Building Safety Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I added my name to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, which the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has just disagreed with. Those three amendments seem to me an essential guarantee of safety for the tenants, leaseholders and others who occupy buildings that are owned by what are broadly social landlords.

The noble Baroness is correct that the normal training of electricians does not include an ability to do this, but that needs to be addressed. I contrast it with the gas situation. Social landlords are obliged to have a gas inspection regularly and, by and large, they do it. Gas suppliers both train their people in that respect—it is an essential element of a gas fitter’s training—and, certainly in my experience of London boroughs, they carry it out pretty regularly and effectively. I do not see why electrical suppliers should not be in the same situation.

As has been said, over half of fires are ultimately caused by electrical faults; most of those are in appliances, but if those appliances are fitted to an installation and a system whereby the defusing mechanism does not work and the fire goes back into the wall and beyond, you have a terrible and inaccessible situation. That is exactly what the more serious fires caused by electrical faults are. There is clearly a responsibility on the manufacturers and retailers in terms of the quality of the appliances, but there is also a responsibility on those responsible for the buildings to ensure that there is a proper inspection of the whole electrical system. That needs to be addressed; it is an anomaly that gas is different from electric. There was a time when the biggest accidents were gas—now they are predominantly electrical. I hope that these three amendments are carried.

On staircases, I agree with the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jordan. I would also say—somebody referred to it earlier—that there are new high-rise and medium-rise buildings that have received planning permission with one staircase and one means of escape only. That is perfectly legal at the moment. It should not be, but I know of at least three examples in London boroughs which have been passed because they say that there are alternative means of escape—in other words, a lift. Most of us are advised not to use a lift in a fire, and it is pretty much built into our psyche, so that is not a sufficient reason. If we are addressing the staircase regulations, for medium-rise and high-rise buildings, two means of escape without involving an electrical lift need to be written in. I support all the amendments in this group.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been an interesting debate about two very different but important aspects of safety. I want first to talk about the Safer Stairs campaign introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. She and others made it clear that falls on stairs are a huge issue, but unfortunately it seems continually to go under the radar when it comes to what to do to stop so many people suffering often catastrophic falls.

As we have heard, the British Standard has existed since 2010. It has been rigorously tested by industry but has never been made a legal requirement. That is strange: we have a standard, but we do not have to bother with it—that seems a very odd way to go about things. There does not seem to be anything to stop the Government putting this standard into primary legislation. There is a precedent for doing so: the ban on combustible materials went into the Building Regulations 2010. My noble friend Lord Jordan put it in a nutshell when he said that, if the Minister were to accept the amendment, we would have the opportunity to end day-to-day tragedies—the smaller stuff. Kicking the can down the road will cost lives. If we do not address it now, it could be many years before any new ombudsman tackles the problem. If it is 10 years before we get a grip on this, that is 7,000 more unnecessary deaths.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and the other signatories to the amendment therefore have our strong support—as well, it seems, as that of many noble Lords, not just in Committee today but at Second Reading. This is the Minister’s opportunity to do something that would genuinely make a huge difference. He should accept the amendment and, as my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone said, just do it.

We also fully support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, which aim to improve the safety of electrical installations. We have heard that the number of fires in high-rise residential blocks has risen consistently year on year, which indicates that we need to do something practical to try to stop that number continuing to increase. Safety parity for all renters was mentioned. As we have heard, it cannot be right that in a mixed-tenure block a private renter will have electrical checks carried out by law while the social tenant living next door will not. As the noble Lord said, a fire in a tower block does not check the tenancy status of those that it threatens.

I will briefly reference my noble friend Lord Whitty’s point about how wrong it is that there is only one escape staircase in blocks now. A planning application was recently overturned because it was challenged on that. As part of the response to Grenfell, the Government really need to get to get to grips with this. I know that this is a planning issue, but I hope that the Minister will take this away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

We had the tragedy of Grenfell, and I am worried that we are doing a lot of different things in the Bill—some of them are very major—and are now adding on extra things. Individually, things such as the proposals on staircases and electrical safety might have helped to prevent that tragic fire, but each of them has a cost. So it is obviously up to the Minister to look at them in the round and work out what is needed to try to ensure that we have a safe environment. I now support what was said on staircases, because a very good case was made and I am always open-minded, but I am a bit worried about these all piling up and separately chasing the same thing. I have found that, whenever there is a disaster, people come up with several things, and if we had only done some of them 10 years ago we would not have had Grenfell at all.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I appreciate where the noble Baroness is coming from, but I still think there should be parity across the board going forward. Thinking about the Government’s levelling-up White Paper, if we are going to level up, surely parity should be part of that, so that all renters have the same protections.

I will sum up because we still have a lot to get through today. Given the nature of the discussion and the concerns that social housing landlords rarely carry out the certification—the problem is it is not mandatory, so it does not happen very often—I hope the Minister has listened to all of this debate. There is a lot for him to take back to his department.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, it has been an absolutely fascinating debate. This is very much the additional safety measures group—that is three words; you cannot do better than that. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, in particular for raising this important issue, as well as noble Lords who have spoken about the Safer Stairs campaign. I am sorry that I did not hear from my noble friend Lady Eaton, but she could easily have joined forces with everyone here.

I have been invited to say, “Just go for it” or “Just do it”—it is almost like a Nike ad in this House—but I think that it is a question of how you go for it. I met with the chief executive of RoSPA, Errol Taylor, in this House, and we have a plan that is important to share with noble Lords. As my officials have said, it would be highly unusual, even though people are grappling for precedents, to include in an Act of Parliament something that is as detailed as this, referring to a specific technical standard.

We are not graced by the presence of my noble friend Lord Young, who was Minister when the building regulations were passed. It is possible that this existing standard, BS 5395-1, could be included in an approved document. Indeed, it is in Approved Document K. I have received a letter from RoSPA making that proposal, which we will take to the next meeting of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee—BRAC—which advises on these things. We have effectively brought forward the next meeting, which was scheduled for September, as I know that noble Lords are very impatient.

We brought forward that meeting, which essentially is an emergency BRAC, to 16 March. That is how fast we move in my department. You meet someone on 23 February, you set up an emergency meeting on 16 March and you get an answer. Let us see whether the route of updating the approved document is an elegant way of fulfilling the desires that have been laid out by so many noble Lords. We all have elderly parents, or some of your Lordships may well; I do not. No, I take that back—perhaps we do not all have elderly parents. I suddenly realised that that was probably not the thing to say. [Laughter.]

--- Later in debate ---

I believe that, to give the industry the confidence it needs to get on with the task and achieve the targets the Government have set it, we should put these targets in legislation and enshrine them in law. That is what this amendment does. There are two ways of going forward: either the Minister can accept this amendment or she can accept the offer I made to the other Minister to accept my Private Member’s Bill, which does exactly that. I would be happy with either way. I hope they will support this amendment and that I have persuaded the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to accept it as well.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I also have an amendment in this group. In thinking about what the noble Lord, Lord Foster, just said, there has been a running theme through our debates on the Bill in Committee about the importance of housing standards and how good-quality housing standards can have a positive impact on health and well-being, as well as on fire safety.

Amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, have also drawn attention to the importance of energy efficiency, which is the focus of Amendment 128 in my name. Energy efficiency is important, not just for safety but from a climate change perspective and for the cost of living, because we know that energy costs will rise dramatically. Energy efficiency is something to which we need to give more attention, in supporting people on how they also can save energy in their homes. The Government should use every opportunity at their disposal to look at how they can improve energy efficiency to reduce costs for consumers.

The noble Lord, Lord Foster, mentioned the Government’s Heat and Buildings Strategy, which says that, to meet net zero, virtually all heat in buildings will need to be decarbonised. This will bring about reduced energy bills and healthier and more comfortable environments. Again, I am sure that is something we all support. We know energy efficiency will bring comprehensive benefits, not just for climate change but in increased property values. These are all positive aspects of what it can do.

The noble Lord, Lord Foster, also referred to the figures for excess winter deaths caused by cold homes. In a modern, 21st-century society, with everything to support warmth and heating at our fingertips, this should not be happening. In the last normal winter, 8,500 lives were lost because of cold homes. In a society such as ours that is disgraceful and should not be allowed.

We know that low incomes, high energy costs, and poor heating and insulation combine to do this. We need to do more to support insulation. I know the Government do a lot, but we need to focus more on this area. We should not have homes that are unfit for people to survive the cold or incomes that are not sufficient for people to put on the heating.

At this point, I hope the Ministers will both indulge me, if I raise a particular concern—the issue of communal and district heating networks. In the UK, 500,000 homes, 120,000 of which are in London, are heated by communal and district heating networks. They are therefore considered commercial customers, even though the people paying the bills are residents—me for one, in the flat I rent while I am here in London. Those households are therefore not protected by the Ofgem energy price cap that will be introduced on 1 April. Estimates of cost increases for those living in buildings served by communal and district heating networks range from 400% all the way up to 700%.

Some 90% of heating networks run on gas. At the start of 2022, the price of gas spiked at around five times its cost at the start of 2021. Prices remain far higher now than this time last year. This means that energy costs for these households are expected to see a large increase. The increase in energy prices will contribute to the cost-of-living crisis, which means that household finances will be under even further pressure.

We know that much social housing is supplied by communal and district heating networks, meaning that price rises are more likely to affect social housing tenants, who also tend to be in the lower-income groups, as we know. That means that some of those least able to pay for their energy are likely to be asked to pay the most. I saw the Minister nodding, so he clearly understands what I am talking about. I ask him and the noble Baroness to take these concerns back to their colleagues in government, because this is a serious issue for many thousands of people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for introducing these two amendments. When I read them, I thought, “You know, this isn’t possible. You cannot build on contaminated land.” Certainly, from all the planning committees on which I have sat over the years, I know that it is not possible. I live in an area where there is quite a lot of land contaminated by dyes from the woollen industry, which have cyanide in them. My experience of development on contaminated land, which is a bit different from the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has raised, is that such sites are raised by planning authorities as part of the National Planning Policy Framework, they have to be identified as part of strategic local plans, and the Environment Agency and the Environment Act all contribute towards ensuring that contaminated land is cleared—decontaminated, if you like—before it is developed.

