Building Safety Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

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

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

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

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

“enter homes with a camera.”

It also

“may need to open up walls and ceilings.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th February 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

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

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

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

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 28th February 2022 Grand Committee

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

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“too many buildings are declared unsafe”,

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

“seeking to profit from the current crisis”.

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


That was said as a matter of regret.

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

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Fox of Buckley]

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

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“top tips for keeping warm”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

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

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

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

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


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

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

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

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

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

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

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

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

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment 115A withdrawn.

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Tuesday 29th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 36 and 46. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, be so kind about my previous comments, but then I remembered that it was not him speaking. I thank whoever said something nice about the points that I was making.

I feel slightly awkward because, in some ways, I should be saying that I had a win in Committee, but here I am again. Amendment 36 seeks to insert a clause that would mean that

“an accountable person must take … steps to achieve best financial value”

for leaseholders. It would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to ensure that this duty is taken seriously. This is to focus the mind on the danger that we have seen throughout this Bill where, in the name of safety in a Bill taking on the grave injustice suffered by leaseholders of having to pay for building safety remediations, sometimes the solution inadvertently creates even more layers of disproportionate, overly cautious and risk-averse regulation and bureaucracy, which result in spiralling and never-ending sets of additional costs for leaseholders.

After Committee, when announcing the changes that the Government were making to the Bill, the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, said that they had listened to leaseholders’ concerns and were

“removing the requirement for a separate building safety charge and scrapping compulsory building safety managers, to help avoid unnecessary costs.”

Brilliant, I thought. When the Minister then told me that there would now be no building safety managers, I must confess that I was delighted. My amendment to abolish the building safety manager role was the first amendment that I had ever tabled and I had had a win. However, before I got the bunting out and allowed myself to indulge in any backslapping, I was brought to a pause by leaseholders, who noted:

“Small gains towards fairness, decency & common sense do not equal an overall ‘win’, the battle is v much ongoing!”


It is important that the Government have listened. A little like the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I should say that any caveats that I raise now are not intended to be churlish. However, it is precisely because I accept the assurances of the Minister and Michael Gove that they want to ensure that there are no unintended outcomes from the Bill in terms of avoidable unnecessary costs that I have tabled this amendment, which gives guidance a chance to push home the point that value for money for leaseholders is a very important thing.

This is not just about my fears around what might happen or leaseholders being paranoid. At a sector conference—Leasehold London 2022—Shaun Lundy, a chartered health and safety practitioner and a supporter of building safety managers, reflected on what removing that role would mean. He said that what worries him a bit is that some of the onerous duties are still there so, even if you get rid of the role, it still leaves a void over who will do the work. He worried out loud about the danger of creating “a disproportionate industry” and “another layer of bureaucracy”, especially in relation to the new duty to create safety case reports. He noted that, although some reports he had seen were sensible, others were completely over the top; he gave the example of a 50-page report costing £50,000 but with no tangible benefit. The building safety manager may therefore be dead but, for some, it is “Long live the building safety manager and their duties”. Dame Judith Hackitt’s call soon after Grenfell that it was not good enough to wait for a change in the law and that freeholders had to act has led to something of a panic reaction and has often been taken literally.

Just to give you an example, I will tell you the story of Aviva leaseholder Sarah from the Quadrant in Salford. With no law passed, her managing agent, Contour Property Services, has charged her and her fellow leaseholders for a building safety manager. What is more, it has appointed an additional building safety co-ordinator. In correspondence with the lease-holders, Contour writes of balancing “value for money” against taking

“appropriate measures to meet new safety requirements”.

Then the killer line tells them, almost casually as an afterthought:

“As a result of these appointments, there will be an increase in your service charges.”


There they are, in the small print, for the forthcoming year from April 2022 to March 2023. If you look at the small print in the bill, as I have, the building safety manager is there at £21,249.50. The cost of the part-time safety co-ordinator is £11,702.56 and this is charged to the leaseholders.

