Building Safety Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Debate between Daisy Cooper and Mike Amesbury

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. The new clause places a time-limited duty on the Secretary of State to consider making designations under part 16 of the Housing Act 1985 to provide funding for cladding and fire safety remediation and enables Parliament to approve the plans for doing so.

The principle behind the new clause will be well known to Committee members and, indeed, Members from right across the House. It comes from the eye-watering costs faced by fire safety victims. Earlier in Committee proceedings, we took evidence from Alison Hills, Stephen Day and End Our Cladding Scandal. All talked about the enormous bills they face and the fact that they simply cannot afford to pay them. The new clause requires the Government to report on whether the process of designating these premises as defective could improve leaseholders’ financial position. The 1985 Act presents an interesting precedent of a Conservative Government intervening to establish a scheme to reimburse people who later found themselves to be living in defective premises. The grant funding under the Act covered only 90% of remediation costs; alternatively, it would purchase the home for 95% of the defect-free value.

As drafted, the new clause, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), has a couple of challenges, but neither is insurmountable. The 1985 Act scheme applies only to homes purchased from a public authority, but I am sure the Government can find a way to amend that Act—through primary legislation or perhaps by accepting the new clause—so that it applies to the current crisis and bring forward a new proposal to include defective private homes.

The other issue is that the definition of defects in the 1985 Act focused on modes of construction, rather than the specific defects that need to be remediated. It would be a little tricky, but not impossible, for the Government to capture all the fire safety defects they would want covered under the new clause. Indeed, they could introduce statutory instruments that list them, or they could put a duty on the new Building Safety Regulator to report to the Secretary of State on what should and should not be included.

There are obstacles to overcome, but as I say, they are not insurmountable. The question is whether the Government want to overcome them. If the Government continue to refuse to resolve this crisis, Back-Bench Members will continue to find every opportunity to use the Bill to make sure that we can protect leaseholders from these enormous, eye-watering costs. Thatcher’s Government had the compassion and foresight to ensure that those who bought their homes under the right to buy were not left with defective homes through no fault of their own. If even Thatcher’s Government could do that, we hope that Johnson’s Government can finally step up and do the same.

[Mike Amesbury]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

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

Colleagues will be pleased to hear that this is the last new clause from me. It would require the Secretary of State to conduct an assessment of the state of building safety and fire safety defect remediation in England, and to specifically assess whether it constitutes an emergency, as defined in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

We are now four years on since the Grenfell tragedy. We have heard that so many times in the Chamber and here in Committee. Not only are we more than four years on from the tragedy, but there are suggestions that, at the current rate of reform, it could potentially take up to 10 years to sort out all of the existing fire safety issues faced by existing leaseholders. That is simply not good enough.

It is clear that the fire safety scandal is an emergency. In Victoria, Australia, they treated it as a public health emergency. When we took evidence, everybody that we asked, “Do you consider this to be an emergency?” said, “Yes”. It is clear that the overall building and fire safety scandal

“threatens serious damage to human welfare in a place in the United Kingdom”.

That is part of the definition of what constitutes an emergency under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

We have seen, over the past 18 months, what can be done by Government when there is a crisis. We can see the scale and pace of change and reform when something is treated as an emergency. Waiting for two years, five years or 10 years is far too long, so I respectfully request the Government to reflect on whether four years so far, and potentially several years to come, is good enough; whether they could usefully use the Civil Contingencies Act; and whether the new clause—which would require the Secretary of State to conduct an assessment of whether the state of building safety and fire safety constitutes an emergency under the 2004 Act—would be a useful mechanism to ensure that we can move much faster and make all homes fire-safe within at least the next 12 months.

[Mike Amesbury]

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

Building Safety Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Debate between Daisy Cooper and Mike Amesbury

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Amesbury]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 17

Presumption of allowing urgent building safety remediation work

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Daisy Cooper]

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

I spoke too soon early in proceedings; I thought I had finished all my new clauses for the day, but I forget about new clause 17. This new clause would introduce the presumption of consent for leaseholders to carry out urgent building safety work where absent freeholders cannot be contacted, or refuse to respond. I have moved this new clause following the evidence from the National Housing Federation, which spoke in detail about the challenges its members had faced when dealing with absent or offshore freeholders. Kate Henderson said in evidence to this Committee:

“We can have buildings that are owned by freeholders that are shell companies, and sometimes those companies then demise the internal parts of the building to a long-term leaseholder…Our members have told us that it can be really difficult to engage with the freeholder in this sort of set-up, especially when they need to do things such as assess external wall materials or identify what needs to be remediated.”––[Official Report, Building Safety Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2021; c. 48, Q46.]

This new clause seeks to give the Government an opportunity to fix that specific problem.

There is, of course, a precedent for the concept of a presumption of consent, because the Government introduced it in their own legislation on broadband earlier in the parliamentary session. When I put that to the National Housing Federation during our evidence session, Members may recall that the NHF said there were concerns that the legislation to enable residents to get fast broadband into their homes could cause fire safety defects if the people installing the broadband inadvertently went through firebreaks. I recognise that my proposal is not without problems, but given that leaseholders have been given a presumption of consent in order to get faster broadband put into their buildings—whether or not that might cause problems with firebreaks—if those buildings face fire safety problems, one can see why a presumption of consent might be a good thing.