That is a bit different from some of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, which were about building adjacent to such land. Again, I am surprised that the environment legislation which controls old landfill sites has enabled that to happen. It may be a failure of legislation, but I will wait to hear what the Minister has to say.

The only thing I would say is that the Government are very keen for development of brownfield sites, and there is a desperate need for those sites to be cleared and decontaminated before they can be redeveloped. Everybody wants the Government to continue providing grants to developers to do so. I have experience from my town, where a site has been left empty for at least 15 years. It has been allocated for housing, but no grants have been provided to decontaminate it from an old chemical works that was on the site. So former green-belt land has been developed first, because we are waiting for grants for decontamination of derelict sites.

My one plea to the Minister is to take that back to the department and to say that, if it is to be brownfield sites first, such sites nearly always have significant contamination. Sometimes it is asbestos in older buildings. Certainly, in the Midlands and the north where there have been industrial complexes, there can be quite serious chemical contamination, and decontamination is necessary before anybody can get near them. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall be brief, because there will probably be another vote soon in the House. We are very happy to support the two amendments tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her comprehensive introduction.

We know that local authorities, as we heard, are responsible for determining whether their land is contaminated. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about the grants that her authority has been waiting for to clean up land. It is really important that these grants are dealt with quickly, because it can be incredibly expensive to clean up contamination. If we are to use brownfield sites, local authorities need to be able to do so in a way that is cost effective for them. That was an important point.

We are also aware that availability of land is one of the biggest barriers to building at the moment. The government targets for housebuilding mean that, in particularly populated areas such as the south-east, any additional homes are more likely to be built on previously developed brownfield land. No one would want to build on contaminated land by choice, but “brownfield” does not necessarily mean that land is contaminated. We need to be clear about this.

However, there is a need to ensure that houses constructed on sites affected by contamination are built to the appropriate standards, including those next to an area of contamination. We need to know where the contaminated land is so that we can do these checks properly. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, things such as flooding can bring contamination across a very wide area, with, as we have heard, sadly catastrophic consequences. As she said, on the surface of it, Zane’s law seems pretty simple and straightforward to implement. If we can identify the size and scale in every part of the country where contamination is, that would be a very logical starting point to prevent future risk to life and support local authorities in tackling the whole issue of contamination so that we understand it better as we move forward with more development and housing. I hope the Minister will listen to this, because it seems to me that Zane’s law ought to be supported.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling her amendments, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I welcome her raising the important issue of contaminated land in this Committee. As always, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made some very powerful points—as did the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Pinnock—on the need for speeding up the process of decontamination. I believe the ambition to bring a version of Zane’s law on to the statute book is well intentioned but I consider that the policy intent behind these proposals is already met by existing legislation and statutory guidance.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is right that Section 143 was repealed, but it was replaced by Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which provides a framework for identifying contaminated land in England and allocating responsibility for its remediation. It provides a legal definition of contaminated land and lays out the responsibilities of local authorities and the Environment Agency for dealing with it. These responsibilities include a requirement for local authorities to inspect their area to identify actively land that may be contaminated, to investigate and remedy contaminated land and to maintain a public register of information relating to contaminated land. This includes contamination from non-operational historic landfill sites and is regulated by local authorities. Further, Part C of the building regulations requires reasonable precautions to be taken by developers to avoid any risk to health and safety caused by contaminants in the ground where they are carrying out building work.

Lastly, assessment of contaminated land risk currently focuses on the impact of contaminated land on human health and the environment. Shifting focus on to buildings and building safety may dilute the aims of the existing framework. Given that this existing framework is already embedded into legislation and guidance, the proposed amendments regarding contaminated land would create unnecessary duplication and could cause confusion for local authorities. Therefore, while I appreciate the concerns of the noble Baroness, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Aberdare. The matter of retentions comes right at the end of this series of Grand Committee sessions, but it is part of a culture. It is the race to the bottom, value engineering or cost-cutting. Construction contract architecture and the practices that have grown up with it are all part of the perverse incentives that have somehow been built up.

At one stage in my professional life, retentions of, say, 5% or 2.5% for limited periods, as the case may be, started as security for the proper completion of works as set out and to a required standard. However, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that this has now gained the appearance of an informal and unconsented bankrolling of construction costs at the expense mainly of subcontractors and their suppliers. This has to stop. It is like all such situations: retentions have a legitimate use but have been subject to serial abuse. If we could keep our eye on one and render the other improbable, that would be all very well, but if the bad practitioners do not get the message, some brutal measures may indeed be necessary and better regulation and protection of sums due may follow from that. I cannot help thinking that the small and medium-sized enterprises that have dwindled and atrophied as a component part of the construction industry are the chief sufferers. They are unable to take on the big beasts of construction.

There is a real point behind this. If the memorandum that the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, referred to became a universal code of practice in the sense that you really had to justify yourself before stepping out of line, that would at least be a start. There is a lot we can do with what we know and the existing situation in terms of decent treatment, honest measures and taking care of the whole supply line we are dealing with. What the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said about investment, training and that sort of thing is absolutely on point, and I certainly support the thrust of this amendment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has raised a very important issue and certainly has our support. Something has to be done to resolve this, and others who have spoken have swung in strongly behind the noble Lord. I am sure the Minister has listened and is taking note.

We have heard that retention is the customary practice of withholding monies to cover defects and incomplete work, but it is also being used for so much more than that, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, explained. Depending on the size of the project, it can be insignificant or very significant. Large construction projects can be worth £1 billion; huge sums of money can be affected. As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, reform of the problems this can cause is long overdue.

Retention is often a cause for complaint and quarrel. Subcontractors often find it difficult and can see it as a tool to be bashed with by the paying party, who can hold back payment whether there is good reason to do so or not. I guess that I ought to declare a past interest in that I used to work for a small business that was contracted into large infrastructure projects, so I am very aware of the kind of impact that retention of monies can have. We worked with a lot of other small businesses within large projects. If payment is held back through retention, often for many months, small businesses have a serious cashflow problem, often meaning they cannot pay their staff. This is about not just training but the basic running of the business. They can then become dependent on constant, rolling bank loans, which is not the way a small business wants to run.

All that could be solved if this was sorted out. We see signs everywhere about considerate contractors, but contractors are not always considerate to their subcontractors. We need to sort this out. As we have heard, it can be such a source of pain and concern when the party holding the monies goes bankrupt. Other noble Lords have mentioned Carillion, which is probably the largest example of that happening.

I will not say any more, because we are nearly there, and we are nearly at another vote, I think. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, very ably introduced his amendment, so I think the Minister will have heard his message loud and clear. The last thing for me to say during this Committee is that today in particular, and throughout, the Minister has been given an opportunity to slay a number of dragons, not just this one, so I look forward to his response.

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 28th February 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, will not mind if I ask for clarification on a related point. First, I will say how much I agreed with the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on the worry one might have about a shortage of experts for this purpose, leading to an escalation of costs that will end up with the ultimate consumer: the leaseholder. Clearly, given the history, we do not want confusion in the Bill.

My question is about how the safety manager will operate in practice. How often will he or she be expected to visit the building? Obviously, I know a lot more about shops, and in shops the safety manager is often a treasured member of staff who may not be an expert in safety but is an expert in making sure that other members of the team behave appropriately. You do not need much expertise on safety if you have a very good system—one that includes sprinklers, for example, which will work well because all you have to do is make sure that the sprinklers and the water that supplies them are checked from time to time. My question, which it would be good to have clarified, is: what is the vision of what this person is going to do, and will they be doing it once every five years, once a day, or whatever? That will affect both the cost and the risk that there will not be enough people to do the important job of ensuring that we have safe buildings. Even in high-rise buildings, there will still be quite a bit of demand.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to say how much we agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said about the importance of having adequate safety measures. That has to run through everything we discuss in connection with the Bill. The noble Baroness also raised the important issue of cost. My noble friend Lord Khan talked about high service charges, and the Minister said she would write about that. This debate has put a focus on ever-increasing service costs, and the fact that in many cases they are starting to become unreasonable. It is very difficult when they go up by 190%, as they have in some areas.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked one of the key questions that I was going to ask, about the operation of the managers. What exactly are they going to do, and how are they going to do it? Will they be paid, and if so, how much? There is not a lot of detail in the Bill. This comes back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about accountability, and whether there will be confusion over the role. It is important that we all understand exactly what building safety managers are expected to do, how they will do it and how they will be rewarded for their work. Without that clarification, there are bound to be concerns that the cost of their work will be passed on through increased service charges, or possibly increased rent. None of that is clear. We would like more clarification about the role and the expectations.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I start by going back to where the Bill came from, the tragedy of Grenfell Tower. The point of the Bill is to ensure the safety of residents, particularly, in this case, in high-risk buildings, and the building safety manager is the day-to-day eyes and ears. I do not know whether people realise, but I did two or three years’ work after the tragedy in Kensington and Chelsea. Before I did that, I spent a lot of time in high-rise buildings, not in London but elsewhere in the country, and it was quite interesting, on a day-to-day basis, when I went round with fire brigades and dealt with issues such as safety doors. People took them off and put B&Q doors on. Those things cannot be done every five years, or every year; they need somebody going in and out of that building, checking up.

There will be stairwells with stuff stuck in them that is stopping people going up and down. There will be holes between the sealed containment of flat against flat. All those sorts of things need somebody who is not at arm’s-length but is working day to day. Yes, they will need new competences, but those competences are out there, I would argue, within the community already, and we will have to work on those competences. As for cost, obviously, that depends on the building. Some of these managers will be able to do multiple buildings if it is felt, by their accountable person, that they will be able to do a good job on that. One building is not the same size or requires the same amount of work as another building.

I shall now go through the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and I thank noble Lords for their contributions. The crux of Clause 80 is the duty to appoint a building safety manager. The creation of the building safety manager role was recommended made by Dame Judith Hackitt in the independent review to ensure, I say again, that the day-to-day management of buildings is undertaken by suitably competent people. That is what she said and that is what we are delivering in the Bill. Clause 80 establishes the role and creates a duty for principal accountable persons to appoint a building safety manager and provide them with support and assistance to manage building safety risks, except where they have the capability to meet the duties without needing such support. So there will be times when principal accountable persons have the time and the competences to do it without appointing somebody else. The skills, knowledge and experience offered by building safety managers will help drive up safety standards and, we believe, deliver positive outcomes for residents.