This might be blatant but, even if there is no direct mention of the building safety manager, it seems that they are lurking in the shadows, rebadged or slightly in disguise, but ever present none the less. The heavily administrative substance of the duties that they were meant to take part in remains in the Bill. Many of these duties are based on the precautionary principle, sadly interpreted through the prism of zero risk and often disproportionately focused on myriad possible risks rather than clearly defined dangers. In Sarah’s case, one of the listed duties is writing and maintaining the building safety case for the building, which shows that all the potential risks have been considered and mitigated. Never mind the cost of the building safety case itself, who will pay to resolve all the potential risks?

The question is whether the removal of the legal requirement to appoint building safety managers is strong enough to, in effect, stop them being imposed. This amendment asks the Government to note that the genie is out of the bottle, but the Secretary of State has the opportunity to ensure, in guidance, that the sector should not just rush to risk-averse costly solutions because they have once been suggested, but should instead focus on whether costs are proportionate to real risks and ensure that value for money is a barrier to costs just being dumped on leaseholders via service charges or other nefarious routes.

Of course, it is not all about money. We have to consider human costs, too. There is no point in knowing the cost of everything but ignoring the non-monetary value of homes for people, discussed so eloquently in the group beginning with Amendment 1.

Amendment 46 focuses on tightening the ability of freeholders, landlords and managing agents to force entry into leaseholders’ homes. When I raised this in Committee, there was understandable concern. People wanted to say, “What if there is an emergency? You need to be able to enter.” We can all think of such instances. I know that that happened with a burst pipe in a flat above mine, with water pouring into the flat below. You need to be able to get in to turn the water off, but this should be a last resort. This modest amendment simply aims to reinforce that point and to give leaseholders some power in that decision.

At present, despite limited rights for leaseholders, which have become increasingly clear since building safety issues came into the public realm, landlords have been under an implied obligation—as the ideal—to give the tenant or leaseholder “quiet enjoyment” of the property and they should not interfere with that. If you read the literature around building safety, you will discover an increasing clamour to challenge the idea that leaseholders have any rights to stop entry into their homes, presenting leaseholders as obstacles to safety.

For example, in the Safer People, Safer Homes: Building Safety Management report of a couple of years ago, there are complaints of

“Leasehold … units … purchased by their owners, who are not culturally accustomed to the notion that the owner … has any jurisdiction over their home.”

The landlords complain that access for owners and their agents is just too difficult. Extraordinarily and insultingly, the assumption is that, behind leaseholders’ front doors, they all behaving as fire hazards, irresponsibly ignorant of risks. Leaseholders are painted as ill-informed problems:

“Most will have no comprehension as to fire (or other safety) principles and their place in the matter.”


The report demands:

“Timely intervention on a statutory basis is needed to enable prompt access”


in order to

“monitor or assess risk and condition.”

My concern is that all these checks, monitoring and assessment will mean demands for entry beyond any reasonable bounds of common sense. Leaseholders themselves are anxious that the Government press home that this is not encouraged, and that the Government ask key questions of landlords.

Amendments 46 and 47 would restrict the power to enter people’s homes unless it was essential and would make it clear that the court must be satisfied that it was necessary to grant entry only in extreme circumstances, not just because an accountable person had sent a notice demanding entry for building safety purposes so vaguely defined that they could include anything from the overuse of scented candles to fridge inspections. I am just waiting for smoking in one’s home to become a listed fire risk, although I do not want to give that idea to the Government.

I make a final plea that leaseholders’ property rights are not just to be shooed away and a final reminder—one that I will return to later—that we should avoid pushing a narrative that assumes that all blocks of flats are inherently dangerous and at high risk of fires, creating a climate of fear that then justifies the surveillance and monitoring of leaseholders in their homes and the reorganisation of everyone’s lives around hypersafety and zero risk at great cost, both financially and in the human sense of civil liberties and privacy rights, to those homeowners who are unfortunate enough to be leaseholders as well.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I shall say a few words on behalf of my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson in respect of Amendments 13, 20 and 35, to which her name is attached. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, explained, my noble friend sends her apologies; she is attending the thanksgiving service for His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh in her capacity as chair of the wonderful Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme. I think we all agree that that event should take priority.

She wanted her thanks to the Minister and his officials to be recorded for the new amendment, which will require the regulator to report regularly on engagement with residents who are disabled. She has greatly welcomed constructive talks outside the Chamber and is keen to keep working with the Minister on personal emergency evacuation plans to meet the needs of people with disabilities so that they have correct and useful information and can feel safe where they live.