At an earlier point in proceedings, the Minister and I had an exchange about this new clause, and I believe he raised the question of unintended consequences from that presumption. I hope he may be willing to expand on his concerns and provide assurances that he is aware that this is a challenge for social housing providers, and that the Government will look to address it either through this new clause or in an amendment of their own.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

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

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 20

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

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

(2) The review must consider in particular—

(a) current and future housebuilding,

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

(c) homelessness.

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

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

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

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

(a) homebuilding targets are reached,

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

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

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mike Amesbury]

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

The new clause would ensure that the Government published an assessment of the impact of building safety costs on registered providers of social housing. The National Housing Federation last week announced that one in 10 affordable homes planned by housing associations will no longer be built, because of the costs of making buildings safe. The impact of the Government’s decision to effectively lock out social landlords from funding, because costs are less likely to fall on the shoulders of leaseholders, is clear in the report: 12,900 out of 116,777 new affordable homes will be cut from plans in order to prioritise spending on building safety. Earlier this year, the G15 group stated that their bill would be £3.6 billion by 2036. Nationally, housing associations stated last year that it would cost £10 billion to make all homes safe from fire risk over the next 10 years. The National Housing Federation also announced last week that social rent homes would be the hardest hit, because they build the majority of that tenure within their own income envelope rather than with Government grants.

I need hardly remind the Minister that the country managed to build only 6,644 homes for social rent in 2019 and 2020, but lost 24,120 from the stock, resulting in a net loss of 17,476 homes for social rent. With one in 10 households stuck on waiting lists for more than five years to get a home, we absolutely cannot afford to be losing more social homes. We must build them at scale.

I was glad to hear that the new Secretary of State appears to agree with me and so I hope that addressing this aspect of the building safety crisis can form part of the thinking in this respect. It is not just home building itself that will be impacted. The 61 housing associations surveyed by the National Housing Federation said that they would have to divert £730 million away from routine maintenance such as upgrading kitchens or bathrooms or doing other essential safety work. Half a million social homes are considered to be non-decent—as we have seen in the coverage on ITV. Shockingly, 40% of those are classed as unfit for human habitation. These homes may have mould or damp, rodent issues, or physical damage.

Building Safety Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Debate between Daisy Cooper and Mike Amesbury

Thursday 21st October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Daisy Cooper]

I apologise for not being ready—I have some rather urgent constituency things coming in that have consumed my mind for the past few minutes.

There has been a lot of talk about how much detail is in the Bill and how much information is not in it. When we took evidence, a number of people said that they had worked closely with officials in the Department and they were hopeful that that would continue. They also emphasised the importance of scrutinising any legislation that came through via statutory instrument.

I think the purpose of the amendment is fairly obvious. Any statutory instruments that are laid should receive proper democratic scrutiny by Members of this House, the public, leaseholders and everybody in industry. It is self-explanatory. I hope that hon. Members will see it merits and I look forward to the Minister’s assurance that the Government are looking to ensure proper democratic scrutiny of any statutory instruments laid under the Bill.

[Mike Amesbury]

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

[Christopher Pincher]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Building Safety Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Daisy Cooper and Mike Amesbury

Thursday 16th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Amesbury]

It was Bolton South East, yes.

I know it is important to hon. Members that HSE is resourced appropriately, but given the evidence from the inspection regime, with the number of inspectors cut from around 1,400 in 2011 to 900 in 2019 and funding cut by over 30% by HSE, I am not filled with confidence. Will the Minister ensure for residents and leaseholders, let alone Members of Parliament, that the new regulator does indeed have the necessary resources?

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

While it was reassuring to hear that HSE has been assured by the Government that it will receive the resources it requires, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is imperative that local authorities are also given the resources they require to deliver this new building safety regime?

[Mike Amesbury]

I concur with that powerful point. Indeed, the Local Government Association made the same representations. Of course, local authorities have been somewhat hammered over the past decade in terms of resources and austerity. The hon. Lady makes a good point.

In conclusion, Labour welcomes the regulator overall, but we would of course go further and establish a building works agency to deal with the crisis here and now, building by building, with the principle of find, fund, fix and recover, and that the polluter pays. That is the immediate way forward.

Building Safety Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Daisy Cooper and Mike Amesbury

Tuesday 14th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Daisy Cooper]

Q Thank you. Steve, do you want to talk about your own situation?

Steve Day: Yes. I live in south-east London, in a development called Royal Artillery Quays. We had a £30 million cladding bill, have £1.7 million of internal firestopping issues, and a builder that says that we are timed out with the Defective Premises Act 1972 and the Latent Damage Act 1986 because we are 17 years old, and our 15-year hard stop in latent defects times us out. We are very angry.

My brother is here today. We are doing a start-up and do not have enough money for one salary. It is devastating to have to fight a developer that claims it has no legal liability, even though we found multiple breaches of the BBA certificate on the external wall system. I went around with a fire engineer with an endoscopic camera to see all the holes in the firestopping above every single flat. I am sickened.

I have had to help people in the development with depression. One of my neighbours had to talk someone out of suicide. I am sure my brother will not mind me saying that it has been challenging—running a small business start-up, and trying to fight a developer and come up with a statutory scheme to stop everyone else from doing this.