While the building safety manager will hold responsibility for certain tasks, to be agreed in their contract, accountability for meeting the duties set out by the Bill cannot be transferred by accountable persons to the building safety manager or anybody else. I think that answers the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about who is ultimately responsible. Whether the building safety manager is an organisation or an individual, they must possess the necessary competence to deliver the role. If an organisation is appointed, it must have a nominated individual named and in place to oversee delivery, providing reassurance to residents that their safety is being maintained. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, brought up the competence issue. Work is ongoing with the British Standards Institute to establish a competency framework for the role, which will be supported by further guidance.

Moving on, Clause 81 deals with the appointment of the building safety manager where there is more than one accountable person for the building. Despite the often complex ownership structures of many high-rise residential buildings, we are committed to delivering a system that ensures a whole-building approach. This was a central tenet of the findings and recommendations of the independent review.

Where there are multiple accountable persons, the principal accountable person will be responsible for appointing the building safety manager. The building safety manager should play a key role in delivering a whole-building approach, drawing on the duty placed on all accountable persons to co-ordinate and co-operate with each other.

Before the appointment is made, the principal accountable person must consult on the proposed terms and costs with their fellow accountable persons. We expect agreements to be reached so that the scope of the building safety manager’s functions and the method of delivery of the whole-building approach are agreed by all. If an agreement cannot be reached, we are providing a process for resolution through applications to the First-tier Tribunal. This approach protects the rights of accountable persons and holds them to account for ensuring residents’ safety.

Clause 82 ensures that building safety managers hold their position through the contractual arrangements agreed with the principal accountable person. If either party wishes to end the contract, they may do so by giving notice to the other party in writing. When the contract ends, a new building safety manager must be appointed by the principal accountable person as soon as is reasonably possible. If a building is not being managed appropriately and is placed into special measures, which is the last resort for taking control of buildings with significant failings, the building safety manager’s contract will end.

I mentioned earlier that there is an exception to the principal accountable person’s duty to appoint a building safety manager. Dame Judith’s review was right to point out that many building owners already operate and successfully manage their buildings through competent in-house teams. Where the principal accountable person’s existing management arrangements deliver safe outcomes for residents and this can be demonstrated to the building safety regulator, their mode of delivery will not need to change. The competency requirements for qualifying for this exception are of course the same as those expected of any other building safety manager.

This approach is likely to be favoured by organisations such as housing associations or local authorities, which potentially have many buildings that fall under the scope of the new regime. Residents of these buildings will rightly expect to be able to identify individuals who play an important role in maintaining their safety, and the clause requires the identification of the individual responsible for overseeing delivery. This person will not be expected to carry out every task alone, but they will be required to provide oversight such that a holistic and systemic approach to managing safety is achieved.

The exception to the duty to appoint a building safety manager also applies where there are two or more accountable persons for the building. The competency requirements remain consistent. As in the case where they would appoint a building safety manager, the principal accountable person must, as I said, consult their fellow accountable persons and seek to reach agreement on the proposed arrangements. We expect the consultation process to follow the same route as already explained for appointing a building safety manager where there are two or more accountable persons.

Safety has to be our main priority and the building safety manager plays an important role in delivering this. The Government will reflect further on all the points raised today. However, at this point we maintain that Clauses 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84 should stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, some very good questions have been asked in this debate. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out his proposals. I rise briefly, as it is late, to say that I very much support two practical amendments; as noble Lords know, I am essentially a practical person. They are Amendment 56 in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, on aligning building safety charges and service charges, and Amendment 94ZA in the name of my noble friend Lord Leigh, on the dilemma facing leaseholders who have already paid service charges.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. Before I introduce them and talk about the things that we are perhaps not so content with in the group, I just want to say that we recognise that the Government have introduced some very important amendments here. We welcome the work they are trying to do to improve the Bill from its previous incarnation.

The first amendment in my name is Amendment 88. The reason we introduced it is that, looking at all aspects of the crisis that this Bill is trying to address, these Benches are concerned that the Government’s approach does not appear to have a central plan. This amendment was also tabled in the other place by my colleagues, so we are repeating their call for the Government to act across the piece to solve the crisis. We ask that the Minister considers accepting our proposals for a building works agency, which would provide a more hands-on approach.

As we have heard, home owners, many of them first-time buyers, have become trapped in a perfect storm in unsafe buildings because they cannot sell their homes, and are forced to pay thousands in remediation works through no fault of their own. We propose that a team of experts does what the Government have not done so far with this Bill: go from building to building to assess real risk, deciding what needs to be fixed and in what order, using the building safety fund to get those buildings fixed and overseeing the work. Crucially, the Government could then sign off the buildings as safe and sellable, bringing certainty back into the market.

To make it clear, we see the building safety works agency as a separate body to the building safety regulator, with no duplication or crossover; in the debate in the other place, the Minister felt that there was crossover. We see the building safety works agency overseeing the remediation works and the other body regulating. One regulates and one does the work. This would mean that the Government could really take on those who are responsible for creating the crisis and who need to pay. This approach was put in place by a cross-party group of politicians and experts in Victoria, Australia, after there was a serious fire there. That is why we think it would work here: it is not just an idea off the top of our heads but something that has been done and worked before. It would enable the Government really to lead from the front on this matter.

Briefly, my Amendment 125 was tabled before the most recent government amendments. It replicates the McPartland-Smith new Clause 5 from the Commons, amending Part XVI of the Housing Act 1985. Now that the Government have tabled their amendments, it has been superseded, but I will still speak to it to remind the Committee that there have been previous attempts to address the fire safety question during the passage of the Bill. This amendment illustrates that there are different approaches to how the issue can be solved in legislation. It was previously tabled with a range of other amendments addressed to Part 5 of the Bill with the aim of allowing the Government and local authorities to enable grants for remediation work—specifically, by allowing the Government and local authorities to designate dwellings with cladding and fire safety defects as defective.

Having now seen the government amendments, I ask the Minister why the Government could not back the original amendment, which was after all tabled by Conservative Members of Parliament. How did the Government then arrive at the decision to table what they have come up with?

I want now to look at some of the other amendments in the group, and in particular at the implications of government Amendment 92. We do not think that any of the announcements benefit leaseholders who have already paid for remediation work—this has been mentioned by other noble Lords today. The fact that there is no retrospective coverage means that even if the proposed amendments become law and are effectively implemented, many leaseholders will continue to suffer the financial impact of the building safety crisis.

I therefore indicate our strong support for Amendment 131, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, which proposes that the Secretary of State set up a statutory public inquiry. It is really important for us to understand exactly what the situation is. Otherwise, there will be no recovery of these costs to leaseholders. Any steps which will lead to full retrospective protection for leaseholders who have already paid remediation costs should be taken seriously by the Government.

If the Government choose to introduce a cap on non-cladding remediation works—the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about this extensively in relation to her amendments, and we fully support what she is trying to achieve—it would mean that the maximum amount payable would be a peppercorn amount, which is effectively nothing and is where we need to be. Leaseholders should not be liable to pay for any costs that have resulted from a faulty regulatory system, whether these are related to cladding or non-cladding remediation, or interim safety measures. As the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said, all leaseholders should be treated exactly the same.

Further, it is unclear who will be liable to pay for remediation costs or the provision of interim safety measures such as waking watch in cases where the £10,000 or £15,000 cap has been met. Many buildings with fire safety issues can be occupied thanks to waking watches and other interim measures. If these are removed, there is a risk that the building receives a prohibition or decant notice and/or a withdrawal of building insurance cover. I hope that the Minister has his thinking cap on, because I have quite a lot of questions and requests for clarification. There have been a great number of amendments to consider and fully understand, so I hope that he will bear with me.

The combined effect of the various amendments is pretty complex. They seem to create what I can describe only as a system of cascading statutory protection, each stage of which is triggered only if the prior one is exhausted. I shall go through my understanding of it. Can the Minister confirm that I am correct or clarify where I have got it wrong? I know that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, also asked for clarification in a number of areas.

My understanding is that the system would work as follows. First, developers who are still the freeholders of a given building or are linked to it by a subsidiary, as well as cladding manufacturers, are expected to pay first. Secondly, freeholders of buildings who are not the original developers or linked to the original developers are expected to pay second, subject to an affordability test to be set out in the future via regulations. Thirdly, if those freeholders cannot pay, leaseholders will be expected to pay only a capped amount based on Florrie’s law towards non-cladding costs only. Anything they have paid to date counts towards the capped amount. Assuming that I have understood this correctly, I ask the Minister for more clarity on how this cascade system is expected to work in practice and what estimates, if any, the Government have made.

For example, how do the Government expect to define the affordability test at stage 2 of the cascade in regulations, given that this will make a huge difference to the number of cases that then get to stage 3? Why is there no protection for social landlords at stage 2, given the impact on affordable housing supply? What happens if freeholders of buildings who are not the original developers or linked to the original developer cannot pay and the costs exceed the leaseholder cap by a substantial amount? Who makes up the difference? Would it be from the department’s affordable housing budget, for example?

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th February 2022 Grand Committee

I turn to Amendments 23, 26 and 133 in my name. These are technical amendments to Clause 52, Schedule 5 and Clause 135. Amendment 23 is a drafting change—

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Could the Minister slow down a little? I do not know where I am any more. Could he start that group again? I am trying to make some notes on what he is saying.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I am sorry; I will slow down. Amendment 23 is a drafting change to Clause 52 and should be read alongside Amendment 26, which amends the same section of the Building Act 1984. Amendment 26 is a tidying-up amendment and is consequential on the repeal of Section 16 of the Building Act 1984, provided for by paragraph 20 of Schedule 5.

Amendment 133, to Clause 135, relates to the requirement for a regular, independent review of the building and construction products regulatory system, which must cover the effectiveness of the building safety regulator. This minor amendment defines the regulator’s functions to be covered by this review, using the same definition of those functions as in Part 2 of the Bill.

I turn to government Amendments 21, 25, 30, 41, 42, 61, 138 and 146. They do three things. First, they extend the application of the Building Act and building regulations to work on Crown buildings and by Crown bodies. The Government believe that the ownership of a building should not determine whether the new building safety regime, or building regulations requirements, should apply. There should be a consistent approach in how building safety legislation operates across the whole life cycle of a building.

