Ickford: Flood Risk

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) on securing this Adjournment debate on a very important topic to all residents of Buckinghamshire but particularly to his constituents. He is a doughty and industrious campaigner on behalf of the people of Buckingham, and tonight, the people of Ickford. I congratulate him on his speech.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that because I have a quasi-judicial role as planning Minister, it would not be appropriate for me to discuss in any detail individual planning applications or individual local plans. However, I am concerned to hear from him that the developer in question has not engaged sufficiently with the local community, or with him. I encourage that developer—indeed, all developers—to make sure that they do engage effectively and properly with elected representatives, as well as the communities concerned.

The Government recognise that flooding presents a risk to people and to their homes, villages, towns and cities, as my hon. Friend says. The devastating effects of flooding can be seen every year and the Government take it very seriously. The national planning policy framework is very clear that flood risk assessments are needed for all areas where development is proposed that are at risk of flooding from all sources, both now and in the future. Appropriate design and risk considerations that include allowance for climate change need to be included in any flood risk assessment. Allowances that consider future impacts of climate change on flood risk incorporate a precautionary risk-based approach for more vulnerable areas. This means that increased levels of resilience are—indeed, must be—factored in.

The national planning policy framework sets out a clear, overarching policy on flood risk. It states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, whether an existing or a potential risk, should be avoided, and alternative locations at lower flood risk should be identified where possible; this is known as the sequential test. Where development is necessary and there are no suitable sites available in areas at less risk of flooding, the proposed development should be made safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere; this is called the exception test. Where these strict tests are not met, new development should not be allowed.

Three national flood zones are identified by the Environment Agency’s flood map for planning. I encourage my hon. Friend to raise his concerns about this matter with the Environment Agency, and specifically about its flood map. Flood zone 3, which is commonly referred to as high risk, is split by a local council into two separate zones, 3a and 3b, where 3b is classified as functional floodplain and has the highest likelihood of flooding. Large parts of many major towns and cities comprise land classified as flood zone 3. Sub-category 3a covers land having a one in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding, or land having a one in 200 or greater annual probability of sea flooding—possibly not something that my hon. Friend’s constituents in Buckingham are at particular risk of, but I understand his broader concerns.

I must stress that building on land assessed as high risk is not the same as building on functional floodplain. Even then, building in flood zone 3 is not common, as less than 0.2% of land use in flood zone 3 is residential. Flood zone 2 is classed as a medium possibility of flooding, and flood zone 1 is classed as a low probability of flooding and covers land having a less than one in 1,000 annual probability of flooding from rivers or the sea. Areas at the lowest risk of flooding can still experience localised flooding—for example, following a very heavy downpour. That is why we have prioritised the use of sustainable drainage systems for all developments in areas at risk of flooding. The framework is also clear that sustainable drainage should be incorporated in all major developments—commonly schemes of 10 or more homes—unless there is clear evidence that it would be inappropriate.

The framework is also clear that a site-specific flood risk assessment should accompany all proposals in flood zone 1—the lowest risk—that involve sites of 1 hectare or more, land which has been identified by the Environment Agency as having critical drainage problems, land identified in a strategic flood risk assessment as being at increased flood risk in future, or land that may be subject to other sources of flooding, where its development would introduce a more vulnerable use.

Lead local flood authorities must be consulted on surface water drainage considerations in applications for all major new developments. Their comments and advice should inform the local council’s decisions on planning applications and ensure those applications are in line with the NPPF on flood risk. That ensures that local councils have access to appropriate expert advice on the sustainable management of drainage and localised sources of flooding.

For any major developments within flood zones 2 and 3 where the EA raises objections on flood risk grounds, the local council is required to consult the Secretary of State if it is minded to grant planning permission against the agency’s objections. This provides the Secretary of State with an opportunity to call in the decision.

My hon. Friend asked what we have done and called for a major overhaul of the system. I can tell him that we updated the NPPF in July this year to ensure that planning policies support climate change mitigation and adaptation, and that includes tackling flood risk. As part of the update, the framework was amended to require that all sources of flood risk are considered—including includes areas at risk of surface water flooding due to drainage problems—and that future flood risks are taken into account to ensure that any new development is safe for its lifetime, without increasing the risk of flooding elsewhere. The framework is clear that areas at little to no risk of flooding from any source should always be developed in preference to areas at a higher risk of flooding, as I have said.

The framework must be taken into account in the preparation of local plans, and it is a material consideration in planning decisions. My hon. Friend will know that as part of our wider planning reform considerations, we want to put local plan making at the heart of development and ensure that we engage more local people and stakeholders. I assure him that we will be looking at that and the issues he raised as we advance those proposals.

I should also tell my hon. Friend that, as can be seen from the recent update to the NPPF, the Government are not standing still on the issue of flood risk. Last year we published a policy statement setting out the Government’s long-term ambition to create a nation more resilient to future flood and coastal erosion risk. The policy statement outlines five ambitious policies and more than 40 supporting actions, which will accelerate progress to better prepare and better protect our country against flooding and coastal erosion in the face of more frequent extreme weather as a result of climate change. We want to ensure that we are better protected, to reduce the likelihood of flooding and to increase resilience.

This year the Government also published their review of policy development in areas at flood risk, examining key elements of planning policy relating to flood risk and development. It concluded that the Government have robust measures in place to protect people and property from flooding, which all local planning authorities are expected to follow. The review outlines the findings and sets out the actions the Government will take and have already taken, which includes further clarifications of policy.

Mindful of what my hon. Friend has already said, as part of our wider ambitions for an improved planning system we intend to review the NPPF to ensure that it contributes as fully as possible to climate change mitigation and adaptation. I will take careful note of his suggestions in that regard. We are also in the process of reviewing the planning practice guidance section on flood risk to provide further clarification.

We are also investing to improve our country’s resilience to existing flood risk. This year we have made a record investments in flood and coastal defences, doubling the size of the flood and coastal defence programme in England to £5.2 billion, providing around 2,000 new defence systems to better protect a further 336,000 properties. The aim is to reduce national flood risk by up to 11%, helping to avoid £32 billion of wider economic damage and benefiting every region of the country, including his own.

Furthermore, the Government have committed to undertake a review of the case for implementing schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 concerning sustainable drainage systems. The review will look at the benefits and effects of implementation, as well as alternative methods for ensuring that sustainable drainage systems are incorporated in future developments. It will engage a range of stakeholders, and I encourage my hon. Friend and his friends to be some of them. As well as providing for statutory build standards for sustainable drainage systems on new developments, the schedule would make the right to connect surface water to foul water conditional on local planning approval of the developer’s proposed drainage system. The review commenced in October this year and we expect to publish the outcome in August next year.

I again congratulate my hon. Friend on his persistence in pursuing this very important matter on behalf of his constituents. I hope it is clear to him that the Government take the issue of flooding very seriously and expect it to be an important consideration in the planning system. We also take his views and his concerns very seriously too.

The NPPF is clear that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided. Where development is necessary, as I say, it should be made safe and resilient, without increasing flood risk elsewhere. National planning policy applies to all sources of flood risk, including surface water, overwhelmed sewers and drainage systems, as well as future risk. We are committed to reducing the risk that flooding poses to our communities. We acknowledge that climate change will increase the risk of flooding, and that is why we have strong protections in place, including the £5.2 billion of investment that I referred to, and we will work hard on our further reforms to ensure that we further protect our communities against flood risk.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work on behalf of his constituents in Ickford and elsewhere. I trust that the developer to whom he referred is listening and will engage with him and the communities that are affected at the earliest opportunity. I congratulate him on his debate, and I look forward to working with him in future to ensure that flood risk in all of our communities is effectively mitigated.

Question put and agreed to.

Hertfordshire Green Belt: National Planning Policy

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, I think for the first time. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) on bringing forward this important matter for debate. I am conscious that it is of concern and interest to her, as well as to other Members across Hertfordshire, including my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) who is an industrious campaigner on behalf of his constituents, as of course is the hon. Lady for hers. They both strongly challenge what I believe can be challenging councils.

It is worth pointing out that the planning system to which the hon. Member for St Albans refers as the Government’s planning system is, in fact, England’s planning system, as it has existed since 1948 under successive Governments. It has grown in complexity and opacity during that period. Successive Governments have tried to make it clearer and more sensible, including the coalition Government of which the hon. Lady’s party was a part with the Conservatives. That Government contributed to the creation of the national planning policy framework some 10 years ago. It is England’s planning system, not the Government’s.

However, the hon. Lady is right to raise the issue of the green belt. Our commitment to the green belt is absolutely steadfast: the Prime Minister made that clear in his Conservative party conference speech last month. It is a manifesto commitment on which the Government were elected, to protect the green belt and associated countryside for future generations. The green belt in our country presently accounts for 12.4% of the land mass. In fact, it is larger now than when records began in 1997, taking into account that national parkland as categorised has been disregarded. In the hon. Lady’s constituency, it is somewhere in excess of 81% of the land mass.

We believe that the green belt is vital for preventing urban sprawl from towns and cities—it helps stop the advance of developments on to precious countryside—and national planning policies deliver strict protections for the green belt along with strong safeguards against development and changes to boundaries. Any proposals to release land from the green belt are subject to consultation with local people followed by a rigorous and independent examination of the revised local plan by a qualified planning inspector. Additionally, if a local authority finds that it cannot avoid releasing land from the green belt, it should offset that loss with environmental and access standards to land remaining in the green belt. As well as protecting the green belt, we must also look to other sites, such as brownfield land, that can be used to deliver new and beautiful homes of all types for people.

The national planning policy framework sets out national planning policy for England. It must be taken into account by local authorities in preparing their development plans. It is also a material consideration in all planning decisions. We believe that the NPPF ensures the protection of green-belt land by defining how most new buildings are inappropriate for the green belt and should be refused planning permission unless there are very special circumstances. Local authorities, through their planning policies and decisions, should show consideration of all relevant policies in the NPPF, including protection of the natural environment, irreplaceable habitats and valued landscapes.

Let me reiterate that green-belt land can change only in exceptional circumstances and that must be done in accordance with the NPPF and the local plan process, in consultation with local people, followed by rigorous examination of the revised plan. That is why the NPPF provides for two tests in safeguarding the green belt. The first prevents local authorities from changing a green-belt boundary unless there are exceptional circumstances and they have shown that they have examined every other option—using brownfield land, optimising the density of development and discussing whether neighbouring authorities can take some of the necessary development. The second test requires that most new buildings in the green belt are inappropriate and should be refused planning permission unless there are very special circumstances, as determined by the local authority.

As we improve the planning system, our existing policy for protecting the green belt will be upheld. Local authorities will be able to protect green-belt land using new digital local plans. I will take away the specific items raised by the hon. Lady and respond to her more fully. I stress that as we approach revisions to our planning framework and to the NPPF, we want to make sure that they work for the green belt as well as for brownfield sites, given the importance of developing those. I will say more about that in a moment.

Let me also point out that the Environment Act 2021, which received Royal Assent earlier this month, brings a mandatory biodiversity net gain requirement as a condition of most new development. That will make it quicker and simpler to assess environmental effects as well as speed up the decision making on and delivery of a development while continuing to protect and enhance the environment.

The hon. Lady mentioned local housing need and recognised the importance of providing housing for the people of our country who want and need it. We have a target of building 300,000 new homes each year by 2025. The Liberal Democrats, I believe, wish to out-do us, and to build 380,000 new homes each year in our country. I welcome their ambition. We want to help people rent or own their own homes. We know that we need to deliver more homes. To get more homes built in the places where people and communities need them, a crucial first step is determining the right number of homes in the right places. That is why, in 2018, we introduced the standard method for assessing local housing need, which makes the process of identifying the number of homes needed in an area as simple, quick and transparent as possible.

As the hon. Member for St Albans rightly says, that formula is a starting point; it is not an end point. It is for local authorities, working with the Planning Inspectorate, to determine the right number of homes based on the constraints or ambitions that they may have. I refer her to a letter that I circulated to Members of Parliament on, I think, 16 December of last year, which made it absolutely clear that local authorities are able to cite, to the Planning Inspectorate, constraints as reasons why the numbers into their plans are different from the local housing need number, which is the default calculation. As I have said, it is for local authorities to demonstrate and determine what the number should be. The constraints are outlined in footnotes 7 and 38, from memory, of the NPPF. In the local housing need calculations, we have also made it clear that none of the authorities outside of the 20 largest metropolitan authorities in England will see any changes to their local housing need numbers.

The challenge for all authorities, however, is to get an up-to-date plan in place. We might say that, in the land of no plan, the local housing need number is king. If there is no set number in an up-to-date local plan, it is quite possible for developers to submit speculative development applications to local authorities. The local authorities may choose to turn them down, but if they have no number in their plan, the local housing need number is the default that the Planning Inspectorate will look at. It is entirely possible that the Planning Inspectorate will overturn refusals sent down by local authorities that do not have up-to-date plans or targets, and will instead look at the local housing need target. It is incumbent on local authorities that wish to protect their communities and avoid speculative development to get up-to-date plans in place.

The hon. Member for St Albans asked me about the number of authorities that have revised their targets. A number have. Stoke, for example, has revised its target up, because it is an ambitious authority. Many others have been able to revise their numbers in other ways. However, having no up-to-date plan at all leaves communities open to speculative development. Of the authorities in our country, 91% have plans made to the 2004 standard. Of the 9% that remain, the hon. Lady’s own local authority is one. St Albans has not had an up-to-date plan since 1994. I would encourage her to encourage her authority to put that plan in place, to protect her community from speculative development.

We believe the green belt is of huge importance to our constituents and to our country. We want to make sure we do more to support it by building on brownfield sites, which we will look to achieve through our planning reforms. We have already made £5 billion, or as near as damn it, available to Homes England to support builders, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, to develop brownfield-site opportunities. We made £400 million available to mayoral combined authorities last year to identify brownfield sites for regeneration in their geographies. We have only recently announced a further £58 million for 53 local authorities to identify small sites for regeneration that will contribute to their local numbers without the need to impinge on green spaces.

One reason why we have introduced permitted development rights is to encourage the development of unused or underused commercial premises, which can now be demolished more easily and be rebuilt as residential premises. Since 2016 that has seen the construction on brownfield and town-centre sites of some 70,000 additional residences that might not otherwise have been built, to the benefit of local communities, to the benefit of those high streets and to the benefit of the green belt and greener spaces that have not had to have greater strain placed upon them.

I assure the hon. Member for St Albans that we are committed to protecting and enhancing land for future generations and that we are committed to protecting the green belt, as we set out in our manifesto. We will continue to uphold those strong protections, and I look forward to further debates, whether in this Chamber or in the main Chamber, to demonstrate that our policies are biting.

Question put and agreed to.

Fire Safety: Retirement Communities

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

I commend and congratulate the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on securing this debate, and on bringing this important topic before the House. It is a matter that we all believe to be of grave concern.

Let me begin by saying how important I and the Government believe it is that we further develop the later living and retirement housing sector. Many people in our country live in very large homes. That is fine for the many people who are happy to live in those homes, but we know full well that many people would like to downsize. It is economically sensible for them to do so, as well as good for their health and welfare. Unfortunately, however, there are not enough retirement and later living properties in our country in the right places, and with the right quality, care levels and social networks to provide that opportunity. We want to do more to help with that, but it is disappointing and concerning to hear the story that the right hon. Gentleman has presented to the House, so I am very happy to look at the specifics that he has raised and work with him to ensure that the challenges that he has brought to our attention are addressed.

We have, however, introduced substantial reforms through the Building Safety Bill, which, with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, will strengthen our building safety regime. We have also taken action to ensure that care homes and residential places are safe, because we all want those living and working in retirement communities to feel safe. We have listened to concerns about fire safety in care homes and specialised housing, and we are currently exploring the evidence surrounding risks that may exist in buildings occupied by vulnerable individuals. We are also conducting a full technical review of Approved Document B, which is the statutory guidance to building regulations, where we will look at the fire safety provisions in care homes and specialised housing. As I say, I will also consider the points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised about Cestrian Court and other places.

While we have already made important changes, we fundamentally need to change the culture so that residents’ concerns are listened to and, where problems arise, they are dealt with swiftly and efficiently. The Building Safety Bill is bringing forward the biggest reforms in nearly 40 years and will establish a building safety regulator. That means that in the future, later-living homes and specialised housing that are in scope will be covered by the new, more stringent building control regulatory regime during design and construction. This will ensure that corners are not being cut and buildings are built to a high standard. The new regime will strengthen regulatory oversight before building work commences; throughout construction, including before major changes are made; and when building work is complete.

Importantly, the Bill also paves the way for a national regulator for construction products to oversee a stronger and clearer construction products regulatory regime, which will apply to all four nations—both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That national regulator, which will be established in the Office for Product Safety and Standards, will have robust market surveillance enforcement capability to take action against companies found to be breaking the rules, including removing unsafe construction products from the market.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I welcome what the Minister is saying about the future. I just wonder what can be done to ensure that not just Cestrian Court but other properties are safe. If Cestrian Court was built by McCarthy and Stone to the shoddy standards that left my constituents in peril, is there any way that McCarthy and Stone could be made to check—or that the Government could perhaps check, through the fire authorities—that the other facilities that it has built meet standards? I would hate to think that one of its other homes might go up in smoke, leading to the tragedy that we have, I think, very narrowly avoided at Cestrian Court.

[Christopher Pincher]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We certainly want, through the changes that we are making, to improve the building control regime in local authorities around the country, and that is what we will achieve through the Building Safety Bill. I also draw his attention to the changes that we are making in the Bill to amend the Defective Premises Act 1972 to extend the period of retrospective action that people can take if they find their property to be defective. We are also including in that Bill a clause that will ensure that building owners or freeholders must take all reasonable steps to find ways of dealing with remediation, and exhaust those steps, before they pass on costs to the residents and leaseholders. I think those are two important steps in the Bill, which I hope will find support across the House.

Our package of reforms will help to make sure that construction products placed on the market are safe and that the public can be confident that products, including those used in the construction of care homes, will perform as they are intended to. The safety of retirement homes under 18 metres will be overseen by the building safety regulator, as part of its responsibility to oversee the safety and performance of all buildings. The regulator will work with the construction industry and technical experts, commissioning research and conducting consultations where necessary to make recommendations to the Government for improving building regulations. By doing so, it will drive both a culture change in the sector, and improve the safety and performance of all buildings. It will also drive improvements in building safety by overseeing the performance of building control bodies, as I said to the right hon. Gentleman, through a robust professional and regulatory regime for both registered building control approvers and local authority building control departments.

It is vital that the fire safety regime for these buildings is comprehensive and is working as it should. The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 requires those responsible to ensure that they regularly assess risks from fire to ensure they can take mitigating action to reduce the risk, so it is as low as reasonably practicable. This is not a one-off process or tick-box exercise, but one that requires the ongoing, day-to-day consideration and management of fire risks. That is especially important for the safety and wellbeing of residents of care homes, and other later life and specialised premises. The duties placed on building owners and responsible persons under the fire safety order will be further strengthened by clause 136 of the Building Safety Bill, which takes forward proposals to place a small number of additional duties on them. They include improving co-operation and information sharing, providing residents with relevant fire safety information and enforcing compliance through strengthening the standing of guidance. That will help with compliance and more effective enforcement action in the future—the sort of thing the right hon. Gentleman was talking about.

The Home Office also intends to bring forward new regulations that will implement the majority of the recommendations made by the Grenfell Tower inquiry in the phase 1 report, which require changes in the law. The measures will help to make all residential buildings safer by placing new duties on responsible persons, which will improve fire safety for their residents and assist fire and rescue services in planning for, and responding to, a fire.

We want to support people to stay safe in their homes. Fire and rescue services visit homes and offer person-centred fire safety advice, providing smoke alarms and other fire safety equipment where necessary. To support those physical visits, the National Fire Chiefs Council has created an online tool to allow residents to make informed self-assessment choices and be guided on any other steps they can take to improve their fire safety. The Government are also playing their part, working closely with the National Fire Chiefs Council and local fire and rescue services to deliver the long-running “Fire Kills” campaign. Through a mix of media advertising, partnership working and promotional activity, the campaign has helped to drive down the number of fires and fire- related fatalities to its current historic low levels.

I know that there is a united desire across the House to ensure that those living in retirement communities feel safe in their homes, and I am genuinely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing these issues to our attention tonight. Debates such as this are incredibly important as we work together to protect all residents. I assure him and Members across the House that the Government remain committed to helping residents in what we know is a most challenging situation, because in doing so, we will ensure that there is public confidence in the sector—a sector that we are determined to grow, and we have a mutual interest in doing so—and bring about lasting change in an industry that will put its residents’ welfare first. I am grateful to him and I thank him for his attention.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) (Construction Products) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2021 General Committees

[The Chair]

I am required by Mr Speaker to read out the following advice: I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings and to maintain distancing as far as possible, in line with Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. I remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. That may be done at the testing centre on the estate or at home. Members should send their speaking notes by email to [e-mail]. Similarly, officials in the Public Gallery should communicate electronically with Ministers.

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) (Construction Products) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.

Welcome to the Chair, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. The draft regulations make a simple amendment to the Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) and Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 in order to cite the construction products regulations as a specified regulation within that legislation.

Let me begin by providing some context and background to the draft regulations. The European Union’s construction products regulation of 2011 became retained law and formed part of the UK’s legal system under the withdrawal agreement. The Construction Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, as amended by the Construction Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, amended the 2011 regulation to ensure that the provisions would have practical application in Great Britain, introducing provisions such as the UKCA —UK conformity assessed—mark and UK designated standards. That regime, the UK CPR, came into force on 1 January 2021.

The UK CPR specifies which conformity assessment bodies are recognised to carry out conformity assessment procedures for construction products covered by UK designated standards. Currently, conformity assessment bodies, known as UK approved bodies, must be located in the United Kingdom. On 1 April this year, the United Kingdom-Canada trade continuity agreement came into force. That incorporated the EU-Canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement—CETA—and the protocol on conformity assessment. Under the protocol, the United Kingdom is required, among other things, to recognise or to accept a conformity assessment procedure or result issued by a mutual recognition agreement body.

Under the trade agreement, Canadian conformity assessment bodies are able to assess construction products against United Kingdom designated standards, and vice versa. The 2021 regulations provide for the UK to recognise and accept a conformity assessment procedure or result issued by a Canadian conformity assessment body for the specified regulations.

