. The approach for people living in buildings under 18 metres is supposedly similar. We are told there is going to be new guidance that will ensure that risk-based approach will happen, so that many buildings under 18 metres will not necessarily be within the scope of remediation, and that no one will pay more than £50 even if they are. However, we have no details. We have no guarantees that the banks and the insurers will respect these new assessments, and provide mortgages and decrease insurance costs. We have no guarantee that when the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors produces this guidance it will take precedence, and that the EWS1 forms will be produced.
The Government have said that the details of these schemes will be available shortly. However, until they are available, there is no certainty for leaseholders in blocks under 18 metres, and, as has already been said, they may become liable for costs earlier than that. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) has already pointed out that this is not an unlimited ask of the Government; it is a specific ask, saying that those who caused the defects should pay.
I listened carefully to the Minister, and I will listen again, but I say to him that the Government could have provided some certainty today by agreeing to bring forward an amendment in the Building Safety Bill, or indeed an amendment that would have given a clear hint in this Bill. Until that happens, unfortunately, lease- holders in buildings under 18 metres will have no certainty, and they deserve it.
Stephen Doughty
May I add my warm words to those of other Members in wishing the Minister for Security, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), a full and swift recovery?
I think that many constituents, from constituencies across the country, will struggle to understand some of the arguments and excuses that the Government have put forward today. I support the amendments tabled by hon. Friends on the Opposition side, and also those tabled by the hon. Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), who made powerful speeches. To emphasise that, I have received an email during the course of the debate, from a leaseholder from a Conservative English constituency, in support of those amendments. He says, “I am a Conservative, and the Housing Department is a disaster in this regard.” That is the message that I am getting from people. Regardless of their political affiliation or where they live in the country, they want this resolved. They are living in anguish and uncertainty, and it is affecting their mental health. It is affecting key workers in our covid response. It is affecting people who are trying to support young families. It is just a completely untenable situation for them to find themselves in. I think they will find some of the excuses we have heard today very difficult to hear.
This is a national scandal that has been brewing for decades, and it needs urgent action to resolve it. It needs action across the United Kingdom, so it needs the UK Government to work constructively with the Welsh Government. They have worked constructively in preparing this Fire Safety Bill, so it was really disappointing the other day when the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government brushed off any questions about Wales, saying, “I don’t know what’s going on there”—or something to that effect—at the end of the debate. He simply has not answered any of the questions, or responded to a very reasonable letter from our Housing Minister in Wales, Julie James.
I have submitted a series of parliamentary questions over the past few weeks to try to get some clarity on the gateway 2 builder levy, the proposed new tax, and on related matters, and I have received completely opaque answers. That is simply not good enough for leaseholders who want those answers and want to know what support is coming from the UK Government to ensure that their concerns are dealt with, not least because many of these pre-date devolution. I hope that the Minister will be able to look constructively on my request for those meetings, and will be able to arrange urgent briefings on these matters between officials in the Welsh Government and the UK Government.
I must go back to one of the biggest problems, which is the developers. I have called them out before and will do it again. Companies such as Redrow, Laing O’Rourke and Taylor Whimpey need to be held accountable for this. They have been raking in billions in profits while building shoddy buildings, in relation to fire safety and building safety, and it is simply unacceptable that leaseholders might then be expected to pick up part of the cost. I am very pleased that the Welsh Government have confirmed unequivocally that they should not have to do that, but that requires working together across the UK—across the Union that the Minister and I support—to ensure that we deliver for them.
Lastly, we urgently need clarity on the EWSI issue, because it is still affecting lots of people and it is not getting through to the ground, and on insurance, working with the Association of British Insurers and others.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The comms with Tom Randall are a bit unstable, and we want to be absolutely certain that they are perfect, so we will go to Meg Hillier next.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I was tempted for a moment to think that you were saying that I am just perfect.
I must first declare an interest, as I am a leaseholder in a building with dangerous cladding, but happily for me and my neighbours, our developer stood up and is paying for every aspect of the costs, which is what every developer should do, although clearly that is not the case. I, too, pay tribute to the Minister for Security, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), and commend him for his decisive action at the early stages of this challenge, when he issued a ministerial direction to ensure that ACM cladding was removed from blocks. He recognised that it would take too long legally to chase down who should pay, and in the meantime the urgency of the issue was so great that it needed to be done. I feel that sets the tone for what the Government should be doing.
I commend the hon. Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) for their work to try to maintain the profile of this issue, which is particularly difficult to do as a Back Bencher. I also align myself completely with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) on the impact on residents. I am are not going to go into that, because I have repeated that many times and my constituents know that I understand their challenges.
This is the biggest consumer and fire safety failure in a generation. Both the Public Accounts Committee, which I chair, and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee have said that we need to make sure this is dealt with, and that we need to deal with the many challenges. I refer hon. Members to those reports. The housing association sector alone estimates £10 billion costs, so although I welcome the Government’s recent £3.6 billion injection, we know it is not going to be enough, and we are concerned about the £50 a month loan fee, on which I hope the Minister will come back to us at the end with a bit more information.
While ideally the taxpayer should not pay, the fact that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup recognised that that direction had to be made and that the Government needed to step in with taxpayers’ money sends, to me, a very clear signal that that is the very best way of approaching this. Yes, we should be recovering money from the developers, ultimately, but we need to get the Government to do that. The Government are not always very good at getting money back from the private sector, but I am sure we can work together, across parties, to support the Government in that endeavour.
I do welcome the Bill. It is right that it should be introduced, and I hear the heartfelt plea from the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan). It is the right thing to do, but it contains an inherent contradiction: to implement it, work needs to be funded, because without that funding the Bill cannot be implemented. That is the problem, and that is why I support the amendments. I hope the Minister will come back, in his closing remarks, to explain what evaluation will be made about the £50 a month loan scheme. I refer him to the not great success of the green deal, which also put a charge on homes and failed badly. I would also like more detail and clarity on the timing of the building safety Bill, because all our constituents need that clarity.
Mr Deputy Speaker
The video link appears to be working. I call Tom Randall.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) [V]
The Fire Safety Bill is a short Bill of seven clauses that amends the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. That order consolidated different pieces of fire safety legislation, and this Bill clarifies that the order applies to a building’s structure, external walls and any common parts. I am sympathetic to the aims of Lords amendment 4, but I am concerned that the fire safety order, or any Bill concerned with amendments to it, is not the appropriate legislative device to resolve the problem of remediation costs. The fire safety order is designed to place duties on the person who has some level of control in a premises to ensure that they identify the fire safety risks for the building for which they are responsible and, if necessary, put the relevant precautions in place.
I understand the Government are looking to the building safety Bill to address the issues raised in this amendment, and I agree that that would be a more relevant place to consider them. I also understand that the clauses, as drafted, would stop all remediation costs being passed on to leaseholders, including those that one might expect to be covered by service and maintenance charges, such as safety work required as a result of routine wear and tear. There is a further concern that the amendment, as drafted, could delay the implementation of the Bill itself and crucial measures to improve the fire safety regulatory system, including delaying recommendations from the first phase of the Grenfell inquiry.
I am, however, pleased that the Government are paying for the removal of unsafe cladding for leaseholders in all residential buildings of over 18 metres in England. As Dame Judith Hackitt, the independent adviser to the Government on building safety, has said:
“Statistics show…that buildings above 18 metres have a four times greater risk of fatality in the event of a serious fire than lower rise buildings”,
and these buildings are rightly being prioritised for funding. For lower-rise buildings of between four to six storeys, there is a lower risk to safety, and leaseholders will gain the new protection of having cladding removed with a generous scheme to pay for it through a long-term, low-interest, Government-backed finance arrangement, where leaseholders never pay more than £50 a month for cladding removal.
I appreciate that nothing can compensate for the horror of the prospect of being liable for the costs of remedial work following the joy of moving into one’s home, bought on the entirely reasonable assumption that the block it is in would have been built correctly. However, given the complexity of this issue and the fact that leaseholders face paralysis, this does offer a route forward. I believe that these measures will help provide some certainty and confidence in this part of the housing market so that the affected flats can be bought and sold again, which would be a significant step forward from where we are at the moment.
For these reasons, I hope that the Fire Safety Bill can reach the statute book quickly, together with the building safety Bill, so that we will have a comprehensive set of measures in place to correct past wrongs and also to move forward safely.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) [V]
I welcome the steps the Government are taking to improve fire safety, including through this important Bill, which is critical in clarifying that fire risk assessments are updated to take account of external walls and flat entrance doors. The Bill provides clarity as to what needs to be covered in fire risk assessments and empowers fire and rescue services to confidently take enforcement action and hold building owners or managers to account if they have not complied with their duties in respect of these parts of the building.
The Bill is an important first legislative step in implementing the Grenfell inquiry phase 1 recommendations and one part of the Government’s major building and fire safety reform programme, which I warmly welcome. Building safety is the Government’s priority, and I am pleased that there is now an independent expert panel convened after Grenfell to consult on fire safety issues.
My concern over the amendments is that they would not be cost-free and would render the Bill legally unsound, so the Government would be unable to proceed. We would not be able to give fire and rescue services the powers they need to keep people safe. These powers have been needed for some time, as Grenfell has shown us, without any doubt. We would also not be able to proceed to implement the Grenfell inquiry phase 1 recommendations, and that would be a travesty. For the bereaved or for those who have worked closely with the survivors, to say that delaying this Bill would not be a welcome move is an understatement. There is clearly a lot at stake in not implementing this Bill. The Grenfell enquiry reinforced the fact that the Government needed to do more, and so to stall on this Bill would not reflect the Government’s own commitment to never see such a tragedy again.
On whether leaseholders should have to pay for defects, it is clear that there has been a lot of substandard work that should never have been passed and had circumnavigated fire safety standards. We need to recognise this by holding those responsible to account. None of us wants to see leaseholders foot the bill. We need to see the sector step up and foot the cost of the remediation. We should not forget that the Government stepped in and put £5 billion against these issues, not forgetting the extra £3.5 billion. This is £8.5 billion to support leaseholders in a very difficult situation. Leaseholders in buildings over 18 metres will not have to pay for the cost of remediation, and those in buildings between 11 and 18 metres no more than £50 per month, compared with what could have been thousands of pounds.
I wanted to speak in this debate as I strongly echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), who spoke so passionately earlier. We need to just get on with this Bill; surely we owe that to her constituents.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) [V]
Any debate about fire safety should not just be about cladding, nor just about buildings over 18 metres high, as residents of the four-storey block, Richmond House, which burned down in just 11 minutes in 2019, would testify. Nor is just about leaseholders, as the students and tenants, as well as leaseholders, in the Paragon building in my constituency found when they were evicted last October with one week’s notice as their blocks were found to be too dangerous to live in. Both blocks were built by Berkeley Homes. Nor is it just about residential housing, as those in student flats in Bolton found when fire crawled up the sides of their building.
The fire safety crisis did not just start with the tragedy at Grenfell Tower; it has been growing for years. As a result, hundreds of thousands of residents and users of thousands of buildings live in fear of being caught in a fire, and leaseholders face bankruptcy in having to fund the costs. In her report on building regulations, Judith Hackitt summed up a
“mindset of doing things as cheaply as possible and passing on responsibility for problems and shortcomings”.
One could start with the deregulation of the building and fire safety standards that began in the ’80s, when building control services were opened up to the private sector so that building inspectors now price for work on the number of visits, so fewer visits mean a cheaper bid. Developers have been cutting costs for years, going for the cheapest materials and corner-cutting again and again on site. Then we have had the growing skills crisis in the construction industry. The Government ignored the recommendations of the inquiries into the Lakanal House and Shirley Towers fatal fires almost 10 years ago. Even now, there is the inability to train and accredit qualified fire safety inspectors who are needed to inspect the properties that in fact should never have been signed off as safe to occupy in the first place.
As I said, the scope of this Bill is far too limited. It is fiddling while too many of our constituents and their homes are at risk of burning, and leaseholders face unaffordable costs. Responsibility for sorting this should lie with those who are responsible—the Government and their friends in the construction sector. As other speakers have said, the Bill hardly scratches the surface of the crisis. It does not even implement the recommendations of phase 1 of the Grenfell inquiry.
Ben Everitt
The tragedy of Grenfell should never have happened, and the lessons we have learned are not ones we can ignore. I am glad that, today and over the past few years, we have found consensus in the House that fire safety and the regulatory system should be improved, even if not about the pace of implementing those reforms. I welcome the clear commitment from my Treasury colleagues in putting together a comprehensive solution to make homes safe, while protecting leaseholders from unaffordable costs.
Christian Wakeford
As has been highlighted, more than £5 billion has been put into remediation. Does my hon. Friend agree that taxpayer contributions are finite, and that we cannot at this time be giving a tax bombshell to everyone across the country?
Ben Everitt
I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. He is right. We are operating within a financial envelope, and one of the most pleasing things about the intervention from the Treasury announced last week is that it is what we would probably call an “elegant” financial solution. The transfer of risk away from the leaseholder to the building, combined with capping repayments at £50 a month, is possibly the most generous and neatest way that the Treasury could do that, and in effect it has gone a long way to protecting leaseholders from those unaffordable costs.
We have all been working towards a comprehensive solution for redressing those defects and reforming safety practices in the industry, in order to ensure that the heart-breaking events of Grenfell never happen again. The Bill is a key part of that, and significant progress has been made across the board, with ACM cladding either removed or in the process of being removed from every building in the social sector, and work on private sector buildings taking place at pace.
I also welcome the agreement on EWS1 forms, which will provide much-needed reassurance to leaseholders. We need such reassurance so that leaseholders face fewer burdens when they are trying to get on with their lives. We sometimes forget that we are here for people who have lives and worries, and we need to get out of their way and let them get on with their lives. These measures go a long way to addressing leaseholders’ largest concerns. This Bill and the draft Building Safety Bill are big bits of government, and more bits of government will be added. However, it is all necessary. Reference has already been made to the pre-legislative scrutiny carried out by the Select Committee, of which I was part. It was a big bit of government, but it is all necessary.
This scandal has highlighted the security of everyone living in buildings, and that must be the principal concern of this Bill and the draft Building Safety Bill. We must protect people’s lives where they are most at risk. There are some well-meaning amendments to the Bill but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies) noted, they would slow down the pace of the Bill’s implementation. I do not want to see the Bill frustrated. It is crucial to building safety that we get it up and running. We have heard in this debate about the difference between pace and speed, and about getting it right. We need to get this right.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) [V]
I support Lords amendment 2, and I hope we will be able to vote on the amendments that Members have tabled. I also hope the Government will finally honour the promises to leaseholders that they have been making for the past three years, and this Bill is an opportunity to do that.
I want to draw the attention of the House to a problem facing hundreds of my constituents living in flats recently built by Barratt at Waterside Park alongside the Thames and Upton Gardens on the site of the Boleyn Ground, where West Ham used to play. Freeholds have since been bought from Barratt by Aviva. The landlord agent is Mainstay, and the property manager is FirstPort. The buildings in both developments have a B1 EWS1 certificate. There is combustible material in the walling, but the risk is not sufficient to warrant requiring its replacement. The combustible material is in a vapour layer within the structure. That material is still being used in buildings being built now, and there has been no suggestion that builders should stop using it. Leaseholders in the development have had no problems in obtaining a mortgage, given the B1 certification.
These buildings clearly do not meet the criteria for the Government’s cladding fund. Nevertheless, the property managers made an application for funding to replace this combustible vapour layer. In the case of Upton Gardens, the application has been refused. In the case of Waterside Park, the decision is still awaited, but presumably that will be refused as well. However, the property managers appear poised to embark on replacing this combustible material at an estimated cost of £30,000 per flat, which they will charge to the leaseholders. They have appointed contractors and paid for preliminary work already, although work has not yet begun in earnest. The material to be replaced is being used in buildings being built at the moment. There is no requirement to replace it, and the residents do not want to fund its replacement, so why is replacement poised to go ahead? The only motivation the leaseholders have been able to identify is to provide fee income for the managers.
Will the Minister state clearly today that buildings with B1 certification should not be remediated without agreement of the leaseholders? At the start of the debate, he said that 95% of high-rise buildings with unsafe ACM cladding have either been remediated or have workers on site doing the job. Can he tell us the actual figures? How many buildings have been remediated? How many buildings have workers on site? My constituents would be very interested to hear those numbers.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) [V]
This is a short but critical Bill. The Lords amendments, while well-intended, are inappropriate for the Bill and would require the drafting of primary legislation to make them legally workable. To make things worse, if these amendments were added to the Bill, both the Government and the taxpayer could be exposed to action by the owners of these buildings. That must be avoided, and therefore the Bill must be watertight. It would be quite wrong if we had to withdraw the Bill because of this.
Those undertaking inspections and assessments need clarity, and the key to that is to keep the Bill short. It would also be wrong to delay the implementation of the judge’s recommendations from the first phase of the Grenfell inquiry, which the amendments would potentially cause. Legal advice must be accepted and forms the basis for making good on our promises, as does the input of independent experts.
Decisive action must be taken. The extra £3.5 billion committed by the Government, bringing total funding to £5 billion, is to be welcomed. This has culminated in a commitment to fully fund the replacement of unsafe cladding for all leaseholders in residential buildings of 18 metres and higher. While that is not the case for buildings between 11 and 18 metres, the new scheme will protect against unaffordable costs and limit them to £50 per month towards remediations. That also gives reassurance to banks and mortgage lenders. The new developer levy will ensure that developers make a contribution, and Gateway 2 should raise an extra £2 billion towards this.
As has been stated before, the Building Safety Bill will provide a new era of accountability for managing risk with the construction of these buildings. There will be tougher sanctions for those who fail to meet their obligations and a guarantee that it is they, not the taxpayer or leaseholders, who will remedy that. The Bill will also ensure that there is more transparency about the cost of maintaining a safe building, such as in the annual service charge. It is right that reasonable limits are placed on those charges and that leaseholders are protected from large-scale remediation costs. The Association of British Insurers has also backed the Government’s stance, as has Dame Judith Hackitt, the Government’s independent adviser on building safety.
The replacement of unsafe cladding and other remedial works must be taken seriously. The Fire Safety Bill alone cannot remedy that. Therefore, although these well-intentioned amendments are not appropriate, the wider approach must be considered and, indeed, welcomed.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
Nearly four years after the terrible Grenfell disaster, it is shameful that people are still living in unsafe buildings. More than 50% of blocks identified as having unsafe cladding have either not started or not completed remediation. That is causing sleepless nights for many across the country and deep anxiety about the threat of huge financial costs. The Government have failed to step in to protect leaseholders. The Minister said that these issues should be dealt with in another piece of legislation, but that comes across to the public as simply an excuse to kick these issues further down the road. As other Members have said, they are affecting our constituents now and should be tackled now.
I speak in support of the amendments in the names of the Leader of the Opposition, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) and the hon. Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith). Although the Government announced additional funding for cladding remediation on 10 February, leaseholders living in buildings under 18 metres will still have to cover some cladding-related costs. The fund fails to cover the huge cost of rectifying other fire safety defects and the necessary interim safety measures. According to the UK Cladding Action Group, the average total cost of building remediation for cladding and other fire safety defects is £49,000. The group states that 33% of affected flat owners earn £35,000 or less a year. Those people cannot afford to cover the cost of high interim safety measures, excessive insurance premiums, the Government’s piecemeal loan scheme for buildings under 18 metres with cladding or the huge cost of remediating other fire safety defects.
Luton South constituents have told me that living with the threat to their safety and facing exorbitant remediation costs has severely impacted their mental health. Some are on the brink of bankruptcy as they are unable to cover the cost or sell their homes. That is an issue across the country. Seventeen per cent. of respondents to an Inside Housing survey said that they are exploring bankrupts.
Let us be clear who we are talking about. The people affected are social workers, teachers, nurses and other key workers in our communities. Many are first-time buyers. It is unjust to leave leaseholders to bear the costs. Leaseholders bought their properties in good faith, and were unaware of the failures of the regulatory system. The Government must deliver on their promise to keep the public safe by urgently remediating the remaining unsafe buildings, ensuring that leaseholders do not have to foot the bill and implementing the recommendations from phase 1 of the Grenfell tower inquiry.
Christian Wakeford
All that many people seek is certainty, an assurance that they will not face unaffordable costs and the confidence that they are not trapped in a home they cannot sell. The Government have worked hard to deliver that. There has been clear action to make the most unsafe buildings secure, and they are fully funding the replacement of cladding from buildings deemed by independent expert assessment as the highest risk, ultimately with no cost to the leaseholders. That is what we are discussing today.
Ben Everitt
We have talked a lot about taxpayers’ money in this debate, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is also right that the Government work with the industry, the construction sector, financial services providers and the insurance industry to find ways of making sure those parts of the private sector can also contribute?
Christian Wakeford
Before coming to this place, I worked as an insurance broker, so I do know a thing or two about the insurance industry. One of the things that came up for those properties most likely to flood was the Flood Re scheme. I urge Ministers in the Treasury and on the Front Bench today to see what they can do with the insurance sector to bring in a similar scheme for the affected properties.
Royston Smith
I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying, and he has mentioned the taxpayer several times. I said in my opening remarks, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), that our amendment would not put any burden on the taxpayer. If my hon. Friend is worried about the taxpayer, as I am, and we are saying that the taxpayer will not be responsible, will he therefore say that we should protect all the leaseholders?
Christian Wakeford
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Unfortunately, I think there cannot be a guarantee. A lot of the developers may no longer exist and insurance schemes may no longer be applicable. There will be gaps, and we do have to be responsible. Although his amendment is very well intentioned, and I am incredibly sympathetic towards it, there are gaps in it, and that is why, unfortunately, I will not be able to join him in the Lobby today, although I very much applaud the sentiment of it and the work he has put into it.
Leaseholders, building owners and taxpayers deserve a solid legislative base. That is what we are trying to do today by making sure that our properties and our leaseholders are safe. That is why we need to focus on those who are most likely to be affected. I do not want to see the Bill’s implementation frustrated. It has already taken far too long to get to this point, and we need to ensure that we can proceed.
As has been said many times, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) and the Minister, we have a duty: do we get this right, or do we do it quick? From my perspective, we need to get it right. Far too many people have fallen through the gaps, are struggling and are unable to afford this, so it is right that we take a fully reasoned approach, speaking to experts and to all trade bodies to ensure that we get it right. That is what I urge Ministers, the Treasury and everyone else to continue to do. I finish by thanking all Members for bringing forward some of these amendments. They do not quite deal with the Bill at hand. That is why I will not be able to support them and will be backing the Government today.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) [V]
I am speaking in utter frustration, having heard many of the comments so far in the debate today, I am speaking in support of the amendments tabled by the Opposition and by the hon. Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), and I am speaking on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of leaseholders, including in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields, who are staring down the barrel of this scandal. And I thank the cladding action campaigners across the country.
I welcome the Bill, but it is too small and too slow. There is frustration across the House of Commons today. We can do this right and do it faster, and we must. Today, we had another statement of support for leaseholders from the Minister, who said that he agrees with the intent to give leaseholders peace of mind and financial certainty, yet the Government did not write that into the Bill and are not supporting the amendments. No leaseholders of buildings of any height should be made to foot a bill of thousands of pounds that they cannot afford.
At the sharp end of the failings of this Bill are millions of leaseholders trapped in unsafe homes who are suffering enormous stress, anxiety and emotional anguish, and who feel totally abandoned. I have met many of them in my constituency. Their lives are on pause and might be for years. This is what some have told me. One said:
“As every day, week or month goes by, our financial liability and stability become ever more disturbing and deeply troubling. When will it end?
Another resident, who bought her flat using money inherited from her mother’s passing, said to me:
“Despite my emotional attachment to my flat, current circumstances make me almost wish that I had never bought it. It is a burden and a hindrance to me moving forward with the next stage of my life, at a prime time when I want to start a family.”
Another resident, a victim of domestic violence, has been trying to sell her property to raise money for legal fees. She has had to receive food parcels due to lost income during the pandemic. Her insurance premiums have now increased by 500%. Under no circumstances should leaseholders, regardless of the height of their building, have to pay for cladding remediation costs that are the fault of developers and a failed regulatory system. Funding should be based on fire risk, not on height. It should include upfront costs—it should not be loans—for all leaseholders and it should include other fire safety issues. Some Putney leaseholders face up to £100,000 in charges.
At the current pace of spend, the building safety fund, which has only approved 12 applications, will only approve all the applications—the 532 applications—by 2031. The pace of change is far too slow, so I urge colleagues on both sides of the House: please do the right thing today, back the British people and make sure that lease- holders do not pay.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]
One of the lessons from the Grenfell tragedy was that a number of companies in the construction sector had been recklessly gaming the system, resulting in unsafe materials being used. But crucially, construction and post-occupancy inspections did not pick up those risks.
As someone who worked in oil and gas and then in construction over several years, I can see the very different approach taken by the two sectors. Many of our constituents who live in leasehold flats face significant costs, such as waking watch costs and several other fire risk liabilities not related to cladding. The new £30 million waking watch relief fund, the £1.6 billion remediation funding and the commitment to recruit hundreds of specialist risk assessors and specialist workers show that this Government are committed to resolving the problem and to supporting people stranded in their property through no fault of their own.
I wish to raise issues brought to me by a constituent. At present, buildings over 18 metres will have all cladding remedial work paid for by the Government. Those in buildings between 11 metres and 18 metres will be offered a loan, with residents in buildings lower than 11 metres receiving no financial support at all, the latter being the situation my constituent’s daughter finds herself in. Although it is right to target remediation first at highest-risk buildings, there is a question of fairness as to who pays if a person happens to have purchased a building that is not as tall.
In addition to the removal of cladding, inspections have highlighted further building faults, such as missing firebreaks, wooden balconies and combustible insulation. The repair costs alone could be in excess of £25,000 per flat. There is no provision for support with these repairs, which will be required before a fire safety certificate can be issued, allowing the resident to eventually sell their home. They would not have been privy to these liabilities as the conveyancing process would not have highlighted the possibility of these risks existing at point of purchase. Risk awareness at the conveyancing stage is something that I raised in my ten-minute rule Bill.