Amendment 86 in this group is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I will also comment on government Amendments 73, 85 and 263. In Committee, I raised the issue of leaseholders managing their own blocks of flats who would be given onerous new responsibilities for safety issues by this Bill. These new duties and liabilities could deter many from acting as the voluntary unpaid directors of their resident management companies and right-to-manage companies. These self-managed blocks depend on their volunteer directors to give up their time—and, indeed, risk falling out with their neighbours since not all their decisions will be popular with everyone—but who wants to risk a criminal prosecution and a criminal record for failing to carry out all the correct safety actions required of an accountable person by the Bill? Recruiting and retaining volunteers to be directors of resident-run companies is already difficult yet there is widespread agreement that more, not less, leaseholder control should be strongly encouraged.

The Minister has recognised the issue and brought forward government Amendment 73 to enable lease-holder-controlled companies to take on board a paid expert building safety director to provide this service to the company if, and only if, the leaseholders wish to delegate the job. Amendment 85 means that the cost of engaging that professional as the person responsible for building safety can be included in the service charges for all residents. These government amendments are very welcome; I thank the Minister very much for listening to the arguments and acting accordingly.

However, the Institute of Residential Property Management and the Association of Residential Managing Agents—they are now becoming a single entity, to be known as the Property Institute—noticed one obstacle to the Government’s otherwise excellent solution: quite a few resident-controlled companies prohibit the appointment of any director who is not themselves a leaseholder in the block. My amendment would address that point and enable an external expert safety director to be appointed in such circumstances, with necessary protections on costs and the ability to get rid of the building safety director if the arrangement does not work out.

--- Later in debate ---

I now turn to Amendment 264A tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. Unfortunately, the Government again cannot accept this amendment, which would require a review of the impact of the Act. I reassure my noble friend that a review is already required by Clause 152, which provides that the Secretary of State must—

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

That amendment has been degrouped; we are coming to it later, where I have a similar amendment. The Minister might want to wait until then.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I am addressing my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s amendment; we will come specifically to group 6 from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in due course.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

It is just that it has been degrouped to be with my amendment on the review. I was just explaining.

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Tuesday 29th March 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Fox of Buckley]

26: After Clause 74, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of provisions relating to accountable persons
(1) By the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which section 71 comes into force, the Secretary of State must undertake a review of the financial impact of accountable persons on leaseholders in higher-risk buildings.(2) The review under subsection (1) may consider any matter appearing to the Secretary of State to be relevant, but must identify and quantify—(a) all costs passed on to leaseholders in relation to any function of any accountable person under Part 4 of this Act; and(b) any other costs passed on to leaseholders by any accountable persons.(3) A Minister of the Crown must, as soon as practicable on completion of the review, lay a statement on its findings before Parliament.(4) This section comes into force on the day this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the government to identify and quantify all costs passed on to leaseholders under the accountable person regime, for example to check if Building Safety Manager costs have been rebadged and passed on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I thought we were going to have a vote.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

We surprised the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I am not ready.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Your Lordships need to calm yourselves.

On Saturday, I went to visit my home in Wood Green. It looks like a bomb site: there is no roof and there are huge amounts of scaffolding and barbed-wire fences surrounding the block of 25 two-floor maisonettes. When you arrive, you see a huge multicoloured fluorescent sign with the words “Zero tolerance” and then a list of prohibited activities, all relating to safety: “Safety helmets must be worn”; “Safety footwear must be worn”; “No smoking”; “Danger: tripping hazards”; “Danger: men working ahead”; “Danger: no children on the site”. We are told that “Safety signs and procedures must be observed.” I therefore know, having visited my home in Wood Green, that Haringey Council is definitely keen on promoting safety.

Let us consider this. My home is in this state because, two years ago, there was a fridge fire in one maisonette. The roof of the block caught fire and the other flats, including mine, were drenched by the fire brigade in putting out the fire. It was not too bad and, to be honest, we were so glad that no one was hurt and we were relieved to get out safely. But that was two years ago this month—two years in which 25 families have been effectively homeless. As a leaseholder, the council, which is my freeholder, took my front door key off me—it is not a glamorous house, by the way, but it is mine, or so I thought—and basically said that I would get it back when the block had been made safe. It is now two years later and I am still not back, and I have no idea when I can go home.