Parts 2 and 4 of the Building Safety Bill apply to the Crown by virtue of Clause 137. The arrangements during the design and construction stages are being implemented by way of changes to the Building Act and, in due course, through building regulations. To apply the requirements for gateways and the golden thread to Crown buildings, the Building Act and the building regulations will need to be applied to work on Crown buildings. This new clause does that.

There is an uncommenced provision in Section 44 of the Building Act which would allow the substantive requirements of building regulations to be applied to the Crown. The drafting of that section has limitations, however, so we consider it better to start afresh by repealing and replacing Section 44. There are also some necessary exclusions to reflect that the Crown cannot be subject to criminal sanctions.

Secondly, the amendments make provision about the application of the Building Act and building regulations to work on the Palace of Westminster and other buildings on the Parliamentary Estate. At Second Reading, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester asked in his valedictory speech that the building regulations should apply to the restoration of the Palace of Westminster. This change to the Building Act will ensure that happens.

Finally, this new clause provides that if, in future, a building on the Parliamentary Estate came within scope of Part 4 of the Bill, that part would apply, subject to equivalent exclusions to those which affect how the Building Act and building regulations are being applied to the Crown and Parliament. These new sections of the Building Act and the Bill therefore ensure a consistent approach to building safety for Crown and parliamentary buildings.

Finally, I turn to government Amendments 90, 91, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 142 and 143, which relate to the new homes ombudsman provisions and expand them to Northern Ireland. These provisions have already been expanded to Scotland and Wales, so this ensures that new-build home buyers will have improved protection when things go wrong, no matter where they live in the UK.

Amendments 97 and 98 enable the provisions to work practically in Northern Ireland as a consequence of extending the scope of the provisions. Amendments 90, 91, 100, 103, 104, 105 and 106, include consultation requirements so that the Secretary of State must consult the relevant department in Northern Ireland designated by the First Minister or Deputy First Minister acting jointly before exercising powers concerning the scheme, or consult the Executive Office in Northern Ireland when a department has not been designated. The Secretary of State must consult the Northern Ireland Executive before making arrangements for the scheme, before making regulations requiring membership of the scheme, and arranging for that requirement to be enforced, and before a developers’ code of practice is issued, revised or replaced, either by the UK Government or by a third-party scheme provider with the Secretary of State’s approval.

Amendment 99 confers a power on the relevant national authority in Northern Ireland to add to the meaning of the term “developer” in the new homes ombudsman provisions in relation to homes in Northern Ireland, through regulations as appropriate, and following consultation with the other relevant national authorities. Amendments 95 and 96 include provision so that any externally run new homes ombudsman scheme involves the provision of information to the department in Northern Ireland designated by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly.

I hope that your Lordships will be pleased that the government amendments in my name today will help to deliver the effective implementation of the new regulatory regime, as well as providing redress for homeowners across the union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, it has been a very interesting debate so far. I do not intend to prolong it at all but, in relation to the technical amendments, I notice that the Bill is 244 pages long and the Government have published 37 pages of amendments. The Explanatory Notes for the Bill were 250 pages long, but there are none for those 37 pages. The explanation we had today, as I understand it, forms the explanatory notes for these provisions, so I appreciate the Minister jamming in all the information in his speech. It was short in time though obviously heavy in content. I just make the plea that we are doing some really hard stuff here, which has implications, but we have no impact assessment which covers the very substantial matters covered by the Government’s new clauses.

In later groups, I will want to raise some points about what seem consequential circumstances arising from the proposed changes to the legislation in the government amendments. I am just logging the fact that we are quite short of what the Government’s assessment is of the impact of the various changes, both technical and more substantial, which will come before us in our consideration of the remainder of the Bill.

I will comment briefly on the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Best, which I strongly support. In fact, I would have put a longer limit than six years. I had a case in my last year as an MP of a terrace of three low-rise houses which burned down, and the fire brigade quickly determined that it was because there were no cavity barriers in those properties. That fire took place 10 years and one month after they had been handed over to the owners, so the company was actually out of its warranty period—never mind whether it could be appealed to any ombudsman or whoever. The Minister is looking at his watch; I agree that it should be longer than 10 years, but I am not proposing to speak for longer than 10 years.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, this debate has been really interesting and slightly longer than I was expecting, so it is great to have had so many contributions. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock: we have a lot of sympathy with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and his introductory comments were excellent. As we know, non-compliance with building regulations has been a criminal offence under the Building Act for nearly 40 years now. The Bill heavily extends the scope of available power to enforce compliance and/or impose penalties for contraventions, placing much of that power in the hands of the Health and Safety Executive as it establishes the building safety regulator.

We would hope that the building safety regulator takes a more proactive stance to the broad scope of enforcement measures available to it under the Bill, as Dame Judith Hackitt’s public statements have suggested that it will. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that that will be the case. But it also has to have the resources and funding to be able to do so; otherwise, the new and extended measures may have a lot of bark but little actual bite. Again, that is why the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, are so important. Furthermore, the key to ensuring building safety going forward will not rest just on sanctions and enforcement; as has been said in the previous debates and at Second Reading, we need a change of culture and attitude.

So, I think the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has brought about a really important discussion with his amendment on enforcement. I was particularly struck by his comments on the differentiation of fines for big corporations—I think he mentioned a fine of £140,000 for a breach—compared to that of millions for the National Grid on a breach that would not likely have had the impact on life that the breaches of the building corporations could have. To me, that really strikes at the heart of this. It is an extraordinary anomaly, and I hope the Minister will look at that, because we have a very different reaction to different kinds of breaches of law.

Again, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, have had a lot of support in the debate today. I add our support too, because these are really important things to speak about, and he did so very eloquently at Second Reading when he talked about the need to confront housebuilders’ defective workmanship and the dreadful consumer or customer service we too often see when they are responding to entirely justified complaints by home buyers. So, along with him and others, we think it is good news that, with this Bill, the Government are bringing in an ombudsman to whom the home purchaser will be able to turn. That is long overdue.

However, the noble Lord, Lord Best, drew attention in his introduction and his amendments to the fact that there is no point having an ombudsman unless it is genuinely going to make a real difference. As he said in his introduction, customers and purchasers need an accessible means of redress. Too often it is too difficult to jump through all the different hoops you need to go through in order to get any kind of response or result from ombudsmen. We also agree with his concerns that the new ombudsman may not have enough teeth. I am particularly interested in what the Minister has to say on this area; it would be extremely helpful if he could give us reassurance on this, because we need to make sure that the ombudsman’s jurisdictions are going to make a proper difference to this.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, who referred to when he was a Member of Parliament. When I was a Member of Parliament, this kind of issue used to come up pretty regularly, unfortunately—and pretty regularly with certain developers, who I will not name in Committee today. For them to have had this kind of redress would have been hugely helpful.

Moving on to the government amendments, I first thank the Minister for agreeing to slow down, because an enormous number of government amendments landed in our laps after 10 February while we were in Recess. It is a lot to take in and get your head around in quite a short amount of time. I wanted to listen carefully to the Minister’s introduction on this because of that point, so I thank him for slowing down and taking that time.

I just wanted to make a few small points. We very much welcome the amendments around information sharing. It is really good news that it will be easier for people to share information about those who commit serious breaches in building safety. That is important.

Another matter relates to the different amendments on the devolved Administrations. To reiterate what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, it is important that we respect and work closely with those Administrations when we bring forward legislation. It is therefore good to see those amendments and that the Government are doing so. It would be good for that to continue as we deal with other new amendments during the passage of the Bill. It was also interesting to get clarification on what is happening with the Crown Estate and to know that this building and all the repairs will be part of this new system.

However, as the Minister said in his introduction, these amendments are mainly technical and I appreciate his time in introducing them. I hope that he will be sympathetic to the points made regarding the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Best and Blencathra.

--- Later in debate ---

I know both “polluter pays” amendments are highly technical and do not pretend to be a legal expert, which is why I felt it prudent not to explicitly add my name to either. I do, however, understand the general thrust of what they are trying to achieve. I hope the Minister can assure me that the Government’s lawyers are looking carefully at these amendments with a view, I hope, to bringing forward their own amendment that captures the essence of these proposals. In the meantime, I thank him very much for what he is doing. I am glad to think that everybody, from all sides of the House, is trying to work to move this forward with urgency.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Does the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, want to speak next?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I am happy to do so. I was assuming that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, wanted to speak to the amendment which is in her name. I do not know what the protocol is on all that.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Then I will speak to my amendment, as I stood up first. As noble Lords have said, this has been a really important group of amendments to debate. I will speak first to my Amendment 35 and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for their support.

Clause 57 gives the Secretary of State powers to impose a new building safety levy in England that will contribute towards the Government’s costs for remediating historical building safety defects. This will apply to developers making an application to the building safety regulator for building control approval, which of course is the new gateway 2 process that we have debated throughout discussion on the Bill. The problem we have, which is why I tabled this amendment, is that it will also be imposed on councils—the social landlords. Councils of course already face additional financial pressures, due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

We should not forget that the key role of local government is to serve communities—the Minister will completely understand this—and provide essential services. They are not the same as developers, so the purpose of this amendment is to make social housing providers exempt from the additional financial burden of the Government's proposed levy, to prevent council and social housing tenants subsiding the failures of private developers and paying the cost of remediating both council housing and private housing. We are concerned about what may be the unintended consequences of the Bill as it stands, because if the levy is imposed on local authorities, it will increase the cost of building or refurbishing social housing, or increase rents, as the right reverend Prelate said. Yet the benefits to funds will not be available to the tenants, who would otherwise have benefited from lower rents or better housing.

The money to fund remediation must come from somewhere. Inevitably, it will be at the expense of another critical service, either in housing or through increased rents. To ask for that does not seem the right way forward. Does the Minister recognise the potential impact of the levy on social housing supply? Again, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans talked about our desperate shortage of housing in this area. We do not want anything that will negatively impact that. It is important that we do not pit the objective of providing for those in housing need against the objective of making buildings safe, when both must be delivered.

I turn to the other amendments in this group, looking first at the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, which he introduced clearly and comprehensively. To us, they seem eminently sensible and practical, and the right way forward. As he said, Amendment 130 proposes that the Government establish a comprehensive prospective levy scheme on all developers, the money from which would go towards remediating the defective buildings. As I understand it, his Amendment 24 is consequential on the establishment in Amendment 130 of the building safety indemnity scheme. That means that the removal of building work that contravenes fire safety regulations could be carried out, if his Amendment 130 were accepted.