The UK CPR is not yet included as a specified regulation in the 2021 regulations, which came into force on 19 June this year. Including the UK CPR as a specified regulation will enact the provisions of the UK-Canada trade continuity agreement. That will mean that, should a Canadian conformity assessment body seek accreditation to assess construction products against our designated standards, the Canadian-assessed product can be recognised on the market in the United Kingdom.

The effect of making this amendment can be considered in two parts. First, the draft regulations ensure that, pursuant to the UK-Canada trade continuity agreement, we recognise and accept a conformity assessment procedure or result issued by a Canadian conformity assessment body that has carried out the assessment of a construction product against UK CPR requirements. The effect of that is that a conformity assessment procedure undertaken by a Canadian conformity assessment body against our designated standards will be treated as if it were performed by a United Kingdom approved body, enabling Canadian-assessed UKCA-marked products to be placed on the market in Great Britain.

Secondly, the draft regulations enable the Secretary of State to assign an identification number and include in any register a Canadian conformity assessment body carrying out an assessment in relation to our CPR, and to include a Canadian accreditation body in a register of those bodies. As a result, manufacturers will easily be able to find and use a Canadian-based CAB that is accredited to undertake conformity assessment procedures against our designated standards prior to export to the United Kingdom.

The draft regulations are necessary to ensure that we remove a technical barrier to trade between our two countries and meet our obligations in the trade continuity agreement, which has already come into force. It is a small and technical measure, and I trust that it will not be a barrier to agreement in this Committee.

[The Chair]

Members will be delighted to know that the regulations can be debated until 7.30 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his support for these very simple and straightforward draft regulations. He asks a specific question about the interplay between the draft regulations and the Building Safety Bill. By way of parenthesis, I remind the Committee that the Government are spending a significant amount of taxpayers’ money on the remediation of high-rise buildings and buildings that are in scope that need to have dangerous cladding removed from them. The Bill will also introduce a building safety regulator and a national construction products regulator. It is for the national construction products regulator to ensure that the sorts of goods that may be used in the construction of buildings are properly assessed, and that materials and products that are of critical use meet a higher and defined standard. Through the Bill, those standards will be defined. Working with the national regulator, once it is in place, we will be able to properly police the regime.

We will, of course, want to ensure that any assessment of goods that are introduced to Great Britain from foreign places meets those high standards. That is one of the reasons why the mechanism of accreditation is being put in place—so that bodies, in this case in Canada, understand our assessment requirements. It will ensure that those bodies are also properly assessed and signed off by the Canadian assessment organisation, the name of which momentarily escapes me. If I do not remember it by the time I have completed my remarks, I will write to the hon. Gentleman to confirm it.

By having the draft regulations in place, we will properly accredit those organisations abroad that can assess our regulations, and they will be required to assess our regulations to the standards that we have set—including those set by the national construction products regulator. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s questions, and I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Building Safety Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that the House has asked Members and staff to take a covid lateral flow test twice a week if they are coming on to the parliamentary estate. Tests can be done at the testing centre or at home.

With the parish notices over, we will continue with new clause 12. The Minister was in the middle of his speech when we adjourned, so I invite him to complete his remarks.

New Clause 12

Assessment of the impact of building safety issues on access to insurance

“(1) Within one year of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must carry out a review of the impact of building safety issues, including the provisions of this Act, on access to insurance.

(2) The review as set out in subsection (1) shall include assessment of the United Kingdom insurance market.

(3) The review must consider the impact of building safety issues, confidence in the building safety industry and the impact of advice given by his Department on building safety given since 14 July 2017 on—

(a) the availability and cost of insurance for residential blocks;

(b) the availability and cost of professional indemnity insurance for workers in the building safety industry;

(c) requirements placed on buildings in order to access building insurance; and

(d) the wider insurance market.

(4) The review must make recommendation as to any further action needed by Government or the industry to improve access to affordable residential and professional insurance across the United Kingdom.”—(Mike Amesbury.)

This new clause would ensure the Government publish an assessment of the impact of the building safety risks on the UK insurance market for residential buildings and professional indemnity insurance for those working in building safety.

Brought up, and read the First time, and Question proposed (this day), That the clause be read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I was concluding my remarks in response to a comment from the hon. Member for Weaver Vale, who had asked about interventions that the Government may consider to ensure that the insurance industry is proportionate and fair in its pricing and its availability. He asked about the Competition and Markets Authority, and while I would not want to bind the hands of Her Majesty’s Government on one particular intervention, it is certainly the case that nothing is off the table as we try to ensure that the insurance sector lives up to its responsibilities to deliver a fair and proportionate insurance-based set of products to its customers.

In concluding my contribution to the debate, the Government believe that a one-off review, as proposed under new clause 12, is not necessary or proportionate, and may well add inflexibility to the Government’s response, which needs to be swift and flexible. I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to welcome you to your place, Mrs Miller, for the final time on this Committee’s journey. I will withdraw the new clause, noting that we have the opportunity for more conversations on this matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 13

Assessment of the impact of Act on access to mortgage finance

“(1) Within one year of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must carry out a review of the impact of the provisions of this Act on access to mortgage finance for leaseholders.

(2) The review shall be laid before each House of Parliament.

(3) The review must consider the impact of building safety issues, confidence in the building safety industry and the impact of Government advice on building safety given since 14 July 2017 on—

(a) the availability and cost of mortgages and related financial services for leaseholders in the UK;

(b) difficulties accessing mortgage finance on the wellbeing of leaseholders; and

(c) the impact on the housing and housing finance markets.

(4) The review must recommend what industry changes and Government action are necessary to improve accessibility to mortgage finance for leaseholders.”—(Mike Amesbury.)

This new clause would ensure that the Government publish an assessment considering the impact of the building safety crisis on leaseholder access to mortgage finance and its impact on the wider housing market.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mike Amesbury]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 13 would ensure that the Government look into the impact on access to mortgage finance and make recommendations to Parliament on policy changes. Some estimates of the number of properties affected by this scandal put it at 1.3 million flats, and some indications suggest a cooling effect on the market for flats—up to 60% compared with three years ago.

Over the weekend, the Bank of England announced that it is looking into the potential impact on mortgage providers and their ability to cope with the crisis should leaseholders be unable to keep up their mortgage payments—something leaseholders across the country have told me they are increasingly worried about given the costs pushed on to their shoulders by the crisis. It is therefore vital that the Government and the Minister seek to properly understand the impact of allowing the current situation to continue, in terms of both the effect on the overall property market and the devastating consequences for individual leaseholders. The Minister will point to the Government’s interventions—several interventions now—that announced the unlocking of the market by trying to create restrictions on which buildings need EWS1 forms and require remediation. The evidence suggests that those announcements have not worked.

It is clear that the market is still making its own decisions, with the media reporting only weeks ago that several of the UK’s largest mortgage lenders still require some buildings under 18 metres to obtain the EWS1 surveys. Some lenders have previously stated that they are waiting for the Government to withdraw advice note 14—something that the former Secretary of State promised would be coming within weeks at the start of last month, alongside everything that the Government need to do. However, it has not arrived.

The impact of the market impasse on the lives of individual leaseholders can be huge. Without being able to move, leaseholders are putting off having families, as has been documented throughout the passage of the Bill so far. Some are forced to sell their property at a discount to predatory cash buyers, and some even declare bankruptcy. Thanks to the slow roll-out of the building safety fund and the fact that the Government have still not announced the details of the loan scheme, more than eight months after it was first announced, leaseholders are trapped worrying that they will be left paying remediation costs—many are getting the bills as we speak.

The new Secretary of State has said he will look afresh at the situation, to ensure that the Department is doing everything it can to support leaseholders. I urge Ministers to accept the new clause, so that a full review can be carried out on what decisive Government action must be taken to fix this mess.

[Christopher Pincher]

To respond to something that the hon. Gentleman said earlier—that we might return to some matters in the future—the future, like the past, is another country. We will see what the Report stage has to offer us.

I can assure the Committee that the Government are working with industry to unlock the mortgage market for those in leasehold flats, to ensure that lenders act in a proportionate and sensible way. We are conscious that there are flat owners who cannot sell their properties and who remain stuck in them because of the excessive industry caution. Such people should not feel that they are living in homes that are unsafe.

To assess the effect of EWS1 on the market, we have secured an agreement from banks and building societies to publish aggregate lender EWS1 data, so that homeowners can see how the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ EWS1 guidance is being applied and the effect of the process on mortgage applications, and we will continue to challenge industry on the inappropriate use of EWS1 forms. We have seen the expert advice that we received earlier this year from Dame Judith Hackitt and Ken Knight, who said that the use of EWS1 forms has got out of proportion. The degree of risk aversion is out of proportion, and it needs to be brought back into proportion—for example, EWS1 forms should not be used for buildings beneath 18 metres in height.

That advice has been accepted by a number of lenders to whom we have spoken, but to support the sector as we transition into a new regime, we have commissioned the British Standards Institute to produce a publicly available specification, the PAS 9980, which is a code of practice for professionals undertaking external wall assessments. That will provide a standard for professionals to follow, encouraging a consistency in approach that we have not seen to date. When it is published by the BSI, it will set out a methodology for professionals to follow and explain when a detailed assessment of an external wall is necessary. That code of practice will set out a methodology for professionals to follow, enabling us to withdraw the consolidated advice note to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The flexibility that we want is in line with our overall message on proportionality and the work that we are doing to ensure that more proportionate assessments of the external wall are carried out.

The Committee is well aware of the funds that the Government have allocated to high-rise buildings above 18 metres, and of the support that we are proposing to provide for buildings below 18 metres and above 11 metres, on which more detail will follow. Support will also be provided as a result of the Bill’s passage. We are considering how residents’ voices can be further strengthened in the remediation process. I will perhaps be able to say more about that at a later date, but we are minded to increase the voice of residents.

The Government also recognise and understand that construction professionals are struggling to obtain adequate professional indemnity insurance. We will continue to encourage the market to provide greater availability of adequate PII, and we will also make sure that our in extremis backstop measures are in place.

In view of the measures that we have already undertaken to encourage a more proportionate approach by industry, and the Government funding that we have made available so that residents and leaseholders have the peace of mind that they desire, I trust that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale will recognise that the new clause is unnecessary and that he will withdraw it.

[Mike Amesbury]

Although we will withdraw the new clause, we may come back to this issue on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 14

Agency to manage building safety works and funding

“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must create an agency referred to as the Building Works Agency.

(2) The purpose of the Building Works Agency shall be to administer a programme of cladding remediation and other building safety works, including—

(a) overseeing an audit of cladding, insulation and other building safety issues in buildings over two storeys;

(b) prioritising audited buildings for remediation based on risk;

(c) determining the granting or refusal of grant funding for cladding remediation work;

(d) monitoring progress of remediation work and enforce remediation work where appropriate;

(e) determining buildings to be safe once remediation work has been completed;

(f) seeking to recover costs of remediation where appropriate from responsible parties: and

(g) providing support, information and advice for owners of buildings during the remediation process.”—(Mike Amesbury.)

This new clause would create a new body set up to oversee a programme of cladding remediation, including assessing the need for remediation, overseeing the process of remediation, managing funding of remediation and recouping costs where possible from appropriate parties.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shaun Bailey]

In light of the hon. Gentleman’s decision to withdraw the clause, I will conclude my speech. I would just like to get it on the record that I am very grateful for his intervention, and to all Members who have intervened. I do not disagree with the sentiment they have expressed: it is incumbent on all of us to work together to put pressure on Government to ensure that the Bill develops a system that works and looks after the most vulnerable.

[Christopher Pincher]

I will be brief. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West: I do not think I have ever before seen the official Opposition withdraw an amendment at the behest of a Back-Bench Member. They usually wait until the Minister has spoken. That has put me in my place, if nothing else. [Laughter.]

I thank the hon. Member for Weaver Vale for withdrawing his new clause. I understand what he is attempting to achieve by it; I think I am right in saying that it was a manifesto commitment that the official Opposition made, and perhaps at the time it was a sensible and appropriate thing to do. However—it is sad to recall—that general election was nearly two years ago, and things have moved on.

A well-established remediation programme is already in place, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West has mentioned: some 97% of buildings clad in ACM have either been remediated or are being remediated, and we believe that all ACM-clad buildings in scope have now been identified. As a result of the joint inspection team that we developed, which works with local authorities and housing associations to identify buildings with unsafe cladding that are in scope, that work is now over 80% complete, so it is hard to see how the time, effort and expense of setting up a new body to do that work would be well used.

I welcome the interest of the hon. Member for Weaver Vale in this matter. He raised the issue of Victoria, where—as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West has said—there are something like 2,000 buildings above three storeys. In England, we have something like 100,000 buildings above three storeys, and the hon. Member for Weaver Vale’s new clause calls for an assessment of buildings over two storeys, so we are talking about a very significant extra degree of effort that would take time, expertise and expense that would be better served pursuing the mechanism that we are presently utilising.

However, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I do not propose to spend any more of the Committee’s time debating this point, because I appreciate that we may vote very soon. I am sure we will come back to this point in future. Yes, we must knock some heads together and move rapidly to ensure that remediation is done as expeditiously as possible.

[The Chair]

The hon. Member for Weaver Vale has already indicated that he wishes to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 15

Waking watch

“(1) Within one year of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must carry out and publish a review of the impact of the advice of his department since June 2017 on—

(a) the implementation of 24 hour ‘waking watch’ fire patrols and other interim fire safety measures in residential buildings in England awaiting fire safety works;

(b) costs arising from waking watches and other fire safety measures on leaseholders; and

(c) building insurance premiums and safety requirements of building insurance;

(2) The review must include an assessment of the effectiveness of waking watch as an interim fire safety measures, and a comparison with other measures must be included.

(3) The review must recommend industry changes and Government action necessary to reduce reliance on waking watch and interim fire safety costs for leaseholders.”—(Ruth Cadbury.)

This new clause would ensure the Government undertake a review of waking watch policies.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Miller. New clause 15, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale and others, addresses waking watch. It says that within a year, the Secretary of State must

“carry out and publish a review of the impact of the advice of his department since”

the Grenfell fire on

“the implementation of 24 hour ‘waking watch’ fire patrols and other interim fire safety measures in residential buildings in England…costs arising from waking watches…building insurance premiums and safety requirements of building insurance”,

and the cost of other interim fire safety measures. Subsection (2) would require

“an assessment of the effectiveness of waking watch as an interim fire safety measures, and a comparison with other measures”.

Subsection (3) would require the review to

“recommend industry changes and Government action necessary to reduce reliance on waking watch and interim fire safety costs”

that leaseholders face.

After the Grenfell Tower fire, waking watches were one of the solutions—one then thought of as temporary—to the cladding and fire safety crisis in residential buildings. All involved assumed that the crisis would pass as either buildings were deemed safe or remediation works rendered them safe before too long. Sadly, more than four years on, too many residential buildings constructed in the last 20 years and awaiting remediation are still deemed by fire safety experts to be so unsafe that they require waking watch services—a 24-hour building patrol of at least two people, and more for larger buildings.

I will deal first with the other fire safety measures implied in the new clause. Subsection (1)(b) and (c) crucially focus on the costs that many leaseholders have faced because of waking watch programmes and others, along with the impact of insurance premiums, while awaiting a permanent solution to a building’s fire safety risk. As we have heard many times before, insurance is one among a mounting series of costs hitting leaseholders. Research in The Sunday Telegraph recently showed that insurance premiums have increased by up to 1,200%. For one of my constituents, the cost has risen from £234 a year to £1,734.

I will now address waking watches. One of my constituents, a leaseholder in a flat in Hounslow, wrote to me about their experience and that of their neighbours. They live in a small block of 25 flats, half of which are for social rent. The block is being charged £48,000 per calendar month plus VAT. My constituent described the £48,000-a-month service as “three men” who

“sit in a cleaning cupboard in the lobby and periodically patrol the small corridors connecting the flats and the stairwell to check for fires.”

We have heard many serious concerns raised about the quality and standards of waking watches in our postbags. A report in The Times found that staff had joked about running out of Netflix programmes to watch, and a report by Which? in 2020 found similar concerns about staff even sleeping when they were on site. In my constituency, when flammable cladding went up—cladding that was awaiting removal—the waking watch in the adjacent block did nothing. Residents called the emergency services, not the waking watch service being paid to do so.

However, this is not about individual staff members; rather, it is about the wider system. Are there basic standards for waking watch contracts in residential buildings, or numbers of personnel per floor or per 10 flats? Are there stated skill levels, a job description or on-the-job reporting? For instance, anyone using a toilet in a restaurant, or even in the Palace of Westminster, will know when it was last cleaned and what to do if they feel that it does not reach a specific health and safety standard. Do leaseholders have an equivalent assurance as to the safe operation of the waking watch in their blocks, which is somewhat more serious than the cleanliness of a toilet? Certainly, they do not feel safe, based on our postbags.

Is waking watch really an interim measure? For my constituents in one block, a new management company came in and slightly reduced the price of the waking watch. A new fire alarm was fitted, which they were told would get rid of the requirement for waking watch, but—such luck—new guidance issued by the Government meant that the waking watch had to remain, so they continue to pay for it. There is nothing to help people in this situation. It is a rather fitting epitaph for the Government’s approach not only to the cost of waking watch but to the fire and building safety crisis. As my constituent said,

“nothing has changed in terms of leaseholders incurring a monthly expense. The announcement last year of a £30 million Waking Watch Fund (which has yet to pay any money out) will do nothing to help people in this situation.”

Some buildings with a waking watch will soon be re-clad or their fire safety defects otherwise remediated; the owners will have done the right thing, or their building safety fund application will have been successful. However, sadly, too many buildings will continue to require a waking watch for the foreseeable future for a number of reasons, which in my constituency alone include: ineligibility for the building safety fund, as the fire risk is not one of inflammable cladding; the building being below 18 metres; or the owner or head lessee being in dispute with the builder over where the responsibility lies. If the owner or the head lessee is a housing association and some flats are for social rent, for which the building safety fund is not to be used, the housing association will have to fund the remediation from its precious capital fund, which is allocated to build new social rent housing, not to make good faults for which that housing association is not responsible, particularly when the block was built by a volume housebuilder and the housing association took over as part of a section 106 agreement. Finally, the other reason why waking watch may continue and safety defects go unrectified is if there is a disagreement between safety professionals as to the actual level of fire risk.

The specifics of each waking watch vary, but generally people are employed to monitor buildings, both internally and externally, for fire and to alert residents in the blocks should there be a fire—that is the theory anyway. A report by the National Fire Chiefs Council said that waking watches alone are

“impracticable for a long-term solution”,

yet they have become widespread and long-term. In London alone, nearly 600 buildings require a waking watch, and there are an estimated 1,000 buildings nationally. These waking watch services have to be funded somehow. The Minister will no doubt refer to the £30 million funding pot that is largely being spent on new alarms, but many reports have pointed out that that funding will not end the need for waking watches, as I pointed out.

I spoke this morning about the toll of the building safety crisis on the mental health of leaseholders. I know from listening to those in my constituency that widespread use of waking watch patrols only adds to their anxiety, on top of the rising bills. One constituent told me how hearing the footsteps is a constant reminder of the risk that so many leaseholders face. I urge the Government to consider the review that the new clause seeks and to provide real answers to the many thousands of leaseholders who hear those footsteps.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this important point. I am aware that the use of waking watches, especially those put in place by building owners since Grenfell, is causing concern to residents. It is vital that they are used appropriately and only in the most limited circumstances. I hope that the hon. Lady will feel able to withdraw her amendment, although I understand the motivations behind it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

I sat down a little prematurely. What I might have said is that, as the hon. Lady will know, the House of Commons has many and varied methods to bring Ministers to the Dispatch Box to address questions or answer debates. I think she will find a way for her voice and the voice of leaseholders to be heard in this matter if she thinks it appropriate.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I hear the Minister’s point. A review being incorporated into legislation would have a little bit more weight, particularly with a response being drafted by the Government, rather than through MPs bringing anecdotal evidence as part of their casework.

The Minister said that the waking watch mitigation is only there while the removal of unsafe cladding and the installation of fire alarms is awaited. As I have explained—he would know this if such a review was to take to place—the taking of those actions has not stopped waking watch being considered essential by the fire safety professionals employed by building owners and managers.

In the spirit of collaboration and collegiality, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 16

Monthly building safety updates

“(1) The Secretary of State must within three months of the day on which this Act passes and monthly thereafter lay before each House of Parliament a report on the progress of cladding remediation.

(2) The report must include an overview of—

(a) the progress of the remediation of non-ACM cladding;

(b) the remediation progress of—

(i) social residential buildings,

(ii) private sector residential buildings,

(iii) student accommodation,

(iv) hotels,

(v) hospitals,

(vi) care homes, and

(vii) publicly owned buildings identified has having in need of remediation due to unsafe cladding of any height,

(c) data collected from fire authorities, including—

(i) the numbers of waking watches,

(ii) other interim safety measures, and

(iii) fire alarms installed in residential buildings awaiting remediation or other building safety work.

(d) estimated dwelling numbers in all estimates.

(3) The report as set out in subsection (1) shall include—

(a) regional breakdowns of all data points;

(b) identify whether remediation has been funded through government funding, developer or freeholder funding, through warrantee or by other means; and

(c) detail what proportion of government funding has been allocated and paid out in the period since the last report was published.

(4) The report will no longer have to be published when all buildings identified as having cladding in need of remediation have completed remediation.”.—(Mike Amesbury.)

This new clause would ensure the Government provide regular written updates on the progress of the remediation programme of non-ACM cladding in line with what is currently published on ACM cladding.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause takes its lead from the Government’s statistics on ACM remediation. The most recent release, the September 2021 “Building Safety Programme: monthly data release”, covers 34 pages and breaks down in detail the types of building with ACM and the progress made in removing and replacing the dangerous cladding over time. It also covers the allocation of funding and gives an update on enforcement proceedings against owners of buildings yet to make their buildings safe. It is a detailed look at what progress is being made to tackle the ACM safety crisis.

We are not getting the same amount of information about non-ACM buildings. Instead, we receive an update covering the funding status of the 3,175 buildings that applied for the building safety fund. Although we are grateful that the Department is now releasing more information than previously on non-ACM funding, there is much more to be done to ensure that the Government’s progress in fixing the crisis is as transparent as possible without risking the security of individual buildings.

