Building Safety Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Fox of Buckley]

115A: Clause 129, page 133, line 23, at end insert—
“(2A) In article 6 (application to premises), in paragraph (1B)(b) after “balconies” insert “, but only insofar as any such balconies pose a material risk of the spread of fire, flame or smoke”.”Member’s explanatory statement
Amends the Fire Safety Order to make clear that only balconies which pose a material risk of the spread of fire are included as part of the external wall. This would avoid balconies being remediated unnecessarily.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I was already feeling inadequate enough, but my inability to come up with a Latin phrase or joke on this particularly peculiar amendment of mine is nerve-racking. Clause 129 makes further amendments to the fire safety order and focuses partly on the risk of balconies. My Amendment 115A suggests tightening up the wording so that balconies should be considered a risk only if and where they can be shown to materially contribute to the spread of fire, flame or smoke.

I think this amendment is needed because I am concerned about unnecessary building safety work. I am not sure if this amendment is the right way to resolve the problem, but leaseholders who I have spoken to see emerging a widespread focus on alleged non-cladding defects, such as balconies. This can be a driver to carrying out unnecessary fire safety work, for which leaseholders must pay, with no existing government funding to help. We are all familiar with the “#claddingscandal”, but I want to avoid a scandal, or at least an injustice, emerging that is not to do with cladding. That is what this amendment probes.

Broadly, we now have a situation in which a block of flats can have a fire risk assessment that effectively determines that the building is sound but, because some notionally flammable material has been used, for example in the balconies, there are problems with valuations associated with EWS1 and a pre-emptive, rather than necessary, remediation approach. Leaseholders are then encouraged to think of their blocks with these balconies as unsafe and to believe that remediation work is necessary—and the costs will inevitably be charged to them as a fait accompli. This could be driven quite cynically by freeholders using building safety to do upgrades or carry out what otherwise would or should be regular maintenance, at leaseholders’ expense. To be less cynical and assume far more good faith, or at least to understand the pressures on freeholders and owners, I am worried that one of the unintended consequences of this Bill would be to drive up fears among owners, assessors, accountable persons and so on, under the weight of legal and insurance liability, that they would be blamed for any fires that occur, in any circumstances. As such, blame avoidance could mean stretching assessments of what is considered unsafe beyond credibility or credulity.

This seems to be partly the explanation to the rather panicky response to any building materials that can catch fire. At the moment, this is expressing itself as the almost default assumption that balconies with timber as a component are dangerous and should be replaced. This is in spite it being well documented that timber can outperform steel in a fire, depending on how it chars. An example of where this can lead is a block of flats in Castletown in Dorset. Leaseholders were shocked, at the start of the year, to receive a letter telling them that the timber-decked balconies of the 204 flats in their block had to be replaced by aluminium balconies, as some may be unsafe. Guess what? Leaseholders must meet the cost of this work estimated, on average, at £10,000 a flat.

In addition to that horrifying financial prospect, the Atlantic House Leaseholders Association raised some other issues pertinent to the Committee debates so far. For example, there was no consultation at all with the leaseholders on this decision about the balconies. Leaseholders are a tad suspicious that the contract for the work to replace the balconies was awarded to the block owner’s subsidiary company. The plan that was just announced, but not consulted on, is to carry out the installation inside people’s flats, instead of putting up scaffolding, regardless of the major inconvenience and intrusion this will cause in leaseholders’ homes. The other day I talked about whether you can call it your home if people can just come in, in the name of safety. This is really going to affect people’s home lives.

Also, if there is wear and tear on the timber decking on the balconies in question, it should actually have been the building owner’s responsibility to maintain them and keep them up to standard. Yet, despite them having failed to do so, leaseholders are now being forced to pay for the changes to the balconies, under the auspices of building safety and the threat of fire risk.

I am concerned about a climate in which there is a danger of failing to weigh up risks and assess matters objectively and proportionally. Sometimes, in the name of safety—I think that this was true in that instance in Dorset—leaseholders’ lives are being made a misery, and they are being made to pay a lot of money for remediations that do not necessarily mean that they are safer.

I do not know if noble Lords saw the story in the Manchester Evening News about social housing tenants in Salford suffering freezing conditions for months, since cladding came off their blocks. Having lobbied to get their concerns heard, they were recently sent a letter by Pendleton Together, which manages the nine council blocks, offering

“top tips for keeping warm”.

These included: “dress in layers”, wear “a hat and gloves”, keep “active” and consume “warming food and … drinks” —I thought that these might be handy in this Room, which has been rather chilly. This is another top tip:

“don’t drink alcohol to keep warm as it can give you a false feeling of warmth when you’re actually cold”.

If I were cold, I might still have a drink.

More seriously, I am glad to see that Salford council, which should, in general, be commended for its aspirational housing policies—I am not particularly having a go at it—has apologised for what has happened in its area and for the patronising and condescending message of the letter. But I was using it to illustrate that measures designed to keep people safe from fire can lead to home owners suffering freezing cold, for example, in the middle of an energy price crisis. Unfortunately, fire safety can trump common sense.

I will take noble Lords back to balconies and the Atlantic House block in Dorset that I was talking about. There is a similar perverse outcome in relation to balconies there allegedly being made safer, because, ironically, the decision to replace timber decking with aluminium might make them less safe. Luckily, the chair of the leaseholders’ association is a retired engineer from the construction industry, so he spotted that the use of aluminium might not be a safe option at all. Aluminium can be corroded by salty sea air—the block is near the sea—unless it is anodised. The truth is that those leaseholders might well be safer, and not facing a £10,000 bill each, if the balconies with timber decking remained.