Fire safety officers should not only be competent by the certifications that they hold; they should be present and responsible for sign-off on site at all key stages. While the amendments before us were tabled with good intentions, we cannot delay the Bill any longer. I hope that Ministers will consider a post-construction and occupancy model for fire safety, much as gas and electrical checks are carried out, to pick up on changes to the fabric of a building that could be made over time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you, Marco. We lost your video early on, but we could hear you perfectly.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
I welcome the Bill but, nearly four years after the Grenfell disaster and despite assurances by the Government, hundreds of thousands of people are still living with the fear that they could be next. It is a scandal that this is the first and only piece of primary legislation on fire safety that this Tory Government have brought forward to prevent such a disaster from ever happening again.
In Liverpool, 10% of buildings are still covered in highly flammable cladding, with a further 5% covered in fire-retardant cladding. Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service has suffered a 35% cut to its funding and lost one third of its firefighters since 2010. Austerity has combined with roll-backs and safety regulations to make a perfect storm.
Time and again, we have heard promise after promise that the recommendations of the first phase of the Grenfell Tower inquiry will be fully implemented, yet the Bill does not include a single recommendation from the inquiry’s first phase. Does the Minister agree that his Government have fundamentally failed to take the necessary steps to keep people safe in their own homes?
Today, and for months now, we have heard from Members across the House about the nightmare situations faced by many leaseholders across the country who have been left physically, mentally and financially trapped in dangerous housing. Many of my constituents have contacted me for support. They are worried sick about being trapped in unsafe housing, crippled by costs they did not incur and with no end in sight.
One pensioner wrote to tell me that he had just been sent a bill for £20,000. He has no savings and no possibility of paying the bill. Two young NHS doctors want to sell up and take positions in hospitals in the north-east, but they cannot; they are trapped in a flat they cannot sell, faced with the possibility of mounting debts due to flammable cladding that they did not install.
I ask the Minister how he sleeps at night, knowing that his Government’s move to cut red tape has left hundreds of thousands at risk in their own homes, and how he can justify asking the leaseholders of those unsafe homes to foot the bill. It is the responsibility of this Government to identify the buildings covered in dangerous cladding and make them safe before another disaster occurs, and to bring the companies that profited from cutting corners and compromising the safety of residents to justice.
Enough is enough. We are now at a crisis point. Instead of further delays and prevarication, I call on Members across the House to do the right thing today and back Lords amendments 2 and 4 so that we can get a grip of this crisis before it is too late.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
The first surgery I ever had as a Member of Parliament was about the issue of cladding. It was with residents of St Francis Tower in Ipswich. They were being chased for bills of thousands of pounds for unsafe cladding that they had nothing to do with; it was not their fault. Since that first meeting, there has been case after case after case after case. It is a huge issue in Ipswich, a huge issue in my constituency, and it is destroying the lives of many of my constituents. That is why I am speaking here today.
There has been a significant move forward since that first meeting; since that first surgery appointment, we have moved forward. The £5 billion support has helped many of my constituents. The waking watch fund, although I do not think it will be enough, is a step in the right direction—we are getting there—and the Building Safety Bill is itself 100% necessary and welcome. However, I am still at a point right now where there are a significant number of my constituents who are leaseholders, often living in buildings over 18 metres, where there are significant issues to do with fire safety that will cost thousands of pounds to remedy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) has just touched on, and the support announced recently does not cover them. So they continue to have this uncertainty hanging over them, not just at a regular time but during a pandemic, when, more often than not, they have a million and one other concerns and anxieties influencing their lives. Ultimately, that is why I believe that we have moved significantly forward. I am very interested in the possibility that a Building Safety Bill will pick up on the issue and make sure that we address those leaseholders who are living in buildings that are unsafe and where there are significant issues and significant costs are currently being placed on them. It is not specifically about cladding; there are other issues and other factors that make these properties unsafe.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) [V]
The subject of the debate we are having today—worries about fire safety—has, I am afraid, blighted far too many lives for far too long. That is why this is a particularly important Bill. It is short, it has a very clear purpose, and we need to implement it as quickly as possible. Why? It is 16 months since the first report from the Grenfell Tower inquiry was published, and we need to get a robust piece of legislation on to the statute book to deal with the fire safety issues identified. We owe it to that community to address these issues in a way that will not be open to legal challenge and that brings to a halt the to-ing and fro-ing between this place and the other, which will delay the changes that are needed.
With this Fire Safety Bill, we have rightly had the consultation on fire safety orders, and that now needs to be enacted. At the same time, we have the Building Safety Bill. That needs to come to this House so that many of the issues that are understandably being debated today can be resolved in that legislation. This is about doing things in the right way, so that they are not able to be challenged in the courts in future.
I am not taking away anything at all from the many leaseholders who bought their homes in good faith, trusting developers to build a safe home and purchasing with what they believed to be confidence that all had been done in accordance with the law. My constituency does not have any buildings over the height of 18 metres that require remediation, and we are not hit by the same issues as, say, cities such as Manchester or Liverpool. However, I have constituents with families and friends who are desperately worried about their loved ones’ safety and the costs of potential remediation, because they have used some of their savings to invest in a property to give them a future income.
I welcome the £5 billion already put forward by the Government to begin to allow some of the issues to be addressed, with a commitment to funding all buildings over 18 metres high. I welcome the clear indication today from the Minister that Government will work with hon. Members to address the many concerns being raised through the forthcoming Building Safety Bill. We must also recognise the daily worries and distress among people who have been caught in this nightmare situation. The Government now have an opportunity to show how funding promises will work in practice. In fact, it should be a ministerial priority.
To conclude, I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan): this Bill is the first step, and we need to get on with it.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) [V]
To follow on from the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), I cannot believe the Government think that this is the end of the matter, and I do not understand why they will not commit now to meeting the needs of all of those whose lives have been blighted through no fault of their own. This is a colossal injustice and a very simple one to solve: the Government just need to make sure that it is not those blameless people who bear the burden.
People bought their leasehold properties in good faith. They are in the situation that they are in—those properties are unsafe—through no fault of the owners and entirely through the fault of the developers, the regulatory framework and the Governments of various colours over the years who permitted unsafe buildings to be built. How outrageous would it be if the blameless and the poorest were left to pay the burden and the bill? The reality is that so many leaseholders in my constituency and elsewhere throughout the country are in no position to move and cannot sell. They are at their wits’ end and they are facing the end of their financial resources, too.
The Government say they will fund the making safe of blocks that are higher than 18 metres, but actually that funding relates only to the cladding of those buildings; it does not cover other things that may make those buildings unsafe. What about wooden balconies or cement particle board behind the cladding? That also needs to be covered. Those in buildings that are higher than 11 metres but lower than 18 metres will potentially have to take out colossal debts to pay privately for the work required to make their properties safe. Those who own flats in buildings that are smaller than 11 metres get no support whatsoever. The vast majority, if not all, of the relevant properties in constituencies like ours, Mr Deputy Speaker—I bet it is similar in your constituency—are much smaller than 11 metres. The provisions in the Bill ignore in particular those in rural communities who are in need.
It is a massive injustice that we should be forcing people to be fretting, worrying and facing bankruptcy and all sorts of other challenges to their lives because of a burden that is not their fault, that they cannot afford and for which the Government are refusing to pay. As things stand, the Government will meet the costs of the removal and making safe of cladding on properties that account for only 13% of those affected and less than a third of the costs, and leave the massive majority of the burden on people who are blameless and the poorest. That is unjust, and that is why the Bill needs amending.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). Like many other Members, I extend my best wishes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire). We all hope to see him back in his place as soon as possible.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. This is the first opportunity I have had to speak on this extremely important Bill, and naturally my thoughts turn to the unimaginable tragedy of Grenfell Tower, which none of us will forget—it shocked and horrified us all throughout the country. I know that the Government are gripped by a determination to right the wrongs of the past and to bring about the biggest improvement to building safety in a generation, to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again.
While I am speaking about Grenfell, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) and her speech earlier. She is right that we need to get on with it rather than muck about with parliamentary procedure. That brings me to the reason why I support the Government’s positions today. The Queen’s Speech committed the Government to introducing two Bills on fire and building safety. This Bill, the first, is straightforward but is nevertheless an important step. I very much await the second Bill, the Building Safety Bill. We have to get things right in the right order, and we have to proceed as quickly as possible.
On the substance of this Bill, I certainly welcome the policy intention. It is a profoundly important step towards remedying the flaws in the building safety regime that were identified in the Hackitt report. It is a narrowly drafted Bill, but it enables legal certainty. When the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee did pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, we heard a lot of evidence suggesting that it was a compelling vision for the future of the industry. The Fire Action Safety Group called it “a positive first step”—I recognise that the group said “first step”—and the London Fire Brigade said it went
“a long way towards meeting the policy objective of a robust regime.”
On that, I think we can all agree.
There are, though, other issues in respect of the remediation of safety problems. I am sure I am not alone in having received emails from a number of leaseholders worried about the unaffordable costs of remediation. They are uncertain and worried, and some face negative equity. I agree with those who have said today that nobody should be in such a position. I can only imagine how I would have felt in my 20s or 30s if I had received a letter suggesting that I had a liability of tens of thousands of pounds. I do not minimise those concerns. However, I do take the Government at face value when they say that the Bill, as drafted, does not have the necessary legislative detail to underpin the amendments in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith)—a problem my hon. Friend the Minister referred to in his opening speech. Accepting these amendments would require extensive drafting of primary legislation to make them legally workable. That would significantly delay the implementation of the Bill, and I am concerned about the consequences of that.
It is clear that high-rise buildings in this country should never have been fitted with this dangerous, unsafe cladding. It is vital that we take the steps to make this right once and for all—making those buildings safer and protecting residents from crippling costs—and at a pace that the severity of the situation demands. We must ensure that Grenfell can never, ever happen again.
Kit Malthouse
I thank the many Members who contributed to this at times impassioned debate about a matter that is of interest to all of us. I know that my fellow Ministers at the Home Office and, indeed, at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will take on board the many points raised. Given the time available to me, I apologise that I am not able to address all the questions put forward. However, I will turn to some of the main themes that have dominated the debate, not least the remediation issue, about which there has been such natural and understandable focus.
It might be worth restating at the beginning the broad task that lies ahead of us as a House and, indeed, as a Government. It falls in three areas. First, we have to deal with remediation as quickly as possible. We talked a lot about that today, and about how we can perhaps increase the pace. Obviously there have been significant steps recently, not least the money that has been put forward. Secondly, we have to restore a proper appreciation of risk and value to affected properties, so that the finance industry and insurance industry can do their work in enabling the transfer of those properties and their protection correctly, rather than the current “computer says no” system.
Kevin Hollinrake
The Minister mentions the time that this will take. Whatever money is put forward, it will take five or 10 years to remediate many buildings. Insurance costs have quadrupled for many residents. There is a solution on the table, provided by the Association of Residential Managing Agents, in which the Government take a top-sliced risk, which would put those premiums back down. Will he look at that proposal and see whether that could be put in place to ease the burden on many leaseholders?
Kit Malthouse
Secretary of State—sorry; Mr Deputy Speaker. You never know. My hon. Friend raises, as usual, a constructive point. I know that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and, indeed, the Chancellor are meeting with banks and the insurance industry to see what solutions may come forward. The third strand of work is obviously to build a system of building safety and regulation for the future, so that the terrible tragedy of Grenfell can never happen again.
I turn to some of the questions asked. First, I was asked, not least by the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), why we cannot give a firm timetable for the building safety legislation programme. I recognise that there is an intent and a desire for certainty, and we want to legislate at the earliest possible opportunity. However, Members should also be aware that making these fundamental reforms to building safety is incredibly complex, so it is important that we get this right, as a number of Members raised, by ensuring that our measures are properly scrutinised by experts and Parliament before we legislate.
The Building Safety Bill has more than 140 clauses, and I cannot prejudge the time that Parliament will need to properly scrutinise this important piece of legislation before it is put on the statute book. It is for that reason that I cannot provide specific dates for when legislation will come into force, but I emphasise again that the Government are as committed as ever to delivering the inquiry’s recommendations. We will bring the Fire Safety Bill into force as early as possible after Royal Assent. The regulations will follow as early as practicable, and we expect the Building Safety Bill to be introduced after the Government have considered the recommendations from the HCLG Committee, and when parliamentary time allows. We are therefore resisting the Labour amendment, for the extensive reasons that I mentioned in my opening speech. We think it is unnecessary and inflexible. I restated various points as to why we think that is the case earlier.
I turn to remediation, and particularly the amendments laid by my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and my good and hon. friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith). We recognise that they care deeply about this issue, as do many Members from across the House, and they have obviously worked hard to represent their constituencies with dedication and passion. Having sat with leaseholders, in my role as Housing Minister, and with the bereaved and survivors of the Grenfell community, I am aware, as of course we all are, of the terrible anguish and worry that this has caused to many. We agree with the intent to give leaseholders the peace of mind and financial certainty they crave.
Fire Safety Bill
Wednesday 17th March 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 173-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons reasons - (15 Mar 2021)
15:00 - Division conducted remotely on Motion C1 - Ayes: 326 / Noes: 248 - Motion C1 agreed.
Lord Greenhalgh
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, I will speak also to the House’s Amendments 3 and 4, with which the other place has disagreed for its Commons Reasons 3A and 4A. Before I address the amendments agreed at the Lords Report stage, I would like to make a few comments about the overall importance of this piece of legislation. The Bill was introduced in the other place nearly a year ago today and we are moving closer to getting it on to the statute book. As there are a couple of issues to resolve, it is vital that we should remind ourselves of the fundamental purpose of the Bill. It is an important step in delivering fire and building legislative reforms. It is purposely short because it has been designed to provide much-needed legal clarification that the fire safety order applies to structure, external walls and flat entrance doors. What this will mean on the ground is that these critical elements will be covered in updated fire risk assessments and ensure that enforcement authorities can take action where necessary. In short, the current legal uncertainty will end.
I turn to Amendment 2 and Amendment 2B proposed in lieu by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. The Government remain steadfast in their commitment to delivering the Grenfell Tower inquiry recommendations, including those on the duties of an owner or manager. As such, the amendments are unnecessary. However, I thank him for his constructive engagement with me prior to this debate. I will be able to provide further reassurances to the House in respect of timing that he is seeking and look forward to outlining them in response to the debate.
I turn now to Amendment 3. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for the constructive conversations that we have had regarding a public register of fire risk assessments, and I am grateful to her for not pressing her amendment again today.
I move on to Amendment 4, Amendments 4B, 4C, 4D and 4E proposed in lieu by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, and Amendment 4F proposed in lieu by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I recognise the concerns of your Lordships to ensure that swift action is taken to protect leaseholders from the significant remediation costs related to unsafe cladding and other historic building safety defects. We are all acutely aware of the full toll that this has taken on leaseholders and the pain and anguish that it has caused. I expect that we will hear a number of views during the debate on the important issue of remediation. However, this is a highly complex matter without a simple solution, and it cannot be resolved in this short Bill.
I make it clear now that we have a number of concerns about the alternative amendments, and I will set out my specific views on them at the end of the debate. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 2B in lieu—
“Legislative proposals relating to duties of owner or manager
(1) Within 90 days of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish draft legislation to require an owner or a manager of any building which contains two or more sets of domestic premises to—
(a) share information with their local Fire and Rescue Service in respect of each building for which an owner or manager is responsible about the design of its external walls and details of the materials of which those external walls are constructed,
(b) in respect of any building for which an owner or manager is responsible which contains separate flats, undertake annual inspections of individual flat entrance doors,
(c) in respect of any building for which an owner or manager is responsible which contains separate flats, undertake monthly inspections of lifts and report the results to their local Fire and Rescue Service if the results include a fault, and
(d) share evacuation and fire safety instructions with residents of the building.
(2) Within 90 days of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a statement on a proposed timetable for the passage of the draft legislation mentioned in subsection (1).
(3) Within 120 days of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a statement confirming whether the draft legislation mentioned in subsection (1) has progressed.””
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, the chair of the Heart of Medway Housing Association and a non-executive director of MHS Homes Ltd. In moving Motion A1, I will address all the Motions before the House today.
It is disappointing that the Government have over- turned the amendment passed by this House. The intent of our amendment was to make progress in implementing the recommendations made in the first phase of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. Our frustration, along with the frustration felt by many, has been that since the recommendations made in the first phase were published, progress has been extremely and annoyingly slow. Being told by the Government that in most cases we do not need legislation to make progress is in some ways even more frustrating because nothing has happened, which is again very odd. This is the first piece of legislation we have seen that will bring anything into force. Frankly, the victims and their families deserve better. People living in properties that are unsafe or blighted deserve better than that.
This led me to propose Motion A1, which proposes to insert a new clause into the Bill. What my amendment seeks to do is accept the Government intention to take action but to add some rigour and rigidity to the proposals with clear timescales for action. As I have said previously, this has all been too slow with no clarity about what the timescales are for action through primary legislation and through secondary legislation and guidance.
This morning I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, which seeks to add some clarity to the timescales for action, and that is welcome. We also have the Government’s response to the consultation, which is helpful. It looks as if we are finally making some progress and I welcome that. It would be good to hear him, when he responds to the debate, set out the timescales for the actions the Government are proposing, and I look forward to that. That will be part of the official record of the House and the Government will be held accountable for the pledges that they make today.
In respect of Motion B, while I accept that the Commons can assert financial privilege and the need not to give any other reason, we must consider the subject of the amendment that was rejected and the circumstances that have led to this Bill, as well as the intention behind the amendment that the other place has rejected. We would have hoped to have got a little more than the assertion of financial privilege. This is about fire safety and reassurance for residents that the register is up to date, that it can be relied on and that it is publicly available and transparent so that sunlight on fire risk assessments will provide more reassurance. I hope that when the noble Lord responds to Motion A, he will provide a bit more clarity than just relying on financial privilege as expressed by the other place.
Motion C1, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, seeks to add to the Bill Amendments 4B, 4C, 4D and 4E. They would prohibit the owner of a building from passing on the costs of annual remedial works attributable to the requirements of the Act to leaseholders or tenants, except where the leaseholder is also the owner of the building. The amendments under the Motion tabled by the right reverend Prelate have my full support, and the Labour Benches will support him if he decides to divide the House. I hope very much that he will do so.
Leaseholders are victims and have done nothing wrong. They deserve to be treated much better than they have been by the Government. They have done everything right. They have bought their properties and are paying their mortgages. Now they are being penalised for the failure of others. Surely that cannot be right. The fact that their buildings have been covered in dangerous cladding has made their flats worthless. They cannot sell their properties, but they are still expected to pay their mortgages and other charges. They cannot get work done; they may be paying for a waking watch and in some cases the properties will have guarantees on them which need to be drawn down. There will be warranties for work done which need to be used. They have been paid for, otherwise they are literally not worth the paper they are written on.
We should all stand up to support leaseholders and tenants and get those who have done the work to accept their responsibility and put this right. The Government are failing leaseholders and tenants. Their actions are just not good enough and fall far short of what they promised.
I want to be clear. For the individual builder, contractor, company, warranty provider or insurance company, it cannot be right for people to wriggle out of their responsibilities. The Government need to take firm action. Supporting the Motions and amendments before the House today will be an opportunity to ask the Government to think again, and I hope we take it. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I speak to Motion C1 and Amendments 4B to 4E. I give notice of my intention to seek the opinion of the House when the time comes. I declare my interest in the register in that I, too, am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I first thank the honourable Members for Stevenage and for Southampton, Itchen, who originally prepared these amendments, as well as the signatories from all parties when they were tabled in the Commons. I also thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who joins me in supporting it, and pay tribute to one of our colleagues, the Bishop of Kensington, who has worked very closely on the ground with victims of Grenfell and leaseholders.
Grenfell was an unmitigated tragedy brought about, it would seem, by institutional failings on multiple levels. The recent revelation that the cladding provider knew that it could result in tragedy and death is nothing short of a disgrace. It has been a tragedy for many lives: ordinary families have been ripped apart by this terrible event.
The Bill will deal with the problem of dangerous cladding by creating a quick and easy mechanism to force freeholders to remove dangerous cladding and other fire safety defects. That is undoubtedly a good thing and will, hopefully, protect against future tragedies, but I share the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that Her Majesty’s Government have not sought to address the severe adverse financial consequences that the Bill will create for leaseholders. In the Bill’s current form, whenever the fire service serves notice to the freeholder requiring remedial work to be undertaken, the freeholder will be able to force leaseholders to reimburse all the costs incurred. These costs are staggering.
At this point, I say that our hearts go out—I am sure we all share this—to all the people who are struggling. I have been inundated with emails, tweets and people contacting me who are at their wit’s end looking at what is likely to unfold in the next few weeks. Far from the Government’s estimated remedial costs of around £9,000 per leaseholder, depending on the terms of the lease and the work involved, a leaseholder could very easily be handed a bill of £50,000, payable within weeks.
Inside Housing conducted its own private survey of 1,342 leaseholders. Its findings reveal a very different picture to that of Her Majesty’s Government. Among those surveyed, 63% of respondents faced a total bill above £30,000 for remedial costs and 15% faced a bill of more than £100,000. Of course, a few of these lease- holders may be well off, some will have disposable income, but most will not: 60% had a household income of less than £50,000, with only 8.7% reporting a household income of more than £100,000. In other words, this will primarily affect ordinary middle to working-class people.
In addition, 56.4% of those surveyed were first-time buyers. They have followed that life trajectory that many Conservative Governments have sought to promote by working hard, saving and purchasing a property. These are people with aspirations—something I totally support—yet nearly everything they have worked hard towards, over many years, could be taken away from them, as shown by the alarming 17.2% of respondents who say that they are already exploring bankruptcy options. I must remind the House that the costs mentioned above include only the remedial costs; they say nothing about the interim fire safety costs that leaseholders already incur.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to speak to but not, at this point, to move Motion C2.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a member of Kirklees Council.
Much has happened since the Bill was last debated in this House in November. It is already clear from the contributions to this debate today that this is an unresolved crisis of major proportions. I thank the Minister for the opportunities that he has provided to discuss the issues raised. The Government’s response has been to regard this as largely an issue for lease- holders and freeholders to resolve. Gradually, however, they have acceded to the principle that, without government intervention and funding, the problem will not be resolved.
The purpose of all the amendments in my name and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans is to extend the principle already agreed by the Government. Amendment 4F in my name would extend the contribution that the Government make to cover not just the remediation but the extortionate service charges and higher insurance costs that are currently being levied on these leaseholders. This serious problem can be successfully fixed only with up-front funding from the Government, which can then be recouped from developers, construction firms and manufacturers.
The Government’s own estimate is that the total cost of remediation will be in the region of £16 billion. The buildings involved are not just in London but all across the country. Following the Grenfell tragedy, we now know that ACM cladding was affixed to blocks when it was known to be inflammable. As the cladding is peeled away, further serious building defects are revealed. The Government recognise this, as they have issued a directive to local authorities requiring an inspection of various features, including fire breaks, insulation and spandrel panels, as well as cladding. This is now much more than a cladding scandal; it has become a construction crisis.
Worse still is that some of the defects that are being exposed were in breach of building regulations even at the time of construction. The big question then is: who is going to pay? Currently, the Government are providing grants for the removal of cladding only and are restricting those grants to buildings of 18 metres or more in height. Yet cladding has to be removed from all blocks, irrespective of height. The Government have chosen 18 metres partly because they simply have no idea how many blocks there are that are lower than 18 metres. I have asked the ministry for the analysis of those risks to which the Minister will refer but have received no reply to date. Good decision-making is dependent on well-researched data, which is then shared for all decision-makers.
At the heart of this crisis are people who have done everything right and nothing wrong. They are innocent victims and have suffered enough. Imagine living in a flat with your family, knowing for three years or more that the home you saved hard to buy is a significant fire risk. That fact alone has left emotional scars on those leaseholders. Then imagine, having carefully budgeted, being faced with an additional service charge of several hundreds of pounds each month to cover the extras: waking watch, insurance and more. For some, the final straw is that you are then billed for the costs of total remediation. For individuals faced with these enormous bills, the choices are very limited.
Bankruptcy has already been the solution for too many. George is one such. He describes himself as a frightened leaseholder and says, “I have been informed that it will cost £2 million to replace the cladding and remedy the defects. That is £50,000 per flat. I’ll be bankrupt by the end of the year at the age of 28. The building has one grant, covering 10% of the costs.” Everything that he and others have worked and saved for is lost through no fault of theirs. It can lead to homelessness. Sarah lives in a flat in the Royal Quay in Liverpool. The normal year service charges for that block were £270,000; this year, the service charges are nearly £1 million. Sarah says that the defects are so numerous that the fire service may have to escalate from a compliance to a prohibition notice, which will shut down the complex. If that occurs, 400 residents will be made homeless.
Not surprisingly, given those examples, for some the stress is such that very serious mental illness, or worse, has followed. Hundreds of thousands of individuals and families are watching and waiting for the decision of this House today. They are willing us on to help to find a fair and just solution to a problem that is not in any way of their making, yet they are the ones who are being asked to pay the price. If the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans wishes to divide the House, as he has indicated, the Liberal Democrat Benches will support him. If, however, he chooses not to do so, then I will wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the LGA and as a practising chartered surveyor. I have very considerable sympathy with all these amendments but, the matter having now been decided by this House, gone to the other place and now come back, it behoves us to consider all these matters with a degree of objectivity, despite the clear emotions that are involved.
With regard to Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I agree that it has taken far too long to deal with this matter, which has allowed the issue to grow in a way that should have been nipped in the bud at an earlier stage, but I realise the complexities of the issues, which I will address in a moment. On all these amendments, I must say at this juncture that I do not know which way I would vote; it will become apparent why as I proceed.
It goes without saying that I have the greatest possible respect for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the powerful case that he makes for Motion C1 and, for that matter, the case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on the allied Motion C2. Indeed, every fibre of my being tells me that a great injustice has been visited on many innocent people as leaseholders and tenants in buildings affected by this Bill who have faced the burdens of past failings, delays and inaction, which they themselves may be powerless to deal with. It must be as if the whole system of property law and ownership has conspired against them. As a property professional, I feel that most acutely. It has been made worse, as I say, by the length of time that these problems have been gestating.