I have mentioned this story before. My retelling it is not therapy but to show how what starts as an unremarkable but unpleasant event—a fire, albeit in lockdown—can escalate and turn into a nightmarish, never-ending misery for so many people. At every turn, as leaseholders and tenants, we have been faced with layers of bureaucracy getting in our way, more and more people to deal with, more and more issues being raised to explain why we are not returning home, and dwindling effectiveness in getting our homes back to us. We leaseholders and council tenants have been shown a certain indifference to our plight. If I am honest, all that has been much worse than the original fire, but it is okay because Haringey Council has put up lots of safety signs. Safety trumps all, and is used to say to us, “Shut up and put up.”

I arrived at this place during the time of my eviction from the house and was inspired by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, whom I heard speak on what was happening to leaseholders. I thought, “I’m going to join that debate.” I was inspired by their dedication and what they said, and that is how I ended up here.

The moral of this tale is that I want to make sure that the Bill, which is well-intentioned on safety, does not in the name of safety end up with the unintended escalation of a whole new set of problems for leaseholders, which was the point of the analogy with my flat fire. The amendment—I actually prefer a similar but better amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who is trying to do the same thing—would require the Government to commit to review the impact of the legislation in a couple of years. It says to the Government, “Can you just check in all instances that the legislation doesn’t cause more problems and is actually doing what you want it to do, or what we in the House have been told you want it to do?”

We are rather rushing through the Bill. Whole swathes of new amendments have emerged. These have been put in not necessarily by noble Lords but by the Government. I was happy to hear the Minister explain that there are so many amendments because he, the Secretary of State and the department are listening. But whatever way you look at it, we, as people scrutinising the Bill, are being presented with hundreds of amendments that have been quite hard to get one’s head round in the time. In many ways, the Bill is not being fully scrutinised line by line. As the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, put it, it really is a legislative quagmire to wade through and it is very difficult.

It has been almost impossible to read the amendments, assess what their nuances mean and look for what the consequences might be. I appreciate that that is for me and that I am a lay person on technicalities, but luckily, as has been mentioned, leaseholders have a few important voluntary heroes who have helped the rest of us through. I know that the lawyer and leaseholder Liam Spender has already been name checked for his multicoloured sheet, which has already been shown, but if noble Lord have not seen it is well worth studying because it really does explain things. There are also all sorts of reporters for the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and intrepid leaseholders doing their own work, trying to get to grips with what all these new amendments and the Bill mean.

I mention that because it would be irresponsible if we passed this Bill and then let it sail off into the distance without any idea that it will be looked at again. I worry that the Government think that all will be solved once the Bill has passed. I do not want hostages to fortune. We have had lots of reassurances today, we have been told not to worry and have had great rhetoric from the Government on proportionality and common sense, but we therefore need to be able to check that that rhetoric will be fulfilled.

Finally, this is not all about leaseholders. My hunch is that the Bill has a range of problems because it has gone along uncritically with the picture painted by Dame Judith Hackitt that somehow every aspect of living in a flat should be seen as a potential hazard and a dangerous fire risk. For the last few years—understandably because of Grenfell—there has been a sort of hyperactive “something must be done” mentality that has led to the EWS1 crisis and caused many of the issues that informed the discussion on the previous group of amendments on innocent victims paying for excessive remediation.

All I ask is that this review checks that an overzealousness does not emerge from the legislation that skews priorities and means the Government’s valiant efforts at common sense and proportionality somehow end up in a proliferation of chunky formalised procedures.

I will also reflect on the other people we should bear in mind. I have emphasised leaseholders throughout this contribution, but in my Second Reading speech I also talked about the construction industry. I want to make sure we do not end up stymying the house-building programme through overregulation. There is a danger that, as we have heard in some of the contributions, we describe the construction business as though they are all cowboy builders, which is a rather insulting caricature. With another hat on, at another time, I would be saying the big crisis in this country is a lack of housing and we need to “Build, build, build”, so I get worried when the Home Builders Federation says that it is concerned that there will be difficulties with housing delivery if too much of a burden is put on housebuilders. You might say, “I am not going to feel sorry for them,” but we do not want to get ourselves into a situation where the extraction of funds from the construction industry means that the UK home building industry—which is important to many parts of levelling up, social equality and so on—is stymied.