My amendment is narrow and might seem a bit specific or even trivialising, but it is an attempt to probe whether the Government will consider adopting a broader cost-benefit analysis approach specifically to balconies to avoid more EWS1-type problems. It is also an attempt to encourage the Government to be wary of the zero-risk approach of a one-sided and overly precautionary culture of fear, with which the Hackitt review is imbued; there are lots of good things in it, but there are also a lot of things that I do not want to just endorse. Many of the leaseholder campaigners whom I have talked to say exactly the same: they warn that we should talk more to leaseholders, who of course want to be safe but do not want safety to lead to them having to pay for expensive and unnecessary remediation work, on balconies in this instance, when it is just not needed. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has done a considerable service, because she has highlighted quite a number of things. You might say balconies represent important facets in terms of building safety. The question of balconies may have been triggered by a fire—it may have been in Australia—caused by a discarded cigarette end on a timber-deck balcony. The circumstances, of course, of timber in high summer in New South Wales or wherever may be significantly difficult from in a typical English summer. I grant you that—and, of course, timber does not retain significant degrees of combustibility throughout the season, typically, in this country. I can certainly testify to disposable barbeques being a far more potent source of fire in such circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I have tricked the noble Lord, Lord Khan—I am responding to this one. First, we have not gone around counting every balcony in the country. Given that there are 7,500 medium-rise buildings and about 12,500 high-rises, we have other things to do with our time.

I met the devolved Administrations of Wales and Scotland today; we need to know roughly how many buildings require remediation and then do it as quickly and effectively as possible. There is some way of knowing that with high-rises, and through surveys we have a pretty good grip on the number of buildings where remediation may be required—it is actually very few—as well as mitigation. Increasingly, we want to see more innovation so that we can avoid costly remediation wherever possible.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, is very clever. I have been trying to distil amendments in up to three words—I have got it down to two on one occasion—and it would be easy to say that this is the “balcony” amendment, but I do not think it is. It is the “proportionality” amendment. It is fair to say that this was addressed when, on 10 January, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State set out some building safety reset principles. He said:

“We … need to ensure that we take a proportionate approach in building assessments overall … too many buildings … are declared unsafe, and … too many … have been seeking to profit from the current crisis.”—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/21; col. 283.]


The noble Baroness was very eloquent in giving examples of precisely that—where, essentially, an industry is fuelled by trying to profit at the expense of leaseholders, very often, who do not have the shoulders to bear the costs being charged to them. That is why we are putting a number of protections for leaseholders in this Bill, for both cladding and non-cladding costs, which we have discussed in other groups, and the very strong principle that the polluter must pay wherever possible, as we discussed in an earlier group today.

The Government have taken three measures with regard to proportionality. It is important to reflect on them, because they are easily forgotten as we debate things. None is in this Bill; I will turn later to some things that are. First, we withdrew the consolidated advice note of January 2020; that was seen as a driver of decisions to remediate without thought on too many occasions, when it was not necessarily the right way to go. Secondly, after withdrawing the advice note, the publicly available specification was introduced, produced by the British Standards Institution; it will enable fire engineers and other experts to have a consistent and auditable assessment of risk—basically, grading whether something is high, medium or low—of the external wall systems, which sometimes include balconies and sometimes do not. That is an important tool to have to be able to start having sensible risk-based assessment of external wall systems.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I have one query on that. I thank the noble Lord for his response, but on the recommendation of high, medium and low risk, everything I have read on this suggests that with high or low risk we know where we are, but medium risk says, “There is some risk, but don’t worry, you don’t need remediation”. The point made in everything I have read is: who will go along with that? If you say that there is medium risk—this is where risk aversion comes in—there is concern that the assessors do not have the expertise, as has been referred to, and may say, “There is medium risk, but can I go home and sleep at night, because I am not quite sure what that means? There might be a risk.” That is where blame avoidance comes in. This comes back to the assessors; I do not think that will solve it.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I did not say that it would. The noble Baroness intervened too early; that is the problem with interventions. No one was saying that any single thing—

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I was just trying to clarify something—that is good.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

The noble Baroness raises the issue of balconies. I am talking about a system that looks at the external wall system. We then have the Fire Safety Act, which we took through this House. I have all the scars to prove that it was not an easy matter to get that three-clause Bill past a number of the people here today. We got it on the statute book, however, and it will commence shortly with a building prioritisation tool.

The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, spoke very eloquently on fire risk assessments. They will look at the risk in the round, going beyond external wall systems and including balconies, the external walls, the flat entrance doors and whether they are fire doors, et cetera. Fire risk assessors will have to look in the round, consider whether there are enough ways to exit the building and come up with a series of action steps, which will often be very small, that can make a building safer. It is right that we make sure that those risk assessments are done by competent professionals. They need to be kept up to date. They will come up with a series of actions that can be taken. Not all of those will require huge expense, but they will make the building that little bit safer.

I think noble Lords need to see this as a package. In answer to questions raised, the proportionality agenda does not have a silver bullet as an answer, but there are a number of things that the Government are encouraging that will lead to a more proportionate approach. PAS 9980 refers to materials on a balcony that may be combustible, such as timber decking, which may be relevant even if the construction of the balcony itself includes materials that present minimal or no risk. The current position, with the inclusion of balconies in the fire safety order and the professional guidance in PAS 9980, is all about encouraging that proportionate approach.

The competence of fire risk professionals is a relevant factor and ensuring that is a major objective of the Bill. We are bringing about greater professionalism in the sector through Clause 129, with a requirement that anyone appointed to undertake a fire risk assessment must be competent. That stipulation is in the Bill, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. A lot of this is not happening in the Bill, but there are clauses which aim to drive competence, which directly answers questions raised in this debate. That is what we have to look to, rather than necessarily seeing this specific Bill as the answer in isolation. We must look at the measures the Government are taking in the round.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. My heart was in my mouth when the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, spoke, because I thought, “He knows what he’s talking about and I’m not sure I do”, so I was glad that he recognised something in what I said on the professional point about materials and so on. I am not an expert but I know lots of people who work in this area.