However, whatever my heart tells me on the grounds of ethics and justice, my professional experience tells me that these amendments would, almost inevitably, not achieve their aims or address the present or future fundamental issues. This Bill potentially affects a very wide category of property and tenure, not just high-rise blocks. The provisions of Clause 1 extend the regulations to any property comprising two or more separate units of accommodation. I ask noble Lords to contemplate just what that means in practice.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
The following members present in the Chamber have indicated that they wish to speak: the noble Lord, Lord Newby, the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. I will call them in that order, so the first speaker is the noble Lord, Lord Newby.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. I am a leaseholder in a block where I stay when I am in London during the week which has been found to have major safety defects and in which a waking watch is now in operation. I have therefore been able to see in my own bills but also by talking to people who live in the block what the consequences of the current situation really are. I strongly support the Motions in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and of my noble friend Lady Pinnock.
This is a scandal of major proportions, and it is a modern one. Most of the buildings we are talking about have been built in recent years. We are not talking about a problem left over from the Victorians or the Edwardians; this is a recent problem of our own times. As we have heard, it is causing great distress, not minor worries, to a large number of people. The scale of the financial consequences of the problems they face affects not just their short-term economic position but every aspect of their lives. The immediate costs in themselves are pretty horrendous for people on modest incomes. In my block, as elsewhere, people in that position are having to take out loans at very high rates of interest to deal even with the ongoing waking watch costs, which are considerable. However, beyond that, people are stuck. They cannot sell their flat or move, even if there were compelling reasons for them to do so. In some cases they feel unable to start a family as they planned, because of the overwhelming financial uncertainties that they face. None of this, as is obviously the case, is their fault at all. The Motion in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans deals with the core of the problem and would remove from them the cloud of the future financial burdens they face. I strongly support it.
For reasons which I fully understand, his Motion does not deal with who should ultimately pay for all this. In my mind, that is pretty straightforward. The principal burden should fall on those who are culpable: the developers. They have made very significant profits over very many years from building substandard accommodation, and they should pay for it. In the case of Barratt Developments, which built the block in which I live, its profits over the past five years alone have been more than £3.5 billion. It can afford to clean up its own mess, and the same applies to other major housebuilders. Exactly how that is done is, I admit, complicated, but this is a challenge for the Government which they have not begun to meet.
During the lockdown, television channels are showing old series because it has been so difficult to make new ones. Last night, I watched an old episode of “Yes Minister”, which I strongly recommend. It is clear that the Minister here watched it as well because he has used exactly the arguments which Sir Humphrey used to persuade his Minister not to take action: “It’s highly complex. I’m really sorry. We’d love to do it but it’s really quite difficult, you know. Even if we could do it, which we can’t, it’s not appropriate to do it in this Bill. If we can do it—and I’m not sure we can—it may be possible to do it in a future Bill. I’m not sure which Bill; I don’t know when it’s going to come. But because it’s very complicated, you wouldn’t expect me to say further.” That is the Minister’s response to this.
In last night’s “Yes Minister”, what happened was that the Minister in it, completely frustrated by these usual arguments, put his foot down by announcing on national television that something was going to be done, which in effect bounced his Permanent Secretary into doing it. I suggest that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, takes a leaf out of that Minister’s book and goes on television this very evening to say that he has been so impressed by the debate he has heard that the Government will now act speedily.
The truth is that the reason we are hanging about has everything to do with a lack of political will, and not to do with the technicalities. It is the job of government to deal with difficult things. Most bits of public policy are tricky and difficult. This is no exception but it does not mean that the Government have no policies on anything. It means that they choose what they want to devote time and effort to, and they have decided they are not prepared to put in the time, effort, commitment and funds to deal with this glaring injustice.
The right reverend Prelate’s Motion is a start because it removes the major part of the cloud facing people currently in difficulty and it should be supported. But even when it has been supported, it does not absolve the Government from grappling with this issue and sorting it out properly.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the National Housing Federation, the representative body for housing associations in England. Our members house 6 million people in 2.6 million homes, including a significant number of flats in multi-storey, multi-occupied buildings that need remedial work on their external wall system.
Nothing is a greater priority for housing associations than their residents’ safety. Following the awful Grenfell tragedy, they have been leading the way in the past three years by identifying buildings that need urgent work and carrying it out as quickly as possible. In his Motion C1, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans wants to protect leaseholders from huge bills to make their homes safe, and I support him. Leaseholders should not be facing such costs. Other noble Lords have given vivid examples of the impact on leaseholders.
Housing associations are doing what they can to ensure their leaseholders do not have to foot the bill for developers’ mistakes by pursuing the companies that built the buildings, as well as warranty and insurance providers. Sadly, these efforts are not always successful so I applaud a move by this House to provide extra assurance to leaseholders living in these homes.
However, housing associations face a huge dilemma. They exist predominantly to provide social homes to those on lower incomes. The buildings that housing associations need to remediate due to safety concerns will largely be made up of social housing. This welcome move to protect leaseholders must also be coupled with further government funding to pay for the necessary remedial works to all the buildings that need them. While the funding that the Government have made available for remediation costs so far is very welcome, the £1 billion building safety fund and the additional £3.5 billion announced last month are not available to remediate homes in which social tenants live.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I wish to support the Motions in the name of my friends the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which provide a more comprehensive solution than is already in this Bill.
As the 133rd Bishop of London, it has been my privilege to serve this city for the last three years. Unfortunately, I have seen how inequality of outcome is built into our city. As I have followed this debate, it has moved me to speak today. It is almost four years since the Grenfell Tower disaster. Hundreds of thousands of citizens in London and other cities across this country still lie awake at night wondering whether their homes are safe and they can weather the financial hardship of the life-changing remediation bills that they face.
This is having a major impact on the health and well-being of our communities, the communities in this city. My work on the ground with the Bishop of Kensington has meant that I engage with people who are bearing the real cost of this: costs not just financially but to their health and mental well-being, with some facing suicidal thoughts. While they may bear the cost today, they will also do so in the future and there is no doubt that the NHS will bear the cost in the years to come.
We have heard from the Government and substantial sums of money have been cited, but I fear that they do not really go far enough. The amendments of my right reverend friend the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, exist because each month, people edge closer to bankruptcy and struggle to sell their properties with debts attached from the exorbitant remediation and interim fire safety costs. Due to these financial pressures, some will pay almost 60% of their annual salary on those costs.
The Government’s current approach of a levy on developers has some weaknesses. If the scope of the levy was extended to cover other responsible parties, such as major contractors and suppliers of defective products, greater sums could be raised. The amendments attempt to distribute responsibility fairly, because it is a shared responsibility of the developers’ community, testing and regulatory guidance communities and major contractors to ensure that those who bought their homes in good faith and understood them to be safe, be they high or low-rise, do not face the burden of cost to refit their properties and make them safe. It is our responsibility as representatives of your Lordships’ House to make sure that we do right by the people of this country, even if it is complex. That is the role of government.
The Church of England is quite clear. In a recently published Archbishops’ housing commission report, we recommended that the Government should cover remediation costs and recoup their initial outlays from those responsible. We are looking to the Government to develop a simple, fair and comprehensive solution to the current crisis, but this solution must be clear and cost-effective. It also must be quick. Any solution should be based on “polluter pays” principles, with those responsible for unsafe buildings being required to put them right.
I therefore press the Minister, first, for assurances that the Government will implement a comprehensive solution, to ensure that leaseholders living in blocks more than 18 metres high and blocks between 11 and 18 metres do not pay for any remediation or interim fire safety costs through the building safety Bill, and that they will be compensated for their losses so far. Secondly, I press him to improve the Government’s current approach, which consists of a levy on developers, and distribute the responsibility for these costs as far as possible to all those responsible for the current crisis, and so protect leaseholders and taxpayers. Finally, I press him to create a legacy for the future of buildings and houses that are fit for purpose for those in our community and in a UK post Covid.
If these commitments cannot be given today, will the Minister meet me and representatives of the Archbishops’ housing commission to discuss how we can take forward these solutions in the coming building safety Bill? I support the amendments in the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the most important work this House does is to legislate and, within that work, to assert its view and opinion against the Government and the other House, because that is where we are acting independently, as opposed to acting simply either as a rubber stamp or a deliberative assembly. It always amazes me how little time and attention we spend on our most important function. Many noble Lords are in Committee until 11 pm or midnight, day after day. We discuss amendments a first time, refine them for Report the second time and may come round to them again at Third Reading.
However, when it comes to the most controversial issues in a Bill, which, by definition, are those which we send to the other place, we are expected to hurry them all through. Very inadequate notice is given of matters coming back to this House. There are no proper structured arrangements for discussion, in the way that there are for the ordinary consideration of legislation. We are faced with reasons on hugely weighty issues from the House of Commons as to why it will not accept our view, which usually consist of one or two lines of the utmost banality: statements like “Because the Government has announced it intends to bring forward its own legislative proposals”, full stop.
That is supposed to be a reason why we should set aside all the hours of deliberation by this House, as well as its votes, and simply accept a government assurance. We are always put under great time pressure, and then the Salisbury convention is brought in telling us why this House, having spent hours—and having had many votes—on these issues, should not even spend the proper time and consideration required, including using our undoubted powers to continue to ask the House of Commons to consider these matters again.
Other legislatures with two Chambers deal with these matters much better. They have arrangements for joint sittings on issues that are contested between the Houses, which I believe that we should have. Our arrangements are due only to historical reasons dating from the Middle Ages. One of the right reverend Prelate’s 133 predecessors probably devised these arrangements in the 13th century, even before “Yes Minister”. They are absolutely not fit for purpose in the 21st century. We inhabit the same building; we have electronic means of communication; we can consider these matters better. By definition, when we come to this stage of a Bill, these are always weighty and substantial matters. We would otherwise not be engaging, for the second or third time, in a conflict with the House of Commons.
These are hugely important issues. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said that we needed to be objective rather than emotional. But the objective thing to be on this issue is emotional because we are dealing with people who face, as the two right reverend Prelates and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, potential bills of £40,000, £50,000 or £60,000 apiece. This will drive them into bankruptcy and cause them huge mental anguish. In some cases—let us be frank; we have all heard of such stories—it can lead to suicide, since these are absolutely catastrophic impacts on individuals. We, as legislators, have a duty to take account of that and reach the best possible arrangement. I stress that we should not be railroaded on issues of this kind into either having to cave in or taking quick decisions before there has been proper consideration.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London referred just now to the Archbishops’ Council. I know that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has been leading work on this issue, with a number of extremely distinguished experts on housing, and would like to meet the Minister. The very least that the Minister should say in response to her, assuming that this amendment goes back, is that before it comes to this House again he and the Secretary of State will meet the right reverend Prelate, the most reverend Primate and their advisers—who I happen to know include a former Permanent Secretary and other very senior and expert people—to discuss these issues. These are matters of huge anguish and importance.
It is very important that we play fair by people who, as everyone has accepted, are not facing big charges which were expected. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said that in respect of property one has duties, responsibilities and risks, but these are not normal risks. People should be expected to bear normal and reasonably foreseeable risks but these were completely abnormal, of a scale they could not have been expected to foresee or budget for.
Their other consequences have not even been mentioned in the debate so far. This is leading to a substantial seizure of the entire property market at the moment. Large numbers of people with leasehold properties simply cannot sell them at the moment. Until these risks are properly quantified, and the allocation of the burdens is properly determined, people cannot sell. It is a huge problem in the property market, and this will continue until it is done.
When the Minister, for whom we have great respect and who knows these matters at first hand, as the former leader of a local authority with large numbers of leaseholders, said that the Government were seeking to crunch through these matters bit by bit and deal with them, that goes straight back to “Yes Minister”. The Grenfell Tower fire was on 14 June 2017. That is, by my calculation, three years and nine months ago. We are not exactly rushing with indecent haste to deal with these issues. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that the Government should do their job, which is to safeguard the community on matters of huge public importance, including putting schemes in place. It took 20 years to build the great wall of China, and we are saying that after four years, the Government still do not have a proper scheme in place to deal with these issues.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, is there anyone present in the Chamber, who has been here since the beginning of the debate, who wishes to contribute? No? In which case, I revert to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the debate and will take this opportunity to address noble Lords’ comments and concerns in more detail. I start by addressing Amendment 2B. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for his constructive engagement with me on this. I reiterate again that the Government remain steadfast in their commitment to deliver the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 report’s recommendations in full. It is understandable that the House wants to see visible progress on this and to have a better understanding of the timing of next steps and of the proposals that we will bring forward.
Today, the Government published their response to the fire safety consultation. This is an important and clear demonstration of our progression towards implementing the inquiry’s recommendations. I am clear that, subject to the Fire Safety Bill gaining Royal Assent, the Government intend to lay regulations before the second anniversary of the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 report that will deliver on the inquiry’s recommendations. These will include measures around checking fire doors and lifts.
I am also committed to seeking further views, as soon as practicable, through a further public consultation on the complex issue of personal emergency evacuation plans. We already know that some of our proposals from the consultation will require primary legislation. They include strengthening the guidance relating to the discharge of duties under the fire safety order and the requirement for responsible persons in all regulated premises to record who they are and provide a UK-based address. We intend to include these measures, and possibly others that come out of the consultation, to strengthen fire safety in the building safety Bill, which will be introduced after the Government have considered the recommendations made by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee, and when parliamentary time allows.
I thank the noble Lord for, I hope, not pressing this matter to a vote. He is right in his role to hold the Government to account for delivering on the Grenfell recommendations, and I am pleased to have provided the reassurance that he sought.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for not pressing her amendment. I understand her interest in this area. More generally, we are looking at specific information-sharing provisions in the regulations and later in the building safety Bill, which we see as a first step to meeting the Grenfell recommendations on this issue.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, the other reason for resisting the public register amendment is that anyone from the general public would be able to access fire safety information about a building, which poses a security risk in the event that the information were accessed by someone with malicious or criminal intent. But the Government do agree with the principle that residents should be able to access critical fire safety information for the building that they live in, and we include proposals for this in the fire safety consultation.
I will now address Amendments 4B to 4F. First, I reiterate the intention conveyed in the other place that we share the concerns around the costs of remediation and the need to give leaseholders peace of mind and financial certainty. I have always been clear that all residents deserve to be and to feel safe in their homes. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has committed to taking decisive action to deal with the cladding crisis, and, through the Government’s five-point plan, to provide reassurance to home owners and build confidence in the housing market.
First, as has been commented on, the Government will provide an additional £3.5 billion to fund the removal and replacement of unsafe cladding on residential buildings. This will be targeted at the highest-risk buildings—those over six storeys or above 18 metres—that have unsafe cladding. This is in line with long-standing expert advice on which buildings are at the highest risk. This brings the Government’s investment in building safety to an unprecedented £5 billion or more.
Secondly, we have been clear that leaseholders in lower-rise buildings, with a lower risk to safety, will gain new protection from the costs of cladding removal through a long-term, low-interest, government-backed financing scheme. Leaseholders in a residential building that is 11 to 18 metres in height with unsafe cladding will never pay more than £50 per month towards this remediation.
It is important that this government funding does not excuse building owners of their responsibility to ensure that buildings are safe. We have been clear that building owners and industry should make buildings safe without passing on costs to leaseholders. They should consider all routes to meet cost—for example, through warranties and recovering costs from contractors for incorrect or poor work.
As the Minister for Building Safety and Fire Safety, I will ensure that we drive forward to ensure that remediation of unsafe cladding is completed. I am clear that we have an ambitious timescale to do so. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, progress has not been as fast as we would have liked, but we are making great progress, particularly given the constraints of the pandemic this year. Around 95% of high-rise buildings with Grenfell-type ACM cladding identified at the start of 2020 have completed remediation or have works on site to do so by the end of the year.
I want to be clear that, while this issue is vital, it would be impractical and confusing to include remediation measures in the Bill. This is because the fire safety orders are a regulatory framework that sets out the duties of a responsible person in relation to fire risk assessments. It does not cover the relationship, including potential financial obligations or prohibitions, between freeholder and leaseholder. The Bill is so important because it allows for effective enforcement where responsible persons are not abiding by their responsibilities. It addresses the situation where responsible persons refuse to remediate, which is an issue that I am sure the whole House wants resolved as soon as possible.
In contrast, the draft building safety Bill is the appropriate legislative mechanism for addressing the issue of who pays for mediation. Through the building safety Bill, the Government will strengthen the whole regulatory system for building safety, and ensure that there is greater accountability and responsibility for fire and structural safety issues throughout the life cycle of buildings within the scope of a more stringent regime. That Bill’s provisions will put the management of risk front and centre. It is important that remediation is addressed using its proactive mechanisms for managing fire and structural safety issues, such as the safety case. Remediation and costs to leaseholders should be dealt in the context of the Fire Safety Bill to ensure that legislation is coherent with the aims and scope of the new regime.
In response to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, I point specifically to Clauses 88 and 89 in the building safety Bill, which relate to charges. These clauses facilitate regulations that would amend the building safety Act and the Landlord and Tenant Act. We will add to what is already in the draft Bill, including additional duties on the accountable person to seek alternative funding before they pass costs on to leaseholders.
While I appreciate the desire that many noble Lords have for a quick legislative solution to the “who pays” issue, we also have a duty as parliamentarians to implement a clear framework and transparent legislation to support fire and building safety reforms. Even more than this, it is important to ensure that the practical implications of any legislation are properly worked through, rather than being rushed on to the statute book in this Bill. In this vein, I am clear that these alternative amendments do not work.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I have received a single request to speak after the Minister. I called the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
The Minister did not comment on the figures given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, which struck the House as of great concern. He said that average remediation costs could be in the order of £50,000 to £60,000 per leaseholder. Can the Minister comment on those figures?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I have seen figures in the order of £50,000, but that is an aggregate figure that covers cladding costs and more historic building safety defects. Clearly, as we bring forward the legislation to deal with these issues, which will be in the building safety Bill, we must conduct a further impact assessment, but I am aware of the figures that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans presented.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I will not speak for long. I do not want to detain the House with a long debate. I thank everyone who has spoken. We have heard many very powerful speeches, and very important points were well made. I thank the Minister for his response to my Motion A1, for the time he has taken to speak to me outside the Chamber, and for the letter I received today in addition to the all-Peers letter. It sets out some clear commitments from the Government, a plan and, most importantly, a timetable for action. I welcome this very much.
I listened carefully to the contributions of all noble Lords and agreed with almost every one. I hear the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. He may be right, but it is our job to press the Government to do the right thing by the people of this country, as the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London said. I also thank my noble friend Lord Adonis for his support. He made some very valid general points about how we deal with matters from the other place, and points specific to this Bill. I also listened carefully to the Minister’s response to Motion B. I had said that all they rely on in the other place is privilege, and his response was very fair. I can see his point—it is a shame that the other place could not—and I had not thought of it beforehand, so I accept it. We are trying to ensure, in respect of that Motion particularly, that residents, tenants, the fire authorities and the fire brigade have transparency. That is what we want to shine the light on. Perhaps the Minister will not be able to address those issues; it is a shame that the other place did not.
Sometimes the Government say, “We have an ambitious programme” or “We are striving to make progress”, but they have been very slow on this and everyone is frustrated with them. As my noble friend Lord Adonis said, it is three years and nine months since the fire, and this is the first piece of legislation. It is frustratingly slow. Can the Minister talk to the Prime Minister? These issues will not go away, and we will keep raising them until we get some proper action. He has made some commitments today, which is good, but it is only a start. This House will hold him to account on them, because so far this has been frustratingly slow.
Having said that, I am pleased that we got so far today. I have enough to withdraw my Motion A1. I hope that the right reverend Prelate moves his Motion for debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Lord Greenhalgh
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.
Lord Greenhalgh
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4A.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
At end insert “and do propose Amendments 4B, 4C, 4D and 4E in lieu—
“Prohibition on passing remediation costs on to leaseholders and tenants
(1) The owner of a building may not pass the costs of any remedial work attributable to the provisions of this Act on to leaseholders or tenants of that building.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a leaseholder who is also the owner or part owner of the freehold of the building.”
“Costs arising from relevant notices or risk based guidance under the Fire Safety Order
(1) This section applies to a long lease of a dwelling in a relevant building.
(2) This section applies—
(a) where a notice has been served by an enforcing authority under article 28, article 29 or article 30 of the Fire Safety Order; or
(b) where a responsible person carries out works on the basis that they are required or said to be required by the risk based guidance issued by the Secretary of State under article 50 of the Fire Safety Order.
(3) In the lease there is an implied covenant by the lessor, or any third party to the lease, that the lessor or third party shall not recover from the lessee any amount in respect of the costs of works under subsection (2) where the works are to remedy any defect, risk or issue that predated the first grant of a long lease of the dwelling.
(4) Subsection (3) does not apply where the works are to repair a deterioration in original condition.
(5) Subsection (3) does not apply to any interest or shareholding the lessee may have in any superior lessor or freeholder.
(6) This section does not apply to commonhold land.
(7) “Dwelling” has the meaning given by section 112 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and “long lease” has the meaning given by sections 76 and 77 of that Act, save that, in the case of a shared ownership lease, it is irrelevant whether or not the tenant’s total share is 100%.”
“Restriction on contracting out of section (Costs arising from relevant notices or risk based guidance under the Fire Safety Order)
A covenant or agreement, whether contained in a long lease to which section (Costs arising from relevant notices or risk based guidance under the Fire Safety Order) applies or in an agreement collateral to such a long lease, is void in so far as it purports—
(a) to exclude or limit the obligations of the lessor or the immunities of the lessee under that section, or
(b) to authorise any forfeiture or impose on the lessee any penalty, disability or obligation in the event of the lessee enforcing or relying upon those obligations or immunities.”
“( ) Sections (Costs arising from relevant notices or risk based guidance under the Fire Safety Order) and (Restriction on contracting out of section (Costs arising from relevant notices or risk based guidance under the Fire Safety Order)) shall each come into force on the same day as section 1 comes fully or partially into force in respect of any premises in England.”
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, the rules are such that I am not allowed to make a speech. However, so that the other place can consider the very full reasons that the Minister gave, it is right and our duty to test the mind of the House. I beg to move.
Fire Safety Bill
Monday 22nd March 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Messages as at 22 March 2021 - (22 Mar 2021)
21:02 - The House divided: - Ayes: 322 / Noes: 253 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 4B, 4C, 4D and 4E.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for engaging in this very important debate, both now and throughout the passage of the Bill. I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), for Ipswich (Tom Hunt), for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) and for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), and Members across the House, for the keen interest they have shown in this matter. I will keep my opening remarks short, as I know that many Members are keen to contribute, and I shall wind up later on.
The Government remain steadfast in their commitment to delivering the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 report’s recommendations. This Bill is an important first step in delivering those recommendations. The Government have always been clear that all residents should be safe and feel safe in their homes. That is why we will be providing an additional £3.5 billion to fund the removal and replacement of unsafe cladding on residential buildings.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister give way?
Christopher Pincher
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later on; let me conclude my initial remarks.
This will be targeted on the highest-risk buildings—that is, those buildings over 18 metres tall that have unsafe cladding. The scale of this investment should not be underestimated, with over £5 billion of taxpayers’ money, and more when the developer levy and the developer tax are taken into account. We have an ambitious timescale to ensure that remediation of unsafe cladding is completed at pace. We are also now seeing tangible progress from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors revising its guidance on EWS1 forms, lenders committing to adhering to RICS guidance, and more developers now allocating significant funds for remediation.
As parliamentarians, we have a duty to implement a clear framework and transparent legislation to support fire and building safety reform. I am afraid to say that, despite the best intentions of these Lords amendments—I absolutely accept the sincerity with which they have been posited—they are unworkable and impractical. They would make the legislation less clear, and they do not reflect the complexity involved in apportioning liability for remedial defects. I have had extensive conversations about the effects that the amendments might have with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood, who has pressed me hard on this, as have others. These amendments would also require extensive redrafting of primary legislation, resulting in delays to the commencement of the Fire Safety Bill and to our overall programme. They could also have unintended and possibly perverse consequences for those that the amendments are intended to support, and we would still be no further forward in resolving these issues.
I shall give way to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) when I return to speak later, but let me say in concluding my opening remarks that we cannot accept these Lords amendments and we encourage the House to vote against them and for the Government amendments.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I am pleased that so many Members have put in to speak today. I will keep my remarks fairly brief, but I want to make three points. First, thank goodness I am not standing at this Dispatch Box again and pleading with the Government to agree at the very least a timetable to implement the vital fire safety measures from the first phase of the Grenfell inquiry. I am pleased that the Government have agreed in the other place to Labour’s suggestion of a timetable. Before the second anniversary of the Grenfell phase one recommendations, the Government have committed to regulations to implement them, and that will be by October this year. They said that this would delay the Bill, that it would be too complicated and that it would be too hard to do, but they have now agreed to a version of it. It is not quite what we wanted, but it is something close.
I have lost count of the number of times we have voted on the Grenfell recommendations and the number of times we have been pushed back, and it is quite extraordinary that the Government have taken so long to get us here. Labour’s previous amendment, which the Government have now agreed on a timetable to deliver, would do four things: the owners of buildings that contain two or more sets of domestic premises would share information with their local fire and rescue service about the design and make-up of the external walls; they would complete regular inspections of fire entrance doors; they would complete regular inspections of lifts; and they would share evacuation and fire safety instructions with residents and the fire service. These measures are straightforward and are supported by key stakeholders.
In the Minister’s letter that sets out details of the Government’s concession, he wrote that the Government would lay regulations to make responsible persons produce and regularly review evacuation plans for their building. The Grenfell recommendation, and our amendment, said more than that. They said that that information should also be shared with local fire and rescue services and residents. I would like the Minister to clarify in his closing remarks who these evacuation plans will be shared with and how this will be enforced, but I am grateful to him for seeing sense and heeding our calls to do the right thing, because it has been ages.
I come to the second point that I want to make. It has been nearly four years since 72 people so tragically lost their lives in the Grenfell Tower fire. In those four years, Grenfell United, the families, the survivors and the entire community have fought tirelessly for change. It is thanks to their hard work and dedication that the Government have finally agreed to implement the recommendations by October 2021. I pay tribute to them and their ongoing fight for justice. I pay tribute to our firefighters who keep us safe every day. We know that cuts to their service have hit hard—response times are inevitably affected, and morale is affected—and now they have a pay freeze, which is no way to thank them for going above and beyond during the covid pandemic.