I urge you to recognise that full redress is not just something that we want—a “nice to have”. You will hear more evidence on it, but think about it this way: if you, as Parliament, do not intervene now, this will happen in decades to come. There is a race to the bottom in construction. I was on holiday, and after The Times article that came out last weekend backing the polluter pays Bill, I did not really want to be next to a senior member of the construction industry for my holidays. However, he was very understanding and said to me, “Well, yes, there is a race to the bottom. Yes, the cheapest contract always wins. Yes, the building control that looks the least at the defects is the one that gets the contracts.” We have to stop this. Levies and taxes is letting them get away with it. We have to step in. That is what I am asking you to do today.

[Mike Amesbury]

Q Hello, Alison and Steve. I am sorry to hear of your experiences. I know that they are shared by hundreds of thousands, if not more, of people across the country. Steve, I have spoken to you before about the polluter pays principle, which collectively we have spoken about—Labour Back Benchers and others have been advocating that, rather than leaseholders. In terms of your proposals going forward, a lot of developers obviously set up special purpose vehicles. How would you ensure that your proposals—your idea—would be able to capture those characters and ensure that the money goes where it deservedly needs to go?

Steve Day: I am glad that you have asked about SPVs, as that is obviously a point of contention for our scheme. First, we are creating a statutory scheme—we are writing the law and Parliament is intervening. We would go after the parent companies when there is a relationship there. In the case of an SPV, we would try to establish that relationship. Remember that there are two parts to polluter pays—I do not know if you have seen the diagram. One part is to get the responsible parties to pay in full if we can. If we cannot find anyone—this is your first answer—we go to the levies that we have on the construction industry and the ancillary bodies such as cladding manufacturers and so on, who have all been part of the problem, as we heard in the Grenfell inquiry.

We can do a better answer than that, though: parent company liability. You might say, “Is that possible?” The UK Competition and Markets Authority can hold parent companies liable for the anticompetitive conduct of their subsidiaries, and can hold both the parent and subsidiary company jointly and severally liable for the payment of fines resulting from the anticompetitive conduct of the subsidiary. It has been done. If you want to look further afield, in German law, Konzernrecht holds parent companies liable for obligations of controlled subsidiaries; that has been done in Germany. Some say that British companies will not be attractive for investors if we do this parent liability, but it seems to be working in Germany. Hopefully, that gives you a little more colour on why we want to do this.

Ultimately though, take a step back from the legality. I am very grateful for Daniel Greenberg’s help and his 20 years of experience as parliamentary counsel; he is operating in a private capacity pro bono, because that is how much he believes in the Bill. He is not at all worried about this liability; he thinks it can and should be done. We have a simple, cost-effective and fast mechanism; a statutory scheme that will make those responsible pay, and their parents. Is that okay, Mike?

Building Safety Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Daisy Cooper and Mike Amesbury

Tuesday 14th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Daisy Cooper]

Q Good morning to both of you. This is a question for Richard. In paragraph 11 of your written evidence, you said:

“We all know that these problems have been caused by historic regulatory failures, dating back decades. We need to be careful that the solution doesn’t simply absolve the Government of its responsibilities and pass them on to consumers, whether that’s existing or future residents.”

If that is not the solution, then what do you think the solution should be?

Richard Silva: Thank you for the question. It goes to the heart of our role in this sector. As a freeholder, we do not develop, build, design or sign off on these buildings. We effectively, under the new regime, take ownership of them post gateway 3, when they are fit for occupation. The Bill, in many respects, is an excellent starting point and provides a good framework for looking forward. The problem is, what are we going to do about the existing stock that is in a mess? Our view is, simply, that there are three areas where this should be addressed.

The Government should be commended for trying to fix a problem that successive Governments have caused through a defective regulatory regime, whether that is from a construction perspective, or by signing off on materials and building systems. In that context, I think the Government should underwrite the process of fixing the existing stock.

That is not to say that taxpayers should foot the bill for everything. The Government should take responsibility —they are starting to do that through the presentation of this Bill—and then look at recourse from those who created the mess. The Government’s culpability lies in the regulatory regime and the failure there, although there are bad actors in the construction industry and the product manufacturing industry, and the Government should go after them to recoup as much of the investment as needed to bring existing stock up to standard.

There is a final and third point that will be less popular from a leaseholder perspective, but it is important to articulate. When investigations are made into an unsafe cladding system in a defective building, and the cladding is taken off, other historical problems will be identified. Not all of those are caused by shoddy workmanship or defective materials; they may be due to a lack of investment in the life cycle and maintenance of those buildings. We advocate a mandatory reserve regime—a bit like in the States—in which a periodic assessment is carried out independently, not by the managing agent or building owner, which in this context could be a commonhold association, a residents’ management company or right-to-manage company, or a freeholder, but by an independent assessor, who looks at short, medium and long-term requirements for reserve funding and regular life cycle maintenance for that building. The leaseholders then contribute to that over the super-long term, based on various apportionments under the service charge regime.

This is a long-winded answer, but it is an important point. For example, every 25 years, a block of flats will need a new roof; it is not a building safety issue, but a maintenance issue. If someone lives in that block for 20 years and then sells, but no provision has been made, is it fair for the buyer to be hit with a massive bill a few years later, when they have not enjoyed the life cycle of living there? Anyone who owns a property should make that provision, and it should be mandated as opposed to voluntary.