My concern is that there are blocks of flats all around London whose residents are being told that the balconies have to be remediated, but they have passed their fire risk assessments. This is basically coming from freeholders acting in a precautionary fashion, as in the Dorset example I used. They have said, “We think some of these balconies are unsafe. We’re going to take them down and you have to pay.” They are using safety as the basis but they should have maintained the balconies. There is great concern about the balcony question but I have been caught out by the Minister, because this was really an attempt to talk about proportionality. That is what I really wanted to do. Although I keep hearing about balcony scandals, that was my main focus.

We want to keep people safe all the time, but the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans made the important point that safety has a cost. Carrying on from our Committee meeting the other day, I was talking about a cost-benefit analysis and always thinking about balancing. If you want 100% safety, you would never leave the house. We also need a sense of proportionality towards fire, which is still very rare. People are not dying of fires in their thousands, in this country. I want to get the right balance.

The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, made a very important point, on which I have been trying to get balance. As a leaseholder, I have tried to speak on behalf of leaseholders a little, because I thought I could make a valid contribution. I am not suggesting that every time a leaseholder says something, we all have to believe it. Leaseholders are not experts, and their fears and concerns should not make the decision, but sometimes it is worth asking them what they know or think and part of the Bill suggests that. The objective point about competence is key. I am suggesting that, because of blame avoidance, fear of litigation and measures being brought in by the Bill, people will always take the most risk-averse decision. That could be at the expense of leaseholders and will not necessarily improve safety.

I shall withdraw my amendment, but I hope it has contributed to a broad discussion to which we can return on Report to make sure that the Bill does not create more problems than intended.

Amendment 115A withdrawn.

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 28th February 2022 Grand Committee

This removes the need for a mandated building safety manager and in turn the associated service charges for that post and the potential disproportionate safety charges that tenants and leaseholders would or could incur.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, this series of stand part amendments relates to Clauses 80 to 84 and would delete the building safety manager from the Bill. This is my first attempt at tabling amendments so I am nervous about the procedural aspects, but I hope to explain why I have come in on, as it were, this issue in particular. How I came about it is telling in relation to some general concerns that I have about the Bill, specifically Part 4.

Like some of us here, I came to this whole issue based on being a leaseholder and being part of a group of noble Lords who were horrified at the awful impending tragedy of leaseholders being forced to pay crippling remediation costs on the back of the response to the Grenfell tragedy. Many of those egregious injustices are now being addressed—some of them in this Committee.

However, in my speech at Second Reading, I raised a different set of concerns about adopting a zero-risk approach, including that risk aversion is in danger of creating zealotry beyond the bounds of what is reasonable, practical or desirable. If the Bill’s aim becomes to eliminate all risks, that itself has its own risks and creates a new set of victims. For example, if safety is turned into panic, it can lead to an ever-spiralling demand for safety outside the bounds of common sense. This could dangerously destroy confidence in both the construction sector and the high-rise housing market, and could create new layers of bureaucracy that hinder rather than help.

Rather to my surprise, my speech at Second Reading led to a group of leaseholders contacting me to say that they shared some of my concerns. Campaigners from the Tower Hamlets Justice for Leaseholders group and Friends in High Places explained that they understood because they felt that, as Covid has proved, it can be difficult in situations involving safety to agree that less should be done—but sometimes less should be done. This proposal for building safety managers for every block is just one of the concerns that the group has about some of the Bill’s unintended consequences. As the campaigners say, it imposes costly layers of bureaucracy on them while giving sweeping powers to managing agents and freeholders and inflicting yet more pain on leaseholders, with provisions such as building safety managers threatening to turn this into what they call “another EWS1 fiasco”.

All the provisions in Part 4 seem to assume that the problem of residential fire safety is a lack of appropriate people and processes checking for fire risks in every possible instance. However, perhaps the real problem is the competence of the people who are already in place and the enforcement of rules and regulations that already exist, rather than making up lots more or creating new roles. As the leaseholder group notes, writing into law that every building will have to appoint a building safety manager is a duplication of the role of the existing managing agents and building managers, and proceeds from the false assumption that these housing blocks are “like barrels of oil needing almost daily surveillance and supervision to ensure that they don’t burst into flames at any moment.”

The truth is that fires are relatively rare, but they cannot be prevented altogether. The priority of this Bill should be to build in adequate safety systems and then maintain those properly so that residents can evacuate as quickly and easily as possible should fire occur. Instead, these clauses create an unnecessary duplicate role that will—guess what?—yet once more, financially cripple leaseholders.

The Government themselves estimate that the cost of a building safety manager will be £60,000 a year per block. For Lucy, in a block of 33 flats, this will add £1,818 to her annual service charge. For Ruth, in a block of 19 flats, the building safety manager costs would add £3,157 a year to her service charges. It is not clear, either, whether that £60,000 estimate that was on the Government’s website has factored in employers’ national insurance and pension, plus the 20% VAT that an employing company would have to add to the charge. That would bring the cost to £85,000, in which case Lucy’s annual service charges would rise by £2,575 and Ruth’s by £4,473.

It is not clear exactly whether that £60,000 figure still stands, because the fact sheet explaining the building safety manager’s average pay of £60,000 a year was rather quietly removed from the Government’s own website after 5 pm last Wednesday. Luckily, the leaseholders have screenshots, which I have here if anybody would like to look at them. I am hoping that this is a positive sign that the Government are going to scrap the policy—delete the policy just like the web page—or at least water it down by turning it into a function that can be met by existing managing agents and property managers, and not treating it as a separate job.

With the words of the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, ringing in our ears, he has warned that

“too many buildings are declared unsafe”,

and that many of the problems associated with the cladding scandal have been caused not by unsafe buildings but over-zealous inspectors and nefarious players

“seeking to profit from the current crisis”.

We should have those words in the back of our minds when we ask key questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, I think we are all reassembled. We were listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I know that noble Lords have been waiting with bated breath.