What came through in both the noble Lord’s introduction and how other noble Lords introduced their amendments is the fundamental principle that it is right that the person who is responsible for breaches and poor building work should be made to put it right. This is a simple, basic principle that I think we all agree with. It should not be that difficult for the Government to accept it; to me, the Bill already accepts it. Why not work with noble Lords who have put forward such important amendments today, take them forward and give us much more robust statutory protection for leaseholders, extending it to all work, as the noble Lord said, that contravenes regulations? We would strongly support any amendment that makes buildings safer and protects tenants properly.

I was also struck that the noble Lord, Lord Young, referenced freeholders. They have not been talked about enough in debate on the Bill, so I thought it was very important that that reference was made and that they are not forgotten.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has a number of amendments looking to make protections more robust. We strongly support his zeal in what he is trying to achieve. His objectives are really important; as he said, they are not exactly perfect in every way, but we are not about perfection here. This is about putting forward the issues that need to be considered to improve the Bill. He has done that very clearly. His aim to pull the “perpetrator pays” and protections for leaseholders together is important, because it makes the objectives and the direction we need to go in really clear.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, was right when he said that his amendment and those from the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Young, come from the same point of principle—an important principle that we support. He is right that this is quite simply a matter of justice. As the amendment says,

“responsibility for serious defects in the original construction or refurbishment”

rests squarely

“with those who designed, specified, constructed, or supervised the works or made false claims”—

and that is not the leaseholders. It is important that leaseholders feel that their position on this is fully understood and that we are moving forward in this way.

The principle that the perpetrator pays is also really important, but I should like to ask the Minister something, because I am getting a bit confused. What is the difference between a perpetrator and a polluter paying? It has got a bit confusing to have these two phrases.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

I put this amendment forward originally to your Lordships’ wonderful team of parliamentary clerks, who did not like the term “polluter”. They felt that pollution as a term of art meant something different—if you like, involving a release or deposit of something, rather than sticking something together wrong. But they said that they would accept “perpetrator pays”, so I said, “Okay, all right, so be it.” But actually I think it is a better term, so I give them due credit for that. That is the origin of the phrase.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Perhaps someone should table some amendments to change the word “polluter” in the Bill to “perpetrator”, so we can all be in the same place.

Very briefly, I turn to the government amendments in this group. At earlier stages of the Bill, it was disappointing that what it contained fell significantly short of the action that was needed to protect leaseholders, so I put on the record how warmly we have welcomed the new amendments that the Government have proposed to address a lot of the urgent issues raised through debates on the Bill so far. However, there are a number of key questions that I shall put to the Minister for clarification today on the amendments that we have debated. I shall not go into detail, because we have heard an awful lot of discussion around them today—so I shall be brief.

How strongly committed are the Government to using their proposed enforcement mechanisms to ensure that industry plays its part and pays the funds that it has been asked to? How will the Government continue to play their part and pay the funds needed to end the crisis while ensuring that funding for affordable housing supply is protected, regardless of the contribution of funds from industry? How can leaseholders who have already paid remediation costs recover those costs retrospectively? I do not think that that has been properly dealt with so far. How will the Government ensure that new funding responsibilities for social landlords will not undermine their role in providing housing supply? That references back to my amendment.

I am sure that we will revisit some of those questions later in debates on this Bill. I ask a brief question about the new clauses in Amendments 74 and 75, which give the Secretary of State power to make regulations that

“prohibit a person of a prescribed description from carrying out development of land in England”,

and/or imposing a building control prohibition in relation to persons of a prescribed description. Those powers would be for any purpose connected with building safety or building standards. I should like clarification, because it is unhelpful that a

“person of a prescribed description”

is not defined in the amendments, which simply state that it means “prescribed by the regulations” under the clause. This is what I am slightly confused about; does it apply to persons who have been found to be in breach of building safety, or is it the means by which government would prohibit those who do not contribute to the extra £4 billion fund? Some clarification on that point would be really helpful.

I hope that the Minister has listened very carefully to the important points that have been made by noble Lords in this debate, and I end by saying to him, in the spirit of what has been going on earlier, acta non verba.

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 21st February 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow on from what the noble Baroness has outlined. I strongly support what she has been saying. I will speak on a couple of other points that have been raised so far, particularly on Amendment 4 and what the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said, and on what my noble friend Lord Foster proposes in his amendment.

However, I will first deal with the point just raised. It is not about a theoretical code; there are absolute, actual conflicts between the requirements which fire officers, for instance, dictate in relation to fire doors—how soon they should shut, and so on—and the requirements of what someone with mobility problems needs to pass through that doorway. These issues are not resolved at the moment; they are not just the subject for soft words but for reconciling the tensions and devising ways to find solutions to those problems. I could make the same point about railings and barriers, where what is required for fire safety is often in conflict with what disabled people need.

Apart from the generality of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, I say to the Minister that there are really specific regulatory pitfalls; things which, if you implement them very mechanically, have internal conflicts which need to be resolved. I very much hope the Minister can, at least during the passage of this Bill if not today, undertake to consult both fire officers and the disabled community on rational ways of solving or at least ameliorating those difficulties.

Amendment 4 was very ably proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. He has made the central point, which is that there is an important difference between having a set of regulations which are really a complicated algorithm or tick-box—where if you have got everything right you have simply passed, and that is it—and having legislation which sets out the overall purpose of having any regulations or rules at all in the first place. That is where this amendment comes fully into play. It says that safety has a wider import than simply what we mean by making a building fire safe; it is about what we mean by making it safe to live in in the long term.

When I looked at page 82, I was interested to see that Clause 60(8) says that regulations can be made under this provision where there is a significant risk of deaths or

“serious injury to a significant number of people.”

It is clear that, if you think about buildings as things which kill people, far more people are killed by buildings which are damp, leaky and dangerous than by buildings which catch fire. Asthma and bronchitis deaths caused by poor housing form a significant fraction of the health service’s burden during the winter months. That broader outlook or vision of what we actually mean by making a building safe—creating a safe home for people—lies at the heart of this amendment. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to respond to it with a very generous spirit.

I would perhaps urge the Minister on a more practical point: later in the Bill, we shall consider the establishment of residents’ engagement strategies for buildings. I am not sure quite how he envisages those will work, but at some point a large group of residents in a particular building will meet and tell its owners what they believe needs to be done to make their building safe. The Minister has led a council and been to residents’ meetings, so he knows the kinds of things which are raised at them. I would bet that, by 10 complaints to one, they will be about damp, draughts and leaks as against fire doors that do not close properly. Those residents’ engagement groups are going to give a lot of grief to those who run the system in the future. Including this overall vision of what safety and well-being mean within the compass of the Bill and the scope of the new regulatory environment would be one very good way to show that there will be a route for residents to have their complaints, whatever their nature, about their lack of well-being or safety in their home addressed by the legislation.

Having spoken on Amendment 4, of course I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Foster said about the property situation. My support may be irrelevant but I notice that the National Fire Chiefs Council strongly supports this provision, as do the Institution of Fire Engineers and the Association of British Insurers. They all support the inclusion of property risk alongside life safety risk in the regulatory structure that we erect for the Bill. I very much hope that, as with Amendment 4, the Minister will be able to give us a very satisfactory outcome on Amendment 1 from my noble friend Lord Foster.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his clear introduction to his amendments.

Noble Lords may remember that the Minister said at Second Reading that

“Dame Judith called for a complete overhaul of the system, and her recommendations underpin the Bill, with a golden thread that will ensure that, henceforth, people remain safe in the homes that we build for them. The Bill is unapologetically ambitious, creating a world-class building safety regulatory regime that holds all to the same high standard.”—[Official Report, 2/2/22; col. 916.]


We certainly applaud this ambition, but making high-rise residential buildings safe requires much more than action to stop fire spreading. There is also an urgent need to prevent those fires from starting in the first place and to look more broadly at what building safety means. We therefore support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, which are designed to make buildings safer and to increase resilience. As the noble Lord said, it is important to improve protections and safety for firefighters and for residents, to give people more time to evacuate the building and to make it less likely that the building itself will be completely destroyed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 135 in my name, which was referred to a moment ago by my noble friend Lord Stunell, and which I intend as a probing amendment. I should say that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I raised this issue at Second Reading, as the Minister will recall, and the question of whether permitted development rights would continue as now when this Bill is enacted, in respect of the conversion of office blocks to residential accommodation of any height. Amendment 135 seeks to clarify the matter. It says that

“Nothing in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 … permits development which would convert offices to residential accommodation if such development is contrary to the provisions of this Act.”


I am grateful to the Public Bill Office for the help in drafting those words.

I simply say to the Minister that I hope he will clarify that this is government policy. If it is, that fact should be in the Bill to avoid any doubt. I look forward to the Minister’s assurance, because it would be inappropriate—as my noble friend Lord Stunell said—if a different set of rules were to apply to a conversion from office to residential than would apply to a residential block always designated as that. This amendment aims to clarify that the permitted development route cannot be used where it would be contrary to the provisions of this Act. I hope the Minister will agree that this is a very important issue.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I will look briefly first at Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. As we know, the proposed building safety regulator will be responsible for implementing and enforcing the new regime and will monitor the safety and performance of all buildings, with the aims of securing the safety of people in or about buildings and improving standards. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, went into a lot of detail and clearly laid out all the reasons behind his amendment, so I will not go over the ground that he has covered.

I just make the point that amendments have been made to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act to reflect this, so the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, would also bring those necessary powers contained in the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act into this Bill and would, as the noble Lord said, be in accordance with the recommendations of the Hackitt report. This seems a practical and sensible approach.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in his Amendment 135, raises the issue of office to residential conversions, which are being actively encouraged by the Government. We need to consider any associated building safety issues with that policy. The noble Lord asked the Minister for clarification on this, and I think that this clarification is important so that we all know exactly what implications there will be. I will be interested in the Minister’s response to that.