[Mike Amesbury]

Q Does the Bill ensure that key stakeholders in your industry, rather than the leaseholders, are paying their fair share for a mess that was created over a series of decades?

Richard Silva: If you are referring to whether building owners should pay to fix the existing stock, a distinction should be drawn between the responsibility for maintaining the existing stock and the liability to pay; I covered the liability to pay in my previous answer. The responsibility should absolutely lie with the accountable person, under the new regime. Historically, the accountable person has been either the freeholder, where there is a two party lease, or, where the building is resident-controlled—as roughly two thirds of our portfolio is—the RMC or the RTM. In the future, when the Law Commission’s proposals are brought into legislation, it could be the commonhold association. They are responsible, with emphasis on the word “responsibility”, for the maintenance and repair of buildings. It is a complicated answer, but it does go to the Building Safety Bill, and the question of who will be accountable in the future.

It is an interesting debate. We have to ask ourselves whether members of an RMC or a commonhold association have time, expertise and willingness to do that work. Certainly, our research suggests that people do not want to do it, for a whole bunch of reasons. Forget criminal and civil liability—it is about having the time. People have other things to do. In the context of the Bill, among the wider Government reforms on leasehold, we need to focus on the fact that the role of the freeholder will become redundant. That is unambiguous from the leasehold reform agenda proposed. That means that the work done by my building safety team—it includes chartered fire engineers and surveyors—for the leaseholders and at no cost to them, save a modest ground rent, will become redundant. So this part of the Bill needs to be really carefully looked at. Who wants to do this role, absent the professional landlord?

Kieran Walker: I would be inclined to agree with Richard on the accountable persons piece, moving forward. If I understood the question correctly, you are really asking whether costs are fair and proportionate for historical issues and for historical defective buildings. It is very difficult to answer, if I am honest with you. As has been mentioned already this morning, you have some really good practice going on in the industry in terms of the developers and construction companies, and you have some culprits in there as well. We know that as a trade body and as an industry. Similarly, the manufacturing process and the manufacturing companies also have some culprits.

It is difficult, therefore, to nail down whether costs are fair and proportionate. Obviously, as of next year, our industry will feel the impact of the residential property developer tax, as well as the building safety levy. Time will tell whether that is fair and proportionate. Obviously, the building safety levy is subject to consultation at the moment. I think that closes in mid-October and we are busily compiling responses to it. Within that scenario, some companies, responsible persons and organisations will pay part of, some of or none of the building safety levy, while others will pay the full residential property developer tax as well.

Time will tell whether costs are fair and proportionate, but I certainly think that things are moving in the right direction in respect of the Bill itself and in terms of levying costs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

Jayne first, please.

Councillor McCoy: London Councils feels that the scope of the Bill needs to be expanded. We think that the focus on height is a rather rough approximation of risk. As we know from experiences in Bolton, in Samuel Garside House in Barking and Dagenham, and in my ward, Worcester Park, we have had fires in buildings under 18 metres that would have resulted in loss of life if it had not been for luck—it was a matter of minutes. We know that there are fire safety risks in buildings under 18 metres. We think that height should not be the only approximation for risk.

We think all new buildings—so all heights—should be covered by the Bill. For remediation purposes, we think a risk assessment tool should be applied to look at the holistic assessment of a building. I think a tool is being developed in response to the Fire Safety Act that could be adapted and used for this measure.

Andrew Bulmer: In conjunction with the Fire Safety Act and noting that this Bill now extends its tentacles to below 18 metres for some limited functions—fire risk assessments and identification of a responsible person—the scope of the Bill is wider than it was and I feel it is a good place to start.

[Mike Amesbury]

Q What is missing from the Bill? This question is for both of you.

Councillor McCoy: A lot of additional clarification is needed regarding the accountable person, the building safety manager and their responsibilities. A lot of detail is required. We need that detail and clarification because the industry, including councils in particular, needs to gear up to meet those responsibilities. Until they know what those responsibilities are, they cannot effectively gear up and commit the resources.

In particular, I would talk about the skills within building safety management. There is a lack of skills out there at the moment. There is a lack of resource out there at the moment. We cannot recruit as a council. My council cannot recruit to building control at the moment because people are not out there. Until we have clarification about what the skills are, and a framework for that, we cannot build up the capacity and skills needed. I would also flag that councils need the resources to be able to do that, because an awful lot of burdens are falling on councils.

Andrew Bulmer: I concur with the councillor. There is a lot of detail in the regulations, especially when it comes to the role of the building safety manager. We would like to see the regulations brought forward. They can either go in the Bill or be introduced promptly. Until then, we are operating a little one-handed. We are anxious to prepare and gear up for this, but without that information we are struggling.

That is one thing that is missing from the Bill; the other is protection for leaseholders from historical building safety defect costs. We understand that the Bill has to be written in a way that allows the reasonable costs of safety maintenance going forward to be recovered. That is fair and reasonable, but at the moment there is no protection for leaseholders from existing building safety failures that they did not cause.

Building Safety Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Daisy Cooper and Mike Amesbury

Thursday 9th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Daisy Cooper]

Q I am pleased to hear both of your answers; thank you for them. If I may get to the nuts and bolts, we all agree that there has to be culture change—we have heard that from a number of people—and we all recognise that it will take some time. Given your language—you warn of the “danger of disproportionate reaction”—can you point to any specific measure in the Bill that does not go far enough or goes too far, because that is the issue that members of the Committee have to grapple with?