The key question is why building safety managers are needed at all, when the vast majority of leasehold developments have managing agents in place and leaseholders have to pay a management fee for their services. Surely splitting the function would risk disputes between property managers and building safety managers about what is and is not a safety issue and who is in control when remediation works have a safety element. These buildings, which people live in, already have fire risk assessments carried out by specialist firms—even if one problem is that they are not shared with leaseholders, which can mean that defects can be kept hidden and necessary repairs delayed. But still, what will the building safety manager actually do?

To find out—I do not know whether the Minister has seen this—I watched a recording of a closed-door meeting of sector professionals trying to pin down the role. It was full of flip charts, pie charts and Venn diagrams, and I was utterly confused by the end. It seemed to me to be a jack of all trades and master of none, but it needed the authority of a professional expert. It was reminiscent of a scene from David Brent’s “The Office”.

These are compulsory jobs but they are not mandated to a minimum standard. Qualifications for the role have not been established, no training programmes are in place and, as I say, even the professionals themselves do not seem to know what that training would consist of. If this post is made mandatory, as proposed by these clauses, the qualified few will surely be able to write their own salary cheques. No wonder that leaseholder campaigning groups are talking about “jobs for the boys”. Even if that is a bit cynical, we must ask who will judge their performance or hold them to account. Leaseholders—who will pay for them and who are best placed to judge those overseeing the block they live in, due to day-to-day interactions—now say that, as always, they will have no say at all.

Safer homes will come not from employing someone to march around a block of flats, trying to find issues to justify their existence and quite a hefty salary. This is a version of the waking watch debacle, replacing hi-vis jacket patrols walking around buildings looking for sparks with a suited and booted manager with an iPad finding risks, faults and unnecessary fire safety work. If they do not find any problems, what is the point of their job?

I finish with that question. What is the point of the job? I hope the Minister agrees that there is no point.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

I support the very interesting comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—most interestingly, it is immensely refreshing to listen to an amendment that is driven not only by cost savings for leaseholders but by common sense. In many cases, the sub-contracting of services on multi-let buildings is appointed through external managing agents, who apply a levy; they will charge, let us say, 10% on the fee for the work being done. In the £60,000 example, another £6,000 goes on to the tenants’ bills at the end of the year.

I simply support this proposal. It will be a difficult one for the Minister, but common sense is short in the Bill because of the layers of bureaucracy. This will save money for tenants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Perhaps I should combine my question so that the Minister will not have to stand up twice. Saying that safety comes first and calling somebody a building safety manager does not mean that a building safety manager is going to make a building any safer. I do not think that it is entirely fair to suggest that those of us who are querying some of these things do not care about safety. We would not be sitting in this Committee, I assume, if we did not.

I want it clarified because I liked the Minister’s points about a common-sense approach to safety day by day and about eyes and ears. That all sounds sensible and in some ways I understand that point, but I am confused because it is not clear how many days someone will be there being the eyes and ears. The Minister read out that the competent person will have skills, knowledge and experience, but skills, knowledge and experience of what? It is still not clear. The idea of a volunteer, as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, keeping an eye on things—items being broken or the fire door being replaced by B&Q—is slightly different from how it was discussed by the professionals when they were talking about what kind of person would be a building safety manager. They kept saying that they must be competent and experienced with some skills in fire engineering and personnel management because they will have to go around to tell people off. I think that in the end this is a job creation scheme that will not add to the safety of the building, as do many leaseholders, and they are on the receiving end of it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I find it quite simple really, but then I am a simple person. The accountable officer is the accountable officer responsible for that building or many other buildings in the case of organisations that might have more than one building. They then ask a building safety manager to be there on a much more daily basis and to report back to them on issues within the building that might reflect on its fire or structural safety. Therefore, the skills, knowledge and experience required by such an officer are experience of fire and structural safety in high-rise buildings. We cannot expect the top level to be there day in, day out going around those buildings. How much will be required by each building will depend on that building, I suggest.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 50A in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Young of Cookham. Let me say how much I support the sentiments and intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who has done us a real service.

I, too, do not want to die over the details of this amendment. I hope that this will stimulate a really vigorous debate so that we can all work together on how we get these sorts of commitments in the Bill. I and others on my Benches want to work with the Government and others to achieve this. If someone else can turn up with much better solutions, that is great.

Throughout the cladding and fire safety crisis, we have heard many stories of landlords imposing outrageous and sometimes astronomical building safety charges on leaseholders and tenants. Often this has been done by managing agents acting on behalf of the freeholder. Leaseholders and tenants have reported a complete lack of accountability and transparency throughout this process and have been unable to challenge or even scrutinise the charges imposed on them.

Of course, this is only one aspect of the fire safety crisis, but one that has been somewhat overlooked when the primary focus has rightly been on ensuring a fair remediation settlement. However, the fire safety crisis has exposed the utterly powerless position that many leaseholders find themselves in, sometimes subject to the whims of freeholders with very few avenues of recourse, unless they raise considerable amounts of money and try to challenge things in the courts, which is very often way beyond the financial ability of many leaseholders, even if they wish to do it.

Amendment 50A would strengthen the right of leaseholders and tenants to consult with, and scrutinise decisions made by, the landlord on matters relating to building safety and would require the landlord to set up a recognised tenants’ association for the purpose of consultation.

The leasehold system in tall buildings has been placed under serious stress in the post-Grenfell years. Future home owners may have looked at the existing crisis and been turned off the prospect of owning a leasehold property. Others, facing far fewer choices, have simply—fatefully—walked into purchasing a leaseholder property unaware of the realities of the leasehold system, only to be later consumed with regret and extortionate charges. We need to make the leasehold system fairer and more attractive, not just for those who are thinking about buying a leasehold now, but for those existing leaseholders who feel powerless in the face of their managing agent and freeholder.