I have a number of amendments in this group. I will first speak to Amendments 11 and 43 in my name—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her support on them. Combined, they will ensure that the more stringent building safety framework applies not just to buildings over 18 metres but to those under that, where they are multiple occupancy dwellings. We believe the Building Safety Bill, in its original draft and as amended in Committee in the other place, fails robustly to confirm whether the gateway system will apply to buildings under 18 metres where there are multiple occupancy dwellings. This will create a two-tier system where buildings below 18 metres will face less rigorous safety regulations than those over 18 metres.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 6 and 149 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, draw attention to timing and delivery. For example, his Amendment 6 would ensure that safety is dealt with in a timely fashion. If we consider that this spring it is five years since the Grenfell tragedy and that progress on that has been painfully slow, with leaseholders waiting many years for any kind of justice to be done, people need to know that with the passing of this Bill there will be no further delays. We agree with the noble Lord and would certainly strongly support a regulator’s assessment within a two-year period that would aim to improve safety.

Amendment 149 looks at a requirement for regular reporting to ensure transparency and accountability to Parliament of the enhanced building regulations regimes. Again, we very much support it; it is similar to Amendment 134 in my name, which would force the Government to publish annual reports on data collected as part of the implementation and monitoring of this Act, when it is passed, as well as steps to increase transparency. I am sure all noble Lords would agree that transparency, accountability and monitoring are important to instil confidence and deliver the ambition in this Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, spoke to his Amendment 129. Having heard from him, it is very much in the same spirit as my Amendment 127 on flood resilience, which we debated in an earlier group. Of course, his amendment would force the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of climate change on building safety, including coastal erosion and flooding, both of which are huge concerns where I live in west Cumbria. I am sure he will not be remotely surprised to know that I am extremely pleased to offer our very strong support on this amendment.

Looking at the amendments in my name, first, Amendment 89 would force the Secretary of State to publish an estimate of how much leaseholders have spent on building safety remediation work each year for the past 10 years. We have tabled this because it is disappointing that there is still no robust legal protection for leaseholders who face ruinous costs for remediating historical cladding and non-cladding defects. We know that, despite the long catalogue of people and organisations who can be held to blame for many of the failings on building standards, up to now the leaseholder has been expected to foot the bill. These bills, as the Minister knows, involve huge sums on many occasions.

During Committee in the other place, evidence was taken from some of those who have been badly affected: Alison Hills, Stephen Day and End Our Cladding Scandal. They all talked about the enormous bills they face and the fact that they simply cannot afford to pay them. If we are to resolve this issue so that affected leaseholders are properly compensated, we need to know how out of pocket they really are. My Amendment 89, by forcing the Secretary of State to publish this estimate, would provide information and enable us to properly give full recompense.

My Amendment 126 would force the Government to publish an assessment of the effectiveness of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, plus proposals to increase the number of homes which would comply with that Act. We need to ensure that all homes, existing and new build, are of the highest standards. We have heard many examples from people in our discussions and debate today where this simply is not the case and has not happened.

We think it is important that the Government should publish an assessment of the effectiveness of that Act. I hope that the Minister would in particular be sympathetic to this amendment because his Government brought in that important legislation, and any legislation has to be complied with to be truly effective. This amendment would provide that reassurance and remind rogue builders that minimum standards simply must be met, so I await the Minister’s response with great interest. I hope I will see him tearing up his speech to prove the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, completely wrong.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, we come to the—I am sorry, it is the turn of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.

Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I should first remind the Committee that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

In the House of Commons, these amended regulations took just 15 minutes to be explained and approved, and that seems to be because they are appropriate in the circumstances. The revised levy rate for Greater Manchester looks right, since the pool arrangements, as the Minister said, have ceased. It is also right that the restructuring of a few local authorities has been reflected in new, updated figures.

We should support financial relief from business rates for businesses impacted by Covid being fully compensated to local authorities, in line with previous decisions earlier in the pandemic. It is, however, clearly important that the businesses rates retention scheme works as it was intended to. I think it would be wrong to give safety-net payments to some local authorities when they are already compensated by the Government directly, and the proposals on proxy figures for the limited number of 100%-retention authorities seems appropriate.

All the amendments in this statutory instrument today are technical and sensible. But the context is one of a system of business rates that is no longer fit for purpose. It does, however, generate a huge amount of income. I am left wondering what the Government are now thinking about the future of business rates—so anything the Minister can tell us on that would be most welcome.

Finally, I read the comments of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee published on 3 February, and I think the committee was right to raise the issue of whether the public are adequately protected against fraud, given public concern about false claims in other areas of Covid support payments. This is, of course, a relief scheme, and relief schemes are part of normal local authority systems and subject to normal audit systems. However, the Minister might wish to confirm that the Government feel adequately protected, given that it is their money that is helping to fund the cost.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this instrument, which, as we have heard, makes various changes to the business rates retention scheme. As we also heard from the Minister, each change is very technical, including amendments to levy and safety-net payments, the restructuring of certain local government areas and the payment by central government of specific grants to local authorities. I will not cover any of the technical detail: the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, amply covered that and asked the questions in these areas that needed to be asked of the Minister, so I will not repeat them.

I will briefly say that Labour supports these changes. However, in the other place when the matter was discussed, some important points were raised about business rates and our high streets. The Minister may remember that yesterday, in the Statement on levelling up, I talked of the need to completely reform and replace the current system of business rates. I appreciate that the terms of the SI before us today are very narrow and that this is not the place to debate that, but I ask the Minister to take our concerns about the current system back to his department. The Government have spoken already about the need to reform the business rates system and have conducted a review, but we have seen little progress to date beyond narrow technical legislation such as that before us today. I encourage the Minister to give his department a nudge. Having said that, we are very happy to support the regulations.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for their contributions. I thank them both for raising similar issues. While this is a very narrow statutory instrument, it is probably worth saying, thinking about the future business rates is very much a matter for the Treasury. There is a recognition that future business rates need to be thought through. Obviously, there is a review and, self-evidently, there needs to be reform.

Equally, there is the issue alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on what we do about local government in the context of the income for local authorities being council tax and business rates, and business rates fundamentally needing to change to reflect the changing dynamics of our high streets. There is an intellectual debate that can be had about whether we continue to resource equalise, or whether we think about life as a race, whereby we ensure the start line is level and fair and then you get places essentially to compete and, through competition, raise the game. That is an intellectual debate that is entirely proper, not for this statutory instrument, but it one that I like engaging in with people who have a very deep knowledge of local government and care about its future. It is really hard to be fair if you have officials working formulae that only they seem to understand to determine whether a place gets x money or y money. It is job of work that, necessarily, the Secretary of State will be looking at—it is far above my pay grade—but I have been a huge advocate of ensuring that local authorities can be set free to be able to determine their own destinies, rather than being necessarily being always funded from the centre, in the relationship we have today. That is how it has always been, for over 20 years, in my time in local government—but that is not really a matter for today’s debate. I am sure that we will have many debates about this in the Chamber over the coming years.

I have something else on this as well. Local authorities are responsible for the administration of release and provide us with assurance on the use of release. These are not grants but reflect a discount on the liability of a business. Local authorities can take action against any relief that is fraudulent. Does that help the noble Lord, Lord Shipley?

Levelling Up

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, if the Statement and the paper with it are the sum total of the Government’s ambition, their legacy will be to have held back the aspirations of towns, cities and villages across the UK. Britain is the birthplace of industry and of towns, villages and cities with huge plans for their future. But over the 11 wasted years of Conservative Britain, our country has stalled.

This paper was meant to mark a turning point, but instead, we have more of the same: no new funding, no new ideas and certainly no new plan. Instead, we have 332 pages, which show just how divorced the Government are from the ambitions of the local communities that make up this country. Above all, what we needed from the Government was a strategy to bring jobs and prosperity to the places that need them most. People should not be expected to leave their home towns to build a successful career, but there are no credible solutions to end this in the paper, only recycled slogans.

The Government need to come forward with a plan to rebuild British industry—buying, making and selling more at home and giving public contracts to UK companies, both big and small. What plans do the Government have to encourage high-skilled industries to move to the areas that the IFS has determined to have the highest net loss of graduates? And how will Ministers reverse the sharp decline in people aged 16-24 studying apprenticeships?

Our town centres have the potential to once again be local hubs of growth, but since this Government came to power over a decade ago, British high streets have lost 10,000 shops, 6,000 pubs and more than 7,000 bank branches. If the Government are serious about reversing this trend, they need to completely reform and replace the system of business rates, which is burdening businesses of all sizes. The solution is not just to tackle the tax burden but to incentivise investment and provide more security to small businesses, which will themselves face the consequences of the Government’s cost of living crisis. Does the Minister accept the warning of many high street chains, which have called for the wholesale reform of business rates?

As much as the paper falls short because it lacks ambition, it also relies on the broken idea that towns and villages only exist to feed off cities. So much of the narrative still relies on the notion that investing in cities is enough to spur growth in nearby towns. For example, look at how any talk of building new transport links is about bringing people from towns into core cities, rather than connecting the towns together. Look at the focus on the largest cities in each region.

No one would doubt that cities deserve the Government’s support to grow, but towns should also be seen as distinct places with proud identities, and the Government really should respect that. Towns and villages need their own industries, jobs, culture, good quality homes and high streets. They should not be the places people are expected to leave if they are to live well. So, what assessment has the Minister made of the recent findings of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, which has called for greater transparency in the awarding of levelling-up funding to towns?

Ultimately, the only way that cities, towns and villages will be able to realise their ambitions is if the Government give them the power to do so. That is why the Government need a new, place-based approach, up-ending the current settlement so that local areas have real powers and resources to make long-term investment decisions that work for their own communities.

The Statement also makes no mention of net zero, green jobs or the climate crisis, while the full White Paper dedicates just three pages exclusively to net zero—two of which are entirely picture based. The Government have failed to detail any new green economy funding beyond previous commitments. Just how serious are this Government about tackling climate change and investing in the green jobs of the future?

One theme is staggeringly absent from the Government’s paper: safety and security. People deserve to feel protected in their town, their village, their city, but the fear of violence and crime casts a shadow over millions of families. Across the UK only one in 20 crimes leads to a charge; that is half the figure since 2015. Today violent crime is at record levels, with nearly 2 million violent offences last year, and an epidemic of violence against women and girls, with only 3.3% of sexual offences leading to charges.