The new clause suggests one additional point to be included in a non-ACM monthly report, which could also be included in the ACM monthly report—information collected from local fire authorities outlining the interim safety measures that have been put in place. As we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth, waking watch and other interim safety costs are playing a large part in pushing leaseholders to the brink. It is important that they are included in released information on our progress fighting this crisis.

I would be grateful if the Minister could outline why there is a difference in the data release for ACM and non-ACM remediation funding and progress. Does he agree that transparency and being able to track the progress of remediation, as well as the safety measures involved, are necessary to build back trust in the system and in the Government’s interventions? If so, I hope that the Minister can accept the new clause.

[Christopher Pincher]

I hope that in responding relatively briefly to this new clause I can help the hon. Gentleman. I think that the new clause is unnecessary, and I want to assure him and the Committee that his intention has already been met by the Government, and will continue to be met.

In addition to the data released showing progress on ACM remediation, we also separately publish monthly data related to the progress of the building safety fund, covering remediation of unsafe non-ACM cladding, as well as monthly data on the waking watch relief fund. We will continually review the information we hold on cladding remediation and publish all appropriate information when it is ready, which involves undertaking necessary quality assurance. As we have done with the ACM database, we will expand the amount of data and analysis on remediation progress for buildings with unsafe non-ACM cladding when the data is available and once it has been appropriately quality assured.

The hon. Gentleman asks if we will do more; the answer is yes, but we will do it when we are able to provide quality data, properly quality assured. For example, further analysis is being undertaken related to the building safety fund, the data collection on the external wall systems on high-rise residential buildings and the material that is in use on residential buildings between 11 and 18 metres. Data on these areas will be published in due course, adding to what we already publish monthly.

The Committee has acknowledged that the data published on the progress of ACM remediation is high quality, full and transparent. We look forward to being able to do the same with non-ACM remediation and waking watch relief fund data as they are available. Given that explanation, I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his new clause; we intend to deliver just what he is looking for.

[Mike Amesbury]

I welcome the Minister’s commitment to expand the data that will be available in the public domain when it is quality assured. However, as a point of clarity: when is due course?

[Christopher Pincher]

Soon.

[Mike Amesbury]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 17

Presumption of allowing urgent building safety remediation work

“(1) If a leaseholder or tenant has identified urgent building safety work needed to the property they occupy they should notify the freehold owner in writing.

(2) Should the freehold owner not reply to the written notification under subsection (1) within 90 days of receiving it there should be a presumption in favour of allowing the work to proceed.

(3) It is the freehold owner’s responsibility to ensure that all leaseholders and tenants have the correct details to provide them with a written notification as set out in subsection (1).

(4) The Secretary of State may issue guidance on the application of this section.

(5) A court considering a matter relating to this section must have regard to any guidance issued under subsection (4).” —(Daisy Cooper.)

This new clause would introduce the presumption of consent for leaseholders to carry out urgent building safety work, where absent freeholders cannot be contacted, or refuse to respond.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged again to the hon. Lady for raising this matter, which we recognise is an important one. She asked me to expand on the concerns that I raised about the applicability of the new clause, as opposed to the motivation behind it. We have three concerns, essentially, but I hope that she will be further reassured as I explain what we are doing to ensure that tenants and leaseholders are protected.

My first concern is that the new clause does not make it clear what type of work constitutes urgent building safety work, how that would be funded or the rationale regarding the introduction of a 90-day notice period. That lack of clarity presents opportunities for all sorts of legal interpretation that might see the proposal and the wording challenged in the courts.

My second concern is that tenants would have to wait at least 90 days before beginning remediation. I know that the hon. Lady will say to me that a lot of people have been waiting a lot longer than 90 days for their properties to be remediated, and I hear that concern, but I do not see how putting a 90-day window in law will help them or anybody else who might be affected by this challenge.

My third concern relates to the common parts of the building, which are not the responsibility of the leaseholders and tenants. The new clause therefore runs the risk of undermining the role of accountable persons and their building safety responsibilities over the common parts of the building, which we are mandating as part of the new building safety regime.

Those are my three concerns, but I want to offer the hon. Lady some reassurance that we consider that the Bill already delivers the policy intent of her new clause by ensuring that there is a robust definition in place that identifies the accountable persons for buildings that fall within scope. The Bill automatically places statutory obligations on those persons, making them responsible for effectively managing building safety in accordance with the new regime. That is in addition to their active repairing obligations in the lease.

If leaseholders or tenants raise a complaint about an urgent building safety works matter with an accountable person and the accountable person does not adequately address those concerns, rather than the tenants or leaseholders carrying out the work themselves, there will be mechanisms enabling them to raise their concerns directly with the Building Safety Regulator. The Building Safety Regulator will be well equipped to use their expertise and resources to assess whether urgent building safety works are required, and subsequently to take the necessary compliance and enforcement action. Because of their expertise, they will properly be able to identify what is urgent, and that will stand the test of any legal interrogation.

I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise that there are some practical challenges with the new clause, notwithstanding the intent that lies behind it. I hope that she will also see that, vested in the Bill that she has already been voting on—almost entirely favourably, I am pleased to say—is provision that gives leaseholders and tenants the sort of protections that she is looking for. I hope that she will withdraw the new clause.

[Daisy Cooper]

I thank the Minister for his assurances. I note that the issue was still raised by the National Housing Federation. I will go back to it to ensure that it feels comfortable that the definition of the accountable person and the mechanism that has been set up for other properties will in fact operate well enough if the freeholder is absent. I trust that the Minister will be happy to receive any representations from it if it sees any further issues. But at this point in the proceedings, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 20

Assessment of the impact of building safety issues on social housing sector homebuilding

“(1) Within one year of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must carry out and publish a review of the impact of building safety issues on properties provided by registered providers of social housing.

(2) The review must consider in particular—

(a) current and future housebuilding,

(b) current maintenance of homes provided by registered providers of social housing, and

(c) homelessness.

(3) The review must in particular consider the impact of building safety issues on social housing provider finances, including the amount of funding provided to registered providers of social housing to remediate buildings with combustible cladding and the advice given by his Department on building safety since 14 July 2017, on—

(a) the proportion of registered provider of social housing funds that was previously allocated to social homebuilding or the maintenance or improvement of current social housing which has instead been allocated to building safety work, and

(b) projections of future housebuilding by registered providers of social housing in comparison with Government housebuilding targets and national homelessness rates.

(4) The review must make any recommendations for Government action necessary to ensure–—

(a) homebuilding targets are reached,

(b) current housing provided by registered providers of social housing is maintained and improved, and

(c) any rise in homelessness is prevented.”—(Mike Amesbury.)

This new clause would require the Government to publish an assessment of the effect of building safety requirements on the maintenance of current homes and building of future homes by registered providers of social housing, and rates of homelessness.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

I concur with my hon. Friend. When I was a councillor in the Manchester area, I saw the results of that very standards programme. But we cannot excuse landlords; it is on their shoulders to ensure that the types of horrific cases that we have seen are sorted quickly. We cannot afford to allow money to be taken away from tackling these issues. Analysis has shown that housing associations have paid six times as much as developers to get buildings fixed. Given the huge profits that have been made in the private sector, it is a scandal that it is not doing more to pay to fix faults, many of which it created.

The first amendment that Labour tabled in the Committee centred on the impact of climate change on building safety. Building safety considerations are competing with building green houses. The Government have announced funding, but it will take much more to ensure that social homes are warm and energy efficient. With housing accounting for 14% of our emissions, we must make that a priority.

The new clause would ensure that the Government looked at the impact of this crisis on future levels of house building in the UK by social home providers, on homelessness and on the maintenance of social homes. It would require them to make recommendations for action necessary to ensure that building safety issues do not inhibit our ability to reach the house-building targets, and that current provision of housing is maintained and improved.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful again to the hon. Gentleman for raising an important matter. I do not believe that his amendment is necessary because a great deal of the information that he seeks about registered providers’ finances, their house building and the decency of their properties is already published. For example, the global accounts published annually by the regulator of social housing contain detailed financial information about individual private registered providers of social housing that own or manage 1,000 or more homes. That includes how much they invest in new homes and in maintaining their existing properties. A summary of those providers’ financial forecasts is typically published alongside the global accounts that set out their investment and development plans for the next five years.

The most recent global accounts published earlier this year reported increased spending by private registered providers on repairs and maintenance in 2019-20. They also showed a 13% increase in investment in new housing supply compared to the previous year, driven by greater spending on delivering new social homes for rent. That speaks volumes about how private registered landlords are continuing to invest in both new and existing homes, despite challenging circumstances. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale will know—we have debated it in the Chamber and elsewhere on a number of occasions—that the new affordable homes programme is worth more than £12 billion. It is the largest cash injection into affordable housing in a 15-year cycle. Of that, £8 billion has already been allocated and has been taken up by registered providers who are determined to build the homes that we require and that the hon. Gentleman has asked for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question. Since 2010, we have built nearly 150,000 homes for social rent, and 32,000 will be built in the new affordable homes cycle, market conditions permitting. That is double the number that were built under the current mechanism. We are building more social homes through the affordable homes programme. We are allowing councils to build homes, if they wish, by reducing the borrowing cap on the housing revenue account. We have created a hub in Homes England to help local authorities that do not have the wherewithal or the experience to build social homes to get that experience so that they can build those homes.

We are building affordable homes of a variety of types and tenures and we will continue to do that, market conditions permitting. We are also investing a significant amount of public funds in retrofitting properties in the social sector that absolutely need it to bring them up to the required standard. The heat and building strategy was announced just a few days ago. Before that, the social housing decarbonisation fund was making available £3.8 billion to decarbonise social properties to ensure that they are more energy efficient. The announcement that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy made a few days ago will ensure that further hundreds of millions of pounds are made available for such things as home improvement grants. That is why we can say that we are dealing with this challenging issue and that the new clause is therefore unnecessary.

The quarterly survey produced by the regulator of social housing shows that private registered providers forecast £70.5 billion of investment in the development and acquisition of housing properties in 2021-22. That exceeds the amount in the 12-month forecast reported by the quarterly survey in the year before the pandemic.

I hope that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale will see that we are making significant investment, which will ensure that homes are brought up to a fit standard, and that the available global account data is transparent and clear. Although I am sure that we will have further debates about how much money is being allocated and where it is being spent, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see that, in this particular instance, the new clause is unnecessary.

[Mike Amesbury]

I am sure we will have further discussions on Report, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 22

Assessment of the impact of building safety issues on shared ownership

“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out a review of how the following issues impact on leaseholders of shared ownership leases—

(a) building safety issues,

(b) the amount of funding provided to the social housing to remediate buildings with combustible cladding, and

(c) rules surrounding shared ownership schemes and subletting, and the impact of advice given by his Department on building safety given since 14 July 2017.

(2) The review shall assess whether the issues listed in subsection (1)(a) to (c) has impacted on—

(a) costs incurred by leaseholders of shared ownership leases for remediation and other building safety related costs,

(b) access to mortgage finance by leaseholders of shared ownership leases, and

(c) the mental health and wellbeing of leaseholders of shared ownership leases.

(3) The review must make a recommendation as to whether Government action is necessary to—

(a) ensure adequate transparency is readily provided for leaseholders of shared ownership leases in relation to building safety issues,

(b) ensure future confidence in shared ownership schemes, and

(c) encourage increased rates of leaseholders purchasing remaining shares of their shared ownership lease home.

(4) A report setting out the conclusions of the review as set out in subsection (1) must be laid before each House of Parliament no later than 3 months after the day on which this Act is passed.

‘shared ownership lease’ has the same meaning as in section 76(3) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.”—(Mike Amesbury.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. That is a horrendous case and I hope things are resolved in the not-too-distant future.

Of course, elsewhere in the country, people who own as little as 10% of their flat face astonishing costs. Again, this is despite the Government’s statement that buildings under 18 metres do not generally meet the definition of high risk. This situation requires a rethink of not only how the current crisis is impacting shared ownership leaseholders, but how our shared ownership system is set up and how risks are communicated to shared ownership leaseholders. Shared ownership should mean shared responsibility, not a grotesque responsibility put on people, often on low incomes, that will prevent their being able to join the housing market in other ways, trying to get a foothold on the property ladder, or indeed staircase, into full ownership.

This new clause would ensure that the Government look holistically at the impact of the crisis on shared ownership and their response to it. It would also ensure that the Government provide transparency on the potential building safety implications of shared ownership contracts and reinstate confidence in the shared ownership system.

[Christopher Pincher]

Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising an important point. He is right to draw attention to the effect of building safety issues on leaseholders who purchased their home on a shared ownership basis. However, I do not think that this new clause is necessary, as the Government are already taking decisive action to support building owners to make their buildings safe without passing unavoidable costs to leaseholders of whatever type or tenure.

The Government, as the hon. Gentleman will know, are committed to providing grant funding for the cost of replacing unsafe cladding for all leaseholders in residential buildings of 18 metres and over in England. Shared ownership leaseholders can benefit from that funding on the same terms as other leaseholders. Fire risk is lower in buildings under 18 metres, and costly remediation work is usually not needed, as we have heard from the evidence provided by Dame Judith Hackitt and Sir Ken Knight, the former chief fire officer, earlier this year. Where fire risks are identified, they should always be managed, but managed proportionately.

We are looking closely at the specific issue of the 11 to 18-metre cohort to ensure that everything is being done to protect and support leaseholders, including those who purchased their home on a shared ownership basis. We will bring forward further detail on the support offer for leaseholders in those residential buildings once all the options have been fully considered; we have collected more data, as I may have said previously here and certainly mentioned in the Chamber yesterday.

I appreciate that not all building safety issues relate to unsafe cladding. However, long-standing, independent safety advice has been clear that it is unsafe cladding that poses the greatest risk to buildings because it can fuel a fire. The Government’s approach prioritises action on the risks of unsafe cladding as the costs of remediating it are high and the risks posed are also very high.

That does not mean, however, that we absolve building owners of their responsibilities to ensure that their buildings are safe—far from it. They should continue to pursue all routes to meet the costs, protecting leaseholders from costs where they can. We voted on and agreed to that following our discussion of earlier clauses. We have introduced proposals for a residential property developers tax and for a levy—also a means of ensuring that those who can and should pay do pay.

The new clause refers specifically to the rules around subletting. Let me tell the hon. Member for Weaver Vale that I will be happy to consider how we might make it easier for shared owners affected by building safety issues to sublet their homes when that would help them. That will, of course, depend partly on the acquiescence of their mortgage lender, if they have one. I will have a look at that issue for him.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the important issue of access to mortgage finance. Earlier this year—in July, I think—the Department published an expert statement saying that we do not think there is any systemic risk of fire in buildings under 18 metres, so EWS1 forms should not be required by lenders for those buildings. We have had positive feedback from a number of lenders on that.

The Government introduced a new model of shared ownership in April; it is being delivered through the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme that I referred to earlier. That will ensure that shared ownership is more consumer friendly, easier to access and fairer, and leads to a better experience for a future generation of shared owners. The new model of shared ownership reduces the minimum initial share required for purchase to just 10%, down from 25%, and implements a 10-year period during which the landlord will support shared owners with the costs of maintenance and repairs on new build homes. That will certainly encourage shared ownership.

In the roll-out of the new affordable homes programme, the first £8 billion of the strategic partnership funding has been successfully allocated, which suggests that our strategic partners—local authorities, but largely housing associations—see the opportunities that the new model provides and are prepared to build new shared-ownership properties at affordable prices for more people.

We believe that shared ownership will continue to play a vital role in helping more people to realise their ambition to own their own home; that is why we are investing heavily in it and reforming it. It is also why we are determined to make sure that funding is available to protect shared owners from the unaffordable costs arising from the need to replace unsafe cladding.

In light of the assurances and reassurances that I have tried to provide the hon. Gentleman, I hope that he will withdraw the motion.

[Mike Amesbury]

I welcome the Minister’s assurance and comments on actually doing an assessment of the subletting landscape; opportunities may exist in future. We might come back to the whole area of shared ownership, not only on Report but at other stages of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 23

Review of use of combustible materials

“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review on the use of combustible materials on external walls of buildings.

(2) The review set out in subsection (1) must include an assessment on whether the ban on the use of combustible materials on the external walls of buildings should be extended in scope with regard to—

(a) the types of materials used;

(b) the height threshold of buildings included; and

(c) the type of buildings included

(3) A report setting out the conclusions of the review must be laid before each House of Parliament no later than 6 months after the day on which this Act is passed.”—(Mike Amesbury.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mike Amesbury]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 23 would ensure that the Government publish a review, which they have yet to do, on the use of combustible materials and whether the scope of the current ban should be extended to other materials that are not covered at present; on whether the ban should be extended to a greater number of buildings, by lowering the height; and on the types of buildings included.

Of course, the Government have already commissioned a public consultation on the use of combustible materials on external walls of buildings. It was announced in June 2018, it opened in January 2020 and it closed five months later, but the outcome and Government response have yet to be published. The Government have introduced this Bill, which centres on building safety and seeks to define high risk, before it is clear exactly what the Government will consider to be unsafe cladding.

The Government consultation centred on other aspects, and the new clause raises other aspects, but again we come back to the problem of 18 metres. The scoping document for the consultation states:

“We consider that buildings with a residential use between 11-18m may be subject to similar levels of fire risk to many of those taller than 18m.”

The document states that in the absence of “robust scientific evidence” to support that,

“the best option…is to reduce the height threshold to 11m now”.

Is that still the Government’s opinion? The consultation proposes that that should only apply to buildings going forward. Given the caution we have seen in the market in response to the changes in previous Government guidance, I understand that that could very well have further implications for existing buildings, but the alternative is to continue to allow new buildings to go up with materials that may be unsafe.

It is not acceptable that in the middle of a cladding crisis, the Government still have not published the outcome of the consultation after 18 months, when the consultation itself closed three and a half years after the Grenfell fire. It is not acceptable that, as reported earlier this year, around 70 schools and 25 hospitals and care homes have been constructed with combustible cladding since Grenfell. I urge the Minister to accept the new clause and publish such a review.

[Christopher Pincher]

The Committee should know that the level of risk in buildings is proportionate to their height. That has been reported to us here and in other forums, and it is well understood, so it is appropriate to focus the strict ban on high-rise buildings.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that his new clause, and the intention behind it, is being met by the Government. The Government have already amended the building regulations to ban the use of combustible materials in and on the external walls of new tall buildings in the Building (Amendment) Regulations 2018—SI No. 1230. Combustible materials are not permitted on the external walls of new buildings over 18 metres containing dwellings, or on new hospitals, residential care premises, dormitories in boarding schools and student accommodation over 18 metres in height. We have restricted the use of materials in the external walls and specified attachments of those buildings to those achieving the top two “reaction to fire” classifications.

We are already committed to reviewing the ban annually through advice from bodies such as the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, as made clear in the explanatory memorandum published alongside the amendment made to the building regulations to ban the use of combustible materials in and on the external walls of buildings.

As the hon. Gentleman has identified, a review was conducted in 2019 and the Government subsequently published in January 2020 a consultation on proposed changes to the ban. The consultation included proposals to amend the scope, using a height threshold and the buildings covered. The consultation received, I think, 850 responses. We continue to analyse those responses to ensure that we achieve the right and proper, and best, outcome. I am entirely determined to make sure that that happens as rapidly as possible, and certainly to make sure that we respond effectively to that consultation. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the new clause.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the Minister for his response. In terms of publication, can he put a date on that?

[Christopher Pincher]

In very due course.

[Mike Amesbury]

In the spirit of collaboration, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 24

Review of Government support for building safety matters

“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of Government support of building safety matters, including but not limited to an assessment of the adequacy of—

(a) the measures in this Act, and

(b) the Building Safety fund and its use.

(2) A report setting out the conclusions of the review as set out in subsection (1) must be laid before each House of Parliament no later than 3 months after the day on which this Act is passed.”—(Mike Amesbury.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mike Amesbury]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is fantastic to be able to say this: this final new clause—[Hon Members: “Hear, hear!”]—gives us an opportunity to look both at the Bill’s measures and at the support available for building safety, because it relates to the adequacy of the building safety fund. I want to concentrate primarily, and fairly briefly, on the use of funding with regard to management fees, agents and product managers, and on the role of managing agents and freeholders in agreeing funding contracts.

Recent Government statistics show that 600 buildings had remediation costs of £2.5 billion. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether the Government’s building safety funding covers that total cost, or are parts of it not covered? The cost per building is about £4 million. Having been contacted by leaseholders across the country, I know that the fees charged by some managing agents and project managers are taking up to 14% of the total building remediation costs, as is the case with a building in Manchester. If the remediation costs of that building reach the £4 million mark, over half a million pounds will go to managing agents and project managers.

Back in June, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), the shadow Housing Secretary, was told in response to a question that the Government were not tracking the management and administration fees that leaseholders were being charged for applications for grants from the building safety fund. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have begun to look at the overall amount that agents are charging for applications to the building safety fund? Is the Department looking at the management and professional fees that are being charged for individual applications? With only £5.1 billion in the Government’s pot, we cannot afford for agents to charge the taxpayer and resident leaseholders more than is fair for their time and work.

Fees are even higher for the waking watch relief fund, with one agent charging over a third of the cost of installing a fire alarm. I have also recently been made aware of a case in which agents are threatening to charge leaseholders for the cost of the failed building safety application. A failed application, on top of the threat, also means that leaseholders face the cost of being issued with invoices to fix the mess in that particular building. There is clearly little impetus for professionals to adopt a true risk-based approach if fees are based on percentage rates of works required. The situation is only made worse with concerns over professional indemnity insurance, leading to risk-averse advice on remediation from fire engineer experts, as we have heard throughout this Committee.

As I have said in debates on a good few amendments up until now, a centralised and co-ordinated building assessment strategy would go a long way towards mitigating the wide range of fees levied and would help guarantee a consistent approach to managing the current pot of funds. I hereby move this last new clause.

[Christopher Pincher]

Although the hon. Gentleman says that this is his last new clause, sadly it is not mine, but we are nearly there. I am grateful to the Committee for its indulgence, patience and good humour throughout the several sittings in which we have enjoyed one another’s company.

I will talk about the tracking of fees in response to some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions in a moment, but I assure him that his intentions are already being met in the Bill by clause 139, which we debated last Thursday. That clause provides for a widely framed review of the effectiveness of the building regulatory regime, which includes building safety. The review will form part of the programme of reviews conducted or commissioned by the Department, which includes a review considering whether architectural practices should also be regulated.