Ideally, leaseholder associations would also be able to scrutinise and consult on insurance commissions, along with other service charges not related to building safety. The amendment would begin to reorientate the relationship between the freeholder and leaseholder, which, as it currently stands, is skewed too far in favour of the freeholder. This is not an anti-freeholder amendment. Many freeholders will manage their property in a responsible manner. There are, however, just too many instances—and quite high-profile ones—of freeholders acting in an appalling manner. For example, the Yianis Group, the freeholder of the West India Quay development, spent over £74,000 in a legal action to block the residents from forming a recognised residents’ association. This was after leaseholders issued proceedings against the freeholder over expensive energy bills—something not covered by this amendment, of course, but worth mentioning—in which they were vindicated after the court revealed that they had been overcharged by 26% on their utility bills.

This is the same freeholder which, when challenged by the residents at a different development at Canary Riverside, lost a ruling brought forward by the residents and was forced to replace the managing agent. The court ruled that the freeholder failed to maintain the estate and did not adequately prove expenses and service charges. As the Times reported, it even charged a 100% mark-up on repairs to leaky windows to a repair company. At the time of reporting, the freeholder then attempted to chip away at the court-imposed manager’s power, costing the leaseholders £1 million in legal fees over 22 proceedings. The freeholder’s intentions here speak for themselves.

Stronger provisions than those listed in Amendment 50A would be welcome, as these powers would relate only to building safety matters. However, the amendment would go some way to breaking the power of any unscrupulous freeholders who view their leaseholders as cash cows. The amendment is not for those honest, conscientious freeholders who retain good relations with their leaseholders and managing agents, but for those such as the Yianis Group, in respect of whom one leaseholder said they were made to feel at the mercy of their landlord.

I hope the Minister will look seriously at measures to strengthen leaseholder representation when dealing with freeholders. The scope of the Bill limits what we can do at the moment, but a verbal assurance that the Government are committed to reforming this imbalance of power would be most welcome.

In the meantime, I hope that the Government will consider these proposals carefully—limited though they may be—as a stopgap to help end some of the egregious abuses that leaseholders and tenants may face from their freeholder. I hope that this will be a contribution. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in his summing up.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 52A to 52C, 54A, 54B, 55B and 55C, which relate to Clauses 97 to 99. I also support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and his comments, as well as those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. It is in that spirit that I make these observations.

One issue that the building safety and cladding crisis has shone a light on is just how iniquitous residential leasehold tenure really is. The system of leasehold may dress itself up as home ownership. When I bought my flat 25 years ago, which was the first time I had ever bought anything or got a mortgage, I thought of myself, very proudly, as a home owner—it was part of my growing up—but I now think that it was a bit of a mis-sell, as I am nothing of the sort. As Rabina Khan, a Liberal Democrat councillor in Tower Hamlets, puts it—she has been very insightful on all these issues—in effect:

“Leaseholders are tenants when it comes to rights, but owners when it comes to paying any bills. Yet they have no control over the contractor, costs or scope of any works. They must pay up pretty much whatever is demanded by the freeholder landlord and their agent.”


Under Part 4 of the Bill and the clauses that I am referring to, building owners are given sweeping new rights in relation to entry to and surveillance of leaseholders’ homes in the name of safety and fire prevention, even being able to force entry if the leaseholder does not admit entry to their own homes by a set time. Leaseholders who I have spoken to are concerned that these Part 4 provisions could be used to threaten and harass leaseholders, are overly intrusive without affecting fire safety in any real way, and, more broadly, feed into a dangerous atmosphere —which we are familiar with from the Covid period and lockdowns—of dispensing with civil liberties and privacy too easily under the auspices of safety.

My amendments to Clauses 97 to 99 come as package. They seek to tighten up the drafting to ensure proportionate actions that do not leave leaseholders open to either false accusations or blame for safety issues, so that it does not become yet another vehicle for forcing leaseholders to pay ever more money, and they would respect the rights of leaseholders as home owners.

Clause 97 places a duty on every occupant of a high-risk building not to interfere with safety features. The focus here is making it clear that residents have a duty not to affect the safety of the building. My amendment to Clause 97 makes it clear that this duty is breached only where there is material interference. This change would, for example, avoid someone being found in breach of the duty if they accidentally broke the glass in a dry-riser door or accidentally broke a hinge on a fire door because the current drafting would treat them not as accidents but as breaches of duty in the same way as someone deliberately disabling a fire alarm.

Clause 98 allows an accountable person to send a notice, possibly demanding money, if the accountable person knows or, importantly, just suspects that there has been a breach of this new residents’ duty. Again, this section has no materiality threshold, so it can be triggered by any breach that the accountable person feels like enforcing. As it stands, it is far too subjective. It is blatantly open to malicious misuse or just a promiscuous and ever-growing risk-averse blame culture targeting leaseholders as culprits. The amendment I have put forward tightens the clause up to focus on material breaches that the accountable person can evidence—a key point.

Clause 99 is on the power of entry. The current drafting allows the accountable person to demand access for any reason, including mere suspicion of a breach of duty. This demand for access can be given with as little as 48 hours’ notice. If access is not given in that timeframe, the accountable person can then obtain a court order, possibly without a notice to the person affected. This makes what should be a last resort possibly a new normal, and, I argue, a new draconian normal.

The amendment I have proposed to Clause 99 would require that the new building safety regulator issues a code of practice on how exactly this power is to be used after consulting a tenants panel. That is not a perfect solution, but at least the onus would be on the accountable person to comply with the code of practice when making requests for access to people’s homes.

As has already been mentioned by a number of speakers, I am not trying to paint a picture of dastardly freeholders, building owners or managing agents gleefully harassing leaseholders or threatening to kick their doors down, but for me one of the inevitable consequences of a disproportionate zero-risk attitude to building safety with an ever-growing proliferation of demands and duties placed on the accountable person, requiring that they check, check and check again, means that we end up where the Secretary of State, Michael Gove. warns us not to end up. In another context he has warned of the dangerous overzealousness of inspections, unnecessary surveys and precautionary, just-in-case assessments.