One way or another, I can think of nothing more sensible for a common-sense Minister than to say, “In a couple of years, we’ll review all this and check that your hunches are wrong, Lady Fox.” That will be fine. The Minister referred to me earlier as Oliver Twist—always wanting more. This is only a little bit more, but you cannot change the world unless you want more, and I intend to demand a lot more, but only a little more in this Bill. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 264A in this group. I thank my noble friend the Minister, as others have done, for all he has done to make this Bill a reality.

The object of the Bill, as I see it, is to get defects remediated to a proportionate extent as quickly as possibly—mainly cladding, sometimes installed, ironically, to improve insulation in the interests of carbon reduction, but also other unsafe matters. There have turned out to be more defects than anticipated and we have witnessed an unfortunate record by builders and others of not doing enough to put matters right. The Bill seeks to get things remedied quickly. However, it is costing an eye-watering amount to home owners, leaseholders and the Exchequer, and the Bill therefore also seeks to establish an equitable share-out of the costs including appropriate contributions by the supply chain.

It is a long saga and some of us in this House have been seeking solutions for a very long time and welcome the principle of legislation. However, unusually, the Bill has been changed completely by government amendments tabled since it left the House of Commons, yet we have not had an updated impact assessment to help us assess the costs and benefits of the revised proposals. This is poor, given the financial and other burdens on different stakeholders, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has just explained. However, as the chair of the Built Environment Committee I welcome today’s concession from the Minister on social housing, which I hope will be less costly, as it will give welcome clarity.

I have a great deal of respect for the Health and Safety Executive, as I have said before, and for the Minister who has fought so hard to present credible, effective and sensible proposals. However, it has been a rush, and I believe we must have a review clause in the Bill beyond the five-year independent review in Clause 152, and with more teeth. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has constructively proposed one option; I hope my version may recommend itself to colleagues across the House and to my noble friend. I believe that agreeing to this could help to narrow current, very real, differences on the Bill particularly in the next group of amendments.

I will explain why. I am proposing a review within two years. It would look at the impact of the provisions of the Act. If the review found that there were serious problems for leaseholders, for home owners who could not buy or sell property, or for any other group, it would make recommendations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for this insightful debate.

Amendment 26 from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, would require a review of the financial impact of the new regime. I reassure the noble Baroness that a review is already required by Clause 152, which provides that:

“The Secretary of State must appoint an independent person to carry out a review of”


the system of regulation of building safety and standards and the system of regulation for construction products. Importantly, the reviewer is not limited and may choose to review connected matters, including the matters mentioned in the noble Baronesses’ amendments.

Similarly, Amendment 246A in the name my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe would require a review of the impact of the Act. I apologise for the mix-up that resulted in my addressing this amendment in an earlier group. I will repeat for the record that we believe that this further replicates Clause 152 in the Bill and therefore we believe this is unnecessary.

What I do say to my noble friend is that the Secretary of State has to appoint someone to carry out the review within five years, so that is a long-stop date. I am very happy to meet my noble friend to ensure that we get going with this review at the very earliest opportunity to make sure that that long-stop date is comfortably met. We also need to make sure that this review is substantive and learns the lessons of a new regime in the broadest possible sense and addresses the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, as well those raised by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, who has had tremendous Front-Bench experience as well as experience as a distinguished civil servant.

With those explanations, I kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, to withdraw her amendment and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe not to press her amendment.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I will withdraw but I will come back to the Minister. I think it is important to come back to the Minister and say if it is within five years, I would like it to be brought forward sooner. I do not know why he does not just accept the two years but let us have the meeting to discuss it. At this point, I will not press the amendment and beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 26 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. In relation to Amendment 115, the noble Lord discussed the 11-metre question. The emphasis is often on whether there is less risk in safety terms under or over 11 metres. For me, that slightly misses the point—which is that, regardless of whether you have resolved that, the problem is that freeholders are still charging and doing remediation work on buildings under 11 metres. Therefore, there are costs that those people who live in buildings under 11 metres have to pick up. The lecture that it is less risky over 11 metres really needs to be given to the freeholders not, necessarily, to the leaseholders—but that does not really help us, I think.