To clarify, during the debate on clause 135 it was mentioned that clause 138 deals with the regulation of architecture firms, but I ought to confirm that the Architects Registration Board regulates only individual architects, rather than practices. I was told to tell the Committee that and so, being a good Minister, I have.

Returning to clause 139, it provides the Secretary of State with the discretion to specify wider matters for the reviewer to consider. That could include an assessment of the performance of the building safety fund—the performance of the fee mechanism and how fees are charged and paid. The tracking of performance may be another area that the review could consider.

The three-month timescale indicated in the new clause is impractical. The transition plan, which was published alongside the Building Safety Bill, indicates that the majority of the provisions will not be enacted until 12 to 18 months after the Bill achieves Royal Assent. Therefore, a review after three months—when many of the Bill’s provisions will not have even begun or, if they have, will be very nascent—would be insufficient to assess the adequacy of those provisions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that practical challenge. Furthermore, we do not think that the short period of operation for those that will be in effect gives enough time to consider their effectiveness.

It is our position that five years is a reasonable period to allow for the establishment of the BSR, after which a reviewer will be able to consider an established regulatory system. If the hon. Gentleman has specific concerns about the building safety fund, I shall be happy to hear about them. We have always had a good relationship across the Chamber. I am conscious, as I am sure he will be, that there are many mechanisms that the House of Commons may use to achieve proper scrutiny of Ministers and arm’s length Government bodies and funds for which both are accountable. I look forward to that scrutiny and having a proper, timely review process to scrutinise and assess the way in which the building safety regime, including the building safety fund, is run over the longer term. With that explanation, I respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his new clause.

[Mike Amesbury]

We all have a shared interest in ensuring that the maximum amount of funding provided by the taxpayers goes towards remediating buildings and making them safe. I will follow up on the Minister’s kind offer to look at buildings on a case-by-case basis. I have referred to one, but people have certainly expressed concerns about the management and project fees charged for other buildings. Based on that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

Overview of Act

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Christopher Pincher]

Only in the wonderful, marvellous, mysterious process that is House of Commons procedure could we come to clause 1 at the end of our deliberations on all the clauses. None the less, I am pleased to invite the Committee to debate it now. The Committee will no doubt be very familiar with the clauses of the Bill, but for the purposes of total completeness—we have an hour and 13 minutes left—I will inform the Committee of what the clause sets out.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)]

Briefly!

[Christopher Pincher]

The first clause—briefly, Mrs Miller—acts as an overview of its constituent parts, which for the benefit of the Committee I may just run through again—or maybe I won’t. There are six parts and they contain provisions intended to secure the safety of people in or about buildings and to improve the standard of buildings.

Part 1 is purely an introductory overview. Part 2 establishes the Building Safety Regulator, sets out its functions in relation to buildings in England and provides key powers to enable it to undertake its functions. Part 3 amends the Building Act 1984, setting out the provisions for the new regulatory regime during the design and construction phase of the buildings in scope of the said regime. It also provides for the registration of building inspectors and building control approvers to improve competence levels through better regulation. Part 4 is concerned with buildings in scope during their occupation. It defines and places duties on the accountable person for building safety risks in their building and improves on aspects of accountability such as engagement with residents and the transparency of building safety information.

Part 5 details further provisions regarding safety and standards. For example, it provides arrangements for a new homes ombudsman scheme, requiring developers to become and remain members of it. It creates powers to make provisions about construction products. It removes the democratic filter that requires social housing residents to refer unresolved complaints to a designated person or wait eight weeks before they can access redress through the housing ombudsman. It also changes certain provisions in relation to the procedures of the Architects Registration Board. The aim is that an architect will be able to appeal against a decision taken by the ARB to remove them from the register, and I will consider whether a non-judicial appeal route should also be made available for architects to challenge such a decision.

Finally, part 6 contains general clauses about the commencement of the Bill’s provisions and covers applications to the Crown and other standard clauses. Clause 1 is uncontentious. It is an important overview intended to detail the Bill’s thematic structure, which is perhaps why it is so very dry. It may have been surmised during the passage of this Committee’s deliberations that many of the individual clauses and their amendments are rather dry. None the less, they have an important intent: to ensure that this country’s building safety is improved significantly, so that all sectors of society, be they developers, local authorities, architects and designers, building owners or residents, can have confidence in the industry that designs, builds and supports the homes in which people live. Members may have disagreed from time to time on matters in the Bill, but none of us disagrees about what we intend of it.

I am grateful to you, Mrs Miller, and the other Chairs for the occasional indulgence that you have allowed us. I am grateful to all the Clerks and the officials of the House for their support in bringing this Committee stage to a conclusion. I am grateful to my officials for all that they have done to provide us with the details and data to allow us to debate these provisions effectively. I am grateful to the Committee for the collegiate and collaborative way in which everybody has contributed to what we will report to the House. On that basis, and with an hour and eight minutes in hand, I commend clause 1 to the Committee.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank you, Mrs Miller, and Mr Davies, Mr Dowd and Mr Efford for chairing proceedings professionally and impartially over the past few weeks. I thank the Clerks and all the staff on the parliamentary estate. I also thank every member of this Committee, from both sides of the House. We have had passion, consideration and great, appropriate humour from time to time. I am sure that on Report, and during the other stages of the Bill, we will collectively contribute towards making people safer in safer buildings.

Building Safety Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Amesbury]

Her Majesty’s Opposition support the new clause. Fundamentally, and collectively, we will use every opportunity to try to protect leaseholders from historical remediation charges. As the hon. Member for St Albans argued, where there is a will, there is certainly a way.

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and I welcome the Committee to the last day of its deliberations on the Bill—and also, may I say, the 70th anniversary of the re-election of Sir Winston Churchill’s 1951 Government, which of course was a great home-building Government.

I thank the hon. Member for St Albans for having raised this important matter, and I entirely understand the motivations that lie behind her attempts to insert this new clause into the Bill, but I am afraid that I will not be able to accept it. Let me explain why, but first, by way of parenthesis, remind the Committee of the unprecedented commitment that the Government have already made: £5 billion of taxpayers’ money invested in grant funding for cladding remediation in buildings of 18 metres and above. As we know, that will protect hundreds of thousands of leaseholders from the cost of remediating unsafe cladding on their homes. We are also stepping in to provide a generous finance scheme for the remediation of lower-rise and, to that extent, lower-risk buildings, which we will say more about later.

I am afraid that our assessment of this proposed new clause is that, although it is well intentioned, it is disproportionate and does not strike the right balance between funding from the private and public purse. If passed, this new clause would mean that private and social buildings of any height could potentially be designated as defective and be eligible for grant funding of 90% of the property’s value, or repurchase by the local authority if we take the two measures together. New clause 3 lacks detail about the types of dwelling covered and clarity about the types of remediation or remediation works to be covered, which provides ample scope and grounds for all sorts of legal interpretation. It is important that our funding decisions are proportional, to ensure that taxpayers’ money is used effectively and protected as far as possible.

I should also point out the unintended—and I am sure that it is unintended—but necessarily consequential effect that this new clause would have on local government. It would place a responsibility on local authorities to purchase defective properties, which in a number of cases would place significant strain on those local authorities. In the past two years, Wandsworth has seen an average uplift in funding of 4.5%. The figure in Lewisham is 5%, and in Enfield it is 4.8%. The Committee needs to recognise the excessive burden that potential costs may impose on local government.

The hon. Member for St Albans mentioned the Housing Defects Act 1984, which is the predecessor of the 1985 Act that this new clause seeks to amend. That Act was designed for very different conditions: the policy was introduced due to issues with the post-war social housing stock. If we compare the costs of the 1984 scheme to which she referred with those of today, we see that the cost burden then was substantially lower than the estimates for remediation required now. In today’s money, the Housing Defects Act was about three times less costly in terms of grant funding than present remediation costs.

The hon. Lady said in her remarks—I entirely understand why she made them—that there are obstacles to the success of this new clause, and that it is for the Government to find a way. I gently say to the Committee that it is for whoever tables a new clause to find a way to make it work, because it is not the job of this Committee to make bad or defective laws, suggestions or reports to the House of Commons. Proposed new clauses or amendments need to be able to work; otherwise it is the Committee’s duty to ask the proposer to withdraw the motion or to vote against it because it does not do the job for which it is intended. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her suggestions, but I respectfully ask that she withdraw the proposed new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the hon. Member for St Albans for introducing and explaining the new clause. Again, Labour supports the fundamental principle of rectifying the situation for the hundreds of thousands of people caught in the building safety scandal—to find, fund, fix and recover, using the polluter-pays principle.

[Christopher Pincher]

Again, I am grateful to the hon. Member for St Albans for the new clause and for how she comported herself. She mentioned the outstanding parliamentary question and, once the Committee concludes today, I will search for it, search for the answer, and ensure that she receives it as quickly as possible.

While I understand the intent behind the new clause, I am unable to accept it today. I believe it is unnecessary, as its intention is already being met. As the hon. Lady said, and as I have expressed previously, significant funding for leaseholders and for remediation is being made available, and I will unpack some of that for the Committee.

The hon. Lady will know that we are spending a significant amount of money on the remediation of in-scope high-rise buildings that are clad with ACM. For 97% of ACM-clad buildings, remediation has either happened or is under way. For socially owned ACM-clad buildings, 100% have been or are being remediated. We have also made available money through the building safety fund to ensure that non-ACM-clad buildings are made safe. So far, £734 million has been allocated. A significant number of buildings have begun their remediation process and 689 have been allocated support.

We have also said that we will bring forward proposals to ensure that appropriate support is available to leaseholders and building owners in the 11 to 18-metre cohort. We are doing further work to assess the prevalence of such buildings, and that will inform the final solution that we land on. We are considering all options to ensure that leaseholders are protected and helped.

The hon. Lady asked whether we believe in the polluter-pays principle. It is a rather—how can I put it?—crude term, but we certainly want to ensure that those who have the responsibility for the defects that have bedevilled so many buildings, and those who own them, pay what they are due. That is why we have announced a residential property developers tax, which we estimate will raise £2 billion. Clause 57, which we have agreed to, gives powers for a building safety levy on high-rise developers. We estimate that that will account for some half a billion pounds of income, and that is due at the gateway to approval stage for the new building safety regime. We certainly believe that those who have the broadest shoulders and those who are responsible for the defects that affect a great many buildings should pay their way, but we believe that the new clause will not work because implementing it will be costly, slow and disproportionate to the financial returns and their timely receipt, and that the Government will need to create a new administrative board to manage the fund.

I should tell the hon. Lady and the Committee that the new clause also risks the mortgage and insurance industries bringing significant and protracted legal challenges. We want them to undertake a much more proportionate and sensible approach to value ascription and risk definition, rather than the risk-averse, computer-says-no approach that they have taken to date. I think this amendment would obscure that sensible and simple objective.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Why is something along the lines that the hon. Member for St Albans proposes not appropriate here but appropriate for the Motor Insurers Bureau? What else is the Minister doing to address the retrospective challenge of those buildings that are already built? The proposal he mentioned is for new buildings that will be completed only once this legislation is enacted.

[Christopher Pincher]

The hon. Lady is simply wrong; what I am saying is entirely retrospective. The £5.1 billion we have allocated for high-rise in-scope buildings is already allocated, and that is for buildings that already exist. The funding mechanism we will bring forward for buildings in the 11 to 18-metre cohort is for buildings that already exist, and the moneys that will be collected through the levy and the tax can be used for buildings requiring remediation that already exist.

[Ruth Cadbury]

With respect to the Minister, the point that this amendment makes is to ensure that the polluter pays. The grant from the Government appears to be all taxpayers’ money and, from what I can tell, the Government are taking no action to hold to account financially those developers and builders who are the cause of the problem for residents now.

[Christopher Pincher]

Again, the hon. Lady is wrong; the residential property developer tax is a tax on the developer sector. The high-rise levy is a levy on the developer sector. We want to ensure we have a mechanism, and we believe we do have one, that is speedy, targeted and suitably flexible to meet the challenges of what we know to be a new—in the sense that it was not recognised until the Grenfell disaster—and evolving terrain.

[Daisy Cooper]

On the point about the residential property developer tax, which has been leaked to the press in advance of tomorrow’s Budget, can the Minister confirm whether that will bring in additional money beyond the £5.1 billion that the Government have put forward, or will the residential property developer tax bring in money that will then add up to the £5.1 billion? Is it new money on top of that, or will it reduce the amount of money the Government have to spend?

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

Whatever the hon. Lady has read in the newspapers before the Budget and the spending review, I can assure her that I will not add to the Chancellor’s woes or indeed the annoyance of Mr Speaker by making further comments about it before it takes place.

With respect to the new clause, we believe there is a risk that it will not allow us to levy moneys effectively from the builders insurance and mortgage sectors. We do not believe that the design and implementation challenges of the amendment will result in a material return for the resources that will be expended to deliver it.

Finally, there may be an unintended and undesirable further outcome, which is that a levy on insurers and lenders could very well—indeed, probably will—affect insurance premiums and the cost of borrowing for leaseholders. Given the challenges they already face, that is something I am sure we would wish to avoid.

[Mike Amesbury]

The hon. Member for St Albans asked whether the levy, the proposed tax that was leaked to the press by Her Majesty’s Treasury, made up part of the £5.1 billion. I note that the Minister did not answer that point, but it would be useful in terms of the journey of today’s new clauses if he could answer that question.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am happy to say that we expect that to be additional funding, but I will certainly not comment further on what the Chancellor may or may not say in his remarks—[Interruption.] It is in the newspapers; it is not on the record. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale is heckling from a sedentary position, but he needs to recognise the essential difference between what Ministers say and what newspaper journalists interpret them as saying, even before they have said it. There is a fundamental difference. He may be sitting at the feet or bending the knee at the altar of Lord Mandelson, but we must not do that.

In effect, by levying on builders and mortgage providers, the cost will rightly fall on the doorsteps of all homeowners, and potentially on those in the rental sector too. I entirely understand where the hon. Member for St Albans is coming from, and where she wants to go to, but I respectfully request again that she withdraws the new clause, not least because—finally—a number of such amendments and new clauses have been tabled over the past several months, some of which were associated with what is now the Fire Safety Act 2021.

Those proposed amendments were wide-ranging in their ambit and would have allowed, potentially, for a leaseholder to claim for a defective fire alarm that was 10 years old—defective potentially as a result of their own action. We would all—most reasonable people—accept, and those who are suffering the terror, the horror, of being trapped in a building they cannot sell because of this terrible scandal would also accept, that such a liability on a freeholder or builder would be unfair and improper, and might indeed risk what one might call a remediation industry building up, which would not help anyone. I am afraid that the wide ambit of new clauses such as this present an opportunity for that sort of misuse to occur.

I understand all the points that the hon. Lady has made, but I invite her again to withdraw her new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

The two new clauses speak to the recommendations of the Hackitt review—one more generally, and one on a specific point raised in the review. I will speak first to new clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). She has raised the issue before, and I believe she will do so again in the passage of the Bill. The new clause does not require any immediate action from the Government, other than carrying out a review of the impact on building safety of payment practices and associated commercial practices such as lowest-price bidding and onerous contracts. It embraces concerns expressed by Dame Judith Hackitt in chapter 9 of her May 2018 report, “Building a Safer Future”.

In her review, Dame Judith Hackitt lamented the lack of any “requirement or incentive” to prioritise building safety in procurement decisions, stating that the situation is further aggravated by

“unhelpful behaviours such as contract terms and payment practices which prioritise speed and low-cost solutions”.

The new clause requires the Secretary of State to review the impact of lowest-price procurement, poor payment practices and onerous terms and conditions on building safety, and to make recommendations to Parliament for regulatory and policy changes. It presents an opportunity not just to reset the regulatory framework but to address the commercial behaviours that compromise building safety.

New clause 19 was tabled in a similar spirit, despite its wider scope. The Government committed to implement the recommendations of the Hackitt review at the end of 2018. The Bill holds many of the reforms that were recommended. The new clause simply ensures that the Government publish an assessment of their implementation of the Hackitt recommendations within a year of the Bill passing. Given its centrality in implementing the recommendations alongside the Fire Safety Act 2021, and the significant amount of secondary legislation yet to be published even in draft form to support it, it is right that we take stock of how well it reaches its intended goal of implementing the findings after the regulations come into force.

As well as the issues covered by the new clause, there are questions to be asked about the extent of the review’s implementation of aspects including the regulation of building control for buildings under 18 metres and changes to the future testing regime for construction products—both important parts of Dame Judith’s recommendations. The new clause also includes mention of the need to assess changes to the construction culture in parts of Hackitt’s recommendations—something shared by all members of the Committee throughout the last three weeks. It is mentioned more than 40 times in the Hackitt report as an essential factor, alongside changes to regulation, developing good practice and ensuring well-built and safe homes in the future.

I ask the Minister to accept the new clause.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. I understand his intent and desire, through new clause 8, to ensure that common practices in the way that payments are charged and made within the built environment industry are incentivised so that building safety and quality are central to decision making. I also recognise—I think we all do—the argument that poor, adversarial practices can lead to unsafe, low-quality building safety outcomes, as well as poor value for money. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that we agree that this is an important issue.

Work with the industry to ensure fair and prompt payment and procurement practices is being addressed across several Departments. The Government’s construction playbook, which captures commercial best practices, is resetting the relationship between the construction industry and the Government. Making the process more strategic and collaborative, and focused on delivering a more sustainable, modern industry, better able to deliver high-quality built assets for its clients, is essential and crucial.

The Construction Leadership Council also has a business models workstream, whose work includes collaborative contractual practices; adoption of fairer payment practices; eliminating the need for retentions; and supporting the introduction of other complementary procurement approaches, such as the value toolkit and the construction playbook, which I have already mentioned.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Hackitt report. Following the Hackitt report, we also set up the procurement advisory group to advise on procurement practices in higher risk buildings and to provide independent advice on implementing the recommendations of chapter 9 of the report, which focuses on procurement. As part of that, we have sponsored the creation of guidance on how the industry can implement collaborative approaches to procurement, to deliver those safe buildings and to tackle poor behaviours across the supply chain. It will outline how those approaches support the future regulatory regime as set out in the Bill.

The group will then work with the industry to implement the principles of the guidance as widely as possible. The guidance will be iterative and will be reviewed in line with any amendment to the Bill ahead of Royal Assent; of course, as the hon. Gentleman will know, amendments can be tabled on Report as well as in the other place.

Our approach is to support the industry to develop industry-led solutions, rather than further regulation: creating regulation when that is necessary, rather than when we can do it. We want it to be meaningful and owned by the industry, which is vital in order to create the leadership and culture change we have agreed is needed to support the important changes introduced in the Bill.

Through our engagement, we encourage a focus on obtaining the best value, rather than the lowest cost in procurement practices. We recognise the importance of setting clear parameters for how construction services are procured at the start of a project, and how that drives the correct behaviours throughout the project supply chain. We encourage those involved in procurement practices to show leadership in that regard and to embed good practice.

The competence of those involved in procurement was also considered in detail by the industry-led competence steering group, and we encourage the industry to continue to develop and implement the competence framework for the sector. The Bill already ensures accountability for safety throughout the lifecycle of a building—I think we have agreed on that—and that risks are held and managed by the appropriate people. Our efforts are therefore rightly focused on delivering a more risk-proportionate building safety regime where life safety risks are tackled swiftly, but disproportionate caution and excessive costs are avoided.

We do not believe it would be proportionate to legislate for the way the construction industry charges or for the payment practices of private and commercial businesses. The new clause would be a significant expansion of the scope of the Bill, and could risk the timetable of our introduction of the new regime. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important matter, and I do not for a moment dispute his commitment to it. However, I respectfully ask him to withdraw the new clause.

I will briefly cover new clause 19. The Committee knows that the Bill provides a widely-framed review of the whole building safety regime, covering in-scope higher-risk buildings and out-of-scope buildings in clause 139, which was debated and agreed last Thursday. By comparison, the new clause would provide for a limited, one-off review within a year of Royal Assent. I do not believe that would practical, or that it would allow sufficient time for the new building safety system to be established or give the new building safety regulator the opportunity to deliver against the recommendations set out in the independent review of building regulations and fire safety. Therefore, I do not think that requiring an early review would have the intended effect.

The Government believe it is important to protect the independence of the review. As a result, we have not specified with whom the reviewer must consult when conducting the review and have allowed them to consult as widely as they see fit. The independent reviewer may choose to accept evidence from any interested party.

Clause 139 requires the Secretary of State to appoint a reviewer within five years of the Bill receiving Royal Assent and, thereafter, within five years of the previous appointment. It also allows the Secretary of State, in extremis, to ask for an earlier review within that five-year cycle. Therefore, unlike new clause 19, which is a one-off assessment, we are providing for an ongoing check on the building safety and construction products regulatory systems throughout their lifespan.

Given the establishment of a new system of regulation for building safety, including fire safety and defect remediation, it may not be practicable to conduct another comprehensive review similar in scope to the one undertaken by Dame Judith Hackitt sooner than the five-year limit stipulated by clause 139, unless in extremis the Secretary of State directs otherwise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 9 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of formal co-operation on building safety standards across the United Kingdom, in recognition that sharing best practice could promote improved building safety standards in all four nations.

There are two reasons behind new clause 9. First, the UK Government could learn from our neighbours, particularly in Scotland. Although only one high-rise building in Scotland—in Glasgow—has been found to have the ACM cladding that was responsible for the Grenfell tragedy, all owners of flats who have cladding have been offered free safety assessments to see if other types of cladding need to be removed.

In addition, the Scottish Government have established a ministerial working group on mortgage lending and cladding; this includes homeowners, insurers, legal professionals, housing associations and the fire service. When we were discussing a previous new clause, the Minister made it clear that he wanted to look at these issues. New clause 9 would provide the forum within which the UK Government could look at this model, and see what could be learned from the ministerial group on mortgage lending and cladding.

The Scottish Government made swift moves to ensure that the unnecessary EWS1 form certification was no longer needed. Arguably, there is also the case that through a forum like this the UK Government could reflect on whether Scottish building regulations, which have diverged from UK-wide fire safety standards since 2005, were able to prevent a widespread crisis like the one we have had here in England.

There is a second, less obvious reason why the clause could establish improvements in building safety standards. During the course of the evidence sessions, we heard from the Fire Brigades Union, who described the current state of affairs as “pretty abysmal”. They gave as an example the fact that fire officers had, for many years, noticed that fires were starting to spread faster and there was no way of getting that information to those in power. They cited as the problem that the Central Fire Brigade Advisory Council, which was established by the Fire Services Act 1947, had been abolished by the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.