All this fuels the notion that not only is every flat a fire hazard but that every owner of a flat is a fire hazard too. As soon as safety measures become a disproportionate fear, they can lead to perverse outcomes. In June 2020, before the Public Bill Committee, L&Q, one of the biggest social landlords, responsible for 95,000 homes, including leaseholders and shared ownership properties, complained about the difficulties of accessing the front doors of leaseholders, implying that leaseholders who refuse to go along with its neverending fire safety upgrades might be putting lives at risk. Its spokesperson said:

“With tenants, we might be able to go to court and get injunctions and get injunctions to gain access to a home, but with leases, that challenge becomes even more difficult.”


That was said as a matter of regret.

This attitude means that these provisions presume that leaseholders cannot be trusted. I think they imply a certain contempt that treats leaseholders as ignorant or stupid or both, as though, if left alone, away from the wise and sensible landlord or his or her appointed overseer, they might set up a barbeque in the living room, rewire their own flats even though they are not electricians, be like children irresponsibly playing with matches or wilfully destroy safety equipment, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned.

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th February 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I obviously support what my noble friend Lady Pinnock said in relation to the training and independence of building inspectors. That is perhaps the most obvious of the necessities which we now know exist, as far as plugging the gaps in the current regime is concerned.

I want to focus my remarks on Amendments 116 and 119A, where mine is the lead name and which deal with fire risk assessors. We have never had before, in capital letters, something called “Fire Risk Assessors”. There is no such profession and this will clearly be a significant gap, which has to be filled very quickly if we are to achieve the aims of the Bill. We know that, right across the industry, there are shortages of skills, qualifications and competence. Above all, there is a shortage of capacity. One problem that I know the Minister has had to confront is that it has been difficult to get effective surveys of high-risk buildings because the people have not been available to do them. There are no such people, or at least insufficient people, with the right competences, skills and so on to do so.

I do not know whether the Committee will have seen the reports of the fire risk assessment that was done in advance of the Grenfell fire. The housing association had a fire risk assessor and he made a fire risk assessment. It turned out that he was a firefighter but not qualified in fire risk assessment. In order to secure the job, he had manufactured a set of initials which were accepted by the housing association as proof of his skill and capacity to assess fire risks. This is reported in the public evidence sessions of the Grenfell inquiry. It was further revealed that he was commissioned not just to assess the Grenfell Tower; he was commissioned by the housing association to be its risk assessor for the whole of the housing stock of that organisation.

That is where the importance of having a register becomes immediately apparent. You need a register of qualified people for two reasons, which overlap: first, you are not allowed to practise as an assessor unless you are on that register; secondly, as a purchaser of the skills of fire assessment, for instance a housing association, you need to be sure that the person who offers you a cheap deal to do some quick fire assessment work is somebody who is qualified, prepared and competent to do so. Amendment 116 is trying to establish clearly in the Minister’s mind the need to make this process of regulation transparent, with a publicly published register. We are obviously probing at this point, but I hope the Minister can give us some satisfaction that, if not in the Bill then in parallel with it, these matters will be dealt with.

What I have said about fire assessors may be the most dramatic and acute of the problems, but the building control function was of course also exposed as woefully insufficient in the case of the Grenfell Tower. Bearing in mind that it was a local authority building control function being exercised, it is also true that the person who was the responsible officer did not once visit that tower to make an inspection. It was purely from a desk study of drawings which had been provided to him. There is clearly a tremendous gap. Even when somebody is appointed to do a job, they may not have either the skills or competences, or they may not have the attention span or the time, to give effective service to the cause of fire safety. I hope very much to hear from the Minister that he takes these matters to heart and has in mind finding a way of establishing how this can be put right.

Our Amendment 119A is about training of fire assessors on the same basis as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, moved on the training of building inspectors. Every one of the professionals engaged in this fire safety regime needs to be a qualified and competent person. That is so obvious that it hardly needs to be said, but at the moment we are woefully short of the number of people we need. Indeed, it has already been referenced that the RICS and others have pointed out that, at the moment, there are not enough people with the competencies to step forward if the Bill comes into force as the Minister intends.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am very sympathetic to this group of amendments, but I have a number of queries that perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, might address, just because I am not quite sure about them. One of the points just made is that a large number of people will be accountable —it seems to me to grow every time I look at the Bill. Although I understood what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, meant about the bonfire of bureaucracy, regulations and so on, there is always a danger that we are creating layer upon layer of bureaucracy and accountable people. I shall be moving some amendments later to this effect.

For now, it is obviously the case that we need qualified people involved in this, but, as has been described, there are so many new roles that the qualifications do not even exist. I am concerned about including in the Bill that you need to have the qualifications to do the role when the qualification does not exist. What does that mean? Will that hold up the process?

I am also concerned about saying that training is “compulsory”. I am concerned for the professional autonomy and integrity of those who are already involved in this area. I do not know whether legislation is the right way to go. However, it would be useful to understand from the Minister what he anticipates will happen. It cannot be, as it were, just any old Joe Bloggs given the role. Will attention be paid to talking to the professionals who already run practice qualifications in universities and further education? How will the Government manage the fact that they are creating all these new jobs with no attention, it seems, to how the qualifications will be awarded or who will give them? That is where I am very sympathetic to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in having a register, but I am not quite sure that the amendment does it.

I am nervous, perhaps because I used to be involved in education, about another government demand on education that ends up giving people a lot of work to do when there is no capacity to do it, so it will just be a shoddy box-ticking qualification that will not mean very much. That is my concern, while being sympathetic in general.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak in particular to the amendments in this group in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, who have made excellent contributions. I intend to be concise and brief, because the noble Baroness introduced them in an eloquent and comprehensive manner, which was followed up by subsequent speakers.