I come to my third and final point. Leaseholders should not have to fund the cost of fire safety remediation works when they are not to blame and they are the least able to pay.
Stephen Doughty
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend on that point, as she well knows, because of the leaseholders who are affected in my constituency. While the Welsh Government have put forward an additional £32 million in their new Budget for this very issue, leaseholders in Wales are still in the dark from the Government’s announcements about what moneys there will be for Wales and how the levy and tax will work. Does she agree that the Government should sit down with the Welsh Government Housing Minister and sort this out for the benefit of all leaseholders?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have a sense of déjà vu, because we have been saying all this for some time, as have Members across the House. Of course the Government should sit down with the Welsh Government and work out whether any of this funding will go to Wales and how that will work.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about the needs of leaseholders. Does she agree that, as well as dealing with the gaps in the support so far announced, it is vital that there is much more clarity on what leaseholders should be entitled to—particularly those in shared ownership arrangements, where the quality of work done and the relationship with the social landlord can vary? This is causing them great confusion and anxiety and, indeed, great difficulty in selling their properties.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The plight of people in shared ownership properties is dire and needs to be looked at by the Government, as does the plight of the many thousands of people who are still trapped in unsafe buildings or buildings they cannot sell, who face extortionate bills for remediation work or who face huge increases in insurance and waking watch costs and other costs that they simply cannot afford. People are going bankrupt.
We cannot feel it in this place, but every time we have a debate or a vote on this issue, thousands of people write to all of us and say, “We are hoping against hope that you do the right thing this time.” We have people writing with heartfelt pleas. Their stories are stark, and every time we have this conversation, people’s hopes are raised, and there is a groundswell on social media and in our inboxes of people saying, “Maybe now the Government are going to do the right thing.” They are watching us now, hoping that we are going to do the right thing. It is very sad that the Government are indicating at the moment that they are not going to take this issue seriously.
This is taking a heavy toll on people’s mental health and putting millions of lives on hold. Leaseholders have been trapped in this impossible position for too long. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have continually campaigned on this issue, and we welcome the latest amendment from the Bishop of St Albans. Like Labour’s previous amendments and those tabled by Members on both sides of the House, this amendment would prohibit the cost of replacing unsafe cladding being passed on to leaseholders or tenants.
In February, the Housing Secretary told thousands of people across the country that they will be locked into years of debt to fix fire safety problems that were not their fault, and we hear that the Government have decided to lay a motion to disagree with the Bishop of St Albans’s amendment. That is a direct and deliberate betrayal of the promise that Ministers have made over 17 times that leaseholders should not be left to foot the bill. Over the weekend, I wrote to Members of Parliament across the House who have constituents affected by this, urging them to back the amendment, and I sincerely hope that together we will stand up for the rights of leaseholders today and all Members will do the right thing. Given the risk of fire and looming bankruptcy, we cannot wait while the Government delay with inaction and failed proposals to keep leaseholders out of debt.
Today is another chance for the Government finally to put public safety first and to bring forward legislation to protect leaseholders from the deeply unfair situation of paying for fire safety repairs for which they are not responsible. Members across this House are united on this issue and are determined that innocent leaseholders should not foot the bill. Today should be the day when people across the country can go to sleep with a great sense of relief that the Government have listened and put into law protections for leaseholders, so I sincerely hope that the Minister will change his mind. It is not too late for the Government to do the right thing and protect innocent leaseholders across the country.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
A three-minute limit is being imposed now on all contributions. Apologies to those Members who are on the call list and simply will not get in because there will not be enough time.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
There is not the time to say what the Government have done for leaseholders. The Fire Safety Bill, in the form the Government want to return it to, if they get the House to reject the Lords amendments, would place an automatic, unchallengeable financial burden on residential leaseholders in building safety remediation costs, even in circumstances where a lease may have excluded such an obligation. I refer the Minister, if he has time, to the article by Martina Lees in The Sunday Times “Home” section about some of the building costs that are not justified.
The bishops’ amendments are intended to protect leaseholders from being solely responsible for the costs. The Bill strengthens the landlords’ and freeholders’ legal rights over leaseholders. The amendments provide for more balanced liability for costs. These Lords amendments should not be overturned. The alternative, which the Government are asking us to agree, wrongly and disproportionately disadvantages innocent leaseholders. Many are unable to pay, and they are frightened.
This is a Home Office Bill, and the Home Secretary gave this as her reason for rejecting previous Lords amendment 4:
“Because the issue of remediation costs is too complex to be dealt with in the manner proposed.”
I say, and I think people on both sides agree—and probably the Minister does so privately—that what is being proposed cannot be supported. It is too simple: it loads costs on leaseholders, who are the only people who cannot be responsible for putting right a building that they do not own and will never own, and of which in legal terms they are only the tenants.
I ask the Minister to ask his colleagues to let him agree to accepting these Lords amendments, and to let the leaseholders free.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]
I support the Lords in the message it has sent back. The Lords is proposing very important changes to the Government’s position. First, not just leaseholders but tenants should not have to pay. For example, in a block where the social housing provider is the freeholder, according to the Government’s proposals, leaseholders would not have to pay, but social housing tenants—if it is not ACM cladding that is being removed—would have to pay through their rents for the removal of cladding. That tenants have to pay and leaseholders do not simply cannot be right.
We are not quite sure what costs leaseholders in blocks under 18 metres will face, because there is still an awful lot of vagueness and lack of clarity about what the Government’s loan scheme will actually mean. When the Minister for Building Safety and Communities came to our Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee recently, he said that leaseholders would not be responsible for paying the loan, but neither would freeholders; the charge would be on the building. A building cannot be legally responsible for a charge on a loan placed on it. Some organisation or some individual has to be responsible. Is it the freeholder? Is it the leaseholder? There is an awful lot of unclarity about that, and about how we limit leaseholders’ charges to £50 a month. There is a great deal of confusion. The Government are still working that through, so as things stand there cannot be an absolute assurance that leaseholders will not have to pay on blocks of under 18 metres.
Finally, there are issues other than cladding. It is not just that cladding will have to be taken off; very often, the cost of doing other fire safety work on blocks of flats is greater. Again, we were told that if the other work is associated with the removal of cladding, it will be covered by the Government’s financial help. If insulation is a composite part of a building’s structure along with the cladding, presumably it can be removed, as it is associated with the cladding. However, if the insulation is completely separate and distinct from the cladding, the Government funding might pay for the cladding removal but not the insulation removal. Very often, leaseholders simply cannot afford to pay for that, but the Government will not allow any of their funding to go ahead unless the leaseholders can find the additional costs.
None of those positions is acceptable. I support a position where neither leaseholders nor tenants are asked to pay to make their buildings fire-safe.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) [V]
I thank the Lord Bishop of St Albans and the Lord Bishop of London for ensuring that we have the opportunity to vote on the amendments today. It gives us the chance to divide the House on whether leaseholders should be responsible for paying for historical fire safety costs. I urge the Minister and the Government to accept the amendments or, if there is something wrong with them, to table their own. They should work with us and with leaseholders to try to resolve this issue.
It is unacceptable that people feel that we want taxpayers to pay. Leaseholders do not want taxpayers to pay and Members across the House do not want taxpayers to pay; we want those who are responsible to pay—the developers, the insurance companies and the building regulators who said that these properties were safe over the past 20 to 30 years, when many of the leaseholders who will be forced to pay these bills were in primary school or not even born. It is not acceptable, it is not fair and it is not right. What we are doing today is shameful.
The amendments would maintain the status quo with regard to the costs of remediation. I understand the Minister’s point that this is a small Bill and not the right place to deal with the costs of remediation. I agree with him, but it is he who is transferring the liability to leaseholders in this Bill. The status quo is that leaseholders are not responsible for the costs of anything to do with external walls or doors. It is this Bill that amends the legislation. It is this Bill that will make leaseholders responsible for paying for historical fire safety defects. Again, that is not fair.
I was at a building today and it became clear very quickly that the estimated costs of remediation are greater than the value of the properties within it. Can the Minister give me an answer? What will happen in cases where the costs of remediation are greater than the value of the building and the properties within it? Will the building be written off, like an insurance company would write off a car? Will those people be made homeless? We know that if the Bill goes through, even more leaseholders will face bankruptcy and huge issues of homelessness.
At the moment, the interim costs are bankrupting leaseholders up and down the country. Leaseholders are screaming for help; they are screaming in pain. And what are we doing? Today, we are saying to them, “Thanks for paying the interim costs. Once you’ve finished that, we’re going to load you up with the remediation costs on top.” That is tens of thousands of pounds that people just do not have.
We are nearly four years on from Grenfell, and it appears to me that the Government have given up on those who should be responsible for paying and are pushing the costs on to leaseholders. It is morally unacceptable.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) [V]
I will be supporting the amendment moved by the Bishop of St Albans, because in circumstances where leaseholders are beset by worry, fear and uncertainty, it will provide them with the reassurance that they will not have to pay to fix a problem for which they are not responsible. It will also make the Government realise that they have to come forward with a different solution.
There are two problems here: the first is dangerous cladding and the second is other fire safety defects, which have been discovered in building after building. The Government appear to be in the position where the funding they have announced will pay for the remediation of missing fire cavity barriers where they are integral to the replacement of dangerous cladding, but not where they are not—in other words, where they are elsewhere in the building. I do not really understand that. Can the Minister say whether, if the works the Government are prepared to fund through the scheme are completed, the buildings in question will be declared safe so that the waking watch and insurance costs disappear even if the other fire safety defects have not been fixed?
Time, however, is not on our side, because we know how long making all of these homes safe is going to take, even if all the necessary funding had already been identified.
There are detailed inspections to be done, tenders have to be put together, firms found who are willing to do the work, and scaffolding and building materials have to be ordered before the work can even begin. So, given the scale of this, it is going to take a long time. But that is the one thing that leaseholders do not have, because, as we have heard, they are paying bills that they cannot afford.
Even worse, the bills are now starting to arrive on their doormats demanding payment to fix the cladding. One recent example was a demand for £71,000. It might as well be for £1 million, because there is no prospect of leaseholders being able to find that kind of money.
So the longer this goes on, the more likely we are to see leaseholders becoming bankrupt. What are the local authorities going to do when they turn up at their door and say, “I’m homeless; I need somewhere to stay”? And make no mistake: the anger that leaseholders are feeling at the moment will be something else again when they find themselves being made homeless through no fault of their own.
So, let us do the right thing today to protect leaseholders, and then the Government can turn their attention to finding an answer that will actually work. At a time when people are getting bills to the tune, as I have just said, of £71,000 through the letterbox, to stand up and say, “I’m really sorry, but this isn’t the right legislation” demonstrates a failure to understand the nightmare that so many of the people we represent are living through.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I will call the Minister to wind-up the debate at five to 9.
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
First, may I put on record my thanks to the Lord Bishop of St Albans and the Bishop of London, without whom this amendment would not be back here tonight?
Not to try to outdo the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), in my hand this evening I have an invoice. It is an invoice for service charges and remediation of fire safety defects; it is an invoice for nearly £79,000. Imagine for one moment you are trapped in a flat you have been told is unsafe. Night after night you go to bed with the fear of fire. You cannot sell your flat because it is worthless. Everyone knows that none of this is your fault, but then an envelope drops through your letterbox. When you open it, there is a bill for £78,000 to put defects right that are not of your making.
I am asking Members across the House to vote tonight to agree to the Bishop of St Albans amendment—better, or formerly, known as the McPartland-Smith amendment to the Fire Safety Bill. I am asking them to vote with us tonight because bills like this one have already started to arrive and they are not going to stop. Everyone knows what is happening, and if they do not they should open their emails and read the heartbreaking experiences of their constituents. This is not politics; it is not ideology—in fact I do not know what it is, but is it any wonder that some leaseholders feel that there is some sort of a conspiracy against them?
Are we going to let the innocent continue to pick up the tab for the guilty? What are we doing about the developers, the contractors and the manufacturers? What are we doing about the insurers and the National House Building Council? What are we doing about local authority development control and others that signed off these buildings as safe? Are they sleeping soundly in their beds tonight?
There is an economic reason for voting for the amendment, and there is a political reason for voting for it, but beyond that there is a moral reason. If this Bill becomes law, we will be abandoning hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and I am not going to have that on my conscience.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak this evening. I have been contacted by and met hundreds of concerned constituents, many of whom are trapped in unsafe leasehold properties. I have also met Clad DAG, a group set up to ensure the voices of disabled leaseholders are heard, and I hope the Minister will also meet them. Many of those I have spoken to bought their first home through Government schemes that they believed would help, rather than hinder, them. They now wish to move on, but are instead facing bankruptcy due to astronomical bills. Understandably, they want to know why those who should be taking responsibility are not.
Let us look at the example of Berkeley Homes and its subsidiary St James. Unlike other developers and housing providers in the constituency, the chief executive officer of Berkeley Homes has refused three times to attend public meetings that I have organised, or to answer leaseholders’ reasonable questions about remediation costs. The company remains in dispute with the owners of Aragon Tower in Deptford about whether the fire breaks in the building are faulty. Meanwhile, more than 160 residents are fearful of what might happen while they are asleep.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) [V]
Nearly four years after Grenfell, it is very disappointing that the Government still have not finalised support to make people’s homes safe, and that leaseholders are still waiting for the protection that Ministers promised multiple times, and that the Lords amendments could help deliver.
I am in touch with more than 3,000 households affected in my constituency, and hundreds of leaseholders have completed my online survey. These are people left in limbo by our Government, but already facing the cost of service charges or waking watches. There are also those facing costs where there is an uncertain timeline for the work. Seven out of 10 people who completed my survey said that works had been identified as necessary but they had yet to get the date for repairs. There are also people whom the Government deliberately excluded from help with compartmentalisation safety measures, and people living in buildings less than 18 metres tall. I am working with people living in 28 such buildings, and with people who have seen delays in Government action, despite the Government having failed to ensure that regulations meant that house building and renovations were safe. Of course, other people have seen Government guidance needlessly affect their insurance or mortgage.
Today, I am supporting the Lords amendments, but I am also asking the Government not to profiteer from this situation. I am seeking, with cross-party backing, including from the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), who has already spoken, a VAT exemption on essential works required through fire safety surveys, in line with VAT changes made three years ago for some new builds. If that measure is adopted, the Government’s building safety fund will go 20% further, as money will not be lost to VAT. That fund goes on not luxury changes, but essential remedial works required by the Government to make people’s homes safe. Put simply, we cannot go from dishy Rishi eating out to help out last year, to rip-off Rishi profiteering from people’s misery today. I hope that this cross-party request will gain further support, and that Ministers will meet campaigners on this issue.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle). The Government have moved swiftly to try to remediate the cladding on tall buildings. There has been slow progress, but progress is being made. In medium-rise buildings—those below six storeys—leaseholders will have to bear a cost, but we do not know what that cost will be, and we do not yet know the results of the proposals for the loan scheme. It is quite clear that the Government are trying to find a way forward, but we have yet to see the details.
There is also the issue of fire safety in buildings. The Bill is vital to preserving fire safety across the country in all buildings, whatever their structure. The Grenfell inquiry lifted the lid on the scandal of the tall buildings erected in this country without following proper fire safety regulations. Once a survey is carried out on a building, we know the extent to which work is required, whether regulations were followed, when the building was put up and whether the materials used in the building were correct. The people who provided substandard materials should be made to replace them free of charge. If builders put buildings up without following the proper regulations, we should go back to them and required them to carry out the remediation.
The one set of people who are completely and utterly innocent is the leaseholders. They did not build their building; they bought their lease in the belief that it was safe and secure. We should send out the strongest signal tonight that leaseholders should not have to pay a penny piece towards the cost of remedying things that were not their fault.
The Minister may say that the Bill is the wrong place to put that provision, but it will take at least 18 months—possibly two years—to bring the building safety Bill to fruition. Leaseholders do not have time to wait for us to deliberate, so let us join together and send the signal that leaseholders do not have to pay a penny. If the Government believe that Lords amendment 4B is somehow flawed, let them come forward with an amendment that is satisfactory and will result in the key outcome: not requiring leaseholders to pay.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]
I am pleased to see the Bill back before us, and proud that it was an amendment that I tabled last June in Committee—new clause 3—that first introduced the principle that leaseholders must be protected from the extortionate costs of fire safety remediation. I am very grateful to my noble Friend Baroness Pinnock for taking up the idea in the other place, and to the hon. Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) and the Lord Bishops of St Albans and London for improving it along the way.
The arguments for and against protecting leaseholders in the Bill are now well established. The Government continue to attempt to fob us off with the inadequate and flawed remediation fund, but fire safety experts have debunked the fund’s arbitrary 18-metre cut-off. Meanwhile, leaseholders keep trying in vain to tell the Government that it is not just about cladding; buildings of any height would still be left liable for non-cladding remediation of missing fire breaks, flammable balconies or dangerous insulation, as well as having to pay for waking watches and additional alarms.
I have listened with interest as Ministers continue to reject the amendment. We hear time and again that it is not sufficiently detailed, that it would require substantial drafting of primary legislation and that it could cause litigation, delay remediation work and have unintended consequences—that is a new one. The Government claim that it is Members who back the amendment who are apparently responsible for causing delays to the Bill, when it is the Government who have taken almost four years to bring forward a two-page Bill. Not once have the Government acknowledged the risks of the Bill passing without the amendment. Not once have the Government addressed the fact that financial costs will be incurred by leaseholders from day one if the Bill goes through without the amendment.
The Government have spent nine months finding fault with the amendment, but at no point have they brought forward their own. Leaseholders cannot rely on the flawed building safety fund, nor can they wait any longer for promises of hope in a building safety Bill that may or may not help in the future. Ministers can see the strength of feeling in this House, even among those on their own Benches, and they can hear the pleas from millions of desperate homeowners. This amendment may not be perfect, but it is the only proposal on the table to protect leaseholders from the financial repercussions of fire safety defects that are not of their making. I call on all Members to do the right thing and support it.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I understand why the Government will not accept the amendment, and I do not want to go there again, but what we need is urgency. Time is not just money; it is also worry, anxiety and uncertainty, and I echo the points made in one of the many excellent letters from my constituents in Portishead on this. It says: “It is not right that leaseholders have to worry about the costs of fixing safety defects that we did not cause.” We all agree with that; the question is who should pay. If the costs are a direct result of legislative change made by the Government, it is reasonable for taxpayers to contribute to that. If they are not, builders and insurers should pay, including for non-cladding related defects.
The second point that my constituent makes is this: “We recognise that the additional £3.5 billion announced by the Secretary of State is a step forward and we do welcome this funding. We are still awaiting the full detail of this funding announcement, as well as that of the proposed loans for medium-rise buildings.” In the last debate, we were told that more details would be forthcoming after the Budget. It is after the Budget, and we have still not had the details we are looking for, and these are real-time problems for which our constituents require real-time solutions.
My constituent goes on to say that “providing funding for buildings over 18 metres while forcing leaseholders in buildings under 18 metres to pay via a loan scheme is entirely unfair, because building height alone does not determine fire risk.” We understand that, and again it is about appreciating that there needs to be a cut-off to stop taxpayers having to sign a blank cheque, but the cost for remediation should be met by those who are actually responsible for the problems in the first place.
The final problem that my constituent raises—it has been raised so often in this debate and previous debates—is negative equity and the difficulty of resale, which is causing immense distress. It can be a major generational problem for people who are looking to sell or downsize. It can cause them a great deal of anxiety. We have heard that the market should sort it out, as we would normally expect, but we are still waiting for elements of that that the market would normally regard as being necessary.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Dr Fox
I will not, because time is short and so many Members want to get in; I apologise to my hon. Friend.
Last time, I asked what direct contact Ministers had had with the Association of British Insurers, the building societies and the banks, because without their help, we are unable to deal with the negative equity and resale problems that are at the heart of so much of the distress we find. I know from talking to so many of my constituents about this issue that they appreciate that the Government have already come a long way. They are very grateful for taxpayer support. The problem is that we need more details, and for real-time issues, we need real-time solutions. Urgency is the key.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I am grateful to colleagues in the other place for the opportunity to reconsider amending this Bill. I also thank the hon. Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), for their perseverance in holding the Government to account over this cladding scandal.
Much has been said in this Chamber about why leaseholders should be protected from fire safety remediation costs, and I could repeat the long list of powerful arguments that colleagues from across the House and I have put to the Government, but instead I draw on the experiences of those whose voices are not often heard in this debate, and in particular want to mention the problems faced by disabled leaseholders. I pay tribute to the work of the Leaseholder Disability Action Group in highlighting them.
For many disabled constituents in Vauxhall, the difficulty finding accessible homes in London means that, where possible, they choose to invest in a property that they view as a potential property for life.
In many instances, shared ownership with a housing association is an affordable option for those who do not have enough for a large deposit or even a mortgage. Many disabled leaseholders will have spent thousands of pounds adapting their flats to suit their needs, including with bathroom and kitchen adaptations, which will often have been funded through local authority disabled grants. But like so many leaseholders caught up in this crisis, they are now facing the additional burden of remediation costs, on top of other fire safety measures, putting them at risk of bankruptcy and losing their home for life. What is more, we know that disabled people are less likely to have the savings or income to meet unforeseen bills, and these are all subject to means-testing. This cannot be right. The important amendment before us this evening would help to end this nightmare for all leaseholders, so I urge all colleagues across the House to join me in voting for it.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) [V]
There is a simple question for the House to consider today: should leaseholders be forced to pay for essential remediation works that they are compelled to undertake to their properties that have come about through no fault of their own? The only possible answer is no.
We know that the cladding calamity that has befallen so many of our constituents did not come about because leaseholders have failed in any way. All the costs that are attributable to the cladding scandal are down to failures by developers and successive Governments, who have presided over shocking, scandalous regulatory failure, which has pushed thousands of wholly innocent people to the brink of financial ruin.
We all know that the costs of the regulatory failure that has created this crisis are in the many billions of pounds, but they must not fall on the ordinary people who are not responsible for this mess. There are other ways, I believe, that the Government can raise the necessary money. They should introduce a levy on developers and the construction industry to fund the cost of remediation —both cladding removal and remediating the many other fire risks that many of us in the House have been raising for quite some time.
The Government should also strengthen procurement regulations so that local authorities and metro Mayors can prevent developers and construction companies that are failing to live up to their moral obligations and put right the fire hazards that they are responsible for creating from bidding for any further publicly funded development contracts. In that way, we can reward those who are doing the right thing and putting right the cladding issues in the buildings that they were responsible for putting up and, hopefully, force a rethink on the part of those who are failing to live up to their responsibilities by preventing them from bidding for further taxpayer-funded contracts.
But what is clear is that the Government must not pin the spiralling costs of this crisis on the ordinary people who are currently facing financial ruination. I urge all Members to keep the amendment tabled by the Bishop of Saint Albans in the Bill, because to do anything else is a dereliction of our duty. This House must do the right thing by leaseholders this evening.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The first thing to say is that I agree with many of the comments that have been made. It simply cannot be right that leaseholders are faced with bills of tens of thousands of pounds. Nevertheless, I cannot support the amendment because I do not think it is effective, for a number of reasons. First, it seems to put somebody—an indeterminate person—on the hook for fire safety remediation forever. As I read it, it is not limited to historical defects.
Kevin Hollinrake
I do not think I should, because of the timescales, but as my hon. Friend is an author of the amendment, I will.
Royston Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I want to ask him this simple question, which I am sure he will appreciate. We have been back here three or four times now to discuss this, over and over, and every time I have said that if the amendment is defective, the Government should make it work and have it as their own. Does he agree that that is the way to go?
Kevin Hollinrake
After the previous debate, I offered my hon. Friend the opportunity to sit down and look at an amendment that might work, in concert with the Government.
The other difficulty with the amendment is that it would put the onus back on a building’s freeholders. Many people would say that that is fine—that it is better than the leaseholders having that responsibility—but I do not think it would put the leaseholders in a better situation, because the freeholder would simply close down the company and hand back the responsibility, which would fall back on to the leaseholders. I simply do not think the amendment works.
I have a couple of general comments. I was a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee at the time of the Grenfell tragedy, and the first thing for which we campaigned—straightaway, like many Members in this House—was a complete ban on combustible cladding. That is exactly what the Government stepped in to do. Of course, that ban is prospective, and it left a retrospective issue. The Government have clearly stepped in on the retrospective issue of cladding on high-risk buildings, which is exactly what the Select Committee campaigned for—those 1,700 high-risk buildings that were over 18 metres. That is what the £5 billion of funding remediates.
Many people in this debate have asked about the other elements, such as the missing fire breaks. It is of course absolutely right that we cannot expect leaseholders to take on a debt of tens of thousands of pounds; that is simply not right. We need to take a risk-based approach to the issue. Lots of buildings, particularly lower-rise buildings, can be safely remediated without necessarily replacing cladding: sprinklers, fire alarms and other systems can make those buildings just as safe.
We need to form a coalition of people right across the sector—be it building owners, contractors, managers or manufacturers—to find the best risk-based solution to the problem while minimising the cost for anybody, not least leaseholders. Of course developers should pay, and in many cases they have—Persimmon has just put £70 million to one side to remediate some of its buildings—but the difficulty is that we are often trying to deal with developers that are no longer there. The levy that the Government have introduced is absolutely the right solution, and I urge them to extend it to materials manufacturers and in particular insulation manufacturers, which I feel are principally responsible for the scandal of the situation in which we find ourselves.
On leaseholders, we of course do not want to see anybody go bankrupt as a result of these costs. There is a cap on costs for lower-rise buildings; it may well be that there should be a cap on the costs of remediating these issues for any leaseholder in any building. We should look into that, along with the possibility of the Government top-slicing the risk to make the insurance costs much lower. There are solutions and we all need to work together to provide them.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Sir Robert Neill, who must resume his seat at 8.55 pm or before.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I have great respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and his expertise in this policy area. I accept that the amendment is not at all perfect, but it is the only thing that is currently available to keep the issue in play, which is why, unfortunately, I cannot support the Government tonight. I had hoped we would have a solution by now.