More generally, this is such an important group of amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, passionately reminded us of the context. It is true that being a leaseholder today is no longer just a description—it has almost become a full-time job in terms of fending off more and more financial demands and getting on top of the law. If you go and meet a group of leaseholders, they are having the kind of discussion about the ECHR that we have just heard from noble Lords, because they are trying to get on top of all these details and technicalities. It has become an overriding source of worry and anxiety, and genuinely—rather than just being about the status of home ownership—it has become a hellish state of affairs. So they need anything that can resolve that, and that is why this Bill is so important and this group of amendments matters.

My amendment in this group is a tiny, modest amendment that relates to evaluations. Amendment 165A in my name asks that any evaluations used to decide on caps for those still being charged for remediation should be looked at in a slightly different way. I do not want anything to be paid—I would go with peppercorn or nil—but if there are caps deployed and evaluations used, I remind noble Lords that we need to rectify a different kind of injustice.

The amendment asks that those valuations take into account that the leaseholder’s ability to pay will have been affected by the fact that their main wealth may be in the form of their asset—their home—and that their asset’s value may well be devalued hugely due to fire safety and building safety policies. The amendment notes that the properties may well be in negative equity as a consequence of government measures.

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 4th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments. I am glad to be associated with proportionality, especially in relation to safety and the unintended consequences of a zero-risk approach to any policy, actually. I thank everyone who has been involved—the Minister, the government team and all the people across the House far more experienced than I am—for making the discussions around this have a certain sense of a collegiate endeavour, trying to solve a problem that we all knew was there. I thank your Lordships for your encouragement and, often, your patience with my own inability to quite understand the process.

I particularly thank leaseholders. I got involved with this issue because I was lobbied, not by big business but by ordinary, grass-roots leaseholders. As a leaseholder myself, I found that there was a whole community out there. While we have done a huge amount to benefit their situation, going from where they were to where they are, we are not quite there yet. As much as I would like it to be the case that they are grateful for our endeavours, many of them still feel frustrated, fearful and nervous—and you cannot blame them, because they are just not sure what is going to happen; there are too many question marks. I do not think we should be disparaging of them or think that they are lacking in gratitude for what has happened.

I encourage the Government not only to give time in the other place to consider the amendments but not to wash their hands of the Bill, as it were, once it eventually fully goes through. I think we have all noted that there will be unintended consequences: hidden costs and service charges. While there might be a formal review, this will be an ongoing issue for many years to come. Therefore, I hope the Government will be open to those lobbying for leaseholders, even when we are not discussing a Bill in Parliament. I would like the department to still keep listening to them, as I certainly will. I will raise issues whenever I get the chance. Generally, this is far better than when we started, but I always want more.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, simply look at the Bill that came from the other place, then take a look at what we are sending back. It has changed beyond all recognition. I pay tribute to my noble friend the Minister and his boss, my right honourable friend Michael Gove, for that extraordinary transformation. I also thank my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and noble Lords and noble Baronesses on all sides of the House, and the right reverend Prelate, for the many amendments they have made, many of which have been accepted by the Government. We are sending back some important amendments that the Government might not quite like as much as we would like them to. However, I appeal to the other place to accept them and not to remove them, especially the zero amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock.

The Government, apparently, have had legal advice on the dangers of breaking the ECHR if we changed the cap figures, but we heard, I submit, even better legal advice that that is not so. In any case, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, said, some developers will challenge the figure in court no matter what level the Government set.

We also need to do more on enfranchised leaseholders. They were encouraged to purchase their freeholds, and they must not be treated like rapacious landlords. Nevertheless, this Bill now gives leaseholders infinitely better protection. With a few further tweaks it could give them full protection. When I see the contribution my noble friends have made to the Bill, I am reminded of the words of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, or almost his words:

“Antonius! … Yond”


noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham,

“has a lean and hungry look … Let me have men about me that are fat”.

I commend this Bill and hope the other place will improve it further.