These amendments are much needed, and it is disappointing that these matters have not already been taken into account by the Government in the Bill. The new clause in Amendment 116 would require building owners and accountable persons, about whom I shall ask a question shortly, to verify the competencies of fire assessors before appointing them to conduct the fire safety assessments required by the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about the 1984 legislation and, prior to that, local authority employees. The cosy relationship between building constructors, developers and inspectors is really concerning. That needs to change.

These are serious concerns. Look at Grenfell, where numerous people lost their lives, and subsequent fires in high-rise and other buildings. The system is broken. Serious construction defects are there, and there have been failures in not detecting bad buildings. Building regulations have failed. That is criminal, as my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock pointed out on the previous group. We cannot have buildings signed off as safe when clearly they are not. Developers choosing building inspectors—a point the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned—cannot be a way forward. We have to all be singing from the same hymn sheet; that is what Amendment 116 talks about.

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure, though daunting, to follow the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who has been a fount of knowledge on the issues in the Bill. It is a significant Bill, one which many have been waiting for, because its provisions will have far-reaching consequences for so many householders and the whole industry of building construction. It is also a very technical Bill, which I have struggled with and am unlikely to be able to contribute to in detail in Committee. However, for Second Reading, I thought my recent experience as a leaseholder might be useful.

In April 2020, in the depth of the first lockdown, there was a house fire in my council block of maisonettes in Haringey. The fire rapidly spread across the roof of the block and created a huge blaze. Thankfully, no one was hurt, but 17 fire engines and a lot of shaken up people later, the whole block had suffered major water damage. I and all the families were evacuated and we thought that would just be for a couple of months. In reality, the due date for return is this April, two years after the fire. This delay has had a devastating impact on many people, my neighbours more than me. The reason I am telling noble Lords this is not for sympathy but to note that sometimes it is not the safety of a building, or even the fire, that causes the suffering, but the officialdom that handles it. In this instance, the context was Covid restrictions and a safety-first approach that became an excuse for inexcusable inaction and inhumane indifference. An atmosphere of excessive precaution over the coronavirus led to a local government housing department seeming to seize up and consign leaseholders and tenants to being made effectively homeless for two years.

I tell this tale because one concern I have is that there are always dangers in responding to something as horrific or emotional as the Grenfell tragedy—a danger that we bend the stick and focus on zero risk and safety first above all other considerations. This can lead to unintended consequences, so now there is a scramble to require building owners to review a fire-risk assessment on all residential buildings. But this can be a time-consuming and expensive business. Most importantly, we need to ask whether it is proportionate or necessary on such a wide scale.

Southwark Council has recently announced extra-intrusive fire safety checks in hundreds of its high rises, involving not only surveys of outside buildings and communal areas but the council being able to

“enter homes with a camera.”

It also

“may need to open up walls and ceilings.”

This is not because of any defined risks; it seems to me that it is an exploratory “just in case” fishing exercise. While it is posed as putting tenants’ safety first, we must ask whether this sort of action, which is massively disruptive for households, addresses the top safety threat to people in south London. The LGA has noted its concerns about these new financial burdens and the impact of such surveys and all the remediation that has to happen on social housing blocks. It warns that the burden for this

“will fall on council housing revenue accounts and housing associations, punishing social housing tenants and those on the waiting list.”

The point is that the vast majority of homes in the UK are safe. The Minister himself noted in his very helpful letter that evidence suggests that only a small proportion of fires in high-risk buildings escape the room of origin, and that there is a general downward trend in the number of deaths from fires in people’s homes over the last two decades. Thank God for that. Overall, the evidence shows that risk is low across all accommodations and buildings. Partly, we need to consider whether blanket mandates affect priorities and resources.

The LGA queries whether height is an effective determinant of risk or too simplistic, sometimes neglecting other factors such as vulnerability of occupants. This catch-all also treats all buildings of over 18 metres as dangerous when they are not, forcing the use of

“scarce resource unnecessarily which could be deployed to life-saving effect elsewhere.”

The mandate to investigate every building and for historical remediation to happen is explained as a way of reassuring residents and leaseholders that their homes are safe, rather than it being a necessity. I worry, however, that sometimes reassuring measures might inadvertently create a disproportionate sense of escalating fear among the public. I suggest, therefore, that we do not allow the horrors of Grenfell and the egregious negligence there to create the impression that we should all be fearful in our homes all the time. That is one reason that I am glad the Bill stresses throughout that the new building safety regime will be proportionate rather than overuse the precautionary principle.

The phrase “health and safety gone mad” might be a caricatured take on those who are cavalier about regulations and whether there are some destructive features of health and safety culture that can lead to, for example, a focus on myriad possible risks rather than clearly defined dangers, and a micromanagement of unknown risks, with everything seen as a potential hazard. This can lead to a defensive focus on compliance and the proliferation of petty regulations that mean we lose sight of the regulations that really matter. In turn, all this might lead to formalised procedures in which box-ticking can usurp human judgment and create an army of new box-ticking bureaucrats and a new industry of layers upon layers of regulators, with new roles that can be very confusing. Already, we can see that these new layers of bureaucracy are creating a skills crisis and a capacity problem.

Of course, I am keen to see more fire engineers, surveyors and so on, but with the new focus on competence and the upskilling of those presently involved in building construction, we must avoid also suggesting that there is widespread incompetence. I worry about inadvertently demonising the 2 million people involved in the construction industry. I urge noble Lords to avoid characterising the majority of contractors, designers, builders and architects as incompetent cowboys cutting corners. Is this name-calling not just another part of blame culture? It might be that I have a disproportionately high number in my family who work in the construction industry, but I do think we need a balance.