Dr Steedman: My immediate reaction is that I think the Bill is proportionate, but there is a lot more work to do, and we look forward to working with the Department and industry on the supporting regulations and statutory guidance. They really ought to come along together—that would be very useful—but in so far as we are seeing the approach today, it is proportionate, and I welcome that. I do not think that it goes too far.

Peter Caplehorn: I absolutely support Scott in his analysis, which is exactly right. I add that it is important that industry sees that the Government are moving the agenda forward. I can point to several programmes in the past—nothing to do with building safety, of course—where the Government have announced a programme, industry has invested heavily, and then the programme has faltered. I think that is a shame. Many people with a memory of those circumstances will now see the Bill laid out in the way that it is, with all the elements to it.

Again, I reiterate that I do not think it is disproportionate; I think it sets the scene extremely well, and we can all see how we can work from it going forward. In fact, many people have already taken that up, but it is important that this is now a key moment, so that all the energy and effort from industry really get pushed forward. That is crucial.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Q Are the new regulator, the proposals, the powers, the responsibilities and, indeed, the resources appropriate, and is anything missing from the Bill?

Dr Steedman: There are some points that I think are missing. The regulator role is complex. I think we need a new regulator. In the work that we have done recently on competence standards, it is very clear that there needs to be a regulator. I think that the Health and Safety Executive is the right place to put the Building Safety Regulator. However, this goes beyond a regulator role; it turns into an enforcer role. Part of the complexity of this subject is the risk of creating a two-tier structure where you have structures that are in scope and structures that are out of scope, and a regulator that is regulator and enforcer for some buildings but just an ordinary regulator for other buildings.

I appreciate that building control is supporting this, but on the relationship between the Department and the regulator, in its role as regulator and enforcer for the buildings in scope and ordinary regulator for the buildings not in scope, and where determination will lie if someone is disputing the regulator’s role as an enforcer, that kind of complexity will not help the industry. It needs to happen and we need to work it out, which will take time, but the role as specified is extremely important and well defined, and I think it is being taken up very earnestly. The people involved are extremely excellent. Peter Baker is a well-respected individual, and I think we are in good hands with him.

Peter Caplehorn: Again, I support entirely what Scott has just said. To contextualise this a little, one of the issues that has been upon us for at least the last 20 years is the lack of oversight and sanction that Dame Judith Hackitt pointed out clearly in her review, to such an extent that I think the generality of customer practice across the industry was that regulation can be treated with a certain degree of lip service—that we do not really need to focus on the essence of a lot of regulation, simply because nobody will pick up on it and there will be no real sanction.

This is a key turning point in where we need to go, because the industry needs to recapture a respect for regulation and for compliance. The regulatory situation that is mapped out in the Bill starts to address that, but I share the concerns that Scott has expressed over the complexity. We have to start somewhere. To me, there is a bigger question here about how we reform the whole industry and the mechanisms that come into play. At the moment, that is set out in terms of a definition of higher-risk buildings, with different implications for other buildings. We have to look forward to the prospect of a regime that would be the same in addressing all buildings. That would start to simplify some of the current complexity, but we have to start somewhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

Q In my constituency of St Albans, I have a number of constituents who have been affected by this issue and are facing crippling costs to do with fire safety remediation. They have told me about the impact it is having on the decisions they make about their lives, such as not being able to start families because they cannot move house, and about people who are suffering from severe mental ill health. Liam, you mentioned that this Bill makes things worse in some respects. Can you expand on that particular point and talk to us about the real-life impact it is having on people who are affected?

Liam Spender: You are quite right that the situation is worsening by the day. People are facing existential questions—do they carry on with their property or not? They are facing unpalatable choices. I think one of the ways that the Bill makes things worse is in relation to works that are required to remove building safety risks, an example of which could be cladding. The Bill makes clear that they are all recoverable through the ordinary service charge mechanism, so it removes any doubt that leaseholders have to pay for other people’s misdeeds and mistakes.

We are already seeing the consequences with cladding, so imagine what it will be like with the next thing that comes down the road. You have seen the stories in the newspaper and on “Newsnight” last week that people are already facing six-figure bills, some people have committed suicide and others are declaring bankruptcy. There is a pall hanging over these people and it is a blight on the housing market, which the Bill does nothing to address. I will let Giles add more colour to that answer.

Giles Grover: Again, everything is a long story. A lot of us have been trapped since very soon after the events at Grenfell when buildings were assessed for ACM, and everything has just snowballed and got a lot worse. Every so often, there are incremental positive steps in terms of funding, but you have to fight tooth and nail for those. As Liam said, and as you said in your question, Daisy, it is families, first-time buyers, pensioners—people from all walks of life who just wanted to fulfil that very British dream of being a homeowner or a flat leaseholder; a leaseholder is not necessarily a homeowner. Just the other day, someone told me that because she is so worried and because there is no detail about the loan scheme, she has accepted an offer that is £35,000—it will not pay off the mortgage—on an under-18m building just to be able to move out. She has a little child as well. That is just in Manchester, but it is happening across the country.