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 26th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I have been living with this matter since we first debated the Fire Safety Bill in 2020. I declare an interest as chair of the Built Environment Committee. I believe that the building industry has an important part to play and has tried to rise to the table in the current circumstances. The Government, and my noble friend the Minister in particular, are to be congratulated on all they have done to find a way through on cladding, but the measures legislated for are inevitably costly and should not, in my view, be legislated for in respect of buildings under 11 metres, as proposed in Amendment D1.

I have some news for my noble friends. Since Michael Gove’s Statement on 10 January about proportionality and common sense, the logjam in buildings under 11 metres has eased. I have experience of this, relating to a family leaseholder in a nearby village, where there is now a less absolutist and more flexible approach to fire safety in a block of homes; this has become apparent in recent weeks since the changes were made. I believe, therefore, that there is a limit as to what we should provide on a contingency basis. I do not believe that taking the proposed powers, as now suggested, is justified. I think that the situation is improving in relation to buildings under 11 metres, and we should welcome that and see how that approach can be progressed.

I end by thanking my noble friend the Minister for the progress that has been made. Obviously, there are horrific problems, right across the board, in relation to taller buildings and cladding. Howeever, I urge people to be a little careful in bringing into the legislative framework, without looking at all the details, a very much larger number of homes.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, like everybody else, I think it has been refreshing to be in a situation whereby the debates in this place have been listened to and changes made. On a number of other Bills, one has not had that feeling—but in relation to this we definitely have.

I want to emphasise the key issue of buy-to-let leaseholders. They can be presented as big landlords, but I remind the Minister that many people were advised that investing in property would be an important way of being sensible and would provide them with an income or a pension and so on and so forth. So people did this in good faith. They are not landlords. They are leaseholders; they just have more leasehold flats. They are not big business. They are being treated differently if they have a small portfolio of four properties. This needs to be looked at, because it feels wrong that such people should be punished.

Secondly, I am very mixed about the 11-metre question. I agree that the danger of an unintended consequence here would be to say that, if you paid the remediation for under 11 metres, everybody would rush out and start remediating under 11 metres when it is not necessary. I am delighted to hear the Minister’s pledge, which I hope we will keep him to, that anyone having a problem with a building under 11 metres can get in touch if they are being charged. However, there is the problem of sales, and people feeling that they have unsellable flats; the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned this. That is the approach I want to feel that we leave this Bill with: that leaseholders can come to the Minister with these kinds of problems that are unintended consequences.

I was one of the people who was very enthusiastic about having some kind of ongoing review—although we did not go down that route. The unintended consequence of what has in the end been a bit of a risk-averse panic over the past few years—which I understand—is that everything is seen as a fire risk. This has led not to keeping people safe but to making people very poor and not solving the safety problem. Let us hope, therefore, that things such as consultations and these kinds of questions will be taken seriously, because one thing I have heard consistently from leaseholders is that, although there is a lot of talk about listening to leaseholders and tenants—we heard that post Grenfell; we all know that Grenfell residents had tried to raise issues but were ignored—they still do not quite feel that they have a way of having a voice. That is an important thing for the Minister to carry on with.

I support Motion H1, because I want to push the Government one last time on this question. Ultimately—this is a very important point—the number is small but, on principle, we just want to be in a situation where the leaseholders are not paying. That is really what is being argued here: leaseholders, who were always the innocent people in this, should not pay.

Finally, because I think this can get lost, I have tried to represent the voices of at least some leaseholders—particularly those from Tower Hamlets, where I know the Lib Dems in particular have been brilliant at raising all these issues. It is an area where there are more problems around the leaseholder question than anywhere else, but greater remediation; I have been really inspired by that.

I also remind noble Lords that I want more houses to be built. This is a huge, important part of levelling up or whatever it is. We just need more houses built. I have always been concerned that we do not do anything that ends up destroying the construction industry or having the outcome that no houses are built—risk aversion in housebuilding. Part of what has happened is that people now understand the downside of being a leaseholder. Even if you are building those houses, you now think, “Why would I buy a leasehold flat?” I can assure you that, if I ever buy a flat again, after I have sold my leasehold flat—I am going to get rid of it as quickly as possible—I will not then want to buy a leasehold flat. I just think it is too scary.