The simple point is that whoever is at fault—there may be a number of them as this has happened over a period of time—the people who are not at fault are the leaseholders who bought in good faith. They relied on surveys and regulations that appeared to suggest that their properties were in order and had no reason to think otherwise. It therefore cannot be right that they are out of pocket, regardless of the height of the building. I quite understand that there may be perfectly good reasons for using 18 metres as a threshold of risk for prioritising work, but it has no relevance to responsibility, moral or otherwise, so it is an arbitrary cut-off point.
I had hoped that Ministers would have taken the opportunity between the previous debate and this one to come up with a further scheme. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister, who I know is trying to do the right thing and has put a great deal of money into the matter, to continue to think again and work urgently on this matter because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) said, time is pressing. The only people who do not have the cash flow are the leaseholders. By all means go after those at fault, be they builders, developers or contractors, but in the meantime we cannot leave leaseholders, who have done nothing wrong, facing bankruptcy because they are effectively in negative equity and are having to fork out for a significant amount of costs, as are my constituents at Northpoint in Bromley.
This is destroying people’s lives. None of us wants to do that and I know that the Government do not want to do that. To find a solution, we have to cover the costs for those people who are not in a position to fund these costs over the length of time between this Bill imposing a liability on them and the Building Safety Bill coming along perhaps 18 months—12 months at best—down the track. It is covering that gap that needs to be done. That gap has to be covered in a way that treats and protects all leaseholders equitably regardless of the height of the building. I hope that the Government will use the opportunity of this going back to the other House to think again and urgently to crystallise a solution that we can all join around. The intentions are the same across the House, but we must have something that does not leave leaseholders—those who are not at fault—exposed. It is not a question of caveat emptor. They relied on professional advice and assurances. They are not the ones at fault. Be it loan or grant, either way they should not be picking up the tab for something that was not, ultimately, their responsibility.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this debate. Members have spoken passionately and sincerely on behalf of their constituents. I think that everybody, from all parts of the House, wants to see the cladding scandal ended once and for all, and ended quickly, which is what the Government are about.
Christopher Pincher
As I did not give way to the hon. Gentleman earlier, I suppose that it is only right for me to give way to him now.
Stephen Doughty
The Minister is being very generous. He kindly agreed the other day to speak to his ministerial colleagues about getting a sit-down meeting with Julie James, the Welsh Minister for Housing and Local Government, to resolve some of these unanswered issues. She did write on 10 February to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. She has yet to receive a reply. Can we please get that meeting arranged and please get some answers to her very reasonable questions on behalf of leaseholders in Wales?
Christopher Pincher
Not only did the hon. Gentleman speak to me in the Chamber, but, even more importantly, he spoke to me in the Tea Room. I shall certainly ensure that he gets a response as swiftly as possible.
In the time that I have, let me speak to the effectiveness of this amendment. As parliamentarians, no matter what the issue is before us, we have a duty, as I said earlier, to implement a clear framework and transparent legislation to support fire and building safety reform. Despite the best intentions of those who have tabled this amendment, I have to say that it is unworkable and impractical. There are three specific points that I should raise. First, the amendment does not take into account remedial works that arise outside of the fire risk assessment process—for example, costs identified as a result of a safety incident or building works taking place. In such cases, this will not prevent costs being passed on, so it does not deliver what Members want it to do. Furthermore, if these amendments were to be added to the Bill and become law without the necessary redrafting of the legislation, the Government, and thereby the taxpayer, would in all likelihood fall liable to protracted action by building owners in the courts. Building owners could use litigation to claim for costs that they feel are entitled to be pursued from leaseholders. While that litigation is ongoing, there could be further delays to construction work carried out on urgent remediation. It could be a waste of time and a waste of taxpayers’ money. Redrafting the Bill is not something that can be done at the stroke of a pen. It requires parliamentary counsel and parliamentary draftsmen to work at it to ensure that any changes are sound and that any secondary legislation is also prepared, so that the Government, and thereby the taxpayer, can avoid legal challenge. We would not be able to get it done in this Session.
Furthermore, the amendments do not reflect the complexity involved in apportioning liability for remedial defects. The Government have announced how they will distribute costs, including from developers and industry, through our upcoming levy and tax. A decision through this amendment to pass all these costs to the building owner would be overly simplistic and it could be counter-productive. It would be self-defeating if landlords, faced with remediation costs, simply walked away. Many could do that. They could activate an insolvency procedure and just walk away. That is not about protecting freeholders, but about protecting leaseholders. It is about their position, because if leaseholders are left behind as the owners walk away, they would be in the same position as they are now, with no certainty on how works would be paid for or when they will be done. There is a real risk that this amendment could make the problem worse for leaseholders. We would be left in a situation where there would be delays to the commencement of the Fire Safety Bill, delays to our wider building safety programme, greater uncertainty for leaseholders and, quite possibly, unintended and deleterious consequences for them. We would not be any further forward in resolving the issue.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.
We will now suspend for three minutes.
Fire Safety Bill
Tuesday 27th April 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 196-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons reason - (27 Apr 2021)
20:20 - Division conducted remotely on Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A) - Ayes: 329 / Noes: 247 - Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A) agreed.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That the Commons reason be now considered.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Adonis
Leave out all the words after “That” and insert “this House declines to consider the Commons reason before a Hansard record of the House of Commons debate on this vital Bill, held only minutes ago, is available and can be properly considered by members”.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House unduly, but I need to draw the attention of the House and, in due course, the Procedure Committee to the really unsatisfactory way that our proceedings are conducted on these important matters relating to Commons reasons.
The Commons debated this matter only a few hours ago, and there is no Hansard account of the debate. We were not at all clear when we were going to debate these hugely important matters affecting millions of our fellow citizens: we were told it might be at 4 pm and then 4.40 pm. Many of us have had to hang around the House for hours, waiting to be told when it might happen; we were only recently told that it would be at 7.10 pm.
Until I came into the House, half an hour ago, I was not aware of the amendments that have been tabled because they are not available, in the haphazard way that we conduct these proceedings. I and many other noble Lords have not yet had a proper opportunity to assess the amendments. They are quite complicated and we are being railroaded into taking decisions on them in the next hour.
This is a totally unsatisfactory way for this House to consider important legislative issues. Although I do not wish to detain the House unduly now, as I have said, I feel duty-bound to draw the attention of the House to the unsatisfactory nature of the proceedings. We should take this matter up with the Procedure Committee. We have proper arrangements for the consideration of Bills at all other stages, including fixed intervals between the different stages of consideration. These are in our Standing Orders and they should apply at this vital last stage of Bills, when we are engaged in interchanges with the House of Commons. I beg to move.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
I start by saying that I disagree with the noble Lord: his amendment is unnecessary because there is a Commons Hansard transcript—it is online and has been since just after 5.30 pm. Nevertheless, the noble Lord’s amendment gives me the opportunity to make it clear to the House that what is proposed for the consideration of the Fire Safety Bill today is entirely in keeping with the normal practice of the House. By “normal”, I mean that this has long been the case and has nothing to do with how we have been working more recently in the hybrid House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I have not received any request to speak after the Minister. Does anyone in the Chamber wish to speak? Lord Adonis.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that matters have been considered in this way in the past but that does not make it satisfactory. He said that the Hansard account was available at 5.30 pm. That was one hour and 40 minutes ago and most of us were not even aware of that fact. I did watch the House of Commons proceedings on replay and had to note down by hand all that had been said several times, so that I could get the wording correct. No ordinary member of the public would think that these proceedings are satisfactory, and the Procedure Committee should look at them with a view to improving them. Huge issues are at stake here and they should not be rushed and railroaded through in this way. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greenhalgh
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4J, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4K.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, I should like to start this debate by paying tribute to the fire and rescue services across our country. In recent days, we have seen large fires in Greater Manchester and Shropshire, which have been dealt with by those services with exemplary bravery and professionalism. That is a reminder of why we want to get this Bill through: to help fire and rescue services do their job, and to ensure that buildings are properly and thoroughly assessed and that the risk of fire is minimised as much as possible.
I am fully aware of the pain and anguish that the cost of remediation is causing leaseholders, but all of us in this House agree that residents deserve to be and feel safe in their homes. I do not want to repeat all the Government’s reasons for resisting these amendments, but I do want to reiterate that this is a hugely complex area. There is no simple solution and I am afraid that it cannot be resolved through amendments to this short, technical Bill.
The other place has now voted against these different remediation amendments put forward by your Lordships’ House, the last one of which was rejected by 64 votes earlier today. That confirms that the other place has supported the Government’s view that the Bill is not the right legislation in which to deal with remediation costs. There is consensus in both Houses that the fire safety order needs to be clarified. That is because we want to avoid a scenario in which defects with external walls or flat entrance doors in multi-occupied residential buildings are not identified, resulting in a potential increase in fire safety risks for everyone living in such places.
Given this consensus, coupled with the fact that the other place considers that the Fire Safety Bill is not the right place to deal with remediation costs, I again ask your Lordships to agree that this Bill should go on to the statute book. If noble Lords insist on a legal resolution to the issue of remediation costs through this Fire Safety Bill, then I am afraid that this important Bill will fall on the grounds that this could mean that responsible persons for multioccupied residential buildings can argue that it is lawful to deliberately ignore the fire safety risks of the external walls and flat entrance doors.
As noble Lords have heard in previous debates, the Government’s ability to lay regulations to deliver on the entirety of the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s recommendation is subject to this Bill gaining Royal Assent. If this Bill were to fall there will be a delay delivering the inquiry’s recommendation in respect of external wall structure and flat entrance doors.
I place on record again that the Government are committed to protecting leaseholders and tenants from the cost of remediation. Under the plans announced by the Housing Secretary in February this year, hundreds of thousands of leaseholders will be protected from the cost of replacing unsafe cladding on their homes. The £5.1 billion in grant funding made available to leaseholders is unprecedented, but I agree that leaseholders need stronger avenues for redress. The building safety Bill will bring forward measures to do this, including making directors as well as companies liable for prosecution. I agree that the industry must play its part, and the Government agree with the broader polluter pays principle. Through our high-rise levy and developer tax, industry will pay.
I repeat my message from the last time I stood here at the Dispatch Box:
“We recognise that the … Fire Safety Bill will lead to more remediation issues being identified, but there will be occasions when other measures to mitigate the risk are required, rather than extensive remedial works.”
However, the solution and the costs involved will vary depending on the corrective measures required. Not all buildings will need extensive remedial works. For example,
“the vast majority of lower-rise buildings will not require the type of remedial work discussed in the House today.”—[Official Report, 20/4/21; col. 1377-78]
To suggest that this Bill will unleash hundreds of thousands of costs, all of which will be major and substantive, is simply not the case. It is also incorrect to suggest that the Bill will create further liability for leaseholders. The Bill does not create liability; it is a simple Bill to clarify the fire safety order and let our fire and rescue services do the job they do best, which is keeping us safe.
I ask noble Lords to reconsider their position of insisting on the remediation costs amendments days before the end of this Session, which risks the Government’s ability to implement an important legal clarification that will improve fire safety and help protect lives. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
At end insert “but do propose Amendment 4L in lieu—
“Legislative proposals relating to prohibition on passing remediation costs on to leaseholders and tenants
(1) The owner of a building may not pass the costs of any remedial work attributable to the provisions of this Act on to leaseholders or tenants of that building.
(2) Subsection (1) has effect only until a statutory scheme is in operation which ensures that leaseholders and tenants of dwellings do not have to pay for remedial work attributable to the provisions of this Act.
(3) Within 90 days of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish draft legislation to ensure that leaseholders and tenants of dwellings do not have to pay the costs of any remedial work attributable to the provisions of this Act, and must also publish a statement on a proposed timetable for the passage of the draft legislation.
(4) Within 120 days of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a statement confirming whether the draft legislation mentioned in subsection (3) has progressed.””
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I join noble Lord in paying tribute to the fire and rescue services, and the bravery they have shown recently and every day. But these heroes—they are heroes—are FBU members. They have not always been shown the respect they deserve from many people, particularly the Prime Minister when he was Mayor of London. He did not always show the FBU members the respect they deserved, and these are the same people. I make that one point.
I draw the House’s attention to my relevant interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, a non-executive director of MHS Homes Ltd and chair of the Heart of Medway Housing Association. It is most disappointing that we are back here again, and I accept that it is very unusual for us to push this again, but I will test the opinion of the House.
My amendment is based on the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, and it would ensure that no costs are passed on to the leaseholders or tenants. That the subsection would remain in force until such time that we get the Government’s statutory scheme. Further, it would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to come back within 90 days to publish draft legislation to ensure that leaseholders and tenants do not have to pay, and to publish a timetable for the implementation of that legislation. Finally, we would also require a progress report from the Secretary of State within 120 days of the passing of this amendment.
Now, why are we back here again? It is because the Government have been quick to promise and slow to act. We are here because they are not listening to the innocent victims of the cladding scandal, who should be at the forefront of the levelling-up agenda, if it is anything but a slogan that the Government have no intention of delivering. These people are families whose homes are blighted. They need their Government to come to their aid but, instead, the Government made promises that they have spectacularly failed to deliver. That is no way for a Government to behave. As I said, I intend to divide the House when the time comes.
“We will do whatever it takes” is a statement that the Government regularly put about, whether from the Chancellor announcing new measures or the Culture Secretary regarding the European Super League. Sadly, it is never said by the Government when it comes to dealing with the innocent victims of the cladding scandal. Perhaps, in replying to the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, the Minister for Fire Safety, can explain that failure to the House, because we have never heard from the Government what the plan is, which is part of the problem. If we are informed of a clear, well thought-out pathway and route map to help the victims we could make progress, but for some reason the Government will not do that. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell the House about this road map when he responds to the debate.
I want to see this Bill on the statute book, but I do not accept for one minute that this puts it at risk. We still have days before the end of the Session. I do not want to hold the Bill up. It is good in what it does, which is to implement the first recommendation of the Grenfell Tower inquiry—the first bit of legislation since the fire, now nearly four years ago. No one can accuse the Government of acting in haste. On a separate matter, we still have six families in temporary accommodation following the fire at Grenfell Tower.
It is vital that our dwellings are safe and that people can sleep safely at night, without fear. The Government have committed £5 billion—I accept that that is a significant amount of money—but the situation is far from satisfactory and it is in the Government’s gift to do something about it. Only the Government can do something about it, but they are not willing to at present. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans told us when we last debated this—I pay tribute to him for his leadership and for seeking a solution to this scandal—the result can be bankruptcies, enormous mental health strains and possibly worse. Part of the problem is that there have been no assurances to prevent the remediation costs being passed on to leaseholders until the Government’s scheme is operational. This is what my amendment seeks: to prevent the costs of this scandal being passed on to tenants and leaseholders, the innocent victims.
We have all seen in the media the heartbreaking reports of the crippling costs that leaseholders are having to bear, such as interim fire safety costs and high insurance premiums. Surely the developers that built these defective flats, the insurance companies that provided the guarantees but no longer want to honour their commitments and the professionals who signed off the buildings as safe should be paying through their professional indemnity insurance. Instead, innocent victims are left bearing the costs of this scandal, despite the promises made to them.
This leaves them with a dilemma: sell their lease and take on the debt resulting from negative equity, or stay in their leases and face huge debts in the form of remediation bills. They might possibly declare bankruptcy. Surely that is wrong. The leaseholders are playing by the rules and paying their taxes. They are buying a home and doing the right thing, but are not being supported. They had no indication that this was coming. This is a dreadful tragedy. In the absence of an adequate plan and scheme to deal with these issues properly and fairly, there is no other way forward. I hope that the House will support me. We need to find a solution to pay these costs. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I start by drawing the attention of the House to my interests, as recorded in the register, as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a member of Kirklees Council.
On three separate occasions, this House has confirmed its view that the Government should urgently address the plight of leaseholders and tenants who will be significantly and adversely affected by the consequences of the Fire Safety Bill. The provisions in the Bill are not the issue; they are a welcome small step to address the failings exposed by the dreadful Grenfell tragedy. The Government and, no doubt, the Minister will state how important it is that this Bill is passed, as we heard the Minister say a few moments ago. Both omit to say that the Government have been tardy in regard to the passage of the Bill; the Report stage in this House took place in November 2019. If the Government had made the Bill a priority, we would not be here, in the final throes of this Session, seeking to find a just solution for those directly impacted by it.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
Well, my Lords, here we are again. I do not want to detain your Lordships’ House for too long, because everything has been said several times already, but I want to make a few comments, if I may.
I, too, want the Bill to pass. I pay tribute to Her Majesty’s Government and the money they have already found and put on the table, which is very significant. But since we last gathered here, the sheer scale of the crisis, which is in its very early stages, is slowly beginning to unfold before us and become ever clearer. I believe that is why the majority in the other place declines each time an amendment goes back, because those long-serving, seasoned campaigners in the other place realise what is going on. The stories are coming out absolutely relentlessly, and new research is being published.
At a few minutes to four this afternoon, I received an email from someone who works in Parliament. I will call her Claire; that is not her real name, but she will know who she is, because she emailed me at 3.56 pm and asked if I will speak up. She said, “Will you speak up for the leaseholders again and table an amendment? I bought a flat under the shared ownership scheme. I own a 25% share, yet I am liable for 100% of the costs. I am already paying an additional amount each month, and I know this amount will soon increase as further remediation work takes place. I simply cannot afford to pay for the remediation works, nor should I have to. The stress of this situation is becoming intolerable. My mental and physical health are approaching a state of collapse”. “Will you speak up?”, she said. I have not met her yet—I hope she will say hello to me one day, perhaps when she guesses who I am or sees me around the place. This is someone who we bump into, who works in this place and who serves us.
It is not just the many individuals. Since we last came to this provision, research by the Prudential Regulation Authority, which is assessing the building scandal, has said that it poses a systemic risk to the UK financial sector. Some of the work done since then is finding a huge number of flats and homes which are simply unsellable. For example, it has been reported that
“a one-bedroom flat at Leftbank, in Manchester, failed to sell despite being listed for half the £330,000 its owner had paid in 2017”.
What Members in the other place are realising is that, slowly, this will roll out, and it will mean that many people on whom this Bill relies to be able somehow to stump up the money to repair the buildings will not have that money. The buildings will not be repaired, because some of these people will have to walk away, probably very unwillingly.
We have not only those individual stories but some really worrying assessments coming out of the housing and financial market in our country. Some 3 million people, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, are affected. As we are paying tribute to fire and rescue officers, I have three emails from fire and rescue officers who were personally affected by this cladding. These are the people involved, along with nurses, police, teachers, care workers and many others—the House knows the sort of people we are talking about.
I believe that the intent of these amendments is the same: to accept that we have a very difficult problem and really want to see some sort of brokered agreement, whereby developers, cladding manufacturers, freeholders and leaseholders make their fair contribution. We realise that everybody will have to do that, but feel that there need to be protections for leaseholders and tenants over these coming months, before the government scheme comes in. I am minded to support this Motion if the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, brings it to a Division, but I continue to hope and plead that Her Majesty’s Government will be able either to come up with a compromise or make some sort of formal undertaking on what the building safety Bill will offer, so that we can all get behind it and get this really important Bill through.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my professional involvement with construction and property matters and that I am a vice-president of the LGA. We should be in no doubt that the Government have triggered an issue that is destined to cause significant damage, loss and distress to many leaseholders and tenants. My comments will be aimed at Motions A1 and A2 in the names, respectively, of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I commend them on their persistence and diligence.
I also commend the Government on committing their £5.1 billion to this matter, but the reality is that money alone is not the answer. It requires a plan that is co-ordinated, structured and comprehensive; to be honest, it was needed the day before yesterday and certainly not at some unspecified time in the future. The Government cannot, in all conscience, have been unaware that a situation would likely arise where a significant sector of property might be affected by the expansion of the fire safety regime, nor deaf to the observations of just about every informed observer, from, I believe, the Bank of England downwards, warning of the need for action.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The following Members in the Chamber have indicated that they wish to speak: the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lords, Lord Stoneham of Droxford and Lord Adonis. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, while the headlines are all focusing on the scandal of who paid for the internal refurbishment work on a flat in No. 10, for me this is a far greater scandal about who is being forced to pay for the external remediation works on more than a million flats caught up in this fire safety cladding debacle. As things stand, innocent leaseholders—the only party with no hint of blame for negligence or mistakes—are the sole group to shoulder the burden. We have heard some passionate speeches about that.
Why am I back here? I just need some reassurances from the Government. They say that this is not a legislative matter and that this is not the legislation, so what are they going to do? Many of us united here usually disagree. My goodness, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and I are on the same side. Whatever is the matter? But we are here in good faith. This is not Tory-bashing or a cheap dig at rich developers or landowners—it is a warning to the Government.
This reminds me of the convictions of the 39 post- masters, now cleared, but after the tragedy of what befell them because no one would listen. It also feels to me like a betrayal of all those promises made to the red wall voters that this Government care about the aspirations of ordinary people. It seems to make a mockery of parliamentary priorities, and I genuinely do not understand the point of us being here and debating levelling up when many leaseholders concerned bought their flats or houses as part of affordable housing schemes. They are front-line workers who have been thrown to the wolves.
Similarly, what is the point of legislating on the welfare of veterans and supporting the police when one veteran and serving police officer writes to me explaining that he has worked every day since he was 16 and has never needed to rely on state benefit or accrued debts in any way, yet now faces bankruptcy and could even, as a bankrupt, lose his job. He describes it as a living nightmare. He says: “I am a leaseholder, and that is the biggest mistake of my life.” What a terrible thing to say. He says he is disillusioned, angry and frustrated, and powerfully notes that he feels defeated and that all his attempts to be heard are ignored.
These leaseholders feel ignored. Whatever happens here today, I ask the Government to listen and not to ignore them. At the very least, I ask the Minister to listen to the Bank of England. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, noted, last week the Bank of England said it is seriously assessing whether the building safety scandal could cause a new financial crisis—hardly an encouraging sign for building back better or economic growth.
Even from a pragmatic basis, I do not understand why the Government will not note that if more than a million properties become unmortgageable, if we create a negative equity problem, if leaseholders become bankrupt and cannot pay for remediation costs, if there is a knock-on effect on property values, if there is an effect on labour market mobility because people are unable to sell their homes, are trapped and have to stay where they are, surely this is a matter that the Government, even the Treasury, might look at. We look to the Government here because only they can provide the capital up front to pay for the works now.
The Commons reason for rejecting the amendment is that
“the issue of remediation costs is too complex to be dealt with in the manner proposed.”
I just want to know what manner is actually proposed. The plan from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, seems sensible to me. I would like to hear the Government’s.
I do agree that there are no easy solutions. That is why it is too easy for the Government to boast of generous loan funds and grant schemes when people are ineligible to apply for them and are facing huge bills now. Although it is tempting, it would be too easy to blame developers or whatever, and that is not my intention—I just do not want the blameless to pay.
It is also too easy to use the Grenfell tragedy to imply that those of us supporting the leaseholders or backing these amendments are cavalier in any way about fire safety standards. As a leaseholder, I assure noble Lords that I am not cavalier about my own safety. But I do note that today the Grenfell United campaign has issued a statement saying:
“Using Grenfell Recommendations to justify government’s indifference is deeply upsetting for us”.
As victims of the Grenfell fire, they say that they stand in solidarity with innocent leaseholders.
I know that the Bill is good and full of good intentions, but it creates liabilities for leaseholders without giving them any means of redress and, more broadly, it betrays any commitment to a meritocratic society. I appeal to the Government to listen.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
We have had some very good speeches and some very good points have been made, so I will speak quite briefly. First, I declare my own interests in property and as someone with 15 years’ experience of housing association work. I am speaking tonight largely on behalf of my noble friend Lord Newby, who has been tied up in commission work for most of the afternoon.
Looking back at last week’s debate, at the Minister’s speech and at the debate in the Commons this afternoon, I thought there was far too much emphasis on fear of the Bill not going through rather than on trying to set out and address the concerns not only of both Houses but of leaseholders, who have the uncertainty and the fear of liability. Simple fear is prevailing, and that is what we need to address. It is why the Government are in some difficulty in getting final decisions on the Bill.
Let us not forget that a lot of the leaseholders affected by these problems are first-time buyers. Developers made a lot of money out of government deals. The Government have been very keen on first-time buyer schemes and stamp duty relief. Why is it that they are so reticent to spell out more detail and give more assurance to leaseholders in the problems that they are facing? The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, was absolutely right: the Government are very keen on plans in all sorts of areas, but they really need a plan to deal with this problem.
In just one area, pooled insurance, there is great fear of the costs for leaseholders from their insurance going up because of the problems that they are facing and the extra risk that the insurance companies assess. The Government responded very quickly when there were pictures of people with their homes flooded and residents trying to deal with their problems in specific geographical areas, and they very quickly came up with pooled insurance schemes. Why are they not doing that more in this area? These leaseholders are a very specific group and they need help.
All evidence and experience suggest that the problem will grow. We have evidence in our own ranks of a Peer whose block of flats had a cladding problem: when the cladding was taken down, the block was found to be unsafe structurally. This is a growing problem. What lies behind the cladding, I suspect, is what is scaring the Treasury rigid. However, the problem has to be dealt with.
I am afraid that a lot of these properties were designed and built for first-time buyers. The developers knew they had to keep the price down when prices were escalating, but they also kept the costs down because they wanted to make their profit. They made a lot of money, so there will be all sorts of problems in these buildings.
The leaseholders will have seen the situation last week of the sub-postmasters and will be thinking that, as time goes on, they will be left behind and hung out to dry by the bureaucracy and the government machine failing to address their problems. They need protection from eviction, and they need to know exactly how they are going to be able to access grants.
They need to see the Government putting pressure on the developers. In some respects, the Government are a bit too close to some of those developers, but they need to be seen to be taking on the developers, the companies and the contractors involved in these buildings to make sure that it never happens again.
The industry is in fact dysfunctional. It is going to demand government intervention to address skills, regulation and the whole quality of development in this country. The Government need a plan and a timescale. They need to address the uncertainty and fear among very vulnerable people, and they need to start now as the problem will grow. That is why we support these amendments.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the cladding scandal is turning into the next Hillsborough scandal, in terms of not only the terrible and avoidable loss of life but the failure of the public authorities to react in a timely, just and effective manner afterwards. As event after event unfolds and failure succeeds failure in terms of government inaction, I am afraid the scandal grows. Those of us who have seen these events over many years know that there will come a point where the Government will have to concede on these issues.