As Liam said, there have been suicides, for a mixture of reasons as well, but people just feel helpless. We are currently trapped. You start off being financially trapped, and everyone focuses on the finances. But then, especially during the pandemic, for a year and a half you are sat in your flat looking at the walls and not able to sleep at night from thinking, “What happens if there is a fire?”

This is people in buildings of all heights and all tenures, with defects of all types. As much as it started as a cladding scandal—we are called End Our Cladding Scandal—it has become a building safety crisis. It is not just cladding; it may be balconies, internal compartmentation or lack of fire protection for steelwork. With all these issues, once they are identified and once you have a proper fire risk assessment—a type 4 intrusive one—you start uncovering the lack of regulations, the lack of oversight and the poor development practice, but we are still being made to pay for it. We are still the ones on the hook for it, despite it being none of our fault. It is an absolute disgrace, and it is unfathomable that it is still happening. Government have done something, but not enough to solve this issue once and for all, to provide that certainty to leaseholders and the housing market, and to help us move on with our lives.

[Mike Amesbury]

Q It is good to see you both, from afar. I have a question for you both: does the Bill ensure that the polluter pays? They are still receiving billions of pounds of Government subsidies. Is that clearly outlined in any provision in the Bill to ensure that leaseholders are protected and the polluter pays?

Liam Spender: No. The same builders that have put up buildings with the horrific array of defects that we are seeing are still perfectly entitled to draw on the Help to Buy scheme and the recently announced subsidies for affordable housing. There has been no accountability or payment from the polluter. All that has been offered, which is not in the Bill, is the residential property developer tax, which we do not know the details of. But it is wholly inadequate that it will recover only 13% of the estimated £15 billion cost. The bulk of the cost of the current crisis and/or future crises is being dumped on leaseholders, which is what this Bill does.

Giles Grover: I agree with Liam. It is not holding them to account at all. The latest figures are approaching £15 billion, and developments have made £2 billion since the catastrophic events at Grenfell. Government have supported them through the Help to Buy scheme and through instantly having a stamp duty land tax relief, and there is a mortgage guarantee scheme for first-time buyers that is open to everyone. The figure that always bothers me more than anything is the amount of money that the Exchequer loses every year—billions of pounds—to the zero rating of VAT on construction.

A lot of those things have laudable aims, but do they actually help the supply side? They do not; they are all about demand. Government are happy to praise the economic effects—the jobs, the flow of taxpayer money—and it certainly pans out to support the construction industry. The collective state of industry failure is affecting hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. It has taken two and a half years of kicking and screaming to get a bit of money out the Government every so often. Every year there is a little bit more. They keep telling us, “We’re not going to give you any more; we aren’t going to help you out”, but then we get further. There will be a point next year, hopefully, when the Government will say, “Here’s a little bit more”, but everything is a little bit here and little bit there. We are not being helped.

Why are we being forced into a planning tax loan scheme? Why are the Government not forcing the developers to pay that? The simple point goes back to: it was never our fault, it was never anything we did. The regulations are terrible, weak and inadequate. A lot of people knew that for years; the Government were advised of that for years. Builders were allowed to do whatever they wanted and to cut corners. Dame Judith Hackitt says there is a race to the bottom, focusing on profits over safety. But now, we are the ones on the hook to make that right. I do not get how that is at all fair. We need more funding from Government, we probably need more funding from the developers, and we need more funding from the product manufacturers as well. Leaseholders should finally be protected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

Q Could a developer facing potential litigation utilise human rights legislation?

Giles Peaker: We have been wracking our brains about this one. I know the clause that you are referring to. We are not entirely sure why it is there. I think it is probably just to avoid there actually then being a human rights challenge to BSA on whatever relatively spurious basis. I cannot see a valid human rights challenge, and certainly not in terms of the removal of the six-year limitation. A limitation defence is not a property for the purposes of article 1 of protocol 1; they could not pull an article 1 complaint.

I do not think that there are any article 6 issues, because limitation does not stop you being liable; it just stops you being sued. You are still responsible for the problems. If the period for which you can be sued is extended, where is the article 6 problem? You will still get your fair trial in court. After wrestling with it, I cannot see one.

Justin Bates: What has almost certainly happened is that because we are designing for legislation with retrospective effect, the draftsman of this has realised that retrospective law is something that does flag up human rights concerns. You can do it—your Parliament is sovereign; you can do whatever you want—but it does flag up human rights concerns. Rather than having a fight about whether there is a human rights defence or not, the draftsman has said, “If anyone ever manages to succeed in one, this will be the outcome”.

These words could be hostage to fortune, but I suspect that it is a clause that will not go very far because you would see more litigation about whether the defence was available at all. This assumes that the defence is available, and it has decided what the outcome will be. I can understand why it has been put in there, because if it is not in there and a developer brings a human rights defence and wins, what happens is that the developer is still liable in damages, but a declaration of incompatibility is made, and you then have to deal with your incompatible legislation. I can see why the possibility of that has been headed off at the beginning, but I do not think it will go anywhere. I know that Giles takes a slightly different view.

Giles Peaker: I do take a slightly different view. I have a horrible feeling that that clause will invite people to try, which would inevitably mean at least three to five years of litigation on that issue, but we will see.