This is why the Government urgently need to introduce new police hubs and new neighbourhood prevention teams to tackle anti-social behaviour and put more police on the beat in local communities. Does the Minister agree that, if levelling up is to have any meaning, it must include addressing the threat of violent crime, which disproportionately impacts different areas across Britain?

I finish by drawing the Minister’s attention to the words of one of his party colleagues, the deputy leader of Shropshire Council, as reported by the BBC’s Jo Gallacher. Councillor Potter, who represents the county which witnessed the birth of the Industrial Revolution, said that the report shows that Shropshire is

“overlooked, unrecognised, taken for granted and completely undervalued”

by the Government. Those words will ring true across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, because the publication of this report shows what many already knew—that levelling up is a slogan, and behind it are only empty promises.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 7th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak on Amendment 6. I should start by saying that I am the joint owner of a leasehold property, but we got our lease extension some seven or eight years ago—outside the scope of the Bill. Also, both now and earlier the Minister has been very generous with his time in discussing the progress of the Bill. I very much thank him for that and for the great courtesy and good humour he has always shown in doing so.

Clause 8 is a duty to inform the tenant. I was very disappointed to find that the Commons, led by the Government, thought that that was an appropriate safeguard to take out of the Bill. I have listened carefully to what the Minister said by way of a substitution and I will cover that in my further remarks.

First, the Minister has accepted the evidence that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, among others, brought forward in Committee: that there really is a loophole and it needs to be tackled. The loophole is one that may be exploited by unscrupulous landlords—a minority of landlords, certainly, but ones who are well practised in being unscrupulous. It is a real-world issue. Of course, they are often aided and abetted by their in-house or tame lawyers who are helpfully acting for both parties and do not necessarily spend too long explaining what the hapless leaseholder is being invited to sign.

We hope very much that the Bill will outlaw that practice, but it will not do so immediately. The purpose of the original amendment that your Lordships sent back to the other place was to effectively freeze the imposition of any such unfair terms meanwhile. The Minister has understandably exaggerated the difficulties of Clause 8, but it actually requires that, when a tenant and landlord are about to commence negotiations, the landlord has a duty to inform the tenant of the existence of this Act and the fact that, in a short period of time, they would essentially be able to carry out their transaction for free, whereas in the intermediate period they would do so under the existing regulations, where it is commonplace for escalation clauses and so on to be built into a lease, which would then be an enduring one. There is clearly a temptation for the unscrupulous to do that. You can see the marketing pitch: “New lamps for old”—or rather “New leases for old”—an offer of a VIP lane to leasehold extension, with legal fees waived if you do it by 31 July. Unwary leaseholders could well fall for that, perhaps prompted to go for it by the knowledge that they have only, say, 20 more years on their lease, and perhaps overlooking the fact that it would essentially be free if they waited until 31 July.

I have chosen that date purely for illustration, because the fact is that the Minister has not told us when the new provisions will become operational; I hope he will be able to enlighten us on that point shortly. The window of opportunity for this unscrupulous behaviour to carry on is between now and the moment when this provision comes into force. I want to hear exactly what the Government intend to do to shut that window at the earliest possible opportunity.

What is being offered instead? Superficially, it certainly sounds very plausible, and I hope that it will turn out to be as robust as the Minister hopes it will be. I hope that it will reach every leaseholder, because what is being substituted is an intention in Clause 8 that is a transactional one that would come into play only if a particular lease was going to be extended or was thought likely to be extended, for a general one—so we have a popgun firing at every leaseholder rather than simply providing a provision for landlords to act on at a time of leasehold extension.

I am very pleased to hear about what the Minister had to say about getting in touch with legal firms and those who represent leaseholders and others. I find that a very satisfactory part of his reply.

I would say that a couple of press releases in the ordinary course of business are unlikely to be very effective. The Minister might perhaps like to emphasise how this communications plan will take place. Is there a budget for it? Is it a real-life thing or just a piece of ministerial gloss? I know that the Minister does not go in for ministerial gloss, but I would like an assurance that we will see a real effort made to make sure that this is closed.

When exactly will it be closed? Clause 26(2) says that this will come into force

“on such day as the Secretary of State”

determines. Is that soon, shortly, in the summer, this year, next year, sometime or never? The longer the window stays open—the longer the gap between now and when the Bill’s provisions come into force—the more the risk and the more difficulty there is.

So I would like to hear an assurance from the Minister. Can he give us a date on which this provision will come into force so that we can hold him accountable? Perhaps he could also comment on whether we will get the second leasehold Bill, which he spoke of frequently, in the forthcoming Queen’s Speech? I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in respect of this and will listen carefully. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have not previously spoken in the debates on this Bill, but I will be brief. I start by thanking noble Lords who have done a lot of work to improve this much-needed legislation. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is a welcome reminder that the Bill lacks any obligation for landlords to alert leaseholders in advance of changes relating to ground rents and leasehold extensions. We fully support the noble Lord’s amendment, which seems to be an entirely proportionate measure and in no way presents an obstacle to the core provisions of the Bill.

The Government have been unable to bring forward any safeguards to address this specific power imbalance at the expense of leaseholders. Without it, we believe that the legislation remains flawed. The relationship between leaseholders and landlords should be defined by the principle of transparency and accountability—as, in fact, the Minister agreed in his opening remarks—but this is simply not possible without provisions such as these. So I ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to provide further assurances that have not previously been forthcoming to allay the concerns from across the House.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am not sure whether we have moved all the amendments up to Amendment 9—because then I can wind up, so to speak. I can appreciate the—

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by saying that we welcome the Bill, which will bring about the long-awaited changes to the building safety regime following Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review. I also thank my noble friend Lord Kennedy for the huge amount of work he has done on the Bill so far.

As the Minister reminded us, we must not forget why Dame Judith’s review and this legislation are so very important. He reminded us that in June 2017, 72 men, women and children lost their lives in an inferno fuelled by the highly combustible cladding system that had been installed on the outside of their tower block. We should remember that that tower block was also compromised by a range of other fire safety defects.

Four and a half years on from the Grenfell Tower fire, thousands of residents across the country continue to live in a state of constant fear over the safety of their homes and the cost of putting right past failures. Although we welcome the Bill and the recent promised government amendments, we have concerns that without further changes to provisions affecting leaseholders, it will still fall short of meeting the objective of learning all the lessons of the Grenfell Tower fire and fail completely to restore public confidence in our building system.

I will outline our concerns to the Minister and I hope that his response will provide further positive reasons as to why we can look forward to government action on the outstanding concerns. First, we believe that the Bill’s definition of “higher-risk buildings” could be strengthened to take into account the vulnerability of residents. The Minister mentioned the fact that the Government have modified the definition of higher-risk buildings to now include care homes and hospitals that meet an 18-metre height threshold. However, that still excludes often vulnerable people living in buildings below that threshold from access to vital protections under the new regulatory system. We believe that all supported accommodation should be included, regardless of its height.

I now turn to funding protections for leaseholders. Does the Minister agree that leaseholders in all affected buildings, regardless of their height, should be protected from covering any costs related to past regulatory failings, and that should include cladding and non- cladding fire safety defects? That protection should be retrospectively extended to leaseholders who have already made significant out-of-pocket investments in remediation works. The Government and the housing and development industries must be prepared to fund, in full, both cladding and non-cladding remediation works. As it stands, the Bill simply does not go far enough to address these issues.

We strongly agree with the Minister that developers must be held to account and I was pleased to hear him say that if this does not happen, law will be brought in to ensure that it does. So I would be interested to hear from him more about how that would take place. The Minister recognised that not all of industry has stepped up. How are the Government going to ensure that industry, right across the board, will play its part and pay the funds that it has been asked to? How will the Government continue to play their part and supply the funds that are needed? The Minister rightly said that a lot of money has been promised but this is a huge issue, with many residents very much out of pocket.

We need to make sure that the twin objectives of fixing the building safety crisis and delivering new and improved social housing can be delivered simultaneously through the Bill. Concerns have been raised that the housing building funds could be plundered. Could I please have some assurance from the Minister in that area?

I mentioned that all remediation costs should be covered retrospectively. Can the Minister advise leaseholders as to how they are expected to go about reclaiming those costs? When will the Government publish their promised amendments to provide concrete assurances to leaseholders that they will not be liable for those remediation costs? Will we be seeing those amendments in Committee?

The provisions of the Defective Premises Act currently stipulate that a leaseholder can make a legal claim for compensation if their dwelling is unfit for habitation, as long as the claim is made within six years of the building being constructed. We welcome the amendment made in the Commons that extends that eligibility period from six to 30 years and that claims can now be made for defects arising from refurbishment works. Another crucial change is that leaseholders will be able to make claims retrospectively if their claims fall within the eligibility period. However, we have concerns that the cost and time implications of making a legal claim against developers will prevent many leaseholders from benefiting from this measure. Will the Minister think about what the Government could do to clarify this because it would be helpful if, in the first instance, they said that they expected building owners and freeholders to make a claim as they are more likely to have the capacity to do so than individual leaseholders? That expectation would also reflect the legal duty for building owners to prove that they have carried out their due diligence on finding all possible sources of funding that do not rely on leaseholders paying.

We also welcome the Bill’s changes to the fire safety order, mentioned by the Minister, which introduce the duty for fire risk assessments to be completed by competent professional, and the improvements to residents’ access to safety information about their buildings. However, it is unclear whether this duty for responsible persons to share fire safety information extends to prospective residents and residents who are not leaseholders but tenants in a building. If the Minister could clarify that, I would be very grateful. This clause could be strengthened by clarifying that responsible persons must proactively share fire safety information, including fire risk assessments in full, with prospective and current residents, including both leaseholders and tenants.

I turn briefly back to the area of most concern to leaseholders: the funding of the cost of cladding remediation and building safety. The Labour Party has been clear in debates both in this House and in the other place that leaseholders should not have to pay to fix this crisis. The Minister confirmed that this is the Government’s point of view as well. Overall responsibility for funding building safety work has to lie ultimately with the Government to ensure that this happens.

It is also clear that industry has played a role in making decisions that have compromised the safety of buildings and has a part to play in shouldering the burden of costs. The Minister spoke about the recent announcement by the Secretary of State, which we very much welcomed, about the Government aiming to recover costs from developers for cladding remediation. But, as has been asked before, how does this help leaseholders who live in buildings with non-cladding-related defects, who also face excessive charges to make their homes safe? The Bill must protect all leaseholders facing costs for fire safety defects that they did not cause.