Anyone who watched the debate in the House of Commons this afternoon and saw impassioned speeches from a string of Conservative MPs—many of whom had encouraged first-time buyers to buy their properties in their political lives, including many of them to buy council properties as leaseholders that are now unsaleable and submerged in negative equity without even a proper schedule of works that can be agreed—will know that this position is becoming unsustainable politically. Not only that, it is becoming a moral quagmire on the part of the public authorities at large: local authorities, regulatory authorities and the Government themselves.
The Minister is in an unenviable position, and we all know why he is in that position. It is because giving the kind of commitment that has been talked about would mean that the £5 billion scheme the Government have announced so far, could, on the basis of estimates I have seen and were being quoted in the House of Commons, be £10 billion or £15 billion. But in this situation we have to work to the just solution, and the just solution is clearly that innocent leaseholders should not be held accountable for costs which had nothing to do with them, were beyond their control and purely in the authority of shoddy developers or inadequate public authorities.
Those developers should be held accountable in due course and the role of the Government is to see that, in the interim—and that interim could be many years; it could be decades before these issues are resolved—innocent leaseholders are not held to ransom. I mean that genuinely; they are held to ransom because they cannot sell their flats and properties until the cladding is sorted out, and in many cases they will be completely unable to meet the costs.
The most powerful speeches in the House of Commons this afternoon were made by Iain Duncan Smith and Liam Fox. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, thinks that she and I are not always on the same wavelength, but I can assure the House that Iain Duncan Smith, Liam Fox and I hardly ever find ourselves in the same company. But everything that they said today was utterly compelling.
They read from accounts given to them by their constituents of estimates for works of £30,000, £40,000 and £50,000, negative equity, inadequate access to the fire safety fund, insurance increases of 1,000%, large charges faced by leaseholders for interim measures and charges not covered by the scheme. The Government said a forced loan scheme would be announced in the Budget, but one MP—I think it was the Conservative MP for Southampton—said “Which Budget is the Chancellor talking about because it hasn’t come in this Budget? Is it going to be the one next year or the one in 2030?”
These are the elected representatives of the people seeking to hold the Government to account. Our role as a revising Chamber in a matter of such huge importance as this is to see that their voices can be properly expressed and heard. The Minister said that there was a decisive majority in the House of Commons, but between today’s vote in the Commons and the previous vote, the Government’s majority fell by half—I repeat, by half—as a result of one further debate where these issues were properly aired. We have a duty to send this issue back and I am absolutely sure that if the Government succeed in railroading this through—they probably have the votes to do so—it is right that we see whether, with a further opportunity for discussion, more progress can be made.
It is only a matter of time before the Government will have to make significant further concessions. I say to the Minister with all due respect that they will drag the reputation of the Government and the state to a much lower level by not conceding in a timely fashion—as they should have done at some point over the last four years, but certainly must in this endgame where the issues have been raised as matters of acute concern.
With respect to the arguments, the Minister says that it is not correct or appropriate to use the Bill to legislate on this issue. My noble friend Lord Kennedy’s Motion does not use the Bill to legislate for a solution; it requires the Government to come forward in due course with their own legislation. All it does in its various provisions is to set down timescales by which the Government must do this. The Government may say that they are not prepared to come forward with legislation but the arguments keep moving. Last time, the Minister said that legislation might not be required, as he might be able to take all these actions to protect leaseholders without it. If he is not prepared to accept my noble friend’s amendment because of the legislative components, it is incumbent on him to give a commitment and say when the Government will come forward with a scheme.
Christopher Pincher, the Minister in the House of Commons, made a lot of spurious suggestions in his reply there just a few hours ago. He said that the proposal by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans was ineffective because it would prevent “very minor” costs, such as replacing smoke alarms, being passed on. That is a ludicrous suggestion; the Government could come forward immediately with a scheme to deal with minor costs if they were so minded, and I see that the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, specifically exempts minor costs. He also said that it would absolve leaseholders from responsibility for works that might be their responsibility. There will be cases where leaseholders have responsibilities, and they should be held accountable for them, but the much bigger issue here, which we as a Parliament have a responsibility to deal with, is where the state has failed in its responsibilities, as well as developers failing in theirs.
We are absolutely right to send this matter back to the House of Commons if there is a majority to do so. Irrespective of whether the Government resolve this matter over the next few days before the end of the Session, they will be forced by public opinion and the weight of natural justice—as with the Hillsborough disaster and the Horizon disaster—to move on this issue. It is simply deplorable that this will happen at the very end of a long period of pressure, which will bring the reputation of the state for fair play to a very low ebb indeed.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we all feel the plight of leaseholders. I spend most of my time as Building Safety Minister and Fire Minister in meetings at the building level, trying to accelerate the pace of remediation. Despite the fact that we have had a global pandemic over the last year, we have also had over 150 starts on site and 95% of buildings have now either had cladding of the very same type that was on Grenfell Tower removed or fully remediated, or have workers on site who are within months are making the buildings safe.
These are hard yards. I have worked with colleagues at all levels of government, with the GLA and the deputy mayor, with the appropriate lead in London Councils and with Mayor Burnham in Greater Manchester. There is a huge effort. Very often it involves difficult, brutal conversations, telling building owners and developers to get a move on. In over half the cases of buildings that had aluminium composite material, we saw the building owners step up and either fund the remediation or carry the works ahead, covering this with warranty schemes without passing the costs on to leaseholders.
These are very difficult times for leaseholders, but that is why, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, the Housing Secretary announced a very comprehensive five-point plan in February. Essentially, we have increased the building safety fund by some £3.5 billion to £5.1 billion. Details of how the revised fund will be spent will be announced very shortly. In addition, we have announced a high-rise levy, which will form part of the building safety Bill, and a tax on developers, because it is important that the polluter pays. There needs to be a financing scheme for medium-rise buildings of between four and six storeys. That is the plan that we have put on the table.
I also point out in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that the Bill does not create liability. This is a simple Bill clarifying the fire safety order to let our fire and rescue services do the job they do in keeping us safe. The Bill clarifies an existing regime. I want to be absolutely clear that it does not create a new liability.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that we need to strengthen redress to stop this all falling on the taxpayer. I have been very clear that we will bring forward measures that will do that as part of the building safety Bill. They will make directors as well as companies liable for prosecution in some instances. The reality is that it is absolutely ludicrous that the statute of limitations under the Defective Premises Act is only six years. That is the statutory period of redress. We will bring forward measures to deal with that point. When I buy a pair of tweezers I get a lifetime guarantee, but when a poor leaseholder invests their life savings and makes the most significant payment in their lives to own their own home the period for statutory redress is simply not acceptable.
I come back to Amendments 4L and 4M. I am afraid that they are unworkable, impractical and do not deliver the solutions for leaseholders. As noble Lords have heard before, it is impractical and confusing to amend the fire safety order to try to resolve the issue of who pays. These amendments seek to cover the very complicated relationship under landlord and tenant law, including financial obligations and liabilities between freeholders and leaseholders. Frankly, these matters do not sit naturally with the fire safety order.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans spoke very eloquently to his amendment and to the two amendments that have been proposed. None of these amendments works because, once again, they orphan the liability of works until such time that a statutory scheme is in place that pays for the work directly attributable to the Act. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, both his amendments reference the provisions of the Act in so doing. I have talked about the difficulties of defining which works might be directly attributable to the Fire Safety Bill’s provisions. I have gone over that ground several times. Orphaning liability simply delays essential fire safety works.
In addition, the proposed scope of the works remains too broad, even with the £500 threshold proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It simply does not resolve the issue. Some of the works that may be required will be very low cost and anyone would reasonably expect the leaseholders to pay. That, frankly, could be more than £500 a year. As no taxpayer scheme for such minor works will be forthcoming, we then reach deadlock.
There is an additional issue which has not been raised by noble Lords: subsidy control. It is a small but important point. Depending on the specific details, it is possible that such a statutory scheme would not be permissible under subsidy control rules. Some leaseholders have undertakings—for instance in buy to let—and subsidy control rules limit how much benefit can be conferred on undertakings. In effect, it may not be possible to relieve leaseholders and tenants from all costs of remedial works attributable to the Bill without breaching subsidy control. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, knows, further detailed consideration is needed.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I must say that I am disappointed by the response of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh. I noted that not one speech from the Government Benches—other than the Minister’s—supported the Government’s position. If I were over there, I would not support the Government either, and so I understand why Members on the Government Benches are sitting very quietly. I do not wish to defend them, but I think they are being very sensible. Frankly, the Government’s position is indefensible, particularly when you look at the promises that they have made. That is part of the problem: the Government think that they can get away with making promises and that, because no one will think anything else of it, they can then mess about a bit. I am sorry, but this issue is not going away.
There is a disappointing lack of understanding of the plight of the innocent victims—I repeat “innocent” —of the cladding scandal. People are really in trouble here. We have heard it tonight and we have heard it before. They need their Government to help them. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans highlighted another case—that of Claire, who works somewhere in the Palace of Westminster. She bought a 25% share in what was probably her first property, and she is now trapped. These are innocent victims.
Why have we not had a summit at No. 10 to sort this out? I asked that last time, but I did not get an answer. We were going to have a summit about the football problems, so why not about this? If the right reverend Prelate is right, we need a meeting of COBRA to talk about the financial crisis that is on its way on the back of this. But no, there has been nothing from the Government. Why are the Government not standing up for innocent victims? Why can they not set out a route map—a pathway to say how the levelling-up agenda would help these first-time buyers, these innocent victims? We hear nothing.
I want to ask the Government to think again. There is no risk to the Bill. This is the House of Lords doing its job—asking the other place, on a matter of the utmost importance, to think again. That is really important. If the Government would spend a bit more time addressing the seriousness of the issue, we could move forward. My noble friend Lord Adonis made the point that the Government had these amendments weeks ago. They brought the Trade Bill back, but this Bill just sat there. It now turns up this week and they have said that we have to be careful because we are going to run out of time. They sat there for weeks, doing nothing with it, when they could have brought it back here.
These may not be the cleverest amendments. I am not a lawyer or a parliamentary draftsperson, nor are other noble Lords. But the Government know what we are trying to achieve. There are a lot of really clever people working for the Government; they could sort it out if they wanted to. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Fire Safety Bill
Tuesday 27th April 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 196-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons reason - (27 Apr 2021)
15:19 - The House divided: - Ayes: 320 / Noes: 256 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
I beg to move,
That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4J.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to consider amendments (g) to (l) in lieu of Lords amendment 4J.
Christopher Pincher
I want first of all to thank all hon. Members for joining in this crucial debate, because all of us in this House agree that residents deserve to be safe, and to feel safe, in their homes. I want to reiterate in the strongest terms the importance of the Bill as a step along the way to delivering that objective, and the risk that we would create if we were to continue to allow these remediation amendments, however well-intentioned, to delay legislation.
The Bill was introduced over a year ago. We are almost at the point of getting it on the statute book, and it is vital that we remind ourselves of the fundamental purpose of what we are seeking to achieve—to provide much-needed legal clarification of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and direct the update of the fire risk assessments to ensure that they apply to structure, external walls and flat entrance doors. I will give way briefly to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), but I want as many hon. Members to speak as possible.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Ministers have repeatedly said that leaseholders should not bear the costs of the fire cladding scandal. Why is he insisting today that they should?
Christopher Pincher
The right hon. Gentleman knows of the very significant amount of public money that we have set aside to remediate those buildings that are the most at risk of fire, where serious injury might take place, and the financial provisions that we have set aside also to help other leaseholders. If we do not resolve the Bill this week, fire assessments will not cover those critical elements of which I spoke, and they may continue to be ignored by less responsible building owners. Moreover, the fire and rescue services will be without the legal certainty that they need to take enforcement action. Ultimately, that will compromise the safety of many people living in multi-occupied residential buildings. Without the clarification provided by the Bill, it will mean delaying implementation, possibly by a year, of a number of measures that will deliver the Grenfell inquiry recommendations.
As I said, I want as many Members as possible to have the opportunity to speak, so I will say no more for the moment until I wind up the debate, save for reiterating two points. First, these remaining amendments, although laudable in their intentions, would be unworkable and an inappropriate means to resolve a problem as highly complex as this. Secondly, the Government share the concerns of leaseholders on remediation costs, and have responded, as the House knows, with unprecedented levels of financial support to the tune of over £5 billion, with further funds from the developer tax, which the Treasury will begin to consult upon imminently, as well as the tall buildings levy. Developers themselves have begun to announce more significant remediation funds.
It is in everyone’s interests to ensure that we do not put at risk the progress that has been made by failing to get the Bill on the statute book by the end of this Session.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the shadow Minister, may I reiterate that this is a very short debate with a long list of speakers, which is why I have put a three-minute limit on Back Benchers? Obviously, if colleagues can be shorter than that, we might actually get everybody in.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
The Sunday Times reported two days ago that the Bank of England is worried that
“Britain’s building safety scandal could cause a new financial crisis.”
The Bank is worried about the scandal’s impact on property values, as new data from the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership shows that fire-risk flats can sell for as little as one third of their purchase price. That is devastating and requires an immediate response from the Government.
The Government surely should not need reminding that a collapse in house prices triggered the global financial crisis in 2007, but it seems that they do, and it seems that they also need reminding of the misery that this crisis is causing hundreds of thousands of people. The safety scandal that has unravelled in the wake of inaction and indecision since the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017 has left up to 1.3 million flats unmortgageable and affects thousands of recently built houses. As many as 3 million people face a wait of up to a decade to sell or get a new mortgage because they cannot prove that their homes are safe, and we have leaseholders who face repair bills of up to £75,000 for flaws such as flammable cladding and balconies, and missing fire breaks.
We stand here today while thousands watch this debate and suffer, worrying about their futures, getting into debt and facing bankruptcy. We have to ask ourselves what the Government actually care about. They do not appear to care that the Bank of England thinks that we are heading for a financial crisis. They do not appear to care that thousands and thousands are living with anxiety, fear and debt. They do not seem to care that the vague and undefined loan scheme that they have hailed as the answer—despite having promised many times that leaseholders will not have to pay—will damage people’s property prices and will not actually be in place, as we hear today, for at least two years, leaving thousands to pay mounting waking watch bills and stuck in properties that they cannot sell.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I completely agree with the points that my hon. Friend is raising. She will know the suffering of my constituents in Cardiff South and Penarth. Does she agree that the UK Government need to get around the table with the Welsh Government and provide clarity on how those taxes will work, and how money will flow from the building levy and the tax? The UK Government have not yet done that. We have finally had an answer to the letter from the Welsh Housing Minister, and the Welsh Government have put aside money, but they are not clear how much money is coming from the UK Government.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend has raised that point many times, and he is standing up for his constituents in a way that I am afraid that this Government will not.
What do the Government care about? We are left with one possible answer. Do the Government care only about the donors who keep their Prime Minister in fancy furniture, so that he can spend £60,000 on curtains in No. 10, while nurses and key workers out there face £60,000 bills for cladding with no wealthy Tory donors to bail them out? Do the Government really care only about big property developers, such as European Land and Property, which developed a block of flats in Paddington that used the same aluminium composite material cladding as was on the Grenfell Tower, and which has donated £2.5 million to the Conservative party since the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017? Do the Government really care only about Britain’s biggest builders, who have built up vast profits during the pandemic, such as Persimmon—
Sarah Jones
The Minister is shouting names at me from a sedentary position, but he is not answering the question. I do not want to be right. I do not want that to be what the Government care about. I honestly always believe the best in people and applaud my colleagues from across the House who have stood up for their constituents time and again on this, but even they are asking why else the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are ignoring a financial and human crisis on such a growing and worrying scale.
Let us vote today to start putting this right and prove me wrong. It is not just Opposition Members who support amendments to protect leaseholders. A recent poll from YouGov commissioned by the National Housing Federation found that three quarters of MPs, including two thirds of Conservative MPs, say that the Government should pay the costs of all building safety work up front and then claim it back later from those who are responsible. I have not heard a single argument that bears any scrutiny as to why it is okay to let leaseholders foot a bill for tens of thousands of pounds, or to sit by as homeowners face bankruptcy or decades of lingering debt.
We welcome the latest amendment from the Bishop of St Albans, which would put into law a guarantee that building owners cannot pass on the costs of any remedial work to leaseholders in the time before the Government introduce their promised legislation. I am also very interested in the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), which propose that the Government should follow the polluter pays principle.
Yet again, the Government have decided to lay a motion to disagree with the Lords amendment. This is a betrayal of the promise that Ministers have made over 17 times that leaseholders will not be left to foot the bill. The Minister’s argument that it would delay further works does not work. If the Government have not managed to work out how to pursue the money from those responsible, why do they not do what is right and stop leaseholders footing the bill?
The Bishop of St Albans’s amendment would buy the Government some time. It would protect leaseholders while the Government come up with a longer-term plan. We ask the Minister again, if he does not think that the proposed amendments are right as they are, why not amend them? Why, when it is directly in their gift, will the Government not pay to fix these problems and then go after the building companies and developers that are responsible? Leaseholders deserve justice now.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now move to a three-minute time limit. I call Royston Smith.
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
The longer this debate drags on, the more damaging it becomes to the Government and the worse it becomes for innocent leaseholders. On Saturday evening, there was a fire in the tallest tower block in Southampton. That building has ACM cladding. As I understand it, it was alight. Hampshire fire and rescue responded quickly and dealt with the fire with its characteristic professionalism. Fortunately, the fire was not too serious, but it could have been. What would we be saying today if the worst had happened, I wonder?
I have said from the start that there are three dimensions to the fire safety scandal: the moral, the economic and the political. The moral obligation is obvious: this Government have a duty to hold those who are responsible to account and to defend the innocent leaseholders. There should be no disagreement on that issue.
Secondly, on the economic, the Government clearly think that my concerns about toxic debt, mass bankruptcy and repossession are wrong, but it is not just me who thinks it is a risk. The Bank of England is concerned, too—so concerned that it is assessing whether the fire safety scandal could cause a new financial crisis. With up to 1.3 million flats unmortgageable, perhaps the Government should be a little more concerned about the economic issue.
Finally, on the political, the Government believe in the home-owning democracy. It defines us. We have encouraged it. We have incentivised it. In fact, many people would not be in their own property without the support of Government. How do we look ourselves in the mirror when we have helped people to buy a home in a dangerous building that is worth less—sometimes much less—than they paid for it? The truth is that most MPs, including Conservative MPs, agree that the Government should resolve this issue. They believe, as I do, that it should not be the taxpayers who pay, despite what some in government have been saying. It should be those who are responsible—the manufacturers, the developers, the National House Building Council and development control. Some of those, of course, are local authorities. The Government can underwrite what is needed and then take it back from the industry. It may take years, but we will charge interest. It should be those who are responsible who pay.
We have been accused of wanting to kill the Fire Safety Bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the Government wanted the Bill to succeed as much as I do, they would do what was necessary to get the Bill through this place and the other place, but they have thus far chosen not to. After today, the Bill will go back to the Lords, and it will, in all likelihood, come back again. The amendment may come back with a different name and moved by someone else. If that happens, the Bill may well fall. That will not be my fault or our fault. That will be the Government’s fault.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) [V]
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith). Here we are again debating a Lords amendment to protect leaseholders from having to pay to fix construction defects and unsafe cladding that never were and never should be their responsibility, and yet Ministers continue to resist, even though they have repeatedly said that leaseholders should not have to bear the cost. The trouble with this endless debate is that the clock is ticking and innocent leaseholders continue to face unreasonable costs as bills now start to arrive demanding sums of money that they simply do not possess. One constituent wrote to me last week enclosing a photograph of the bill he has just been sent, for £27,000. Another thinks that their bill will be £40,000. They obviously cannot remortgage their flats. So I ask the Minister: what are people in this situation meant to do? Sadly, we know that the Government do not have an answer to this, or indeed to the mental and emotional torment that these people are being put through. That is why this amendment is needed, and needed now.
Even taking account of the Government funding already announced, the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership estimates that about two thirds of the total cost will still fall on leaseholders: the very people whom the Government say should not pay. The Association of Residential Managing Agents estimates that the average remediation bill will be about £50,000 a flat and that insurance costs have risen by 400%. The Government estimate that the average cost of a waking watch outside London is over £2,100 a year for each flat. Leaseholders in shared ownership properties are in a particular bind. The building safety fund is moving too slowly. There is a shortage of companies who can, or will, do the work. There is total uncertainty as to what is meant to happen when we know that there are other works that have to be done to make buildings safe but for which the Government are not prepared, so far, to offer funding. I find it very hard to believe that Ministers do not understand that the remedy they have come forward with so far is patently insufficient, or that, without a comprehensive plan, leaseholders will, month by month and year by year, inevitably face financial collapse because of the huge burden of costs being put on their shoulders.
In conclusion, can I assure the Minister that the growing number of MPs who support the Lords amendment are not going anywhere, and that is because our constituents have nowhere else to go?
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this debate.
It is unfortunate that this is the third time the House of Lords has felt it necessary to return this Bill to the House of Commons. That is because their lordships, like many MPs across the House, feel that the Bill cannot progress without some form of protection for leaseholders. It completely astonishes me that people in government cannot hear the screams of pain of leaseholders begging for help—people who are going bankrupt and people who are being hit with high insurance premiums. We were told only last week of an insurance premium for a building that was £11,963 last year but £242,400 this year. People are being hit with bills of £6,000 each with seven days to pay them and no recourse to help. With waking watches, there are interim bills that are going through the roof. Leaseholders cannot pay this; they cannot afford this. The reality is that these buildings will not be made safe by transferring the financial and legal liability on to leaseholders. Leaseholders do not have the funds to fix it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) said, we, leaseholders and leaseholders’ groups do not want the taxpayer to pay; we want the taxpayer to provide a safety net to help. We believe that those responsible should pay—nobody else.
Nobody wants this Bill to fail. We are nearly four years on from Grenfell. The Minister mentioned Grenfell in his opening remarks. I would like to read him a statement that has been issued by Grenfell United:
“The fire safety bill is back in the commons. Government is using the excuse that the amendment will delay Grenfell recommendations. The amendment is to protect leaseholders from charges. The FSB is separate & it is wrong to claim support of it damages recommendations. Using Grenfell Recommendations to justify government’s indifference is deeply upsetting for us and shows they’d rather protect the corporates responsible from paying for the mess they created. Our request is simple: implement Grenfell recommendations make homes safe & protect lease holders from financial ruin. Nearly 4 years since Grenfell and yet not a single piece of legislation has been passed. Homes have to be made safe this is a basic human right. We ask all MPs that committed to ensuring Grenfell 2 could not happen to do the right thing today by us and the thousands of leaseholders effected.”
Grenfell United and the people affected there have spoken. Leaseholders up and down the country are speaking. Our constituents are speaking and Members of Parliament are hearing them. The Bishop of St Albans has tabled an amendment to try to provide the Government with the opportunity of the time and space to come forward with a compromise. I urge the Government to compromise and bring forward an amendment in the House of Lords later today to help support leaseholders.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to speak so early in this important debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland). I thank their lordships for the tenacity and perseverance they have shown over many months in standing up for all the blameless leaseholders affected by the cladding crisis, including the many thousands who live in one of the more than 70 affected buildings in my constituency.
In seeking last week to persuade their lordships to cease insisting on amendments designed to protect all leaseholders from remediation costs, the Minister for Building Safety argued once again that such provision is unnecessary and that to continue to seek to amend the Bill in such a way would risk its passage in this Session, could increase fire safety risks and might “ultimately cost lives”. Yet it is the very fact that this crisis is already ruining countless lives that led their lordships to insist once again that this place reconsider, and they were entirely right to do so.
Stephen Timms
I agree with what my hon. Friend says. I wonder whether he has visited claddingscandalmap.co.uk, which maps 450 buildings with 60,000 homes affected by this scandal. It also shows the Members of this House who are voting to force leaseholders to pay towards the costs.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I have seen the site in question, and it brings home—I know he shares my feelings, as his constituency is so close to mine—the fact that certain parts of the country with high numbers of new build properties, including constituencies such as ours, are particularly badly affected. I have tens of thousands of constituents affected.
As welcome as they were, the five-point plan and the additional grant funding that the Government announced on 10 February are still only a partial solution to the cladding crisis, and they consciously and deliberately leave a significant proportion of leaseholders exposed to costs they cannot possibly hope to bear. For significant numbers of leaseholders, that exposure is not some theoretical future risk, but a reality that they are already confronting.
To take just one example, I had a lengthy exchange yesterday with the right-to- manage directors of a small 24-unit building in east Greenwich, Blenheim Court, which requires urgent remediation and is under 18 metres in height. As things stand, not only are the leaseholders in question living with the punishing uncertainty of not knowing if or when their building might be issued with a forced loan of the kind the Government propose, but because they do not have the funds to commence remediation works, they are struggling with myriad secondary costs, including a soaring building insurance premium, which has led their service charges to increase from about £2,500 a year per flat to more than £130,000—I have seen the invoice, and the figure is correct—and there is a very real risk of mass defaults as a result.
Every week that this House fails to act, more leaseholders are placed in similar situations and put at risk of negative equity and bankruptcy. I have absolutely no doubt that the Government will ultimately be forced to bring forward a more comprehensive solution that protects all affected leaseholders from the costs of fixing both cladding and non-cladding building safety defects. Seeking to pass the costs on to even a proportion of them will almost certainly mean that the works simply do not get done. Unless this House is content to follow that path and see many more lives needlessly destroyed in the interim, it must act today and take decisive steps towards resolving this crisis.
I urge Ministers, even at this late stage, to honour their commitments previously given from the Dispatch Box and come forward with a sensible concession. If they do not, I urge MPs from across the House to protect blameless leaseholders and support the amendment in the name of the Lord Bishop of St Albans in the Division Lobby shortly.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I rise to speak to the amendments in my name. I am grateful for the support from all parties for them. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) for the work they have done on this issue.
We have to find a way forward. We cannot continue this sterile ping-pong between the two Houses of Parliament. We need an actual plan, and I believe that my amendments set out a workable way that the Government can take this issue forward.
