Fire Safety Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Tuesday 20th April 2021 Lords Chamber

In conclusion, I hope that the Government will seriously take on board what we have said and try to present a way forward on this very real problem. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

My Lords, if Motions A1 and A3 were both agreed to, A3 would replace A1.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and to speak to Motion A2 in my name. I refer to my vice-presidency of the LGA and my professional involvement with property and construction over many years. I thank the Minister for keeping his door open for discussion; that has been enormously helpful. This amendment is an attempt to find a way out of what I see as an impasse, which, if not dealt with, may cause unquantifiable financial loss, bankruptcy and hardship—as referred to by the right reverend Prelate.

I am indebted to my local fire and rescue service in West Sussex and to the National Fire Chiefs Council, for briefing me on the task ahead of them. I am sure we all agree that they do a fantastic job in keeping us all safe and dealing with risks in a fair and proportionate manner. I am also indebted to Members in another place who have convinced me that the issues I seek to address cannot simply be brushed aside. This is not a challenge to the essential principles of the Bill, which I entirely agree are critical in the light of the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

The problem arises because although the Bill is short and apparently inoffensive, and from a fire safety standpoint is the necessary reaction of any Government to a post-Grenfell inquiry, its means of implementation have much broader and effectively retroactive results. In amending the existing fire safety order’s scope, it extends to any building comprising two or more residential units. It relates not just to cladding but, ultimately, to a much wider range of fire safety issues and to buildings not previously subject to that safety regime.

Noble Lords should bear in mind that there are two lead organisations here: the local authority through its housing functions in respect of houses in multiple occupation and student blocks, and the fire and rescue services, particularly for higher-risk and taller buildings.

Every time there is a fire in a flatted building, it adds to the malaise. When, in the wake of the Grenfell fire, a four-storey block in Worcester Park was destroyed in September 2019, it became clear to me that no Government can risk specifying a cut-off point of safe versus unsafe buildings, and I acknowledge that. So as matters stand, many relatively low-rise buildings, where risks are considered fewer and without a clear threshold, will, for a time, be caught by this long enough to cause serious problems for a significant number of tenants and leaseholders. It is this unconstrained exposure to uncertainty and risk, and the reaction of the markets to it, that has created the problems that we now encounter.

Crucially, there is a significant gap between now and the time when the first 12,000 over-18-metre buildings in England will have been checked, a process which is estimated to be completed by December this year. Then there will be a further period, lasting until some 68,000 further buildings in the 11 to 18 metre height range have been dealt with. During this period, the issue of proportionality and risk will be left to the febrile mortgage and insurance market. I have no doubt that fire safety inspectors will take a fairly strict approach, and indeed would expect them to, at any rate until further guidance is available—which guidance itself might be an outcome of the analysis of the first tranche of inspections of the highest-risk buildings. That delay occurs before one gets to the design and specification of the remediation works by those who might have to satisfy their own professional indemnity conditions, followed then by tendering and ultimately remediation.

The right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in her amendment, endeavour to protect the tenant and leaseholder from the effects of the Bill by saying that they shall not bear the financial burden. I am compelled to express the view that this needs to be taken further: if, as a result, the building owner as freeholder is made liable for something that they in turn cannot afford or cannot be made responsible for, beyond the assets of whatever corporate ownership vehicle holds the freehold or other superior interest, then the liquidation of the holding company and the vesting of the negative-value asset in the hands of insolvency practitioners will do little to get the building remediated. To that extent, the responsible person under the Bill might be a man of straw, and that I see as a weakness in what the Government propose.

To deal with this, one needs a scheme, and the Government have commendably said that they will introduce one to fund remediation, but this suffers from several limitations. First, it applies only to cladding. Secondly, it does not cover all buildings with claddings—even less the other fire safety issues that the Bill might also trigger. Thirdly, I very much doubt that the sum allocated is enough. That said, I am extremely grateful for the government commitment to making £5 billion in funding available, as the Minister has explained.