This new clause, which looks at best practices across all four nations, could perhaps be part of a new tapestry, where any new problems that arise in the future as a result of new materials or new modes of construction could quickly be discussed across all four nations and be brought to the attention of Government.

[Christopher Pincher]

The hon. Lady may find that a theme is developing here and it is one of collegiality—I trust she will agree. I thank her for raising this important matter. Given that it is a Union matter, it is sometimes rather more complicated and, shall we say, delicate. I applaud the intent of the new clause, but I again ask her to withdraw it rather than asking us to accept it, because I do not think that it would achieve its intended effect. It could also, we believe, impede already existing and pretty effective relationships with the devolved Administrations.

However, I assure the hon. Lady that the Government have already established very close official-level working relationships on building safety with the devolved Administrations, as part of the BSP—the building safety programme. In fact, meetings with representatives of all three devolved Administrations take place at least fortnightly, enabling the sharing of information and latest policy developments and intentions. I will give the Committee an example. We have been working closely with the Welsh Government, including in relation to applying part 3 of the Bill to Wales. We are also liaising closely with both Scotland and Northern Ireland.

As the hon. Lady will be aware, the Bill will create a stronger and clearer construction products regulatory regime, which will apply to the whole United Kingdom. Building safety is a devolved matter, but the products regime will apply to the whole UK, and that will pave the way for a national regulator for construction products with a UK-wide remit to lead and co-ordinate enforcement of the new rules.

In January this year, we announced that that national regulator will be established within the Office for Product Safety and Standards, which gave evidence to this Committee in the witness sessions and which will receive up to £10 million this financial year to set up the new function. There is in the Bill a range of other provisions that apply to one or all of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and which we have debated previously.

As the hon. Lady will appreciate and as I have said already, unlike the regulation of construction products, building safety is a devolved matter and rightly, therefore, decisions on policy in that area ultimately rest with the devolved Administrations themselves. It is therefore important that we maintain the existing, well established relationships rather than perhaps foisting new and unexpected ones on those Administrations.

Taking all those factors into account and entirely understanding what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve, I hope that she will accept our assessment that formalising information-sharing and consultation mechanisms as she is suggesting could impede and slow down our existing mechanisms to ensure building safety standards in each of our four nations. I respectfully invite her to withdraw the new clause.

[Daisy Cooper]

I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurances about the close working relationship with the devolved nations, and interested to hear about the fortnightly meetings. If those meetings are happening every fortnight, that does, I say respectfully, beg the question as to why the Scottish Government have set up the ministerial working group on mortgage lending and cladding, and dealt with the EWS1 form, yet the UK Government are still battling with both.

The Minister mentioned that it is important not to step on the toes of the powers of the devolved nations. I absolutely, wholeheartedly agree with that, but my suggestion was that the UK Government could in fact learn from the devolved nations rather than imposing anything on them. None the less, I am grateful to have those reassurances and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

Assessment of building safety and emergency status

“(1) The Secretary of State must, as soon as reasonably practicable, conduct an assessment of the overall state of building safety and building fire safety defect remediation in England and lay before Parliament a report of that assessment.

(2) The report must include an assessment of whether the matters in subsection (1) constitute an emergency for the purposes of Section 1(1)(a) of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare in a place in the United Kingdom).

(3) In conducting the assessment, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) fire safety experts,

(b) leaseholders and their representatives,

(c) social housing tenants,

(d) local authorities,

(e) trade unions, and

(f) safety and construction industry bodies.”—(Daisy Cooper.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct an assessment of the state of building safety and fire safety defect remediation in England.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the hon. Member for St Albans for powerfully arguing the case for the new clause. As she stated, it is now nearly five years since Grenfell, when 72 people tragically lost their lives. A broad-scoped, urgent assessment is now needed, so the official Opposition support the new clause.

[Christopher Pincher]

If you will indulge me for a moment, Mr Dowd, I will briefly respond to a point that the hon. Member for St Albans made previously about the reasons behind the Scottish Government setting up a particular committee. Scotland has a different legal infrastructure and different financial mechanisms; that may well be one of the reasons why they have chosen to set up that committee, but that is, as I am sure she will appreciate, a matter for them.

I appreciate the hon. Lady raising this important point, in a similar vein to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale and new clause 8. However, in a similar vein, I trust that she will feel able to withdraw the new clause once I have concluded my remarks. The Bill already provides for a widely framed review of the whole building safety system. That will cover in-scope high-rise and higher risk buildings, and out-of-scope buildings through clause 139, which we debated and agreed to last week. By comparison, it is also rather akin to new clause 8. This new clause covers a more narrow subject matter, giving—entirely unintentionally, I am sure—no consideration to the independence of the review. When included alongside clause 139, which already stands part of the Bill, it would cause duplication and confusion.

As I said previously, I want to assure the hon. Lady that we recognise the intention behind her new clause, but we submit that it has been met in clause 139, which creates a non-prescriptive framework for the appointment of an independent person to review the work and the effectiveness of the Building Safety Regulator, the regulatory system for building safety, the national regulator for construction products, and the regulatory system for construction products. We therefore believe that the topics specified in new clause 10 are already covered by clause 139.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth for raising this important matter and to other Committee members for speaking honestly and eloquently on it.

The Government recognise—I certainly recognise—the difficult situation that many leaseholders have found or find themselves in, not least the financial implications and the emotional strain that it has placed on many people. We are aware of the research that has been conducted in the sector on the effects of building safety on leaseholders and their wider family and friends. The findings are sobering. They highlight the significant effect that building safety issues have on leaseholders and further demonstrate the importance of our work to improve building safety.

However, an important principle underpins access to mental health support: it must be based on clinical need. That must be right. It should be the right of everyone who needs that support to get it, without regard to any legislative or political pressure. If any individual, regardless of where they live, requires mental health support, they can contact their general practitioner to discuss those issues so that they may be referred to mental health services as appropriate. Information is available at GP surgeries and on the NHS website about how to access that. While I appreciate the points made by Committee members, we need to be careful, because the new clause cannot and, indeed, should not change the current approach to delivering these important services.

That is why, while I understand the motivation behind it, the Government cannot support the new clause, and why I will in due course ask the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth to withdraw it. It has implications not simply for building safety and my Department, but for how the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care provide such services.

Making homes safer will benefit leaseholders, and that is what we must be and are focused on. The Government are fully committed to making homes across our country safer, and that is why we are implementing the recommendations of the Judith Hackitt report. We also want people to be safe, and that is why we have since 2017 invested in more mental health nurses and services.

Throughout the work to reform building safety, the Government have regularly and extensively engaged with leaseholder groups. My noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, his predecessor and his predecessor’s predecessor have done that extensively since the Grenfell disaster. We recognise and understand the effects on a leaseholder who lives or who has lived in an unsafe high-rise building. That is why the Government have taken a range of steps to support leaseholders.

Given the tone of the debate on the new clause, I will not reamplify and recapitulate the support that the Government have given, and will continue to give, to leaseholders. There may be some disagreement about that support, but there is common understanding of our intent.

Through the Bill, we have a common intent to bring through new stronger protections for leaseholders and residents, providing them with the assurance that their buildings and the risks are being effectively managed, and that they are well informed and are given the chance to participate in the decisions that affect their building’s safety. Where the performance of those responsible for building safety falls short, there will be a clear route to have concerns heard and dealt with, backed by the new Building Safety Regulator. The regulator will have the powers necessary to put things right and tackle underperformance, giving residents and owners peace of mind.

We do not believe that a Government review of the effect on mental health is an appropriate or practicable approach. The practical effect of such a report might well be to recommend that mental health service provision be made to all leaseholders and possibly the wider community.

[Mike Amesbury]

How will the Minister and the Department approach helping the 90% of leaseholders surveyed who are affected by anxiety and mental health issues? What co-ordination is there between the Department and, for example, the national health service or other appropriate services?

[Christopher Pincher]

The national health service has well-established means of providing services through both primary and secondary care to the people, based on need and at no cost to them at that point in time. That has been a well-established principle since 1948. GPs can signpost their patients to appropriate resources in the NHS to provide them with the services they need, as can services such as 111 or the Government website, which indicate how people with difficulties can use the NHS.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

I thank the Minister for his response to new clause 11. I am not sure whether he truly understands the impact of the building safety crisis on people, or he does but has no intention of dealing with it. I fear sometimes that it is the former. Only yesterday, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Ministers were advocating shared ownership—a subset of leaseholders. They are advocating that more people get into this mess, rather than addressing the impact on those who are already in it.

My colleagues spoke about the impact of homelessness, which causes mental health stress. On that point, people never expected to be a burden on the state for their housing situation. People did the right thing and got on the housing ladder—an aspiration of over 90% of people in this country. They got a loan and are paying for their home. Sometimes they are paying less in mortgage payments than they were in rent. That was before the charges started going up, of course. When those people become homeless, they add to the numbers of those who are already homeless. That situation will only apply to those whom the council have a duty to house, such as those with school-age children or who are vulnerable in some way, adding to the pressures on councils and the taxpayer. Of course, it will also add to the pockets of many private landlords.

Homelessness has a mental health impact, but it also has other impacts. There is an educational impact on children, who have to move schools because the only home their family is given is miles away. Many have to give up their job because they have been moved so far away that they can no longer travel to work. The Minister said, very helpfully, that anybody suffering from mental health problems can make contact with their GP. Is he not aware of the pressure on GPs at the moment? When did he or a member of his family last get an appointment within two weeks, which is often the wait time?

[Christopher Pincher]

The hon. Lady seems to be conflating the timescale to the end of this difficult pandemic, the point at which the Bill will become law and when the report she asks for, if the new clause is accepted, will be made, and therefore the effect of the new clause on GPs. It is the case that GPs are under pressure. I am simply making clear the present process for people to access mental health services, which I think was the point that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale made to me.

[Ruth Cadbury]

The Minister was obviously not aware of the crisis in the primary care workforce before the health crisis; certainly, at our GP surgery, we were waiting more than two weeks for an appointment before March last year. The Government have known for years that there are too few GPs, and of course the pressure is getting even worse through covid. However, let us move on.

If one sees a GP because of a mental health concern and the GP accepts the seriousness of that concern, they will then have to do a referral. Waiting times for a clinical assessment, and beyond that, treatment, are growing all the time, and already were before covid struck.

[Christopher Pincher]

Will the hon. Lady explain how the making of a report will practically improve access to mental health services for the people who she quite properly says are affected by the building safety crisis?

[Ruth Cadbury]

First, it will acknowledge, in property law, that there is an impact on people of the lack of appropriate action by the Government. Secondly, when the Government actually accept the polluter pays principle, including builders and developers of existing homes, which is where the main concern is at the moment, they could recoup some of the costs from those builders and developers, which could contribute to additional mental health support. The importance of the new clause is to acknowledge that the building safety crisis is an awful lot more than a building safety crisis; it is a people crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

In presenting this new clause, I know hon. Members—hopefully those on both sides of the Chamber—will have evidence of examples in their constituencies. I urge the Minister and the Department to accept this quite simple new clause, which would ensure that within a year, a review is done of this toxic situation with the insurance industry. Is it profiteering? I do not know; that is why we need the review. The review will also look at the problem of professional indemnity insurance, which I suggest is more important than ever if we look at the plethora of new professionals that we will create in this landscape.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for again raising this important matter. I appreciate the issue that the new clause seeks to tackle: the challenge of freeholders and leaseholders of some residential buildings, in particular those that need remediation, who are struggling to obtain affordable buildings insurance; and the challenge faced by some construction professionals —the fire-safety professionals in particular—in obtaining affordable professional indemnity insurance.

As the hon. Gentleman said, engaging with the insurance sector and other relevant stakeholders—which the Government are doing on an ongoing basis—is vital to understanding the effects of building safety issues on insurance provision. We want—he has heard me say it before, and in no way do I apologise for saying it again— insurers to take a more proportionate approach in terms of the availability and cost of insurance, just as much as we want lenders to take a more proportionate approach with respect to mortgage lending.

The intention of the hon. Gentleman’s new clause—to improve access to affordable residential professional indemnity insurance—we believe should be met by other provisions in the Bill. Efforts to remediate existing buildings, as he knows, are supported by the building safety fund and other measures that we will bring forward shortly. A combination of those measures and this Bill ought to ensure that buildings are safer. Therefore, both professionals and residents should be able to access more affordable insurance. He will also know that Lord Greenhalgh and others have worked closely with the insurance sector to ensure that appropriate professional indemnity insurance in extremis is available to professionals so that they may carry out their duties.

[Mike Amesbury]

The evidence is crystal clear. Despite interventions by Lord Greenhalgh—just mentioned—premiums are still going up, regardless of whether a building is 11 to 18 metres or 18 metres-plus, which is in scope. Again, I urge the Government to accept the new clause and to add the amendment to the Bill.

[Christopher Pincher]

I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but I was going to say that the Government have of course spent £700,000 to ensure that more fire risk assessors are available to undertake risk assessments to evaluate the challenges to building safety, thereby also contributing to a more proportionate risk and lending regime.

The hon. Gentleman said that this was straightforward. On one level it is, but on another it is not, by which I mean that is hard to disentangle the effect of building safety issues on the availability and cost of insurance from other issues and where other market trends apply. For example, heavy rains or flooding can also have an effect on market trends, lending, and risk assurance availability and its price.

In conclusion—this is important—following Royal Assent to the Bill, and indeed before it, we will continue to monitor closely the provision of insurance and we will work with stakeholders, including freeholders and leaseholders, to encourage a much more proportionate approach for insuring, for pricing insurance, and for ensuring and delivering its availability.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. He is generous with his time. To help focus minds in the insurance sector, will the Government consider a referral to the Competition and Markets Authority? For the life of me, I cannot understand how, when risks are reduced in some buildings up and down the country, we are seeing this pattern emerge of increases of 1,000%—

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

3. What steps he is taking to improve building safety.

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

The Government’s landmark Building Safety Bill will drive the most significant regulatory, cultural and behavioural improvements to building safety in a generation. In addition, as the House will know, we are investing £5.1 billion of taxpayers’ money to remove unsafe cladding from high-rise buildings, with a new tax and levy on industry. We will offer further support to leaseholders in buildings between 11 metres and 18 metres high.

[Fleur Anderson]

I welcome the action taken so far, but it is not fast enough or far enough for the thousands of leaseholders in Putney who are trapped in a perfect storm, with some living in unsafe buildings and many more caught up in a crisis of confidence in building safety. They cannot sell their homes, yet through no fault of their own, they are forced to pay thousands in ongoing costs for waking watch—or sleeping watch, as they call it—and insurance, before we even get to the costs of remediation works. They need Ministers to get a faster grip of the situation and solve the crisis. Will the Minister agree to Labour’s plan for a building works agency to find, then to fix, fund and, crucially, certify these buildings as safe; and then pursue those who are responsible for the costs, not the leaseholders?

[Christopher Pincher]

The hon. Lady will know that through the building safety fund we have now distributed £734 million for 689 identified buildings—identified by local councils and communities, which are best placed to do this—with the result that 65,000 homes are now in the process of being remediated. Ninety-seven per cent. of buildings with unsafe aluminium composite material cladding have been remediated or are in the process of so being. Of course we want to speed up the process and of course we will work with developers, local authorities and fire and rescue services to make sure that the work is being done. It is being done, it shall be done: she can be assured of that.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

How will the building safety charge benefit leaseholders living in North West Leicestershire?

[Christopher Pincher]

The building safety charge is a charge to ensure that the building safety regulator—the most important and powerful regulator of building safety in the world—will be responsible for ensuring that through the life cycle of the development of a building, from design to construction through to its operation, it will be safe. We will be ensuring that there are accountable persons for those buildings who will be responsible for them. We will make sure that the cost that falls on individual leaseholders will be sensible and as limited as possible. My hon. Friend can be assured that that cost will be transparent so that they can see exactly what they are paying for.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

First, let me pay my respects to Sir David Amess. He was a tireless campaigner for building and fire safety, chairing the exceptional all-party parliamentary group on the subject. I last met him only a few weeks ago to discuss the omissions in the Building Safety Bill. His loss will be greatly felt in these crunch weeks of the Bill’s passage.

I also welcome the new Secretary of State to his role. He has been brought in by the Prime Minister he tried to torpedo to sort out the building safety crisis. Given his reputation for getting things done, expectations really are very high.

In the spirit of David Amess, I offer my commitment to help to resolve this crisis, because it is now urgent and getting worse. Every day, more innocent homeowners receive new and enormous bills for remediation, their insurance costs soar, and lenders will not lend. Does the Minister agree that we face an important, and closing, window to bring forward any necessary legislation? Will he work with us and campaigners to put into law the protection of leaseholders from any remediation costs and bring forward a comprehensive plan to resolve this?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the hon. Lady for her question and the spirit in which it was asked. I certainly associate myself with her remarks about our late friend Sir David Amess.

During the passage of the Building Safety Bill, which is currently in Committee, a number of amendments have been tabled. Nine amendments tabled by the Opposition and have been withdrawn, and only one has been divided on. That is an example of the collegiality that we have managed to establish as this very important Bill progresses through Parliament. Of course we want to make sure that leaseholders are not exposed to unfair costs. That is what we have been working towards since the Grenfell disaster, and we shall continue so to do. The hon. Lady’s support in helping that endeavour will be gratefully received.

[Lucy Powell]

It is good to hear that that is what we are working towards, but it has been some time now and this does need enacting in law as the only way to ensure protection.

Can I give the Minister, in the same spirit, some gentle advice as someone who has been dealing with these issues for many years? He will not get resolution on this issue by rehashing some of the previous failed approaches like naming and shaming of developers, nor will it be dealt with by just looking at the symptoms of the problems such as insurance, as pressing as that is. Does he accept that he must tackle the problems at their root: namely, I repeat, by protecting leaseholders in law, as the Government promised; and bringing forward a comprehensive plan to assess, fix, fund and certify all tall buildings by overseeing risk assessment and removing the 2020 consolidated advice? We have the fund, but it simply will not work without dealing with those two fundamental issues, so will he do all this before the window closes firmly?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the hon. Lady for her question and how she couched it. She will know that we have committed to raise a significant amount of funds through a residential developers property tax and a tall building levy, which will ensure that buildings that need to be remediated are remediated, so avoiding costs falling on leaseholders. In the Building Safety Bill, we have made it absolutely clear that we expect building owners to pursue every route to find funding before passing on any cost to leaseholders. If building owners do not do that, the costs they may impose can be challenged in the tribunal. We are looking at further evidence we have received on the prevalence of cladding in the 11 metre to 18 metre building cohort. That will help us finalise our decisions, and we shall bring them forward in due course.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The Minister has been very accessible, and I have had conversations with him over this issue, but I am still not clear what people can do if they have already been stung with costs in respect of remediation. To go to a tribunal is a gamble, because legal costs may be incurred. Can he give further thought in his approach to this matter to how to get money back for people who have wrongly been charged when they are merely innocent leaseholders?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged, as ever, to my right hon. Friend. He is right. We have met on a number of occasions to discuss these issues. I will not labour the point about the public funds we have already expended on remediation or the plans we have to bring forward further support for those who find themselves in this very difficult and distressing situation. I will always talk to him and consider the thoughts and ideas he presents.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

4. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the regulation of standards of care in exempt supported accommodation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

8. What plans his Department has to strengthen local authority powers on regulating houses in multiple occupation.

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

I hate to interrupt private conversations, but we have equipped local authorities with robust powers to regulate both the standards and the management of houses in multiple occupation, or HMOs. These include mandatory and additional HMO licensing, civil penalties of up to £30,000, rent repayment orders and, for the worst offenders, banning orders. Local authorities also have planning powers to limit the proliferation of small HMOs within their area, and of course we will continue to monitor closely this part of the housing sector.

[Janet Daby]

I recently held a public meeting arising from the many concerns expressed by local residents regarding HMOs that have been developed, and more HMOs that are being developed, in a particular area. The issues they were very much concerned about were antisocial behaviour and poorly developed conversions of houses into HMOs. I am aware of a young person paying £1,000 to rent a single room in one of those HMOs. The councils can put in place article 4, but that takes 12 to 18 months, on the basis of the Government’s agreeing to it. My residents want to know: what more can the Government do to support them, and to give local authorities the regulation they need to act earlier?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the hon. Lady for her question, and she is right that in Bellingham, Downham, Grove Park and Whitefoot, article 4 restrictions are in place. We have provided more than 180 authorities with further funding for enforcement powers, and she will know that her council can bring to bear a range of powers to ensure that HMOs are properly maintained. The conditions that can be imposed on mandatory licences include that gas safety is properly recognised and electrical appliances are in order, that fire and smoke alarms are properly installed and maintained, and that the property ought to be improved. Her local authority has all the tools it needs, and we will keep the issue under review. I am always happy to talk to her and other colleagues about this matter.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to help first-time home buyers.

[Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

18. What steps his Department is taking to help first-time home buyers.

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

The Government are committed to helping more people own their own home. We offer several schemes to support first-time buyers, including our recently launched First Homes programme, which provides discounts of at least 30% on first homes. Our Help to Buy and shared ownership schemes also offer affordable routes into home ownership.

[Anthony Browne]

Greater Cambridgeshire, the city and South Cambridgeshire combined, is planning to build 49,000 new houses and flats over the next 20 years, which is as many as already exist in the city of Cambridge. In South Cambridgeshire district that amounts to 53% more house building than the Government assess is needed, and it will double the amount of house building over the next 20 years. Will the Minister confirm that that unprecedented house building bonanza is not being imposed on South Cambridgeshire by the national Government, but that it is an active decision of the local planning authority, South Cambridgeshire District Council?

[Christopher Pincher]

My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner on behalf of his constituents. Of course we need more homes to be built in the right places, and there are parts of our country where the cost of buying or renting a home is many multiples of local household income. However, he is right: local housing need is not a binding target, and local authorities have responsibility for working out what their local target should be, and agreeing that with the Planning Inspectorate. Although we welcome ambitious local authorities, they have an absolute responsibility to set their own housing targets.

[Sir David Evennett]

I appreciate the Minister’s response to the question. We all recognise that we need a mix of housing provisions for the market to thrive, but does he agree that home ownership remains a huge aspiration for many of our constituents across the country, and that schemes such as Help to Buy have been a vital tool in supporting thousands of first-time buyers on to the property market?