We recognise the Government’s efforts to increase the building safety fund, but unfortunately the amount allocated is still not enough. Can the Minister reassure this House that the funding shortfall will not lead to a “first come, first served” allocation? This may mean that building owners with less experience of managing large refurbishment and construction projects will lose out, as it could take them longer to get together the information and evidence necessary to properly complete an application to the fund. This could include buildings where leaseholders exercise their right to manage, for example, or where there are projects with additional complications.

The Government need to find a solution that can make all homes safe, regardless of height, without passing on the burden of cost to leaseholders. The residential property developer tax and the building safety levy are very welcome, but will the Government ensure that the right measures are in place to prevent any unintended loss of affordable housing through lower Section 106 commitments?

The cost of waking watch has been a huge concern for many people, and I was pleased to hear the Minister talk about this. It is really good that in December the Government announced a £30 million waking watch relief fund and that this has now been increased. However, the fund still fails to reimburse leaseholders who have already paid out for interim waking watch costs and does not consider those who continue to need a waking watch as well as a fire alarm. Can this be looked at again?

To answer all these outstanding concerns, Labour has called on the Government to establish a new building works agency. This single body, which would be accountable to Ministers, would decide what works are necessary and commission and pay for them, then sign off the building as safe at the end of the process. The building works agency would work closely with local authorities and fire chiefs, who have been gathering data and are well placed to know how to manage projects locally. It would also have the legal powers to pursue those responsible through the courts if necessary. Keeping people safe in their own homes should not be a political issue, so will the Minister at least consider this very practical suggestion, given in good faith from the Opposition Benches? Will he work with both Labour and other noble Lords as the Bill goes forward to Committee so that we can continue to address concerns and improve this important piece of legislation?

In closing, I put on record my huge respect for the survivors and the bereaved of the Grenfell Tower fire and for the wider Grenfell Tower community, who continue to seek not only justice for their families and neighbours but wider change to ensure that everyone is safe in their own home. I know the Minister has worked hard to bring forward this legislation and I thank him for his diligence, yet there are still improvements that could be made. I offer him our full support in making a good Bill even better.

I look forward to listening to the debate today, and in particular to the valedictory speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. I wish him well for the future.

Building Safety

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, before I begin, I would like to pay tribute to my colleague Jack Dromey. Jack was a fearless campaigner for equality and justice, and always stood up for those without a voice. We will miss him.

Moving to the Statement, the Grenfell Tower fire was, as we all know, a dreadful and shocking tragedy which killed 72 men, women and children and ruined the lives of many others. One of the outcomes from this tragedy has been the knowledge that thousands of homes in hundreds of high and medium-rise blocks have deficiencies in their construction.

We are more than four years on from Grenfell, and hundreds of thousands of people are still living in dangerous blocks, while many flat owners have been left with spiralling costs for insurance and service charges. People have been facing huge bills and have endured enormous stress. The Government’s announcement of new statutory protection for leaseholders is therefore welcome confirmation that developers, not leaseholders, should pay to make homes safe. We should also recognise that this is only the start of the solution.

The Government’s plan currently seems to cover only the cost of cladding replacement, which makes up a small fraction of the building safety work required, because remediation work is not just about combustible cladding but about missing cavity barriers, firebreaks and fire doors, for example. A significant number of buildings have both cladding and non-cladding defects.

I understand from the Minister that the Government have withdrawn the consolidated advice note that left thousands of leaseholders in low-rise buildings unable to move home. This is significant progress, but there remains a gaping hole in the Government’s proposals. Leaseholders will still face ruinous costs to repair many non-cladding defects. I ask the Minister why the Government are not properly and completely supporting residents who have been hit with these huge costs, through no fault of their own.

We welcome the Government’s change in tone, so that leaseholders in buildings of between 11 metres and 18.5 metres will no longer be expected to take out personal loans to cover the cost of the work. Instead, the Government are focused on securing up to £4 billion towards the costs from developers. However, leaseholders are concerned about how the Government will force the developers to pay and experts have questioned whether £4 billion will be sufficient to cover cladding in buildings under 18.5 metres.

The Secretary of State said that he will begin negotiations with those responsible and resort to increased taxation if they fail, but reports have suggested that the Chancellor could block this. Documents from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, say that no new Treasury funding will be available to pay for this extra work; that the cost of the extra cladding removal must not exceed £4 billion; and that, if Mr Gove is unsuccessful in persuading or compelling developers to pay for the costs, they must be paid from existing housing budgets and

“safety should be prioritised over supply”.

I ask the Minister if there has been an assessment of what this would mean for the Government’s housebuilding programme. If the Government are serious about making developers pay, they should also take steps to make sure this never happens again. In the past four years, at least 70 schools and 25 hospitals and care homes have been built using potentially dangerous material, yet the Government still have not responded to a consultation on a ban on combustible materials, which closed over a year ago. I ask the Minister when we can expect to see the response.

Leaseholders are the innocent victims of this scandal and they need the Government to act as quickly as possible to resolve the situation, but remediation has been painfully slow. The Government continue to publish monthly updates on the progress of ACM cladding remediation, which do not include non-ACM buildings. Does the Minister agree that being transparent about the progress to make homes safe is vital to restore leaseholders’ trust? According to Labour analysis, at the current rate, it will take until 2026 for cladding to be removed from all social housing blocks and until 2024 from private blocks. Will the Government put forward a timescale to complete the remediation of all dangerous buildings?

Yesterday, the Secretary of State confirmed that he will meet Labour’s call for new clauses in the Building Safety Bill, when it comes to this House, to protect leaseholders. I ask the Minister to work with the Opposition Benches and other interested parties, so that we get these amendments right. Can he confirm that time will be allowed for proper scrutiny? I assure the Minister that, when the Building Safety Bill comes to this House, we will welcome the opportunity to work with him to achieve the much-needed improvements in this area.

The Statement before us has new measures that the Opposition welcome and genuinely want to see succeed, but the Government also need a clear plan to make developers pay for the works or leaseholders will continue to be stuck in limbo—stuck in their unsafe homes, unable to sell up and move on. People expect to live safely in their homes and I look forward to the Minister’s response to the ongoing concerns.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I start by paying tribute to the cladding campaigners, whose extraordinary persistence in conducting a fact-based, solutions-offered campaign is largely responsible for the content of the Statement today. Their efforts on behalf of blameless leaseholders and tenants are a worthy memorial to the tragic victims of the Grenfell Tower fire.

The words of the Secretary of State are welcome. He says that the Government have to take a “share of responsibility”, that manufacturers have “shown insufficient contrition”, that those who profited will “pay the price” and that leaseholders are “blameless”. These are all quotations from the Statement and I welcome them.

On the face of it, the Government are responding to the fire safety and cladding crisis with bold proposals. However, the most important of these are more aspirational than concrete. The aim—to extract £4 billion from the companies that developed the buildings to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from blocks of between 11 and 18.5 metres—is based on the polluter pays principle. Can the Minister explain how this will be achieved?

Special purpose vehicles and shell companies are devices that have been used to ring-fence the parent company from liability. Will the Government nevertheless expect the parent company to pay up? Then there are the distant freeholders, not based in this country. How do the Government anticipate extracting funding from them? Will action be taken to prevent construction and development companies ring-fencing their liabilities to prevent losses from parent companies?

Then there are the backstop arrangements to raise £4 billion, which seem rather confused to me. Will the Minister clarify whether further taxation of construction funds will follow if the requisite funding is not raised? The letter from the Treasury seems to suggest that, if all else fails, departmental funding will have to be used. Is that right? Will it be taken from the £12 billion set aside in the department’s funding to support affordable and social housing? If so, I am not sure I would be able to support it.

My next question is this: the £4 billion is to remove flammable cladding only. We know that a major element of the remediation costs is in the lack of firebreaks and compartmentation. Who do the Government expect will put these right? I appreciate that the Statement includes a commitment to create a 30-year period of limited liability, during which leaseholders could sue, although this would be a David and Goliath contest.

Then there is the question of timing, which is crucial. Leaseholders already have bills for remediation, many of which are in the tens of thousands of pounds. The date by which they must be paid is April this year. Time is running out. I understand that the Government rightly wish to protect leaseholders from forfeiture and eviction, but what about bankruptcy? Will that protection be in place by April? If not, I fear leaseholders may still find themselves at the mercy of the unscrupulous.

The whole area of social housing barely gets a mention. Those social housing providers that are raising capital to remedy defects are doing so at the expense of new homes being built or existing homes being improved. Can the Minister describe the plan for the social housing sector?

Finally, can the Minister assure us that sufficient funding will be made available if the costs rise above £4 billion? I appreciate that I have posed many questions. If the Minister is not able to provide full answers, will he please provide a written response?

Despite all the questions, I am pleased that the Secretary of State has been so forthright in this Statement and has taken a very large step forward in addressing the plight of the thousands of leaseholders and tenants who have lived for four years in fear and anxiety, and who must not pay a penny piece to put right the wrongs of others.

Building Regulations: Sanitary Provision

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 5th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right that there has been a long-standing decline in public toilet provision. In fact, I got the department to produce up-to-date statistics that chart that decline, which went from 6,916 to 6,391 between 1994 and 2000, and fell further, to 4,486, in 2018, according to the most recent statistics. I will share the statistics in writing with the noble Baroness. Clearly, the Act she refers to is one way of improving the situation, through providing rates relief, and she will be well aware of the changing places programme, through which my department has provided £30 million for local authorities to encourage the building of further provision.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Further to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, during debates on the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill, to which she referred, Ministers agreed that steps should be taken to encourage making new public toilets accessible for people with disabilities. Have the Government estimated how many new public toilets have opened since the passing of the Act, and what proportion of these toilets are considered to be accessible?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, to respond to that very sensible question, it is not in the gift of central government to control the number of toilets, but what we can do is provide funds to encourage further provision, as we have done with the changing places fund, and provide tax relief, as we did with the Act that was mentioned. Indeed, a lot of other legislation—I could go through a list—places a duty on workplaces to provide accessible toilets. I am happy to write to the noble Baroness if we have those statistics to hand, because it would be useful to see whether this has had an impact.