Apart from properties becoming unsalable, uninsurable and unsuitable for mortgage lending, in some cases they might well be so risky as to be declared unsafe for occupation, pending remediation works. Displaced occupiers will be wondering what it is in the principle of safety and proportionality in relation to their own home, given the nightmare imposition of unimaginable costs and liabilities, that justifies rendering them homeless in addition. Of course, it might well not come to that, and it is my purpose to encourage the Government to ensure that there is a scheme to make certain that it does not. The full extent of the problems may still be yet to come, but I strongly suspect that many of the responsible persons are holding on until this Bill receives Royal Assent before proceeding further.

No Government can simply look on and say that it is not an issue of a very serious kind when people have been seriously threatened in their own homes by negative equity, bankruptcy and worse. With an entire market section being blighted, action is essential. By the same token, no agency apart from government has the power to procure a change, which ultimately must be by some form of consensus, but which requires regulatory and other powers—or the threat of them—and a degree of arm-twisting involving some very powerful players. There are too many interests and moving parts here, and neither constructors, owners, leaseholders, tenants, insurers or mortgagees can procure effective solutions on their own. It is a systemic failure, in which it is right for the Government to intervene. Indeed, taking these hard decisions is why we have government intervention at all.

By the same token, if there is to be a government safety net of a type that is effective, no leaseholder can simply expect the taxpayer to foot the Bill for all and every fire-safety shortcoming. This is where, particularly in relation to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I differ from that approach. I do not suggest that any of this gets construction warrantee providers, approved inspectors, designers, constructors, housebuilders or building managers off the hook. It will take time to establish liabilities; it is time that those finding themselves in financial fetters do not have at their disposal. That is the problem. Absolutism by government on the one hand and by leaseholders alike will not get the necessary work done or erase the terrible personal tragedies that I fear will result.

The deal is this: for a monthly sum which should be affordable, even if most unwelcome, the capital cost of remediation could be amortised via a loan, funds for early inspection and remediation raised, and works put in hand as soon as possible. This might also fund short-term interim safety measures. The long-term bond so created would, I believe, be saleable. The important thing for affected flat owners is that they could not be charged until a scheme was in place, but the scheme has to be driven initially by government, and that is what this amendment is about.

The current government scheme seems to be based on rolling things out in due course. I appreciate the Minister’s point that he does not wish the Government to be unduly pressurised or under the cosh on this, but the need to get this safety net into place right now is overwhelming. By the end of this coming summer, impossibly large bills are most certainly likely to have dropped onto doormats, prohibition notices and evacuation orders may be in place, and bankruptcies may have grown to a national scandal. I hope that we avoid this, but I for one cannot simply stand by and let that happen unchallenged or by default. I realise that it goes against what some have been asking for, but what is better: to know that you are innocent but that your home remains unsalable and you risk being put in an impossible financial position or rendered homeless, or to know that there is at least some means of funding the remediation so that, in any event, at least some benefit is salvaged out of this debacle?

I know that it also goes against the grain of government to interfere with private legal arrangements and liabilities, but the circumstances are truly exceptional, and the scope of the works is relatively specific. The alternative is a high level of sector-wide economic damage and individual financial destruction.

I know that the Minister is not minded to accept any of the arguments that I have put forward, or my solutions. I make it clear that I do not intend to press this Motion. It is my wish to get further explanations from the Minister. My questions are these. If not this amendment and scheme, then what? If not in this Bill, which triggers it, or even in the building safety Bill, then how? If not now, with the ill-effects so apparent and very likely worse to come, when? Further, if not by government, by whom and by which agency?

If, as I suggest, the objection to broadening things comes from HM Treasury, I ask whether the Government have considered the political and economic enormity of the outcomes if this problem is not addressed now. To that end, could the House be advised what impact assessment has been made of the wholesale value of write-offs and the risk of sectoral market collapse? Lastly, if the Minister feels my concerns are misplaced and things are not as bad as I have suggested they might be, surely then the risk of exposure for the taxpayer is of itself a stopgap, a confidence-building measure, rather than a serious run on the Exchequer.