[Daisy Cooper]

Q I want to return to Rachel’s question on the duty to co-operate. Just to push back a little bit, it is not really about joint working; it is about a legal obligation to work with another party. The reason why it is such a headache in planning law, as I am sure you know, is that you often have two authorities that are diametrically opposed in terms of what they are legally obliged to do. Both are legally obliged to build more houses, and they both want to offload onto each other. It is possible that they might both fail their duty to co-operate.

My question, to follow up on Rachel’s point, is this. Based on what is currently published in this Bill, are you able to ascertain whether or not there is a situation in which the two roles that Rachel mentioned—the responsible and accountable people—might be diametrically opposed in what they are legally obliged to do, or are you simply of the view that not enough has been published to ascertain that?

Justin Bates: At the moment, I would lean towards the latter. I do not think the planning analogy is a good one, because this is not like two elected bodies, each with their own political concerns, fighting over where the houses should be; it is between two supposedly neutral public authorities. I see the co-operation duty as closer to the duties that exist under the Housing Act 2004, whereby local authorities and fire brigades have to work together when they are doing certain kinds of inspection.

I am not for a second pretending that you do not get areas of conflict. In pure housing law disputes between district councils and county councils about homeless children, you get enormous fights—a very common fight is about whether it concerns housing or social services—so I am not saying that there are no fights to be had. As far as I am aware, that problem does not come up under the Housing Act. That is probably the closest analogy. Can I think about it and send something in afterwards if I think of any particular problems?

Building Safety Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Daisy Cooper and Mike Amesbury

Thursday 9th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Amesbury]

Q It is great to see both witnesses. If there was one thing that you would like to see in the Bill to improve building safety for people, what would it be?

Sir Ken Knight: First of all, I think it is a very robust Bill. It will not be a quick-fix Bill, but nor should it be. It is a generational change. It would be wrong to suggest that there is an instant solution. The whole notion of putting a Building Safety Regulator in place and in charge of these matters will take time to work through. I am not sure there is a quick fix. I think the challenge will be in enhancing capability and competence throughout the sector, because that is still lacking in all areas, whether it is in enforcement or the built environment. I would like to return to that, if I may, at the end because there is something—probably outside the remit of this Bill Committee—that needs to be thought through. We need to educate fire engineers in competency and not leave it to chance, because there are very few at the moment to take on the new roles.

Dan Daly: I welcome the Bill. It is an important step change in building safety legislation. If I were to look at one element, the scope is fairly narrow at the moment. I understand the need to build the role of the regulator and the extent of the Bill in a proportionate way, but as Dame Judith pointed out, it was a broken system that led us to where we are today. This is our opportunity to fix it once and for all. The history of fire safety legislation is littered with disasters that people have sought to fix, and the fix has applied to one particular area of the built environment. This is our opportunity to look at that scope and certainly build gateways into broadening the scope at an appropriate point to make sure it takes full account of the built environment and the issues that are definitely there in buildings other than high rise residential.

[Daisy Cooper]

Q I have been struck by the approach of the Australian Government, particularly in the state of Victoria. Rather than just treating this as an issue to do with buildings, they have treated it as a public safety emergency issue. They have looked at the safety not only of people living in the buildings but of their neighbours, fire safety officers and people who might attend a fire. Do you have any reflections on whether this should be considered simply through a buildings lens or whether there is a broader public safety emergency issue here?

Dan Daly: There is a lot to be admired in what other countries have done, and certainly in that particular example, but you have to remember that they were some way ahead of where we are and where we started from. There was already a single regulator in place in Victoria that was able to be instructed to take on some of this work. The number of buildings and the scale of the issue were much smaller than where we are. I think in total there were around 2,300 buildings, looking at a much broader spectrum of buildings—healthcare buildings and schools above two floors, and all other buildings above three floors. We know that, when we are looking in this country at buildings above 18 metres, we are already talking about 12,000 buildings—that is just high-rise residential. When we talk about buildings above 11 metres, we are probably closer to 100,000. If you take on the full range of where they were in Australia, the numbers just keep increasing exponentially.

There is something to admire in where they were—certainly the fact that sprinklers and alarm systems were in much wider use in those buildings, so that, in the fires that they saw, nobody died. There were measures in the buildings to tackle those instances early, and equally to alert people to the fires. It is certainly something that we have been talking about and pushing for: the wider use of sprinklers and alarm systems. It is good to see that there has been some change and movement in that, as part of the work that we have gone through so far. You cannot discount what has gone on. We should always look to learn, but there is something about scale and scope here that is different.

Sir Ken Knight: Can I just add to that, Chair? I had the privilege to host both a political head and an official head from Victoria very early on after the tragedy at Grenfell. Remarkably or not, they were very complimentary about the work taking place in the building safety programme—as you will recall, the Victoria high-rise fires occurred several years before Grenfell itself. They were impressed, even though none of us is satisfied that the pace is enough on all of these things. Of course, they had the luxury that they had no fire deaths at all. It was a wake-up call for Victoria as well—to realise that they could not wait for the tragedy of the 72 fire deaths that we saw here to do things.

For all of us who have been in touch with other countries, there is lots to learn from them. However, it is also about the capacity: the numbers of buildings, and the significant number of high-rise buildings, that will be covered even in the first-stage proposal in scope in the Bill, compared with the total number in somewhere like Victoria.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

Q You mentioned that there is a bit of chicken-and-egg about what goes into primary legislation and what goes into secondary legislation—I think we are all alert to that—and that one way of squaring that circle would be to have additional scrutiny of secondary legislation. Could you expand on what you think good scrutiny of that secondary legislation would look like?