There are three issues that need to be dealt with, the first of which is forfeiture. The idea that people’s properties can be repossessed because they have been unable to pay cladding costs, which are unjust in the first place, is abhorrent. We need to reform leasehold legislation to prevent that from happening.
Secondly, we need a proper plan for apportionment of costs, as I set out in the appropriate persons for fire safety order costs amendment. That means that taxpayers are not asked to write a blank cheque, and nor will those with responsibility have the ability to collapse a company so that they can avoid costs at a future date. We have got to ensure that the “polluter pays” principle is applied in this case.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) [V]
Four years have passed since the Grenfell tragedy, and once again the House is debating whether or not to protect leaseholders from the costs of remedying fire safety defects caused by a failure of regulation and negligence, as well as by deceptive practices in the building industry. Meanwhile, the Government continue to dither and delay, and order their MPs to vote against amendments designed to protect leaseholders. Make no mistake, the funds that the Government have made available thus far have taken too much time to come on stream. The money will not ultimately be enough to meet the scale of the crisis and, crucially, interim costs are not covered.
On top of all those costs, today we have heard about the cost of insurance. I have lost count of the times that I have pleaded with the Government to do something about insurance costs. In my constituency there have been insurance increases of 1,000% in affected buildings. Those are shocking figures, and this shocking situation is falling on deaf ears as far as the Government are concerned. Long before any cladding is removed from these buildings, the people living in them will have been ruined by the costs of insurance and interim measures such as waking watches to keep their buildings open. There is simply nothing left to remedy the internal fire safety defects as well. Leaseholders need the protection that the Lords amendment would offer.
We should never forget that at any point, a further tragedy could—God forbid—occur. That is a terror that leaseholders in Brindley House in my constituency have had to face, because on 31 January this year there was a fire in a flat in their building. I have seen the burned-out husk of that flat for myself. The fire service said that the residents were only two minutes away from the fire engulfing the whole of their building. Two more minutes and the windows in that flat would have shattered, and the cladding wrapped around that building would have caught fire. When I heard that, my blood ran cold. Can the Minister imagine what it must be like for the people who live in Brindley House? That is the risk, that is the fear, and that is the scale of the financial ruination that people in my constituency and all over the country are trying to cope with.
One of my constituents recently said to me that he now thinks it will be less stressful to declare himself bankrupt and become homeless than to try to find a way to carry on as a leaseholder. At the very least, the Government could and should support the Lords amendment, or indicate a clear way through the crisis, so that we send a clear signal to all leaseholders that we will stand with them.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I start from the principle that successive Secretaries of State and Ministers have said from the Dispatch Box that the leaseholders are the innocent parties in this scandal and that they should not have to pay a penny piece towards the costs of remediation. I applaud the Government for coming forward with £5.1 billion of public money to support the remediation of unsafe cladding, but our problem is that it is not enough. The estimate now is that £15 billion will be required and that the extra £10 billion will have to come from leaseholders as the last resort, because building owners will naturally pass that on to leaseholders wherever they possibly can. They are the ones in situ; they are the ones facing these huge bills.
The Government say that further proposals will come forward on the forced loan scheme. We were promised in the earlier statement in February that the loan scheme would be announced at the Budget. Now, I did make the assumption that that was the Budget in 2021, not the Budget in 2022 or 2023. The reality is that the evidence given to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and other bodies suggests that the forced loan scheme is nowhere near being available. We as Members of Parliament are not even able to scrutinise the proposal, so those who are living in blocks of flats of six floors or less do not even know how that scheme will work. My estimate is that many people will end up with a bill that will last for 100 years, therefore factoring in, almost inevitably, a dramatic reduction in the value of their properties. Equally, we know that the fire safety remediation required in addition to the remediation of unsafe cladding almost dwarfs the costs of remediating the cladding. All those costs will once again be passed on to the innocent leaseholders.
I understand that my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench has to defend this position and clearly wants to get the Fire Safety Bill on the statute book. Let us be clear. I do not think any MP wishes to prevent the progress of the Fire Safety Bill. What we do need, however, is surety and assuredness, because the draft Building Safety Bill will almost certainly take 18 months to two years to bring to fruition. The leaseholders do not have that time to wait. My right hon. Friend the Minister has made it clear on a number of occasions that he finds the amendments defective. Well, there is still time. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) that there is a solution. If the Government reject that solution, let them come forward with their own solution in the House of Lords. Let us agree that the leaseholders do not have to pay a penny and the Fire Safety Bill can go on the statute book, as we would all like to see.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) [V]
The Minister should be very careful. The speeches in this debate today are an example of Parliament at its best and Government at their worst. The Minister has heard Members from across the House, and from his own party in particular, criticise what the Government are doing. He would be a very wise Minister to listen to Parliament. If he refuses to listen, I think he should think about his future.
In March this year, leaseholders in Wembley Central apartments in my constituency were told that in response to the publication by the Government of the Building (Amendment) Regulations 2018, a waking watch system would be implemented as soon as possible. The cost of the waking watch patrols would be recovered from leaseholders in the sum of £91,380 a month. The cost of the remedial works to the fire alarm system across Central Apartments, Ramsey House and Metro Apartments is estimated to be in the order of £250,000 to £300,000. The owners said that they were unable to say the total cost of all four recommendations and that they therefore could not advise the liability of each leaseholder.
I find it unacceptable that the Government are imposing billions of pounds of costs on leaseholders retrospectively to remedy misconduct by others, such as the developer, the builder or those producing the Government’s own advisory documents and in particular building regulations control. The fire survey for these particular buildings said:
“There is evidence that the junctions between compartment floors were inadequately fire stopped…as there were gaps at mineral wool fire barriers at steel framing. There were no visible fire barriers at vents or around windows/door frames and it could not be confirmed that the window/door frames themselves formed cavity barriers.”
That indicates that at the time of construction the building regulations then in force were not followed. That means that these people were sold a building that was not fit for habitation, yet the Government are not pursuing the people responsible; they are making sure that it is the innocent parties who will pay. Their lives are being ruined, as Members in all parts of this House have said. It is vital that the Government address this and accept the Lords amendment. In particular, they need to focus on addressing the very real issues in building control regulations that allowed this scandal to happen in the first place.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
The Government’s plan and funding to address this fire safety issue are a welcome start. I am not going to rehearse the points already made this afternoon, but I believe that the role of affordable home ownership schemes in this disaster has been overlooked.
Many people engulfed in this scandal are first-time buyers who took their first step on the property ladder through Conservative-backed schemes intended to boost home ownership. People use these schemes because they are not cash rich, but they are now facing unexpected bills for life-changing sums, and some are being asked to take up further Government loans to pay them. The drafting of this Bill means that despite owning only part of the value of their flat, leaseholders are potentially liable for 100% of the share of the costs. In effect, they are subsidising their landlords, who own the remaining percentage of the value of the flat but pay nothing to remedy the defects. Leaseholders have always had to pay for the maintenance and upkeep of buildings they do not own, owing to the way leasehold agreements work, but the building defects and costs involved to fix them are beyond what anyone could have contemplated.
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to read out a case study of a future constituent —someone hoping to relocate to my constituency. This individual owns a one-bedroom flat in the Olympic village in London, in which she has a 35% interest, and is seeking to move to Penzance, in my constituency, to be with her fiancé. The flat was sold to her as a low-risk investment; she was encouraged by the shared ownership Government scheme, as part of their affordable housing directive. Her block was found to have missing fire cavity barriers, rendering it a B2 rating, warranting remediation, with the bills potentially being in excess of £50,000 for her flat alone. The housing association is trying to bring the developers to account, something that legally it is not required to do. Failing that, this will result in a lengthy legal battle, during which she may well be presented with the bill for remediation work in order to make the block fire safe and adhere to the Government’s new guidelines. Applying for a grant under the Jenrick announcement for remediation works is an extremely slow and complicated process. If the housing association does not succeed in getting the perpetrators to fix their mess, she will get the bill, and as a shared owner she will be liable for the full 100% of the bill, not 35%, which is the share she owns of the property. In any case, it is highly unlikely she will be able to sell property for years to come and buy into the Cornish economy by purchasing a house.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) has put forward very pragmatic proposals to unlock the deadlock and improve the fire safety of homes across our nation, and I would welcome the Minister’s response to these sensible proposals,
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]
Over the weekend, it was reported that the Bank of England is assessing whether Britain’s building safety scandal could cause a new financial crisis—why? It was because 1.3 million flats are unmortgageable and as many as 3 million people face a wait of up to 10 years to sell or get a new mortgage because they cannot prove that their homes are safe.
This scandal has gone on for too long and it has already caused too much damage. This Government must accept the Lords amendment that would protect leaseholders from exorbitant costs, or they should drop this Bill altogether and bring back a better version in the Queen’s Speech. It is simply incredible that the Government have had 10 whole months to break the deadlock and propose a solution that they find acceptable, but they have refused to do so. Instead, they wage a campaign of scaremongering, telling us that if the Bill fails it will have the effect of increasing fire safety risks. Well, that is not the view of the leaseholders in my constituency; it is not the view of the leaseholder group; and it is not the view of the Cladding Action Group. They are speaking with one voice and they are clear that they would much rather see this defective Bill fall than pass in its current form.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I support holding the Lords amendment. I think it is the right thing to do at the moment, although not because it is perfect—it is far from perfect and not without its flaws. My problem is that I do not see the Government responding to the overwhelming concern about what is happening to leaseholders, many of whom, as has been said before, were first-time buyers.
We face, today, an issue of concern both personal and public. The public concern is that the devaluation of these homes is now so dramatic that it will cause an economic shock. I remember the old negative equity problem that erupted as a result of a collapse, and I do not want to see us back there again. I accept that, as has been said, the Government have already put £5.1 billion into the process, but it is worth at least another £10 billion in settlement, and that is going to fall on the shoulders of leaseholders.
Let me relate what is going on in my constituency. Like everybody else, I have a set of estates, including Queen Mary’s Gate and Blackberry Court, among other blocks in my constituency. Many of them are under 18 metres and have cladding—this is the point that has been raised—that was not compliant at the time of their building. The leaseholders did not know that—they bought their homes with a sense that they were buying something that was right and reasonable—and are now not eligible for the safety fund.
What has happened because of all this? We have tried to get hold of the developer, Telford Homes, but it has not engaged for more than a year now. Telford Homes does not answer anything or engage about what it might do; it has gone to ground. That is the problem that lies at the heart of all this right now: there is no way that the leaseholders can get redress because they cannot go to those who did this wrongly at the time and the Government have not brought forward any mechanism to allow leaseholders to get after these individuals, who will sit there and wait for the leaseholders to waste their money.
The Lords amendment is not perfect, but I am trying to articulate a cry for help from my constituents and others around the country. I agree with and support the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox). Let us find a way to make sure that those who were responsible stand up and pay the bill. They have made a lot of money in the past, legitimately, on building homes; those who did not put up the right cladding should automatically be in the frame. Meanwhile, the costs spiral and my constituents will pay them.
Today, for the first time, I shall vote to maintain and hold the Lords amendment. I say to the Government that if they do not want it, they had better get to the Lords and get us something decent that allows us to give support to our leaseholder constituents, because that would be doing the right thing.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]
I speak in favour of the Bishop of St Albans’ amendment. As the UK Cladding Action Group has previously reported, there have already been leaseholder suicides and, worryingly, 23% of those surveyed by the group have considered suicide or self-harm.
The Government must realise that the building safety fund only covers unsafe cladding, yet 70% of the buildings surveyed have non-cladding fire safety defects. They must understand that providing cladding remediation funding for buildings over 18 metres, yet forcing leaseholders in buildings under 18 metres to pay, is entirely unfair. They must recognise that there is no support available at all for interim measure costs, including increased insurance premiums and waking watches, which often run into figures of more than £15,000 per week.
To add further devastation, as we have heard today, Inside Housing has reported that even the minority of leaseholders who could apply for loans face a wait of potentially years. In the meantime, many residents still live in unsafe buildings and are understood to have already received requests for up-front payment, with freeholders sometimes instructing solicitors to carry out debt recovery. This could result in a tide of bankruptcies and evictions. The situation is so bad that I understand that analysts at the Bank of England are now assessing whether Britain’s building safety scandal could cause a new financial crisis.
It is clear that the Government’s approach is untenable and it must change today. Even the National Housing Federation states that the only way to prevent leaseholders and social landlords from having to pay to remediate buildings they did not construct is for the Government to provide up-front funding to remediate all buildings. I hope all MPs today can recognise the moral duty they personally have to protect our constituents and will vote in favour of the Lords amendment.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
I had very much hoped that it would not be necessary for us to continue to have this debate in relation to this Bill. The core elements of the Bill are worth while and I support them. Unfortunately, however, it creates a set of potential liabilities upon wholly innocent leaseholders, without giving them an adequate means of redress. That is simply unfair. It is unfair on my constituents and it is unfair on people who have bought properties in good faith and who have relied on professional advice and the regulatory regime that was then in force. If there are people who were at fault, either in the construction of the buildings or in the way in which surveys were carried out, they should absolutely be held to account, but the people who should not end up with a liability are the leaseholders, who have acted in good faith throughout. It is the absence of protection for them that, regrettably, causes me to have to support the Lords amendment again today.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) tabled what I thought were constructive amendments, which I was happy to sign. I hope—still; even at this late stage—that the Government will see that there is a basis for progress to be made. As things stand, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) noted, we have to continue to press the case on the Government. I hope that, if the House rejects the amendments—I hope it will vote for the Lords amendments and deal with the matter—it will give the Government yet a further chance to resolve this matter.
At the end of the day, we are not asking that the taxpayer pick up the burden. We are asking that the leaseholders should be relieved, certainly in the short term, of the pressures that fall upon them and that they are unable to deal with. The Government are in a position to fund the cash flow that leaseholders cannot fund and which is driving them to desperate situations. It is absolutely right that they should then seek to recoup those funds from those who are responsible and who have been at fault. There is nothing in the Lords amendment or the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset that would prevent that from happening. I urge the Government to think again and recognise that, although the core elements of the Bill are good, collaterally, it does real injustice to innocent leaseholders, such as many in my constituency and elsewhere. For heaven’s sake, can we not find a constructive way forward to achieve the objectives of the Bill and protect innocent leaseholders? Those things should not be mutually incompatible, but at the moment we have not yet found a solution.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
I actually think that the Prime Minister framed this debate well, because he told the House on 3 February that
“no leaseholder should have to pay for the unaffordable costs of fixing safety defects that they did not cause and are no fault of their own.”—[Official Report, 3 February 2021; Vol. 688, c. 945.]
Those were his words. No ifs, no buts—it was an unequivocal pledge. Clearly, the Government’s measures so far fall well short of fulfilling it. Today we have the opportunity to address that, because the Lords amendments make good on that failure.
I have spoken previously in the House about leaseholders in the Metis building, Wicker Riverside, Daisy Spring Works and elsewhere in my constituency who face a range of issues with ACM and other cladding, compartmentation, flammable materials wrongly used and other fire safety products. They are trapped in homes that are unsafe and unsaleable, facing bills that will break them—some up to £50,000 each.
Let us remember that we are talking about young people who stretched their budgets to the limit to buy their first home; couples unable to move on when they have their first child; others who cannot take new jobs because they cannot sell; and older people who have sunk their life savings into their flat and have nowhere to turn. They are being put under unbearable pressure and unimaginable mental strain. People have told me they fear collecting their post in the morning because of the bills it might contain. It is simply unacceptable. Today we can end that misery.
Those who say that the costs should not fall on the public purse are right. The developers responsible should pay up, as well as those responsible for failings in the building regulation system. The only way that developers and others responsible will be held to account is if the Government own the problem, urgently undertake remediation and then use the full resources of the state to chase down those responsible. Leaseholders simply cannot do it on their own.
We have that responsibility because successive Governments oversaw a flawed system of building inspections, which signed off so many of these unsafe buildings. These leaseholders are victims of comprehensive regulatory failure. There is a grave injustice here that must be remedied, and the Government must face up to it. Those responsible for the failings should be responsible for putting them right, without any costs falling on leaseholders, either now or in the future through loans schemes.
Many leaseholders have stretched their finances to the limit to buy their home. Some have already been bankrupted. Others are facing ruin. We have to put a stop to it today, so let us put aside other differences and do the right thing by accepting the Lords amendments.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I apologise to those who did not get in, but I do need to bring the Minister in.
Christopher Pincher
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions today. The House will know that we have a duty to implement clear and effective legislation to support fire and building safety reform. We have an obligation in this place to make good law. While I entirely accept that the motivations of all those who have contributed today are not to damage the Fire Safety Bill, I have to tell them that the practical consequence of passing the Lords amendments would be to do that, because they are ineffective and defective. Let me explain why, before moving on to some of the other points that Members have made.
The amendments would prevent any type of remediation costs being passed on to leaseholders, even if the cost was very minor or if the leaseholder was responsible for damage, and that is not a proportionate response. There is no framework in the Lord Bishop of St Albans’ amendment to distinguish between different works. I think all Members would agree that the taxpayer should not be paying for minor costs, such as replacing a smoke alarm, and that if the leaseholder is responsible for breaking a smoke alarm, in all likelihood they should fix it. The amendment is also unclear on who should take responsibility for remediation works until a statutory funding scheme is in place to pay or direct the costs, and that would result in remediation being delayed, even in the case of minor defects, if routes of cost recovery are unclear.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Christopher Pincher
If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will not give way, because I have to conclude my remarks. Perhaps if I have a bit of time at the end, I will.
These orphan liabilities would leave leaseholders continuing to live in unsafe properties with no further clarity as to who will pay. It is important to ensure that taxpayers’ money is protected as much as possible and that remediation is not delayed unnecessarily in extended litigation such as we might find ourselves in. It is not the solution that leaseholders need or the one that the taxpayer deserves.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.
Sir Peter Bottomley
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It will be observed that the Government’s majority without the Scots Nats was halved in the last vote.
I would not ask for guidance from the Chair in the Commons about procedure in the Lords, but were the Lords to send back another amendment different from the one we have been considering, but trying to take up the points raised in this Chamber, am I right in saying that the Government could table their own amendment tomorrow, which would absorb the points made in this House, so that leaseholders are not penalised in the way they would be if the Bill went through as it is at the moment?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the Father of the House for that point of order. Obviously it will be a matter for the Lords and the business managers to say how it will proceed from here.
Fire Safety Bill
Wednesday 28th April 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 198-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons reason - (28 Apr 2021)
21:11 - Division conducted remotely on Motion A2 - Ayes: 153 / Noes: 242 - Motion A2 disagreed.
Lord Greenhalgh
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4L, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4M.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, I express my thanks once again to everyone for their contributions to this important debate. The other place has now consistently voted against four different amendments on the issue of remediation. It is a vital issue but it is not for this Bill. This House has a choice about whether to prioritise finalising this important Bill or to delay it to the point where it falls.
The Government’s position on the Fire Safety Bill has not changed. I will repeat our key points. We are all in agreement about the importance of getting the Fire Safety Bill on the statute book. Residents have a right to be safe and feel safe in their homes. As I have said repeatedly, without this Bill the legal ambiguity around the fire safety order will continue.
Let me be clear about what is at stake if we do not resolve this: responsible persons for multi-occupied residential buildings will be able to continue to argue that it is lawful to ignore the fire safety risk of the structure, external walls and flat entrance doors; and fire and rescue services will lack the legal certainty to support enforcement decisions taken to keep people safe.
Failure to get this Bill to the statute book will lead to a delay in delivering the Grenfell recommendations. This is not a political point. This Bill must come first as it provides the legal certainty that I have just referred to. That certainty will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations with reduced risk of challenge to place duties on responsible persons in relation to the external wall structure and flat entrance doors, as the inquiry recommended.
It might help the House if I provided an example. The inquiry recommended a frequency of checks on fire safety doors, including flat entrance doors and communal fire doors. That cannot be done easily and in a way that is relatively free from legal risk if we have not identified that flat entrance doors are within the scope of the fire safety order. Equally, enforcing authorities would not be able to take appropriate action in this regard.
I thank your Lordships for recognising the substantial government support—to the tune of £5.1 billion—for leaseholders for remediation of unsafe cladding. Our five-point plan to bring an end to this cladding crisis helps provide certainty to the housing market. Noble Lords yesterday raised some points about uncertainty in the housing market and about the concerns of lenders and insurers. Our five-point plan addresses these.
More needs to be done to ensure that those responsible for fire safety defects should contribute to paying the costs of remediation. Industry must play its part and pay its way, and through our high-rise levy and developer tax we will make sure that developers with the broadest shoulders pay their contribution.
I agree that leaseholders need stronger avenues for redress and I made that clear yesterday. The building safety Bill will bring forward measures to do this, including making directors as well as companies liable for prosecution. We are bringing about the biggest changes in a generation to the system through the building safety Bill.
Finally, I reiterate the comments I made yesterday about forfeiture. It is a draconian measure that should be used only as a last resort. This measure should be considered as part of our wider programme on leasehold reform. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Moved by
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 4L”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I first draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, a non-executive director of MHS Homes Ltd and chair of the Heart of Medway Housing Association.
It is disappointing and frankly outrageous that the Government are doing nothing and not delivering on their promises to the innocent victims of the cladding scandal. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, has gone through various points. He said that the other place had consistently voted against our amendments. That is a matter of much personal regret. Most Members of the governing party do not seem to recognise the plight of the innocent victims in this scandal.
What also irritates me about this issue is the point made by my noble friend Lord Adonis. The Government are now saying, “Well, of course, the Session finishes tomorrow and we need to get the Bill on the books”. The fact is that the Government, when the House of Commons rejected our amendments some weeks ago, left them sitting there and did not bring them here. They could have done so and I do not know whether that was deliberate or incompetent. The fact is that the amendments just sat there and were not brought here. For the Government then to claim, “We cannot go any further because of where we are” is irritating, to say the least.
It is fair to say that one could never accuse this Government of acting in haste when it comes to the Grenfell Tower inquiry recommendations. This is the first piece of legislation since the fire happened four years ago this summer. The Government have not acted in haste at all. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, is right: I want to see the people who built defective buildings and put cladding on improperly pay. I do not want to see the innocent victims pay. I also want the companies that provided insurance honour it. They were clearly happy to provide the insurance and they should pay up. I also want to see the professionals who signed the buildings off and who pay for their professional indemnity insurance, come forward, recognise and be held to account for what they have done.
It is even more outrageous when one considers what our Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom—been saying for the past 18 months. I shall remind the House of one or two of his quotes—not all because there are loads of them. There are many examples and I suggest that noble Lords, particularly those on the Government Benches, would do well to reflect on some of those comments, read what he said, think about them and consider what they will do in terms of the how they are being whipped to vote. The PM said on 30 October 2019:
“I know that progress is not as fast I should like, but I am pleased to say that all such buildings owned by central and local government have now had their cladding removed, are undergoing work to remove it, or, at the very least, have such work scheduled. In the private sector, progress is slower, and too many building owners have not acted responsibly.”—[Official Report, Commons, 30/10/19; col. 379.]
He also said:
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to this injustice and what is happening with leaseholders at the moment. That is why we have put £1.6 billion into removing unsafe cladding. I do not want to see leaseholders being forced to pay for the remediation, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we are looking now urgently—before the expiry of the current arrangements—at what we can do to take them forward and support leaseholders, who are in a very unfair position.”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/12/20; col. 842.]
That was the Prime Minister on 9 December 2020. He subsequently said:
“We are determined that no leaseholder should have to pay for the unaffordable costs of fixing safety defects that they did not cause and are no fault of their own.”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/21; col. 945.]
Everyone would agree with that. That was the reply of the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition on 3 February this year. That is just three quotes but there are many others that noble Lords should look at. Those are the quotes but we then come back to the reality of where we are, which is something different, is it not? It goes on and on.
What is shocking for me is that whenever the Government are provided with the means, through the Fire Safety Bill, to do what they promised—what the Prime Minister promised—they vote against it. We get excuse after excuse after excuse from the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, or at the other end about why the Prime Minister cannot do this and why the Government cannot deliver on their promises.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
If Motion A1 is agreed to, I cannot call Motion A2. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to speak to Motion A2.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a member of Kirklees Council.
Throughout the course of this Bill, I have said that I support its contents and purpose. I cannot support the unintended consequences that will have a devastating impact on individual leaseholders and a very damaging effect on the housing market. Those are the reasons for my asking again for the Government to take responsibility for the consequences of this Bill, which despite the Minister’s best efforts has been totally underwhelming so far. Promises have been made by the Government and not kept.
The Government’s response to date is to provide grant funding of £5 billion while knowing that the total cost is estimated at £16 billion. The grant includes only blocks over 18 metres and only removes the flammable cladding. For those in lower blocks, there is the prospect of paying up to £50 per month for years to come.
Conveniently, the Government fail to take into account the non-cladding issues that are a result of construction failure of immense proportions. These non-cladding issues are the ones that will finally push individuals over the edge. Meanwhile, those who have literally built this catastrophe walk away with their billions of profit. The Government have a duty to protect their citizens—it is their prime duty—yet here we are today with perhaps a million of our fellow citizens being thrown to the ravages of financial bankruptcy, and the Government wash their hands and look the other way.
The Government will argue that the Bill is a vital response to the Grenfell tragedy. It is so vital that it has taken four years to get to the statute book. The Bill’s purpose is to include external walls, doors and balconies in the fire safety order of 2005, so that action is taken to protect people from another Grenfell tragedy. However, a Bill is not now needed to force action to remove cladding; that is happening. It is not needed to get fire alarms put in; that is happening. Those who own the buildings, and those who are leaseholders and tenants, already know that action has to be taken to make their buildings safe. It is no longer urgently necessary to get legislation to force the issue and it is no longer possible to force construction firms to take the necessary action; there is not capacity to do so. If, though, the Bill does fall, this provides a breathing space for the Government to develop a package of further measures that will protect the interests of leaseholders and save them from penury.