[Christopher Pincher]

My right hon. Friend is right. Every time we poll people, more than 80% say that they want the opportunity, the right, and the dream of owning their own home and having a stake in their community and country. That is why the Help to Buy scheme has been so important. Just a few weeks ago we announced the 300,000th Help to Buyer, Sam Legg and his partner Megan, who live in Asfordby in Leicestershire. They said that without Help to Buy they would not have been able to get on the property ladder. We want more Sams, and we want more Megans.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Many first-time buyers thought that they had bought the home of their dreams, only to discover that it was rendered worthless because they are caught up in the cladding scandal. Earlier this month, one of my constituents received a service charge bill for £103,000 to fix cladding for which they are not responsible, and requesting sums of money that they do not possess. It is reported that the Secretary of State, who I welcome to his post, has been told by the Prime Minister to “sort out” the problem. It is evident to all our constituents affected that the measures that the Government have announced thus far, which I support, are insufficient to bring this nightmare to an end. When will we see a comprehensive plan to help those leaseholders?

[Christopher Pincher]

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right: there are many people caught up in a terrible situation. That is why we have already spent more than £5 billion of public money on remediating the highest-rise buildings, and we will be bringing forward further proposals to deal with some of the other issues that he identifies. Fundamentally, this issue needs to be brought back into proportion. If we look at what Ken Knight and Judith Hackitt have said, there are far too many lenders and insurers that have been risk averse and have been ascribing zero values to property where no EWS1 form and no remediation, or very little remediation, is necessary. We are working with that sector to make sure that we fix it, and we will.

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

10. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Government’s relations with the devolved Administrations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

T9. Will the Minister take action to stop the Mayor of London building over suburban station car parks in places such as High Barnet and Cockfosters, given the damage that it will do to public access to public transport, particularly for people with impaired mobility?

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

My right hon. Friend campaigns assiduously for her constituents in this regard. She and the House will know that the national planning policy framework makes it very clear that houses and other properties should be built in a sustainable way in sensible places, but she will also know—partly because of the campaigning that she brought to bear in this regard—that we have told the Mayor of London to amend his policy to allow for a tall buildings provision in local planning, enabling local authorities to say where they want tall buildings and where they do not. That will afford local communities much greater protection as to where tall buildings should or should not be built, thanks partly to my right hon. Friend.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)]

The bulk of the affordable homes programme funding goes on homes that are out of reach of even families on average incomes, and analysis from Shelter shows that the richest 28% of private renters are the only ones who earn enough to access the Government’s new first homes scheme. If the Minister is so committed to levelling up, does he agree that it must involve building homes that people on low incomes can actually afford to buy?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the hon. Lady for her question. Yes, we want to make sure that people are able to buy homes that are affordable. That is why we have introduced the first homes scheme, which allows for a discount of at least 30%, and up to 50% in areas of high unaffordability. It is why we have changed the affordable homes programme to allow people to buy a smaller share of their property and then “staircase” at lower amounts. It is why we have the Help to Buy scheme, and why we have the guaranteed 95% mortgage scheme. The Government are absolutely determined to ensure that people can get on to the property ladder, in a way that the Opposition never have and never will.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to his post. In doing so, I cannot miss the opportunity to request a meeting with him so that I can convey the real concerns of local residents to the west of my constituency boundary, in the parish of Ifield, at proposals for 10,000 houses on greenfield sites.

Building Safety Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Order. I would appreciate it if Members intervened while the Minister is on his feet. Otherwise, if we are not careful, we will end up with some sort of badminton.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 123 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 124

Service charges in respect of remediation works

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Christopher Pincher)]

I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr Dowd. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth about the late Emily Davison, if she is still resident here, she has rather a lot of back council tax to pay because she has been here for 108 years.

The Government are committed to ensuring that landlords exhaust all other avenues of cost recovery before billing leaseholders, and this clause puts that commitment in statute. It places a new legislative requirement on landlords to take reasonable steps to pursue other cost recovery avenues before passing on the cost of remediation works to leaseholders. We know that some building owners are not fully exploring all the cost recovery avenues and are passing costs on to leaseholders as a default. Many are, but too many are not. The clause will help to bring those unfair practices to an end.

The clause will enable the Secretary of State to prescribe the reasonable steps that the landlord must take, and how that landlord can demonstrate to leaseholders that they have taken them. Landlords will need to comply with guidance issued by the Secretary of State, which will provide clarity on the reasonable steps that the landlord must take. The guidance should act as an important resource for all leaseholders and landlords alike, providing clarity and transparency for landlords, and assurances for leaseholders that the requirements have been met.

The clause also requires landlords to provide leaseholders with details of the steps that they are taking and their reasons for their course of action. The Government will be able to prescribe in regulations the information that must be provided to leaseholders. That will mean that leaseholders have sufficient understanding of decisions taken about their building and why any remediation costs have been passed on to them. Landlords will be required to have regard to observations made by leaseholders or a recognised tenants association.

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

Could the Minister clarify whether the provisions on special measures will apply solely to leasehold blocks, or whether they will apply to rented commonhold blocks as well?

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

They will apply to all appropriate buildings—my hon. Friend can take it as read that it is a wide definition.

The clause contains a power to define the scope of works that can be classified as remediation works for the purposes of this clause. That will ensure that the Government have sufficient flexibility to make sure that works defined as remediation works are those that are essential for ensuring that buildings are safe. We will define remediation works and relevant buildings in secondary legislation, and that will create scope to amend the regulations at pace, so that they remain relevant and respond to changes in our analysis of risk over time.

The clause is vital to ensuring that all possible avenues for funding remedial works are explored by the landlord and evidenced to the leaseholder before any remediation costs are sought from them. Leaseholders should not have to pay for works when there are other routes for funding. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

The Minister raises a pertinent point for many leaseholders in my constituency relating to cases in which builders, companies or developers have folded since they built a building. Those companies may have been originally responsible for remediation costs. I seek reassurance from the Minister that the need in the guidance and any regulations to explore every avenue will cover subsequent builders who took on folded companies or the relevant buildings. Just because the landlord cannot find the original company, or the company no longer exists and so that avenue does not exist, that is not an excuse for bundling the costs on to leaseholders. Those concerns have been raised with me and we need reassurance. I hope we will get that in any regulations and guidance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful and insightful intervention. He mentions the case study of somebody who is trapped in this nightmare, which the Ministers and the Department are very familiar with. I will give the Minister another example from social media; it is 47 minutes old. Lucy Brown is a leaseholder trapped in this nightmare that we are, hopefully, collectively trying to resolve. She wrote:

“15 months in the BSF”—

that is, the building safety fund—

“application process. Our managing agent/FH”—

that is, the freeholder—

“won’t agree to the BSF terms (likely those requiring the FH guarantee the works be done to an acceptable standard). The joys of the leasehold system—you own nothing, you control nothing + you pay everything.”

How will the clause solve the problem when that particular landlord—the freeholder in this case—has already decided that they have exhausted the process? The levy is thousands and thousands of pounds, and people are going bankrupt in the current climate. How will this move things forward?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful for the questions that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Luton South asked. I will try to address them in toto.

The Government have already committed a significant amount of public money to the remediation of unsafe tall buildings—£5.1 billion—and I am sure we will discuss these matters further when we come to the new clauses tabled by various members of the Committee, so there will be several opportunities to come back to this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

Will statutory guidance be issued to landlords on what constitutes “reasonable steps”? If not, what engagement work will the Department do to ensure that landlords properly understand their regulatory duties under the clause?

[Christopher Pincher]

Yes, we will produce statutory guidance, and will consult on it. We will certainly make sure that we consult not only landlords but leaseholders on the guidance, so that leaseholders have input on what constitutes “reasonable steps”. I appreciate that not all leaseholders are legally savvy, so we will make that guidance as plain as possible, to allow them as much power as possible to seek redress when they need to.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Christopher Pincher]

I will, and then I will make some progress.

[Daisy Cooper]

Does the Minister recognise that throughout the Bill, leaseholders are not only being left to pick up the tab for these enormous costs, but are having to become lawyers to navigate complex statutory instruments that have not even been published, so that they can get their head around what “reasonable steps” might be? Once that guidance is published—it has not been published yet—there will be reams and reams of litigation, which can drag and drag, because there may well be a disagreement about what constitutes reasonable steps. Does he honestly think it is fair that leaseholders, who are entirely innocent and have done everything absolutely right, are being left to pick up the tab, and are having to become lawyers in order to understand the guidance and the clause?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the hon. Lady for that point; I understand it, and the passion that she brings to the issue. We need to get this right, and to make the process as transparent and digestible as possible. She refers to reams and reams of litigation; if we get the guidance right by consulting the right people, including leaseholders and their groups, we can make it as simple, clear and effective as possible. As for applying to the first-tier tribunal, there is plenty of case law already, and the tribunal has experience of working expeditiously; we will try to make sure that that continues.

I am grateful to Committee members for their questions. Clause 124 is key to making certain that the landlord explores and evidences to the leaseholder—that is very important—all possible avenues for funding remedial works before any remediation costs are sought from the leaseholder. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 124 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

Before we come to clause 125, for the smooth running of the sitting, may I exhort Members to intervene when the Minister, shadow spokesperson or whoever is speaking is still on their feet? Secondly, may I also exhort Members to be clear if they want to intervene, especially if they are sitting behind the person they want to intervene on? It is the person speaking who decides whether to allow the intervention, not me. Thirdly, when Members intervene, can they keep it as short and sharp as possible? Otherwise, they should make a more substantive intervention in due course. I hope that is clear. Thank you.

Clause 125

Duties relating to work to dwellings etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Christopher Pincher]

To aid Committee members in making interventions, I will try to sit down slowly, so that I am standing for as long as possible. In conjunction with clause 126, which is to come shortly, clause 125 makes changes to the operation of the Defective Premises Act 1972. That Act creates a right to bring a claim for compensation where a dwelling is not “fit for habituation” on completion of that dwelling. The Act currently applies only in relation to the provision of a dwelling, mainly when a property was built defectively in the first place. It does not apply to work done to a dwelling beyond its initial completion—not even to major or complex refurbishment works, such as the cladding of a block, which is what Grenfell Tower underwent. The clause seeks to remedy that.

The clause expands the Defective Premises Act by inserting proposed new section 2A into it. The new section will create a duty to ensure that any work done to a dwelling does not render that dwelling unfit for habitation. It will cover subsequent works done to the building after construction. The clause applies where a person takes on work in relation to any part of a relevant building in the course of a business. That means that it does not apply, for example, to homeowners doing work on their own properties. As in the case of the 1972 Act, the person to whom the duty is owed—the person who has the right to bring a claim—is the person for whom the work is done and any person who holds or subsequently acquires a legal or equitable interest in a dwelling in the building. That includes the freeholder of a block of flats as well as leaseholders.

The “fit for habitation” test is the same test used in the 1972 Act. Subcontractors also owe the same duty for the work that they take on. The clause applies to any relevant building defined as a building consisting of or containing one or more dwellings. The new provision will apply to work completed after the clause comes into force. Clause 126 will provide for a 15-year limitation period in relation to this clause.

[Ian Byrne]

On the ability of a leaseholder to bring a civil claim against a contractor, there is a real fear about the ability of David to challenge Goliath. In our discussions on the Bill, we have talked a lot about cultural change and historical problems and what is required. I am listening to what the Minister says, but once again my great fear is that unless the provisions can be outlined in terms, how can David challenge Goliath? Will leaseholders get legal aid to challenge contractors? Will there be a level playing field for people who want to bring civil cases against contractors? Historically, as Opposition Members have outlined, many people have been dragged into the realms of the law, and have basically had to devote their life to challenging unfair decisions.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. Legal aid is not available in these cases, but there are various remedies people can take, either individually or collectively. It is not necessarily the case that the leaseholder would be bringing the claim. It could be the landlord or freeholder. With clause 125, we want to define a very strict provision. That means that the appellant does not have to demonstrate that fault or negligence has taken place. All they have to demonstrate is that the building is not fit for habitation under the terms of the 1972 Act, and the case law already develops that. Adding new section 2A into the Act strengthens the provision. We consider clause 125 to be an important additional safeguard for homeowners against shoddy work done to their dwellings.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Will the Minister clarify the term “fit for habitation”? Does it mean fit for habitation only with a waking watch? I am trying to get to the bottom of the difference between “fit for habitation” and a building at risk in the more general sense. I have mentioned the example of the Paragon many times. Two years after the flammable cladding was removed, all residents—students and shared owners—had to leave with a week’s notice. Clearly, the risk assessment is that it is not fit for habitation. We all have examples of blocks where waking watch is put in or cladding works are planned. Where is the cut-off?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the hon. Lady. It gives me the opportunity to remind the Committee that, by altering the 1972 Act, we are not simply specifying these changes to taller buildings. It applies to all premises. That is one of the reasons why a whole range of people might use this legislation. To be clear, it is for a court to decide the facts of a specific case—whether a dwelling is fit for habitation. The existing case law, which may be built up and amplified in future, suggests that, in order for a dwelling to be fit for habitation, it must be capable of occupation for a reasonable time without risk to the health or safety of the occupants and without undue inconvenience or discomfort to the occupants. That is the case law definition that the court would understand. Should an appellant bring action against a developer or provider of a building that is defective, that is the definition the court will look at to see whether they have a case. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the Minister and all those who have intervened. Clause 125 is welcome on this side, but it does not go far enough. We welcome the extension to refurbished properties, which we have debated at considerable length with regard to permitted development and additional floors. I know that the Minister will clarify whether the clause captures that scenario in the new building safety regime.

The Minister referred to case law. Others have referred to the nightmare of litigation and the costs in a David and Goliath process. How many claims have been made under the existing regime? The Minister referred to the existing case law, so I am assuming that the Department has made an assessment.

We heard evidence from Justin Bates and Giles Peaker. They suggested that the chances of litigation were minimal. They have considerable expertise in this field on a national and probably an international level. There are learned lawyers on the Government side of the Committee. I am sure that, with their learned experience, they will have something to say on taking litigation forward under this clause.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the clause. He asks two questions. The first is on the volume of case law that has been built up. I will have to write to him or inform him at a later point about the specific number of cases. I remind him that the Defective Premises Act 1972 was passed some 49 years ago—many members of the Committee were not born when that Act was passed. The case law is presumably quite voluminous and therefore the courts will be well able to assess any new cases in the light of that established case law of 49 years.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the evidence given eloquently by Justin Bates—I think that was his name; I apologise if I have got that wrong.

[Mike Amesbury]

Yes, Justin Bates and Giles Peaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

Yes. He gave us some eloquent testimony in one of the Committee’s witness sessions. The reason why our court processes work so very well and why there are court actions—sometimes rather voluminous actions such as there may have been under the 1972 Act—is that there is always more than one view. There will be another lawyer countering the arguments made by someone such as Mr Bates, who will say that there are in fact very good chances for an individual to seek redress using this mechanism. I invite those who wish to use the new powers we are giving them to so do, to test the courts and test Mr Bates. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 125 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 126

Limitation periods

[Mike Amesbury]

I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 126, page 133, line 1, leave out “15 years” and insert “30 years”.

This amendment changes the period for claims under the Defective Premises Act 1972 and the Building Act 1984 to 30 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call Mike Amesbury.

[Christopher Pincher]

rose—

[The Chair]

I apologise. I call the Minister.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to the hon. Members for Weaver Vale, for Brentford and Isleworth and for Luton South for the points that they have raised, and I appreciate that this is an important matter. We are mindful of the challenges faced by leaseholders who are specifically affected by the consequences of the Grenfell tragedy, and I hope that when I have spoken, the hon. Member for Weaver Vale will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

The Defective Premises Act 1972 applies not simply to the tall buildings that we are addressing primarily through the Building Safety Bill, but to all buildings. This clause extends the limitation period of the 1972 Act, and under section 38 of the Building Act 1984, from six to 15 years. That is a highly unusual retrospective change, which we believe will provide a legal route to redress that previously would not have been possible for hundreds of buildings, benefiting thousands of leaseholders.

Limitation periods serve several important purposes. They give legal and financial security and certainty; they protect defendants from stale claims, which may be difficult to counter—that is important, too, and we must remember that we are talking about all buildings covered by the Defective Premises Act—and they prevent injustice that may arise from the courts being required to decide on past events on the basis of evidence that may have become unreliable because of the passage of time.

Various limitation periods are set in the Limitation Act 1980 for different types of civil claim, of which this would be one. They range from 12 months for defamation or late payment of insurance claims, to six years for claims relating to some types of contracts, and to 15 years for cases involving negligence. That is where this type of case sits.

[Shaun Bailey]

My right hon. Friend will also be aware that it is possible, in the course of litigation, to make an application for those periods to be disregarded in the event that it can be proven to the tribunal that there are circumstances that make it possible to do so. Notwithstanding the conversations that we have had in Committee on the cost of litigation, does he agree that there are avenues by which that limitation period can, in extreme circumstances, be extended?

[Christopher Pincher]

I believe that my hon. Friend is correct in terms of the Limitation Act 1980, rather than the Building Safety Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

On counter-litigation under the Human Rights Act, will the Minister elaborate on that scenario and the right to private property?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am not a lawyer and I cannot second-guess why an individual might choose to go to court using one particular Act of Parliament to defend themselves against another. However, we know that the Human Rights Act is cross-cutting. In any legislation that we scrutinise, we see reference to the Human Rights Act in its annexes. All I suggest to the Committee is that the longer the retrospective limitation period, the greater the chance that individuals may choose to go to court and test the legislation under the Human Rights Act.

Finally, I draw the Committee’s attention to subsection (3), which provides that the clause will be commenced automatically two months after Royal Assent. That will be the date from which the extended limitation period is calculated, including the retrospective period for action under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.

[The Chair]

I apologise, Minister, for my inappropriate limitation on your intervention. As a pre-’69 person, my levels of concentration are not what they should be, I suspect.

Building Safety Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Eddie Hughes]

I welcome those comments. We have definitely seen during the course of the Grenfell inquiry that products have been either tested or marketed in an inappropriate way, and it is good to see agreement across the House. The clause will strengthen our hand in that regard.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 133 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 9 agreed to.

Clause 134

Amendment of Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Christopher Pincher)]

Welcome to the Chair, Mr Davies. I am pleased to see that you are putting the Government’s heat and buildings strategy into full effect in the Committee.

The Government are committed to strengthening the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 in order to better protect people’s safety in all regulated premises. Clause 134 delivers on 10 proposals that received significant support from respondents to the 2020 fire safety consultation, to address weaknesses that were commonly reported by stakeholders and to better align the order to the new building safety regime. New duties on responsible persons, informed by best practice, will support greater compliance with the order and its effective enforcement, mainly through the improved recording and sharing of fire safety information.

For all multi-occupied residential buildings, the owner or manager will be required to provide relevant and comprehensible fire safety information to residents, as will be specified in the order and may be set out in regulation. That will reassure residents that fire safety is effectively managed and will empower them to hold responsible persons to account. For higher-risk buildings, responsible persons will be required to identify the accountable persons and to co-operate with them. The co-operation duties in this clause and clause 118, with which we dealt on Tuesday, will support a co-ordinated approach to safety in higher-risk buildings between those duty holders, subject to either the building or the fire safety regime.

For all regulated premises, responsible persons will be required to record their fire safety risk assessment in full, including measures taken in response to risk. When appointing a person to assist them with making or reviewing a fire risk assessment, they will be required to ensure that that person is competent to do so. We also need to strengthen the existing co-operation duty between responsible persons sharing premises by requiring them to identify themselves to each other, provide United Kingdom contact details, explain the parts of the premises for which they consider themselves to be a responsible person and record that information. Where responsibility for fire safety changes hands, the outgoing responsible person must provide critical information for the incoming responsible person, as will be specified in the order and as may be set out in regulation.

Our amendment to article 50 of the order will enable the courts to consider a responsible person’s failure to follow all statutory guidance issued to support compliance with their duties as tending to establish a breach of the order. We will also increase the maximum financial penalty available to the courts from £1,000, which is level 3, to unlimited fines, level 5, for offences of impersonating an inspector, breaching requirements imposed by an inspector or in relation to the installation of luminous tube signs, which brings the measure in line with the fire safety order.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 134 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 135

Architects: discipline and continuing professional development

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 136 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

The purpose of clause 138—rather as clause 39 does for the Building Act 1984—is to make it clear that where individuals who control a corporate body participate in committing criminal offences under parts 2 and 4 of this Bill, they, too, are criminally liable for those offences. Many of the persons who will have duties under the new regime will be corporate bodies—legal persons, as they are known—rather than individuals, who are often known legally as natural persons. Any corporate body operates only through the actions of its employees, controlled by its managers and directors. Therefore, if there is an offence by a corporate body, there is likely to be some measure of personal failure by those in positions of seniority.

This liability is already provided for in a number of other pieces of legislation, including notably the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974; the Committee has heard me speak about that in previous sittings. The end result is that directors and managers are just as criminally responsible as the company where either they have made decisions that led directly to the offence being committed, or they have been negligent in allowing the offence to occur.

We have addressed similar points that were raised in debates on previous clauses. If there is one director of a company, it is likely that two prosecutions—for both the company and the director—would be brought, although in practice there would be one case to answer. If the company had dissolved, the company itself would not be liable for prosecution, but that would not prevent a prosecution from coming forward against any one or a number of the managers or directors of the company who were there at the time the offence was committed.

The potential for criminal liability of directors and managers reinforces the duty of those who direct the actions of companies to uphold and promote building safety throughout the operations of their companies—again, inculcating the culture that we want to see. The Government consider that this is a key contributor to our stated purpose of embedding building safety at all levels of the industry, contributing to residents both being and feeling safe in their homes. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Mike Amesbury]

I want to draw out a point that the Minister referred to. In the construction sector, as has been mapped out in the journey of the Bill so far, special delivery vehicles or special purpose projects are set up and then dissolved. How would this provision apply to the individuals and directors involved? We welcome this clause, which is a real step forward, but we just want to draw out that point.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am happy to help the hon. Gentleman. In my previous remarks, I may have said, “if a company folds”; what I hope I said was that if and when a company dissolves, the dissolution of the company does not prevent an individual—a senior person, a manager or a director—from being liable for offences if they were there at the time the offence was committed. I hope that that confirms the issue that the hon. Gentleman rightly draws out. We are essentially in agreement, and I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 138 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 139

Review of regulatory regime

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Christopher Pincher]

The Government are committed to the continuous improvement of the building regulatory regime and the construction products regulatory regime, including the Building Safety Regulator and the national regulator for construction products. The purpose of the clause is to legislate for the appointment of an independent person to carry out a periodic review of the system of regulation for building safety and standards, and of the system of regulation for construction products. We believe that such a review will act to assure the functioning of the systems and provide independent recommendations for improvement.