Adrian Dobson: Gosh. I am not so familiar with the workings of Parliament, but certainly I would make the point that those regulations will be very important. We have been poring over the competence regulations and the duty holder regulations; I know they are only in draft, to enable you to understand the Bill, but that level of secondary legislation and regulation will need proper parliamentary scrutiny.

There is also an important role for the industry, working with the HSE and the new authority, to ensure that the review of the guidance is done properly. With the best will in the world, I do not think this place or other similar bodies can do that detailed, rigorous interrogation of the guidance, and it is very important. It is the lack of guidance that has been causing some of the problems, particularly below the 18-metre threshold. We now have quite an ambiguous situation with those buildings, which is complicating the situation for leaseholders and so on.

Graham Watts: May I first of all say that I have been working in the industry for 42 years, liaising with Government on policy matters, and I do not think there has previously been a more exemplary case of consulting with industry, particularly on the draft Bill and more generally in the course of the Bill’s passage through Parliament? I would like to see the same process with the statutory instruments. We think there will be nine statutory instruments—we have seen two of them in draft already—but we need to continue that kind of early-warning consultation, avoiding unintended consequences, overlap and duplication and so on, with the draft secondary legislation, just as we have with the Bill itself.

[Mike Amesbury]

Q Does the Bill protect leaseholders from unaffordable costs, and focus the mind or regulate to ensure that the industry steps up and pays its responsibilities and its fair share, given previous incompetence and very shabby practices?

Graham Watts: I think the answer to that is no, but the Bill does a bit more than the draft Bill did, particularly in the extension of the Defective Premises Act 1972. I am from the industry, and I have no doubt whatsoever that no leaseholder should have to pay for having been mis-sold a home that is not fit for purpose or safe. That should be axiomatic, and we should be exploring every opportunity. I know the housebuilders and developers have put up something like £500 million already, but in many cases they are not there any more—they have gone bankrupt, or it was a special purpose vehicle developer that does not exist any longer. I have no doubt that the Government must do more, but the industry must also do more, and I welcome the polluter pays principle of the developer tax.

Adrian Dobson: This Bill is a piece of the jigsaw; one problem is that this is predominantly a forward-looking piece of legislation, so it will address new projects and alterations to existing buildings, but it will not deal with the historical defects. That is a situation that will ultimately require the Government to engage with the insurance sector. We now have a situation where—to use the example of the EWS1 form, which I know you talked about earlier—because the insurance sector has pretty much excluded fire safety cover from many professionals, it is difficult to get professionals who can sign these forms, and they will now inevitably take a very precautionary approach, because they know that this insurance is difficult to get. There are some risks in thinking that the Bill itself will solve that; that historical liability is more complicated.

The Bill also raises the question of the insurability of the duty holder roles in the new regime; this illustrates why the interrogation of the regulations will be so important. The regulations as they are drafted at the moment mix words such as “take reasonable steps” with “ensure”, and they are very different. One is an absolute obligation and one is more like the CDM regulations. Will the insurers provide the insurance to underpin these roles? The insurance issue is where the problem lies, in my view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

Q I want to pick up on that point of independent building scrutiny. Is that something that you would add to the scope of the proposed building regulator, or would you look at Victoria in Australia, going through building by building in terms of remediation and building safety at the moment? Indeed we, as an Opposition, are talking about establishing a building works authority. Which route would you choose, or where would that sit?

Graham Watts: We—by “we” I mean the Competence Steering Group rather than the Construction Industry Council—recommended that there should be an independent construction assessor on all projects in scope of the legislation. That obviously has not been taken forward, and I think I understand some of the reasons why, but I stress that whatever way that happens, it is essential to securing the culture change that I spoke about earlier.

Adrian Dobson: The Committee may wish to think about whether there should be duties on some of the designers as well. You can appreciate that when you are scrutinising construction work the architect may be able to look at some aspects. Some aspects very much need the structural engineer and the services engineer to be involved. So you might want some general inspectorate, as would be prepared by a clerk of works, that is on a more regular basis, but you will need some scrutiny from individual designers as well. There may need to be some duties around that, possibly.

[Daisy Cooper]

Q I am interested that you picked up on the point about whom they would be accountable to. I was very struck by some evidence that we received from the UK Cladding Action Group, which said that there is almost no way at the moment to make construction professionals accountable to residents—the people who are living there. I guess the question is: to whom do you think the different bodies should be accountable?

Adrian Dobson: The most obvious person, given the way that the Bill is framed, is the client; but as you say, the client is rarely, in the construction process, the end user of the project. One of the areas—probably the most difficult to tackle—that has not been talked about a lot is how you raise the competence of clients. The Government themselves are a major procurer, as are local authorities. It is important that they set the example. At one time, local authorities would have employed clerks of works to go and look at projects, so it is quite interesting that they can act as a leading edge—but yes, it is a difficult one.

Graham Watts: For new build, obviously the sign-off at gateway 2 is from the principal contractor to the client. I think we are also talking here about a lot of refurbishment and renovation projects where the residents are in situ. There the responsibility needs to be to the building safety manager, and the building safety manager’s responsibility needs to be to the residents.