The amendment in my name seeks to achieve that breathing space. It is based on the original one in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and has been adjusted to include the various very valid points that have been made during the passage of the Bill. We must all recognise that passing this Bill will not magic away the crisis that individual leaseholders are facing. It will not remedy the construction scandal. It will not provide stability for a foundering housing market. It will be the beginning of a scandal of individual bankruptcies, homelessness, intense stress and mental illness. It will become a public scandal and I for one will at least have on my conscience that I have done all in my power to prevent it. Leaseholders have done everything right and nothing wrong. Liberal Democrats will stand by them. I give notice that I wish to test the opinion of the House on the amendment in my name.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, as we seem to be in the last chance saloon, I will try not to repeat myself too much, but declare my interests as both a property professional and a vice-president of the LGA. As I said yesterday, the House seems to be presented by the Government with a choice. On the one hand is the evident desirability of implementing fire safety measures in pursuance of the valuable recommendations in the report by Dame Judith Hackitt into the Grenfell tragedy, plus a partial solution to some of the effects of cladding replacement on a limited class of taller buildings, as we have heard. On the other is what I am afraid I must describe as the effective hanging out to dry of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of other home owners. It should not be a question of either/or in dealing with a growing and pressing social and economic disaster. I too support improved fire safety, but not on the basis of creating further untold, and probably unquantified, problems.
Yesterday, the Minister endeavoured to persuade us by saying that this brief and simple Bill merely clarified the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. I am afraid to say that, on my own rereading of that, he is plainly mistaken. This Bill amends the scope of the fire safety order by inserting an exception to paragraph 1a, referring in turn to two newly inserted paragraphs, 1A and 1B, that substantially expand the scope of the order. The fact that anything was attached to the named elements means the Bill has far wider implications than might be supposed. So I am afraid to say that the Minister’s assertion really did it for me. I felt it was misleading and what my late father would have described as an exercise in intellectual sharp practice. My distinct impression is that I am being taken for some sort of fool. The indisputable fact that must be regarded as plain is that this Bill makes the changes that by direct chain of causation have created the issues and caused the results that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, seek to resolve.
Another issue appears to be one of definition. The Government are concerned that any scheme that might be put in place could be used to avoid regular maintenance and routine upgrades. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in particular, seeks to address that. In my experience there may be grey areas, but I do not have any difficulty in my work in distinguishing repairs and the like, or like-for-like replacements, from those items that are improvements. Nor do most leaseholders and property owners.
Let us be clear—and here I take a cue from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for a bit of historical background—that it was on the watch of a Conservative Government that the 1984 Building Act brought in the approved inspector regime and the effective privatisation of the regulatory oversight of construction quality, previously exercised by local authority building control. Despite indicators of shortcomings and shortcutting, this process continued, without adequate checks on who was doing the inspection of the works, or how good the oversight was in practice. It is on the basis of the subsequent 37 years of construction and its legacy of known and unknown deficiencies, scattered randomly about the nation’s housing stock, that modern housebuilding, construction warranties, lending and home ownership have been founded.
If the Government consider that they need to take steps to protect the valiant and much-abused postmasters from system failure, how can they, with it any cogency or conscience, make a distinction concerning a far greater number of home owners who are affected at least as severely? So, while I note that the Minister in the other place this afternoon sought to point the finger at the unelected Lords blocking the democratic decision of the Commons, I simply say that the exercise of raw political power vis-à-vis the party whip to procure a majority in the Lobby does not endow the Government with a moral superiority, or indeed the social advancement of justice and ethical treatment of citizens. I note the reasons for rejecting our amendments, which simply translate as “too difficult”. I suspect not half as difficult as picking up the bits after this has rolled itself out.
At one point I believed the Government had it hand to corral all the potential damage, but I believe they have not done so. It would not concern me if this Bill fell, so unreasonable do I believe its true effects to be, and so lacking is the willingness of the Government to deal with it. What it has proposed will roll out far too slowly: eight months to do the highest-risk buildings, and how much longer to deal with the far greater number in future stages? What about capacity in terms of manpower, training and so on?
I took note of the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, but I find that sitting on my hands, signifying my acceptance of the Government’s position here, does not sit comfortably with my conscience—knowing, as I do from professional experience, just what harm the Bill is likely to do, alongside its undoubted good.
I suspect that the Bill will ultimately pass into law, even if the Parliament Act has to be invoked—but I am afraid I cannot agree to it as it stands. I fear that Lobby fatigue may mean that this is the end of the matter for now. Either way, I shall return to this subject in the new Session—as, doubtless, will the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Meanwhile, I have absolutely no hesitation in supporting the thrust of the amendments—any one of them, whichever might gain approval. And I hope I will sleep with my conscience clear as a result.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the following Members in the Chamber have indicated that they wish to speak: the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester and the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I call first the noble Baroness, Lady Fox.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I remind the House of my interests: I am a leaseholder. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I heard Boris Johnson telling Parliament in February that
“no leaseholder should have to pay for the unaffordable costs of fixing safety defects that they did not cause and are no fault of their own.”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/21; col. 945.]
To be honest, I cheered. Maybe I was being naive, but I sort of took him at his word—and I sort of still do. But can I? Has anyone briefed the Prime Minister on how his promise to leaseholders is being broken by his own Government as we speak?
In the other place the Minister, Chris Pincher, said that the amendments lacked clarity and prohibited minor costs from being passed on to leaseholders. That was so disingenuous. This is not a load of whiny leaseholders whingeing about minor costs. People are utterly desperate. As we have heard from other noble Lords, this Bill almost guarantees that major costs will be passed on to them—unless the Minister thinks that remediation costs of up to tens of thousands of pounds each, or 400% hikes in service charges, are minor. Those are not minor in my world, nor in the world of so many leaseholders who, as I have stressed here before, bought into that nirvana of home-owning democracy. They were often first-time buyers, who became leaseholders as part of affordable housing schemes.
The Minister in the other place said that the amendment would not help leaseholders. But leaseholders do not feel that way. What they do feel is exasperated. They have been told about the loans scheme, and that this issue can be sorted out by the passage of the building safety Bill. Even then, if there were an assurance from the Government that they would prioritise that Bill as an urgent piece of legislation at the start of the next Session, it might be some consolation. But of course, we do not know when it will appear.
As one group of leaseholders noted in an email to me, the reality is that they are accruing costs now. They are not allowed to postpone paying them until a new parliamentary Session. They cannot say, “Sorry, won’t pay until the building safety Bill’s got through.” They fear that by the time that legislation is passed, many of them will already have lost their homes—and, as one said, “I will certainly have lost my mind.”
Earlier today I heard a Minister here justify imposing a set of regulations on the Northern Ireland Assembly, although that would undermine the devolution agreement. He justified that decision because he said that the Government had a duty to ensure that women’s rights were addressed, and legal abortion services were made available. I was anxious at this procedural and technical fix to solve a complex constitutional and moral problem. But now, if only the Government would come up with some procedural and technical fix to solve what is undoubtedly a complex problem, but one, in this instance, of leaseholders’ rights. There seems to be a sort of stubbornness, which is so unbecoming—a kind of evasiveness, which is kicking this problem down the road, where it will get worse, and letting the most blameless take the hit in the meantime.
I have a lot of respect for the Minister, but I feel as though the Government must know in their heart of hearts—with Tory rebels in the other place, noble Lords from all sides of this House and all the devastating personal testimonies we have shared over the last few days—that what is being asked for here is modest. We are asking for any mechanism, however technical, or any scheme that would actually help leaseholders and save them from bankruptcies now, as is so urgently needed.
We have heard about the £5 billion scheme, and we have all welcomed it, but it really applies only to those in buildings over 18 metres. Leaseholders in buildings of 17 metres or 15 metres are still being asked to pay sky-high costs. As we have heard, it is estimated that the £5 billion scheme still leaves at least £10 billion unaccounted for, and maybe more.
I want to test whether the Government are true to their word—true to the Prime Minister’s word that I started with—and ask the Minister a simple question. If this Fire Safety Bill were to pass, what will the Government do in the interim between its passing and the building safety Bill to stop leaseholders’ bankruptcies and the negative equity crisis that this Bill undoubtedly helps to create?
Finally, I take this opportunity to say to the leaseholders: you have allies in the other place and here who will continue to stand up for you and keep raising awareness of your plight. I am still hopeful that the Minister and the Prime Minister might be among those allies too.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester
My Lords, the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of St Albans and the Bishop of London have both been involved in earlier stages on the Bill and, regretfully, neither is able to be in your Lordships’ House this evening. However, I come with my own background and interests, as a former board member of various housing associations over 25 years and as the former chair of the charity Housing Justice.
As noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans has been heavily involved in this matter and has been persistent. He said yesterday that none of us wanted to be in this position at this stage. But while so much of the Bill is welcome—not least the £5 billion which has been referred to—there are continuing and serious concerns, some of which have already been expressed in the debate this evening, about the position of leaseholders and tenants, and particularly certain groups of leaseholders and tenants.
Yes, remediation is a complex matter, but I am sure that it is not so complex that it cannot be worked out. I want to believe that Her Majesty’s Government are sincere in the express desire to protect leaseholders and tenants. The proposed amendments, including one here tonight, are designed to provide time for the Government to bring forward their own statutory scheme. It is the absence of clarity about that scheme and the timetable for it which is the cause of continuing regret on these Benches. Mention has been made already of the loan scheme in relation to buildings under 18 metres and the fact that that is likely to come forward in the context of another Bill. But, of course, that leaves open the questions of the detail and timescale and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has just observed, there are leaseholders facing those bills today.
We have heard many tragic stories of people with unpayable bills and crippling insurance and service charges. One concern of Members of these Benches is the effect of all that on people’s health and well-being, as well as on their financial capacity. These are important matters; they affect people’s daily lives, mental state and financial futures. While the Bill tackles a number of really important things, it leaves open some others which leave people facing uncertainty and potentially very significant liabilities.
Whatever happens this evening, I know that many in this place and elsewhere will continue to make the cause, because this issue will not go away. I dare to hope that if the Bill does pass this evening, Her Majesty’s Government will bring forward their proposals as soon as possible in the new Session to remove the uncertainty from those who are finding it really difficult to live with. These Benches continue to hold out hope for a more empathetic attitude towards leaseholders.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest as a leaseholder affected by fire safety remediation costs.
This afternoon, I decided to listen to the debate on the Bill in another place to see whether I had been missing something, by just hearing debates here, about the Government’s real reasons for not taking any appropriate action. Instead, I found that the key challenges that have been set out by noble Lords this evening were being made most eloquently by Conservative Back-Benchers. Bob Blackman made the key point that leaseholders have no luxury of time to deal with the demands dropping on their doormats today. Sir Robert Neill made the logical and consequential point that bridging provisions to fund remediation were needed, until the Government had put in place measures to recoup the costs from developers and builders—costs to be met, in the interim, by the Government. As a former Minister, he also made the telling point that the Government would have had time to produce their own amendments, if they had put their mind to it.
The response from the Government was from the right honourable Christopher Pincher, who replied with all the empathy and grace of a Victorian miller faced by workers’ demands to install expensive safety equipment on all the machinery. He also put the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, to shame in his ability to ape Sir Humphrey. Unlike the noble Lord, who at least shows a certain lack of conviction in some of his adjectives, Christopher Pincher had none. In describing this amendment, as we have heard before, he mentioned the uncertainty that it would cause, the lack of clarity and the litigation that would flow, which would be voluminous. He had us almost in tears at the prospect of these terrible consequences.
There was not a word of explanation as to why, given that the Government allegedly want to do what is right, in the seven months since this Bill’s Second Reading they have made no progress whatsoever in bringing forward their own proposals to deal with the issues now. There was not a scintilla of a suggestion, from him, of when there would be certainty for leaseholders. He said that the building safety Bill would be brought forward as quickly as possible and that it would protect leaseholders “as far as possible”. Those two statements are of literally no comfort to somebody facing a bill today. We all know that those phrases “as far as possible” or “as quickly as possible” allow the Government to do whatever they want or not very much at all.
He also had the temerity to say that the Bill should now pass,
“so that people can get on with their lives.”
The one thing certain is that, if this Bill passes unamended, hundreds of thousands of people will not be able to get on with their lives, because overwhelming uncertainty will remain over their financial position and their ability, if they wish to do so, to sell the property in which they live.
The truth is that the Government have shown themselves indifferent to the mental and financial anguish faced by these people today, or else they would have made a meaningful commitment to the timetable for lifting the burden of costs and uncertainty from them. In these circumstances, how can we, in all conscience, pack up our tents now and let the Bill sail into the night? We on these Benches will not do so, and I urge Members across the House to vote for my noble friend’s amendment to bring tenants the relief that they so richly deserve.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has also indicated a wish to speak, and I call him now.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, in Alice in Wonderland, Humpty Dumpty says:
“ ‘When I use a word, … it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’ ”
That is exactly the position we find ourselves in today. It is an argument about the meaning of words, which the noble Lord, Lord Newby, in an excellent speech, has just pointed up. If one took the Government’s statements and sought to give the usual meaning to the words, then there would not be a problem here this evening.
I noted down what the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, said in his opening remarks: these are just some of the statements he made. My writing is not fast enough to recite his whole speech, but if one took his whole speech, one would think there was no disagreement between us at all. “More needs to be done”, he said. “Industry must play its part and pay its way,” he said. “I agree that leaseholders need more protection,” he said. “Forfeiture,” he said—the fact we are talking about forfeiture is a sign of quite how serious a crisis we are facing—“is a draconian measure”; my writing was not fast enough here, but I think he said, “which is to be discouraged.” He also said, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, just said, that these measures will be further addressed in the building safety Bill.
All those statements that the noble Lord made go to the heart of the protection we have been seeking to provide for all of those categories of people affected, not just those who live in buildings of more than 18 metres and not just those with costs directly attributable to cladding if they fall in the category of remediation costs which are essentially post Grenfell. This is the key point, because assessments that have been made about fire risks which are not just restricted to cladding are in the wider areas, some of which are in the expanded fire safety order which the Minister referred to.
The issue then is whether the scheme that the Government have said they will introduce to implement the principles that the Minister himself has set out to the House this evening is adequate to the task. We take the Minister at his word that it will be adequate to the task. There is some disagreement about how far it needs to be legislative and how far not legislative, though the fact that he constantly refers to the building safety Bill leads us to think that it will be substantially legislative. In so far as it is not legislative, these measures could be put in a legislative form, or he could make a categoric statement about when the Government will come forward with a comprehensive scheme.
So far, so good. What happens is that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and his understudy who is here this evening, if I may so describe him—anyway, he seems to be maintaining the line of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans—and other noble Lords then consistently, on now about 10 occasions during the passage of the Bill, have come forward with proposals to put into legislative form what the Government themselves have told us they want to do. What happens, because we are now back in Alice in Wonderland, is that we pass amendments saying that remediation costs should not be passed on to leaseholders which are attributable to the additional costs which have come post Grenfell, and then the Government come along and say, “Ah, but this does not take account of the following five concerns.”
These are the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, just mentioned about small costs, concerns about defining costs, concerns about costs which might be attributable to leases which applied and which tenants willingly engaged in before there were any additional costs put forward—we had a whole list of issues that were raised. What then happens is that the ever-receptive Bishop of St Albans, and other noble Lords change the amendments to take account of the Government’s concerns. Indeed, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, this evening meets most of the concerns that have been raised by Christopher Pincher in the House of Commons and by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, here.
It is worth dwelling on this, because these are hugely important issues potentially affecting millions of people, so we ought to be clear about it. Under the noble Baroness’s amendment, proposed new subsection (1) states:
“The owner of a building may not pass the costs of any remedial work attributable to the provisions of this Act”—
so defining clearly what should and should not apply. Proposed new subsection (2) states that the prohibition on remediation costs being passed on to tenants will have effect
“only until a statutory scheme is in operation which ensures that leaseholders and tenants of dwellings are not required to pay more than £50 per month during the course of the lease”,
but it does not apply to a cost that
“is permitted under a lease or tenancy agreement that was made before this Act is passed, and … does not exceed £500, whether as a one-off cost, or in total across a 12-month period.”
This meets the concerns that the Minister has raised, unless he does not propose to bring forward a scheme that meets his commitments in due course, which is the reason why we go round in circles again.
We then come out of Alice in Wonderland and into the real world. In the real world, we all know what is happening. It is not a secret to those of us who are politicians what arguments have now been happening for two months. Two things are happening. First, a battle royal is going on between the Minister’s department and the Treasury about what costs the Treasury will meet and how narrowly defined they need to be. The Treasury is already concerned about the size of the fire safety fund, the £5.1 billion fund which the Minister referred to, and whether the costs even under that scheme will end up being significantly higher. It certainly does not want more costs to be recognised. The second thing going on of which we are all well aware is that, although the Government say—because huge numbers of people are affected by this, many of them first-time buyers, many of them who have, under Conservative schemes, bought council properties and are leaseholders —that they want to see them fully protected, they do not at the moment either have a plan to fully protect them nor, to be blunt, do they want to protect them any more than they think is politically necessary to get this and subsequent legislation passed, presumably in the run-up to the next election, in a judgment they make on the salience of the issue.
We then come to the role of this House, which is unusual in this case. We had a lecture from the Chief Whip earlier about the supremacy of the House of Commons, which we all recognise, but the supremacy of the House of Commons is in this instance qualified in two respects. The Salisbury convention is clear that the supremacy of the House of Commons applies to all matters which the Government have placed in their manifesto. This House does not seek to cut across clear manifesto commitments which the Government have made when they want to realise them. The Government’s commitment at the election was to sort out this issue; it was not not to sort out this issue. If we take that reading of the role of this House, we will actually be implementing the Salisbury convention this evening if we pass the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. We are seeking to hold the Government to their manifesto commitments to the people, not going against them.
The other reason why we are back in Alice in Wonderland in respect of the role of this House is that, when the Minister and the Chief Whip said this evening that the Bill will fail, it will fail only if, in response to the amendment being carried, the Government choose to let it fail rather than accept an amendment that puts into law the very commitments that they have said that they propose to meet.
We are in a conundrum as to what to do. If we vote for the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, we be voting for something that will indeed send the measure back to the House of Commons and could, if the Government refused to give way, lead to the fall of the Bill. That is entirely in the hands of the Government. However, it is manifestly not the case that we are breaking the Salisbury convention, it is manifestly not the case that we are going against the commitments that the Government themselves have given, and it is manifestly not the case that we would be the cause of the Bill falling. The Government would be the cause of the Bill falling, because they were not prepared to accept the amendment.
We all have judgments to take as to how to vote, and I respect people who take different views on this issue, but it is very clear to me that this is not about the supremacy of the House of Commons. As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, in what I have to say is the most impassioned speech I have heard him deliver to the House, this is a matter of the good faith of the Government and whether, when they say something, they mean it. If this House has any role to play, it is to see that high standards of conduct in public life are maintained, that Governments are held to commitments that they give and that the ordinary meaning of words should be taken to apply when they are uttered by Ministers.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I will not trade Alice in Wonderland anecdotes with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, but I take issue with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that this Government and Prime Minister have done nothing or sat on their hands.
The reality is that I was appointed a Minister, a little over a year ago, into this role. The previous Government had first committed £400 million and then, very reluctantly, an additional £200 million towards the costs of remediating the same cladding that was on Grenfell Tower—aluminium composite material. In the month I was made a Minister, the Chancellor committed a further £1 billion. Now this Chancellor and Prime Minister have committed a further £3.5 billion, taking the total funding to an unprecedented £5.1 billion. It is simply not correct to say that we are doing nothing; that is a considerable sum of money and a massive commitment to recognising that we need to dampen the impact of the costs of remediating the unsafe cladding—the major fire accelerant on these buildings—so that a tragedy like the Grenfell Tower fire never happens again.
I also take issue with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, whose contributions I really enjoy; he is a property professional who speaks with great passion. The reality is that I spent the last year at the coalface, dealing with the tail of building owners who do not want to get on with the remediation—even when the funding is in place. There are two enforcement routes to get them to move even when they do not want to: one is the Housing Act 2004 and the other is the current fire safety order of 2005. It is recognised as an enforcement route, even for external cladding systems; it is just that some fire and rescue authorities feel that it is too ambiguous. That ambiguity, lack of clarification and operational disagreement between different fire and rescue services—I say this as Fire Minister—is a significant problem. However, one reason that remediation is happening today is that enforcement options are in place and this modest three-clause Bill is a very sensible clarification of the fire safety order of 2005.
We are at an impasse. I hope that we may get this vital Bill through, because it is important to get that legal clarity I have referred to. The safety of leaseholders and residents is paramount, and it will be compromised if we do not ensure that this Bill is placed on the statute book by the end of this Session. Tonight is the moment to decide that very fact. The Bill falling will not help leaseholders or make homes safer.
I turn to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. It lacks clarity in prohibiting all kinds of remediation costs being passed on to leaseholders. It means that, where costs are minor, as a result of wear and tear, or even where leaseholders are responsible for damage, they would still not be expected to pay, which is not a proportionate response. I think all Members would agree that the taxpayer should not pay for all and every cost associated with remediation. The scope is far too broad to be a sensible solution.
In several ways, this amendment has the potential to make things worse for leaseholders; for example, it is unclear who should take responsibility for remediation works until a statutory funding scheme is in place to pay for the costs. This would result in all types of remediation being delayed, which is an unsatisfactory outcome for leaseholders. Practically speaking, on the amendment’s requirement to deliver particular requirements to Parliament within 90 and 120 days, we must be mindful that drafting legislation is a complex matter, which cannot be dealt with in the timeframe proposed. I note that the noble Lord is unlikely to press for a Division this evening, so I will not go any further, but to impose an arbitrary deadline, as stated, is neither helpful nor practical.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate tonight. It is worth pointing out that for the second day in a row debating these issues not a single Member of the Government Benches has come forward to support the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, or the Government’s position. As I said yesterday, I am not surprised because the position of the Government, frankly, is a disgrace and is totally outrageous.
The Government claim that we have not got this amendment right, it lacks clarity and we do not have the time. If we were going to accept that as a serious proposition, we would not have had this Bill just sitting there for weeks and weeks not being tabled by the Government. After it was rejected by the Commons it could have been brought here. They chose not to table it. They left it sitting there. I really do not think that point holds water.
Of course, the problem for the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, is that the sums of money pledged—and I accept that they are considerable—do not deliver the Prime Minister’s pledges, or do his pledges count for nothing? I will leave that there. He makes a lot of promises and pledges. I hope they count for something or do they count for nothing?
If voting again for this amendment would change anything, I would divide the House, but I am also not prepared to mislead those affected that we can force the Government to change this Bill. Sadly, the Government are not listening and the House prorogues tomorrow.
This issue, however, will not go away. The Government will be forced to do the right thing by the leaseholders, by the campaigners, by the Cladiators and by Members of this House and the other place. They will be dragged kicking and screaming to do what the leader of their party, the Prime Minister of the UK, pledged to do. I quote the Prime Minister—I think that the House will hear this quote time and again, until the Government do what he promised. He said:
“We are determined that no leaseholder should have to pay for the unaffordable costs of fixing safety defects that they did not cause and are no fault of their own.”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/21; col. 945.]
That was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and leader of the Conservative Party, the right honourable Boris Johnson MP, in response to a question put to him by the Leader of the Opposition on 3 February. That statement was made after this Bill had been through both Houses and three weeks before the Government, in the other place, rejected our amendments for the first time. The PM’s Government voted against the PM’s pledge—his promise—at every opportunity. The position is, frankly, ridiculous; what complete and utter nonsense has come from the Government.
As I said, I will not test the opinion of the House on my Motion tonight. This issue, however, will not go away, and the Government will have to deliver on their pledges and promises. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
“Prohibition on passing remediation costs on to leaseholders and tenants pending operation of a statutory scheme
(1) The owner of a building may not pass the costs of any remedial work attributable to the provisions of this Act on to leaseholders or tenants of that building.
(2) This section has effect only until a statutory scheme is in operation which ensures that leaseholders and tenants of dwellings are not required to pay more than £50 per month during the course of the lease in respect of remedial work attributable to the provisions of this Act.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a cost that—
(a) is permitted under a lease or tenancy agreement that was made before this Act is passed, and
(b) does not exceed £500, whether as a one-off cost, or in total across a 12-month period.
(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to a leaseholder who is also the owner or part owner of the freehold of the building.””
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
I thank all noble Lords for another excellent debate—the fourth in the series—and their contributions tonight.
Again, the tune from the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, the Minister, has not changed—it is the same old record: “This is not the right Bill”. Well, if it is not the right Bill, where is the Government’s Bill to address the horrendous problems that are going to be faced by leaseholders? Where is the Bill that will keep the Government’s pledge that leaseholders would not have to face the unaffordable consequences of fire safety defects? Where is it? Its absence tells us more than anything else about the Government’s commitment to help leaseholders.
To pledge, as the Minister has done, that the building safety Bill will pave the way, forgets the fact that bills are landing on doormats as we speak. Time is of the essence, and still the Government refuse to move. It is a thoroughly depressing moment when people can be thrown to the wolves in order to save the Treasury from paying what it ought to pay and extracting what it ought to extract from those who have caused the problem. The construction scandal—the cladding crisis—is the Government’s, and the Government’s alone.
I thank the Minister for his criticisms, once again, of the amendment I have proposed today. I just wish he would do something about it rather than saying that he cannot do this and cannot do that. What is he going to do?
I have taken heart from the impassioned speech by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. He is an expert in the housing field and has frequently shared his expertise in this House. The fact that he too cannot in all conscience vote for the Fire Safety Bill as it stands, unamended, gives me heart that we have got this in the right place from the point of view of those of us who want to protect people from exorbitant costs of putting right fire safety defects.
I will say one last word. Let us remind ourselves that leaseholders are those that have done everything right. They have saved up for their house, put down the deposit and budgeted for the expenses they anticipate. They have done everything right and nothing wrong, yet the Government—and, it seems, others in this House—are willing to make them pay the price. That is not acceptable, and the Liberal Democrat Benches will not stand by and let it happen if we can help it. It is a depressing moment, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has indicated that he is not prepared to vote for the amendment to try to get safeguards for leaseholders. He has thrown in the towel, and I find that disappointing and utterly depressing.
However, with those words, I am prepared to have one more go to try to protect leaseholders and, indeed, tenants from the awful, if unintended, consequences of this Fire Safety Bill. I wish to seek the opinion of the House and I beg to move.
Royal Assent
Thursday 29th April 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 March 2021 - (12 Mar 2021)