The independent review recommended a periodic review of the overall system of building regulation, including accountabilities, responsibilities, guidance and the effectiveness of the regulator. It recommended that the review should be undertaken by an independent person at least once every five years. The clause meets that recommendation and goes further.

The review must consider the Building Safety Regulator and the system of regulation established by parts 2 and 4 of the Bill and by the Building Act 1984. It must also consider the regulation of construction products, including the effectiveness of the national regulator of construction products. However, the independent person is not limited and may review connected matters. The Secretary of State may also indicate areas of specific interest that they would like the reviewer to consider. I stress, however, that the Secretary of State has no ability to limit the remit of the review.

An independent person must be appointed at least once every five years, although the Secretary of State has scope to appoint a person more regularly should they so wish. By ensuring that the report produced by the independent person must be published, the Government have created a system of public accountability in building safety. In seeking to define “independent”, we have struck a balance that discounts those with a clear conflict of interest, without overreaching and excluding everyone with relevant experience. Under that approach, the exemplar for an experienced but independent person is Dame Judith Hackitt, prior to her appointment to the lead the independent review.

The Government have provided a structure to ensure that an independent review of the system of building safety and standards will occur at least once every five years, and we have ensured that the reviewer can operate unfettered. The clause will help to protect the integrity of the system and help to make sure that the system continues to create a safe built environment in the future. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 139 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 140 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 141

Crown application

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Christopher Pincher]

The clause provides that the Crown is bound by parts 2 and 4 of the Bill, and by the provisions relating to the new homes ombudsman.

The Crown Estate manages an extensive property portfolio on behalf of the Crown, and that portfolio includes a number of in-scope buildings. The Duchy of Lancaster on behalf of Her Majesty, and the Duchy of Cornwall on behalf of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, also manage property portfolios that may include in-scope buildings. Some properties owned and occupied by Government Departments may include permanent accommodation, which could bring them within scope.

It is right that those buildings should be subject to the new regime we are setting up for existing buildings. This clause therefore provides that the Crown is subject to parts 2 and 4 of the Bill. This is in line with the approach taken in the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which apply to the Crown. It will mean that the Crown will be an accountable person for in-scope buildings and, as such, will be bound by all the duties placed upon an accountable person. The Crown will also be bound by the provisions of the new homes ombudsman, so any Crown bodies developing new residential properties that are within the scope of that ombudsman may need to join the scheme as required by regulations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North has mentioned in other contexts.

In line with long-standing legal and constitutional principles, the Crown as an entity cannot be subject to criminal sanctions. However, individual Crown servants can be, and that is provided for in clause 141(3) of the Bill.

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

The Bill applies parts 2 and 4 to Crown buildings. Do the Government intend to extend the application of part 3 of the Bill to Crown buildings, too?

[Christopher Pincher]

Clearly, there should be a consistent approach to the application of all the provisions of the Bill to the Crown. There is an existing power in section 44 of the Building Act 1984 to enable building regulations to be applied to the Crown, although it has not been brought into force. We have been looking at whether we should switch this power, but there are gaps in how it would operate. In particular, as drafted, the power in section 44 of the 1984 Act would not allow us to make regulations setting out the gateway requirements for work carried out by Crown bodies. We are working through the issues and what might be needed by way of new provisions in the hope that we can resolve these matters at a later stage of proceedings on the Bill. I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I want to be clear that this clause has been included because of the new legal status of the Crown, not because it owns a number of historic buildings that include some residents and that may be within the scope of the Bill. I can think of other owners of historic buildings in which people live that may be within scope, such as the National Trust, English Heritage and museums. If we establish that the Palace of Westminster is a residential building, it appears to be out of scope. I would be grateful if the Minister could help me through that confusion.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady is confused. I appreciate that some of these matters are exceptionally dry and very technical, but none the less, they are extremely important. The Crown has a unique legal position in our country, as I have said. Because of long-standing legal and constitutional principles, it is not an entity subject to criminal sanction, but it does operate a very significant property portfolio, and in that portfolio there are in-scope buildings. That is why this clause has been included in the Bill, for the sake of specificity and clarity.

While the general principle of applying part 2 and 4 of the Bill to Crown buildings is right, we need to recognise that there may be some buildings where, for example, security or other operational considerations mean it would not be appropriate to apply the regime. In the draft statutory instrument on scope, we therefore proposed to exclude military premises, including barracks and buildings occupied solely for the purposes of the armed forces. Those will remain subject to the Ministry of Defence’s existing building and fire safety arrangements, which we believe to be strong ones. Clause 141 therefore ensures that the protections provided by the Bill are available to leaseholders, tenants and users of existing Crown buildings. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Mike Amesbury]

If the Crown commissions a new build above 18 metres or seven storeys, the new regime applies. Can the Minister expand on this scenario? If there is a serious fire that results in deaths, and those acting on behalf of the Crown are found to be culpable, who would be criminally liable? Would the Crown be exempt?

[Christopher Pincher]

I will try to help the hon. Gentleman as best I can. As I have said, the effect of this clause will be that the Crown is regarded as an accountable person for in-scope buildings. The clause will cover the responsibilities of an accountable person, and it will ensure that they apply to the Crown. The Crown is also responsible for adhering to the provisions of the new homes ombudsman. In the event of a specific fire in a specific place, I imagine that it would be for the prosecuting authorities to determine where culpability lies. A range of measures are set out in the Bill and in existing Acts of Parliament to ensure that those who are culpable for criminality can be charged, tried and, if necessary, brought to justice. I hope that helps the hon. Gentleman with his question.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 141 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 142

Power of Secretary of State to make consequential provision

[Christopher Pincher]

I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 142, page 145, line 10, at end insert—

“(3) Regulations under this section may not make provision that may be made under section 143.”

This amendment provides that the Secretary of State may not make consequential provision that may be made by the Welsh Ministers under clause 143.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part and clause 143 stand part.

[Christopher Pincher]

This is a technical amendment to ensure that the devolution settlement is protected.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 142, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 143 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 144

Regulations

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 144, page 146, line 24, at end insert—

“(8) But the Secretary of State may not—

(a) lay before Parliament a statutory instrument under subsection (6), or

(b) make regulations in a statutory instrument under subsection (7)

(9) That condition is that the Secretary of State has consulted—

(a) fire safety experts,

(b) leaseholders and their representatives,

(c) local authorities, and

(d) safety and construction industry bodies”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with stakeholders before making regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the hon. Member for St Albans for tabling the amendment, which we support. This culture change in building safety—making people safe in buildings in the here and now, and in the future—requires consultation with the maximum number of stakeholders to help shape legislation and regulations going forward. This is a very common-sense amendment; it strengthens the Bill.

[Christopher Pincher]

I thank the hon. Lady for introducing the amendment and the hon. Member for Weaver Vale for his comments. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with specific stakeholders before making regulations.

I entirely understand the hon. Lady’s intention and I agree with the principle that there should be appropriate consultation on regulations made under the Bill. I hope that, by the time I have concluded my remarks, she will see that the amendment is at best superfluous and at worst could be rather confusing. I will explain why. I do not mean in any way to detract from what she is trying to achieve.

The Government have introduced provisions to ensure appropriate consultation in clause 7, which we debated some little while ago, before the rather long conference recess, in the proposed new section 120B of the Building Act 1984 in schedule 5, and in the specific procedures to ensure appropriate scrutiny of changes to the scope of the higher-risk building regime. I am grateful to the Committee for agreeing those provisions already.

I remind the Committee that we have already said that we will include consultation provisions when making regulations. Those regulations will always be subject to consultation.

Save for certain limited special procedures, the independent Building Safety Regulator may propose regulations to the Secretary of State after consulting on them and drawing on the benefit of its technical expertise and expert committees. Where the Secretary of State initiates proposals, they must first consult with the independent Building Safety Regulator and other persons they consider appropriate before regulations can be made. It pays to stress that I appreciate the spirit of the amendment, but maintaining the existing provisions in the Bill has three fundamental advantages.

First, on a technical point, the amendment would apply only to regulations made under this Bill and not to regulations made under the Building Act 1984, including under the provisions inserted by part 3. Committee members may remember that I spoke, some might say monotonously, about the 1984 Act in previous sessions. We need a consistent approach to consultation across building safety standards legislation, to make sure that it is simpler and fairer, and I think this approach is preferable.

Secondly, the amendment would create a degree of confusion and duplication, because it would insert an additional consultation provision into the Bill on top of the existing one in clause 7. The practical effect would be some duplication and delay. To give an example, where the Building Safety Regulator has proposed regulations to the Secretary of State after a full and proper consultation under clause 7, the effect of this amendment would be that the Secretary of State was required to conduct a further consultation with the key stakeholders listed in the amendment. We believe that that would create unnecessary delays in tackling important building safety issues.

Thirdly, we believe that the general requirements to consult in the Bill are more likely to support effective consultation than the approach set out in the amendment, which seeks to list a specific set of consultees in primary legislation. That would, as we all know, be much more difficult to unwind and change as the building safety landscape changes.

A wide range of regulations will be made under the Bill. They will range from technical regulations setting out what functions the Building Safety Regulator and the local authorities may share information on, or the form on which certain applications must be made, through to very complex regulations that are necessary to deliver the new national regulator for construction products. We do not think that a one-size-fits-all approach to which parties need to be consulted is appropriate to that range of subject matter. Instead, we believe that the consultation requirements stipulated in clause 7 will support more effective and tailored consultation.

Members of the Committee should be reassured by the fact that the Bill’s approach to making regulations learns from the approach that has successfully been taken in respect of health and safety regulations. The Health and Safety Executive, with the Secretary of State, has taken a proportionate approach to consulting parties before regulations are made, and it has been doing that for more than 40 years.

We understand that expertise will not stop at the door of the Building Safety Regulator, nor, for that matter, the Secretary of State. We agree that consultation on regulations is necessary, but we think that adding this amendment would unintentionally create duplication, confusion and—because of its disapplication from the Building Act 1984—a narrowing of the application of the provision. Given the assurances that I have provided to the Committee, and the fact that the Bill already ensures appropriate consultation mechanisms, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.

[Daisy Cooper]

I thank the Minister for his assurances that he agrees with the spirit of the amendment, and I am sure that during proceedings on the Bill, others may look at the scope of the application of this measure. I am grateful for his assurances on the parliamentary record that he agrees with the spirit of the amendment, which is designed to continue the democratic scrutiny of secondary legislation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Clause 144 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 145 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 146

Commencement and transitional provision

Amendments made: 20, in clause 146, page 147, line 18, at end insert—

“(3A) As regards Part 3 and section 134—

(a) the following provisions come into force on such day as the Welsh Ministers may by regulations appoint—

(i) section 30 so far as relating to section 120I of the Building Act 1984;

(ii) section 31(3) so far as relating to section 91ZD of that Act;

(iii) section 41 so far as relating to section 58Z2 and 58Z8 of that Act;

(iv) paragraph 56 of Schedule 5 (and section 54 so far as relating to that paragraph);

(v) paragraph 77 of that Schedule so far as relating to section 120C of the Building Act 1984 (and section 54 so far as relating to that section);

(b) the following provisions come into force, in relation to Wales, on such day as the Welsh Ministers may by regulations appoint—

(i) section 31 except subsection (3) of that section;

(ii) section 32 except so far as relating to paragraph 1D(3) of Schedule 1 to the Building Act 1984;

(iii) sections 33 to 40;

(iv) section 41 except so far as relating to section 58Z2, 58Z7 or 58Z8 of the Building Act 1984;

(v) section 42 and Schedule 4;

(vi) sections 43 to 51;

(vii) section 52 except subsection (1) of that section;

(viii) section 54 and Schedule 5 except—

(a) paragraphs 38, 39 and 86 to 88 of that Schedule (and section 54 so far as relating to those paragraphs);

(b) paragraph 77 of that Schedule so far as relating to section 120B of the Building Act 1984 (and section 54 so far as relating to that section);

(ix) section 55 and Schedule 6 except paragraphs 7 and 29 of that Schedule (and section 55 so far as relating to those paragraphs);

(x) section 56;

(xi) section 134 except subsection (8) of that section so far as relating to Article 22B of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005;

(c) subject to that, Part 3 and section 134 come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint.”

This amendment confers certain powers of commencement on the Welsh Ministers.

Amendment 21, in clause 146, page 147, line 22, at end insert—

“(5A) Regulations under subsection (3A)(a) or (b) may make transitional or saving provision.” —(Christopher Pincher.)

This amendment provides that commencement regulations made by the Welsh Ministers may make transitional or saving provision.

Clause 146, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 147 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)

Building Safety Bill (Ninth sitting)

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

May I remind the Committee to switch electronic devices to silent and to email speaking notes to our Hansard colleagues at [e-mail]? We begin today’s session with clause 36.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Christopher Pincher)]

It is once again a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I welcome the Committee back to this final line-by-line scrutiny session before we go into recess again.

The Government are committed to ensuring that there is a stringent regulatory framework to enable the design and construction of better and high-quality homes while providing industry with the clarity and certainty that it needs. Dame Judith’s review found that unnecessary delays in the system must be minimised, and we wholeheartedly agree with that finding. The gateways and building control system have been designed to ensure appropriate consideration of building regulations compliance, including building safety, throughout design and construction.

Applicants in England are encouraged to work with the Building Safety Regulator to ensure that decisions are reached in good time or extensions are agreed, and the Building Safety Regulator will make decisions on a variety of matters relating to building control. They include deciding whether to approve or reject the following types of applications: gateway 2 building control applications, change control applications, gateway 3 applications and certain refurbishment applications. To provide industry with certainty for project and financial planning, the Building Safety Regulator will have prescribed periods in which to decide such applications.

Where further time is required—there may be occasions when that is necessary—extensions can be agreed between the regulator and the applicant. However, it is necessary to have an alternative route through which an applicant can get a decision on their application if the Building Safety Regulator has not issued a decision within the required timeframe and an extension has not been agreed, and clause 36 provides the legal basis for the Secretary of State, or a person appointed to act on their behalf, to make a decision on applications in England in such circumstances. We envisage that there will be very few applications that follow this path each year. Like applications decided by the Building Safety Regulator, there will be no set timeframe in which applicants can expect such a decision.

In Wales, failure by the building control authority to decide on an application relating to a higher-risk building will similarly allow the applicant to apply to the Welsh Ministers, or a person appointed by them, for a decision on the application. This is a means by which decisions can be expedited, and I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

We agree with the Minister.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

This is a really important clause. My right hon. Friend was rather succinct in his comments, but he touched on the balancing of the environment with the Bill. As we talked about in our previous deliberations earlier this week, we want to ensure that we can still have the environment in place in order to continue to build, because we still need to build homes and ensure that there is an adequate process in place. The important part of the clause, which links to other clauses that we have debated so far, is about ensuring that there is an adequate process in place to ensure that there are no delays and that we have adequate building taking place in an expedient manner.

We also need to ensure that those who want to play according to the rules, as I discussed on Tuesday, know how to do that and can ultimately have their matters determined in an expedient manner. I am sure my right hon. Friend will touch on that in his remarks when he responds later, but I want to ensure that in the clause we maintain the balance between a proper determination to ensure safety for leaseholders and residents and an expedient manner to determine applications, which will be important.

I will not talk about the impact in Wales. I commented on that during our previous deliberations, but I fully support the clause, which strikes the right balance in the underlying tensions in the Bill. I look forward to hearing my right hon. Friend’s comments in due course.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the Opposition for what appears to be their support for this fairly uncontentious and important clause. I am also obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West for his contribution. He is right to say that we want to ensure that building can progress expeditiously and safely. That is why we have put in place sensible review points—the gateways and the hard stops that they provide for. It is also why we have included this clause in the Bill to ensure that where there are occasions—we do not envisage many—when the Building Safety Regulator has failed to issue a decision and no extension to the timeframe has been granted, there is a means by which the applicant can move to get a decision.

We have not specified a timeframe by which the Secretary of State or the person or body appointed by the Secretary of State will be obliged to make a decision because we anticipate that in those very few circumstances a decision might not have been made because of the complexity of the arrangements. That then allows the Secretary of State or the appointed body time and space to come to a conclusion.

[Shaun Bailey]

Will the Minister give way?

[Christopher Pincher]

And on the word “conclusion” I will give way to my hon. Friend.

[Shaun Bailey]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He said that there would not be specific timeframes in the Bill, but can he assure me that there will be ongoing monitoring? The one thing that the clause seeks to achieve is an expedient process, which previous clauses have done as well. Will he touch on how monitoring of the process will be implemented to ensure the aims of the clause are enacted?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am happy to do that. My hon. Friend pre-empts what I was going to say. In secondary legislation we will specify what we believe to be proportionate timescales in which the Building Safety Regulator will have to come to a decision on applications before them. That will place proper focus on the Building Safety Regulator and ensure that applicants get the focus and engagement that they deserve. We will ask the regulator to provide data, and the regulator will report on the number of applications that it receives and the outcome of each application, including the timeframe of each decision and whether extensions were agreed.

Over time, a body of information and evidence will be developed, which, apart from the secondary legislation statutory timeframes for adjudication that we will set, will enable the sector to see the average timeframes and outlier timeframes that the adjudications take and be able to make its decisions accordingly with respect to appeals to the Secretary of State or to the Secretary of State’s appointed appeals body.

We think that in practice the clause and its provisions will be used infrequently, but it is an important backstop, which is why we have included it. It provides, as I say, a legal basis for the Secretary of State, or a person appointed on their behalf, to make a decision on applications in England in such circumstances, and in Wales for Welsh Ministers to do similarly. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Compliance and stop notices

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Christopher Pincher]

Dame Judith’s review found that the existing building safety enforcement regime is not fit for purpose. That is partly explained by the absence of powers for building control authorities to immediately halt dangerous or non-compliant work. That is why the Government are committed to strengthening enforcement powers for regulators to act against non-compliant building work. Clause 37 takes forward the review’s recommendation and provides more effective powers for building control authorities to ensure compliance with building regulations.

Compliance and stop notices are designed to tackle all forms of non-compliance with building regulations during the design and build stage of all buildings, irrespective of their risk level or intended use. Compliance notices will be available where there is, or is likely to be, a contravention of building regulations. Stop notices are intended to be used where a compliance notice is contravened, or where building regulations are likely to be contravened in such a way as to cause serious harm to people in or around the building.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Christopher Pincher]

Not wishing to break my batting average, I will of course give way.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. It has to be welcome that we are strengthening the powers of the regulator and local authorities. As the Minister rightly says, these are vital tools for building control authorities, and there is currently no power available to stop non-compliant building work being continued or completed, which is clearly a concern. I am very keen that we do something about that. It is very important that it is tackled.

Will the Minister clarify, first, how the powers will change the bad behaviour that we have seen across the industry? We know that most people in the industry are responsible, but for those who are not, what will we do? How will this change that behaviour? Secondly, what enforcement powers will the Building Safety Regulator have for gateway 2 following on from this?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. On the new powers changing bad behaviour, what we want through the entirety of the Bill is to effect culture change. The clause on its own will not achieve that, but it is part of the cumulative weight of the Bill, which will over time effect culture change. We envision that the additional tools that we are providing to the Building Safety Regulator, and the statutory powers that will be provided, will contribute significantly to that culture change. Safety cases, more regulation of the building control sector, and the gateway assessments and the hard stops involved in them will all play their part in driving that culture change.

We also envision an escalating set of powers for the Building Safety Regulator, and as we move through the late 30-something and early 40-something clauses, I think I will be able to provide further illumination to the Committee on what those enhanced powers will be. Additionally, it will be an offence to start certain building work in higher-risk buildings without building control approval, and stop notices could be used to stop work that is being carried out without approval. We believe—I think this goes some way towards addressing my hon. Friend’s point—that these are critical tools for building control authorities, because as he says, there is currently no power available to stop non-compliant building work from being continued or completed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the Committee for its deliberations on clause 37 and for the questions that have been asked of me. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale asked me two specific questions. First, will the measures in clause 37 also apply to buildings below 18 metres? The answer is yes. Perhaps I can explain further. I said that these powers are critical tools for building control authorities. The building control authority could be the Building Safety Regulator, for in-scope buildings, or local authorities, for other buildings. The Building Safety Regulator will use clause 37 for enforcement purposes on the buildings for which it is responsible, and local authorities can use the powers in the clause for buildings for which they may be responsible.

The hon. Gentleman asked me, secondly, about product compliance and kitemarking. In our witness sessions, we heard some evidence on the importance of having good product development and specification. There are clauses later in the Bill that address the question of product specifications, so we can have debates about those.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West made a passionate speech, calling for a proper recognition that in-flight work and development have to be properly understood and recognised. He said that it is important that we do not unintentionally create bad or poor effects for players across the sector, particularly the residents of in-scope buildings. We are working with representatives across the building control system to effectively benchmark the existing regulatory capacity and to ensure that all the actors in the regime have the capabilities to abide by it and an understanding of the consequences if they do not. That is one of the reasons why we are using secondary legislation—to ensure that we are able to properly understand what it is that we need to implement in granular detail, having consulted stakeholders and taken on board comments from members of the Committee.

As I have indicated, we are also working very closely with the shadow regulator, the Health and Safety Executive and others to ensure that we transition to the new regime in such a way that we mitigate the effects of in-flight development. We do not want to endanger people in and around buildings that have been built unsafely, but to ensure that those buildings can be properly, safely and expeditiously built within the constraints of the new regulatory regime. We need to make sure that the transition is effectively executed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud made the very important point that we need to ensure not only that the penalties in the Bill are understood but that prosecutions can effectively be brought. We have tried to ensure that through this and other clauses, and through discussions with officials and colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and in expert bodies, such as the HSE. That has helped us to build an approach that will ensure that there are sufficient and appropriate penalties, in an escalating manner, that the sector will understand and that can be applied successfully should they be necessary.

We want to give the Building Safety Regulator and local authorities the powers they need to do the jobs we are asking of them. With that, I commend clause 37 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

Breach of building regulations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Christopher Pincher]

A breach of building regulations can have serious consequences for residents in occupied buildings We saw that four years ago in the Grenfell Tower fire and we have seen it on other occasions. The independent review found that

“where enforcement is…pursued, the penalties are so small as to be an ineffective deterrent.”