This industry is crucial to building the desperately needed new homes, hospitals and factories and to making the levelling-up agenda concrete. We do not want them all demoralised, stuck in endlessly continuing professional development seminars, tangled up in—yes—red tape and treated with suspicion as dodgy, hostile players by the public. We must resist the temptation, therefore, to demonise everybody in this game.

Smoke-free Pavements

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I have to say that that is putting words in my mouth. We want to discourage smoking. As I said, we as a Government are trying to move towards a smoke-free 2030. We are trying to ensure that the smallest possible number of children take up e-cigarettes—we are seeing great progress on that. We are taking a number of measures to eradicate this and hit that target. At the same time, we believe in personal choice. That is something that this Government strongly believe in and it is also a route to seeing a stronger bounce-back and a stronger economy as a result.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, is there anywhere in the public square where smokers will be left in peace and permitted to indulge in a legal, if anti-social, habit that they as adults freely choose to indulge in and even enjoy? Does the Minister consider that the rather grungy lean-to behind the bike sheds that noble Lords who smoke have been banished to is suitably far away from any restaurants or bars to be safe from overzealous public health regulators in here, or might we be driven into the Thames? I am asking for a friend or two.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I have to say that because alcohol is served in that grungy location, it attracts even me and I am a non-smoker. I believe in personal choice and I recognise what is legal and illegal today.

Islamophobia

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I can give that assurance. We must provide our faiths and beliefs, particularly a religion such as Islam, with the same protections as all other important religions, but we must not make the mistake of conflating religion with race, as I said in the previous answer.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is crucial that we distinguish between aberrant anti-Muslim bigotry and the highly contentious concept of Islamophobia which threatens free speech for fear of it being labelled Islamophobic. Does the Minister acknowledge this chilling effect for liberal Muslims, as is well described in the Don’t Divide Us film “‘Islamophobia!’ The Accusation that Silences Dissent”, muting any criticism of Islam as a religion and even muting critiques of political Islamism, however dangerous? Does the Minister accept the nervousness of politicians from all parties in supporting the Batley Grammar School teacher who was forced into hiding under shouts of “Islamophobic”, effectively allowing a default blasphemy law to be snuck in for fear of being called Islamophobic?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I do recognise that issue and I was trying to point that out in the responses I gave to previous supplementary questions. There is no doubt that the term “Islamophobia” is used as a heckler’s veto to shut down alternative opinions. We need to come up with a way forward that does not compromise free speech, and that is absolutely what we are committed to doing.

Leasehold: Building and Fire Safety

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I want to issue a trigger warning: the demonstration by thousands of leaseholders from all over the country at 1 pm today is likely to be very noisy. Luckily, they sneaked it in before the police and crime Bill could ban it. But seriously, I am delighted the Minister says he will come and meet the people affected. They have a range of creative solutions to offer and feel that their best ideas are being ignored and that they are treated like whingers. In addition, will the Minister do some internal lobbying of the incoming Secretary of State for Housing and explain the strength of feeling, frustration and fury across this House about the inadequacy of the solutions so far put forward? Leaseholders have ideas; listen to them.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I agree that it is really important to engage with the people affected. I have a considerable number of meetings with leaseholder groups and am in constant virtual contact with some of the people who I believe are doing their very best to see how we can creatively address this difficult issue. I am very happy to meet the people today. It is important that as politicians we step forward and meet those people affected.

Mortgages: EWS1 Form

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My noble friend will be pleased to know that we have announced our intention to provide a scheme that enables professionals who carry out EWS1 to have sufficient professional indemnity insurance cover. We are also engaging with the Building Societies Association, UK Finance and the major banks so that they look at other forms: for instance, an updated fire risk assessment or, for buildings constructed after 2018—post Grenfell—sign-off from a building control inspector. There are lenders that have led the way on this by taking a more proportionate approach in not always requiring an EWS1 certificate.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Minister keeps saying that updated guidance from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors means that leaseholders will no longer need a form to sell their homes, but they do. He says that the EWS1 is not a government formal legal requirement, but mortgage lenders continue to insist on the form. In the end, the only reason all this has happened is because of government policies. When will the Government take responsibility for the leaseholders trapped in homes they cannot sell or remortgage? Has the Minister noticed that the media are now running with this story? Because of grassroots cladding and leaseholders’ groups, there is huge public interest: beyond Inside Housing, we have had Radio 4 and Channel 4, and all sorts of newspapers. We even had Rebecca Long Bailey on GB News—

[Noble Lords]

Too long!

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Sorry. You get the gist: you have a problem.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, we recognise that there is a problem and we are taking the steps required to ensure that where an EWS1 form is requested, it is easier to get the professional to carry it out, but also encouraging the banks to look at other documentation as an alternative—a proxy—to show that the buildings are safe. It is important that we go ahead and identify those buildings whose external wall systems require remediation.

Fire Safety: Leaseholder Bankruptcies

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Monday 24th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, obviously we take into account whether developers are good partners. There are many national schemes they will want to access for their businesses. We monitor very closely the number of defective buildings and whether the developers step up and contribute. That will be a factor in their future relationships with government at every single level.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Will the Minister acknowledge that, by kicking this scandal down the road, the political crisis surrounding who pays for fire safety defects has not gone away but intensified, while the financial demands on blameless home owners who are unfortunate enough to be leaseholders are escalating way beyond cladding? Will the Minister specifically investigate the spiralling costs of the enforced requirement for waking watch patrols provided by private security firms, whose efficacy is, to say the least, contested? I note that the average cost to individual leaseholders is an extra—unaffordable—£400 a month even before the huge remediation bill drops through the letterbox.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I was asked to carry out a waking watch review on behalf of the Secretary of State some months ago. The noble Baroness is right that it is a significant cost for leaseholders. This is why we created the £30 million waking watch relief fund, which will help between 300 and 400 buildings put a fire alarm in place and benefit between 17,400 and 26,520 leaseholders, who will no longer have to pay those high interim costs for waking watches.

Fire Safety Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 28th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[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.