That is why, to repeat some of the points I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, the Government are committed to ensuring that where building regulations are contravened, building control authorities have the necessary powers to enforce the rules and offenders receive a proportionate penalty for their non-compliance.

Clause 38, alongside clause 37, will provide a stronger deterrent to those doing building work and, where necessary, stronger sanctions for building control authorities to use. At the moment, offenders can only receive unlimited fines for their contravention of the law. Even where directors or managers are complicit in their company’s wrongdoing, they are sheltered from the consequences, a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw.

The new custodial sentence we are introducing serves to reflect the gravity of breaching building regulations and, alongside clause 39, which we will discuss shortly, brings the threat of imprisonment to any director or manager of a company who is found to be complicit or negligent in an act of non-compliance. We intend for the higher custodial sentence to operate as an effective deterrent against negligent, reckless or dangerous behaviour.

Where previously prosecution under section 35 of the Building Act 1984 had to be brought within two years, making the offence triable in a Crown court removes the time limit altogether, enabling building control authorities to prosecute breaches of building regulations even when they come to light much later. There is no longer a two-year limit to court action.

This clause goes further and makes clear that the section 35 offence applies not only to breaches of the building regulations themselves, but to requirements imposed under building regulations, such as conditions imposed as part of building regulation approvals. The increased coverage will send a signal that no requirement under building regulations can be ignored without consequences.

As with other changes we have already discussed, this provision aims to encourage those involved in building work to do the right thing and to disincentivise substandard building work. To return briefly to a previous debate, in order to make this absolutely clear, whatever planning route a building is subject to, all relevant building work must comply with building regulation, whether it is on a higher-risk building or otherwise, and whether it benefits from permitted development rights or not. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale made that point in our previous sitting and alluded to it in his previous contribution.

In addition, the extension of the enforcement period under section 36 of the Building Act from one year to 10 years will provide another effective route through which building control authorities can enforce building regulations. This clause responds to the review’s recommendation that the sanctions available under the Building Act be enhanced to enable building control authorities to act effectively but proportionately whenever they encounter non-compliance. They will now have stronger powers to ensure that all buildings are designed and constructed in line with regulations. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Mike Amesbury]

We welcome the stronger sanctions, given the gravity of the consequences and the context, which the Minister referred to, of the tragic events of Grenfell over four years ago.

[Shaun Bailey]

I, too, welcome the clause. I wish to raise a couple of points with the Minister about the defences under proposed new section 35(2) of the Building Act, relating to instances where duty holders believe wrongly that another duty holder has reported an incident. It will be

“A defence to the offence of failure to report where the person being prosecuted was not aware of the occurrence which gave rise to the requirement to report”.

I want to ensure that the scope of the defences is as tight as it can be. Clearly, there is a balance to be struck. We are fully aware that incidents happen; human failure can happen and we cannot eliminate that, so we have to take account of that within the regulatory framework, but we need to tighten the circumstances where this defence can be used. I am conscious that there is a risk that developers will see this as an opportunity to do some finger-pointing and say, “It wasn’t me. It was him,” or, “No, he missed that and I missed that.” I know that is not the intention behind the defences under clause 38, but can my right hon. Friend the Minister assure me that there will be appropriate guidance on implementation and enforcement of the provisions of clause 38, which is really important?

We have an obligation to follow through on what Dame Judith Hackitt noted in her report, particularly about the regulatory landscape. Ultimately, we do not want people who have not done right by the people we are trying to protect to find some way of getting round things. I know my right hon. Friend has worked hard to ensure that does not happen, but given that the broader point of the clause is to send out a message, particularly through custodial sentences, that breach of building regulations is serious—we are dealing with human life, as we saw with Grenfell—I want to get some reassurance from him that he will tighten that up.

I welcome the enforcement period extension. I think that is right. My right hon. Friend touched on that in his comments, so I do not need to repeat that. If he can give me those reassurances, I will be immensely grateful.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to you, Mr Efford, and my hon. Friend, who is quite within his rights to ask for reassurances.

I reiterate that clause 38 needs to be read in conjunction with clause 37. I made it clear that the current building safety enforcement regime is not fit for purpose; there are too many gaps and loopholes. With compliance notices and stop notices, clause 37 tightens the regime. Clause 38 is designed to ensure that in the event of contravention of such notices, the enforcement powers and penalties are that much greater. If my hon. Friend reads clause 37 in conjunction with clause 38, he will see that we are doing exactly that—tightening up the loopholes from compliance and imposing stronger and more effective penalties where there are contraventions.

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Christopher Pincher]

I will be more succinct in respect of this clause, because it follows on from clauses 37 and 38 and I referred briefly to it earlier.

Many of the persons with responsibilities under the Building Act 1984 are and will be corporate bodies, or “legal persons”, rather than individuals, who are known as “natural persons”. Any corporate body operates only through the actions of its employees, controlled by its managers and directors. As such, if there is an offence by a corporate body, there is likely to be some measure of personal failure by those in positions of seniority.

That liability is already provided for in a number of other pieces of legislation, including, most notably, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The end result is that directors, managers and other such persons are just as criminally responsible as the company at which they have either made decisions directly leading to an offence being committed, or been negligent in allowing an offence to occur.

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend clarify how that will apply when there is only one director of a corporate body?

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

I am not a lawyer by training, although involvement in the Bill has given me some legal background—not all of it as exciting as watching “Crown Court” on television. A corporate body and the director are separate legal entities, so normally two separate prosecutions would occur. However, in practice, both prosecutions would be conducted at the same time. If there were a conviction, it would be for the court and the judge to sentence the corporate body and the individual appropriately. Although the law says that they are two separate persons, the court action would take place in conjunction and the sentencing of both entities would be as the court decided. I hope that is helpful to my hon. Friend.

[Shaun Bailey]

rose—

[Christopher Pincher]

My hon. Friend appears to be moving to intervene. I am conscious that I have failed to give way only once—to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth—and that was by accident, so in order to keep up my almost perfect track record, I will allow my hon. Friend to intervene.

[Shaun Bailey]

I am immensely grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is characteristically very generous. I would be interested to hear how the clause would deal with developers that dissolve, disappear or fall into difficulties as a result of this. He has been assisting me with a matter in my constituency, where a developer dissolved and left the residents in a bit of limbo, so he knows all about that.

[Christopher Pincher]

My hon. Friend is stretching my legal knowledge, although not quite to breaking point.

[The Chair]

I am not sure that the question is entirely within the scope of the clause.

[Christopher Pincher]

In the sense that we are discussing companies, if a company has dissolved by the point of prosecution, it cannot be prosecuted. However, to address my hon. Friend’s point, that does not preclude the liability of individual company directors or managers. They can be prosecuted individually, even if the corporate identity itself has passed into history and is beyond prosecution.

The potential for criminal liability of directors and managers reinforces the duty of those who direct the actions of companies to uphold and promote building safety throughout the operations of their companies. We consider that it is a key contributor to our stated purpose of embedding building safety at all levels of industry, contributing to residents both being and feeling safe in their homes.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. It is a pleasure to serve under you again, Mr Efford. I cannot see a problem with the objectives of the clause and we will not object to it, but it gives me the opportunity to ask about the issue of personal liability insurance. We are picking up that construction trade professionals in the UK are increasingly struggling to get appropriate insurance. Have the Government done an impact assessment on the issue of liability insurance and how that impacts construction professionals?

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the hon. Lady and I can ensure her that insurance, risk assurance and personal indemnity insurance, for example, are addressed in part 3, so I suspect that we will address those issues at greater length in the not-too-distant future.

In amending the Building Act 1984 through the clause, as well as increasing the maximum penalties under that Act, we are taking a significant step in ensuring that accountability for building safety lies with those responsible. I commend the clause—

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Christopher Pincher]

—once I have given way to my hon. Friend.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous with his time. My question relates to something that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West touched on during discussion of clause 37. There is a sort of cloak of corporate responsibility that people have hidden behind for far too long. It is almost like a game of pass the parcel when it comes to taking responsibility for some defects. Does my right hon. Friend agree that rather than enabling responsibility to be avoided, the clause widens the scope and makes sure we can focus minds? We will be increasing accountability rather than taking away from it.

[Christopher Pincher]

My hon. Friend is quite right. As I said earlier, corporate liability is already provided for in other pieces of legislation—the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, for example. By embedding this clause in the Bill we remind corporate players—directors, managers and other appropriate senior parties in businesses—of their responsibility, and that their businesses and they themselves can be prosecuted if the standard of work or the actions that they undertake fall below the standards required in the Bill, which then allows for criminal prosecution.

The clause will further engender and embed the culture change that we all desire, so that at some point in the not-too-distant future these sorts of court actions will become a thing of the past, because all players act in a responsible way to ensure that buildings are designed, built and managed safely. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the Minister and other members of the Committee for their contributions. The clause responds directly to the Grenfell residents’ voices, which is most welcome. We had a situation where developers, subcontractors and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea put in inferior products and cladding, despite the recommendations for that building. We have seen that sort of thing littered throughout the industry, as people have said. The clause will act as a very effective deterrent, drive the culture change that we have spoken about, and apply the tragic lessons learned in recent years.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich West and for Bassetlaw for their contributions, and to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale for his recognition that once again the tragedy of Grenfell has opened our eyes to issues in the sector, the loopholes in compliance, and the paucity of penalties, which we are now collectively attempting to rectify. By agreeing to the clause we are taking a significant step in ensuring that accountability for building safety lies with those who are responsible for it—individuals, corporate bodies, or the individuals in senior positions who make up those corporate bodies. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

We now come to clause 30—[Interruption.] I am sorry; we now come to clause 40.

Clause 40

Revocation etc of certain provision made under section 2(2) of ECA 1972

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Christopher Pincher]

I would be happy enough to speak to clause 30 again, Mr Efford, although I am not sure that that is the desire of the Committee. My eloquence and possibly my effluence covered all bases.

Clause 40 makes a technical but necessary provision to enable the revocation of out-of-date provisions in building regulations made under the European Communities Act 1972 as we modernise the regulations in years to come. Although the major part of the building regulations was made using powers in the Building Act 1984, a few provisions were made using the powers in the European Communities Act. That Act has now of course been repealed, so those powers are no longer available, meaning that at present the provisions made under the Act cannot be amended or revoked.

The building regulations will need to be updated in the light of the changes being made in the Bill. As part of that exercise, we will be looking to consolidate the significant number of amendments made to the regulations in recent years, to make the regulations easier to use for industry and building control bodies. We will need to be able to revoke the existing regulations and replace them with new ones, and without the powers provided by clause 40 we would be in an anomalous position, in that building regulations made under the European Communities Act could not be revoked, so we would not be able to undertake a comprehensive updating and consolidation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siobhan Baillie]

Revoking anything can lead to fears of an inadvertent reduction in standards. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the clause and the work behind it will achieve exactly the opposite?

[Christopher Pincher]

This is no back-door attempt to reduce standards now or to introduce poorer standards in the future. It is simply a necessary technical means of allowing standards to be introduced by overriding a now defunct Act; otherwise, we would not be able to repeal or change standards and regulations relating to it. For example, our future homes standard and, indeed, the future buildings standard go way beyond anything that was required of us when we were a member of the European Union or that is required of us under the European Communities Act. I assure the Committee that this is a technical change—a necessary legal and technical change—and not an attempt to reduce standards by subterfuge. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the Minister and other Members who have made contributions. As the Minister said, this is a technical but necessary clause. He referred to the future homes and future buildings standards, and I would like to explore the interplay between the Building Safety Regulator and those up-and-coming standards.

[Christopher Pincher]

The future homes standard, which we will consult on and will legislate on in 2023-24 to introduce in 2025, will require all buildings built from that point to be at least 75% more carbon efficient than buildings built under present regulations. Importantly, they will also be zero carbon rated, so they will not need to be retrofitted as we change the electricity grid. Those regulations will be in force from that point—clearly, they are not law yet—and all regulators will need to have regard to them and will need to issue appropriate guidance once those changes are enacted in law, so that local authorities, the Building Safety Regulator and product manufacturers understand what needs to be embedded in product creation and the design and management of buildings, subject to the law as it stands.

I will conclude—unless anybody else wishes to intervene; I do not think they do—by saying that this is a very technical clause that is very necessary to ensure that we have a regulation landscape that we can properly manage. I commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41

Regulation of building control profession

[Christopher Pincher]

I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 41, page 50, line 24, at end insert—

“(7) Section 91B of this Act (cooperation and sharing of information between Welsh Ministers and other authorities) applies as if references to the Welsh Ministers included references to a person to whom the Welsh Ministers have delegated functions under this section.”

This amendment provides that section 91B of the Building Act 1984 (inserted by Schedule 5 to the Bill) applies in relation to a person to whom functions are delegated under section 58Y as it applies in relation to the Welsh Ministers.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 23 to 34.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

This group of amendments deals with duties to co-operate and information-sharing powers between Welsh Ministers, fire and rescue authorities, local authorities and fire inspectors. Schedule 3, which we debated and disposed of on Tuesday, already contains very similar provisions for England. To reiterate, that schedule creates statutory information-sharing gateways and duties to co-operate between the Building Safety Regulator and other relevant public bodies. Furthermore, it allows local authorities and fire and rescue authorities to share information about building safety and standards and issues across all buildings, including buildings outside of the higher-risk regime regulated by the Building Safety Inspector.

Amendment 29 places duties to co-operate on Welsh Ministers and creates information-sharing powers for them, enabling them to work with other Welsh statutory bodies—fire and rescue authorities, fire inspectors, and local authorities. Sharing of information and co-operation are key elements in delivering the improvements that the Bill proposes. For Welsh Ministers, those duties and powers relate to their functions under part 2A of the Building Act 1984. Amendment 18 addresses the need for Welsh Ministers’ duty to co-operate and power to share information to be cascaded down where their functions in respect of building inspectors and/or building control approvers are delegated.

Amendment 25 removes the limitation on co-operation and information sharing between Welsh fire and rescue authorities, local authorities and fire inspectors, so that it is no longer restricted to higher-risk buildings only. Those bodies will work together across the whole range of buildings in Wales.

Amendments 24, 28 and 31 clarify that the duties to co-operate and powers to share information apply to Welsh fire and rescue authorities, as defined by amendment 33, and fire inspectors, defined by amendment 30. Amendment 34 mirrors clause 26, which we have already discussed and voted on. It confirms that information sharing under this provision must comply with the data protection legislation, so that people’s privacy rights are overridden only in certain specific circumstances. Amendments 23, 26, 27 and 32 make the consequential changes necessitated by the substantive amendments.

I am sure that Committee Members have followed all those amendments very closely, and I commend them to the Committee.

[Mike Amesbury]

Again, these are very technical but necessary amendments, which ultimately simplify and unify building control legislation, processes and procedures, and enforcement.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Government amendment 18 agreed to. 

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Christopher Pincher]

Dame Judith’s independent review raised serious concerns over the lack of a level playing field for approved inspectors and local authority building control. There were different statutory and non-statutory processes leading to incoherence, confusion and complexity in the system.

Clause 41 establishes a new registration and oversight regime to provide consistency across the public and private sector, and creates a new, unified building control profession. The new registration regime will raise standards in the sector and enhance public confidence by requiring a minimum level of demonstrated competence to provide building control services on different types of buildings. For the first time, individual building control professionals, whether in the public or private sector, will have to register with a regulatory authority. That is the Building Safety Regulator in England and the Welsh Ministers in Wales.

We intend for the registration process to involve the demonstration of competence against a shared framework. Registered professionals, who will be called “registered building inspectors”, will need to adhere to a common code of conduct. We will now be able to hold individuals accountable for professional misconduct or incompetence. That is the foundation for clause 43, in which we set out certain activities and functions that building control bodies can carry out only by using a registered inspector.

Together, these clauses will change the way building inspectors work with and for building control bodies, giving the consumer greater assurance that an experienced professional will be checking their building against regulations. We are introducing an updated registration regime for private sector building control bodies, currently known as approved inspectors. They will have to register with the regulatory authority to work as a registered building control approver and will be held to professional conduct rules. We are introducing sanctions and offences for misconduct to ensure that those organisations that supervise building works are held to high professional standards.

Clause 41 also allows the regulatory authority to delegate those registration functions to another body. We are introducing a new framework for the oversight of the performance of building control bodies, levelling the playing field for local authority building control and registered building control approvers. The regulatory authority will be able to set the operational standards defining the minimum performance standards that building control bodies must meet. It sets out the reporting requirements that will enable the regulator to collect information to assess and analyse the performance of building control bodies and make recommendations to drive up standards. It gives the regulatory authority investigatory powers when building control bodies breach the operating standards, and a series of escalating sanctions and enforcement measures to address poor performance issues.

[Selaine Saxby]

This is, obviously, a necessary and very technical clause, setting out a strong new regime of how we can improve competence levels and accountability in the building control sector. I wonder if he could clarify how the regulator will deal with poor performing building control bodies?

[Christopher Pincher]

We want to make sure that such a body has the right sanctions available to it. We want to give it a robust set of powers to investigate performance and, where appropriate, impose escalating sanctions. In the most serious cases, the powers will include the cancellation of the registration of the building control approvers. It will mean potentially the effective taking over of the function of a local authority building control by appointed officers from another local authority. We want to give the regulator the tools to ensure that building control bodies are improving safety and performance, driving up standards, and that, where they themselves are not performing, there is a means by which sanctions can be applied. Clause 41 is essential to creating a more robust and competent building control sector, and I commend it to the Committee.

[Mike Amesbury]

As the Minister says, this will raise the bar and raise the standards of building control throughout, as recommended by Dame Judith Hackitt and the review. It will do so through its process procedure and, very importantly, enforcement and deterrent. One of the concerns the Opposition raised with other clauses is the potential to have a two-track approach to building control with buildings below 18 metres. What assurances can the Minister give that that will not be the case and that standards will be raised in buildings that are below 18 metres, say, from 11 to 18 metres?

[Shaun Bailey]

I, too, welcome clause 41 and its effect on the Building Act. I want to raise a point with my right hon. Friend the Minister around clarity. We will effectively have two bodies in England and Wales that will deal with this. In England it is the regulator itself and in Wales it is Welsh Ministers. I would be grateful if he will confirm that he will ensure that his Department will keep that discussion ongoing. The importance of the clause, as with the rest of the Bill, is to ensure consistency. We talked in previous deliberations about cross-border work. We need to ensure that the professionals who would sit within this regime have consistency and are conducting work across the English-Welsh border to ensure that we keep the market going and continue to meet those home building targets.

I agree that the Bill is long overdue. As the hon. Member for Weaver Vale pointed out, it is about raising standards and ensuring that the profession knows what is expected of it. There is a broader point to be made on communication: making sure the points contained within clause 41 are communicated clearly, not just within the profession but more broadly. We have talked about how the impacts of making these regulatory and standards changes need to be communicated with the sector and with training providers, but they need to be communicated with the industry more broadly. If that is not done, we might have a situation in which people enter the industry without necessarily being clear about where they need to be. I would therefore ask the Minister to be sure that his Department continues to engage.

Considering the issues, the measure is long overdue. It is common sense and something that any other regulated profession would do. There is detail about the power to have investigations, and again we need to ensure that that system works and that the regulator is in place for that, in particular for proposed new section 58H—that system must flow properly. Sanctions, too, must be proportionate. The clause is a significant one, so I will not go into every single element of it, but will the Minister ensure that its implementation is reviewed and that we continue the discourse on it, notably on proposed new section 58I on sanctions for professional misconduct?

The regulator must ensure that it continues those discussions of what is appropriate. As we have touched on in other deliberations, circumstances change and things develop. I reiterate that to the Minister, and I ask him to ensure that his Department continues those communications, that the expectations of the industry are communicated and that under the mandate of clause 41 the regulator continues its conversations with Welsh Ministers, so that we can have consistency—that will be key, given its cross-border nature. We must ensure that the clause is implemented so it is how we want to see it work. I am sure he will, but I will be grateful for his reassurances.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am happy to give those reassurances to my hon. Friend. We will need to take care as we plan the transition to the new regime. I assure him that in our discussions with Ministers in Wales, with other Departments and with the Health and Safety Executive we are exploring appropriate transitional arrangements to ensure that the building control sector moves smoothly and safely from one uneven playing field to a more even one, in an orderly way, as I said.

The hon. Member for Weaver Vale asked about the new registration regime. In the clause, we are attempting to create the oversight and the regime that will provide consistency across the public and private sectors, creating a new unified building control profession for all buildings in the sector. The new regime will not only raise standards in the sector, but enhance public confidence by requiring a minimum level of demonstrated competence to provide building control services on different types of buildings. One can imagine that with a high-rise, higher-risk building, the competence levels that the Building Safety Regulator requires could be higher than or different from those for other buildings. We might come to that in later clauses.

In the meantime, I hope that the Committee will agree that the clause is vital to create a more robust and competent building control sector. I commend it—

[Ruth Cadbury]

rose—

[Christopher Pincher]

Or I will commend it shortly, after I have given way to the hon. Member for Brentford.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Brentford and Isleworth, to be precise, but I thank the Minister for being so generous in allowing my intervention. The submission from the Local Authority Building Control group welcomed this aspect of the legislation and the clause. It expressed one concern, which I am raising as a question, about CICAIR—Construction Industry Council Approved Inspectors Register—which is designated by the Secretary of State to register and provide the oversight of approved inspectors. Has the Minister taken on board its recommendation that immediate action is taken to strengthen the audit process of CICAIR to include the requirement for external independent technical auditing in advance of the Bill being enacted? It wants to do that in order to improve current performance and standards.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am happy to work with CICAIR. We work with it to ensure that, for example, registration fees are proportionate. We will set out more details of that later. Fundamentally, we want to ensure that the registration and regulatory oversight process is sensible. I am happy to have further discussions with it and my officials about any appropriate audit trail. I am sure that the Building Safety Regulator—presently in shadow, but as it builds its approach—will also want to have those sensible discussions.

I will accept no more interventions and conclude by saying that the clause is essential to create a more robust and competent building control sector. I commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 41, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

Before I call the Government Whip, may I say to Members that it is customary to stand in your place if you want to indicate to the Chair that you wish to speak? I am not an auctioneer. I was a London taxi driver, so I am good at spotting various gestures, but it would be helpful if you could stand in your place.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)