Building Safety and Resilience

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I would like to open by sharing the commitment of His Majesty’s official Opposition to supporting the Government in ensuring that, in particular, the legislation brought forward in the previous Parliament, broadly with cross-party support, to address the issues that the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) and colleagues have outlined following the Grenfell fire, takes full effect through regulation and implementation across the sector. It is absolutely clear, as was stated by the Leader of the Opposition during the Prime Minister’s statement last week, that we share the Government’s determination to ensure that everybody in our country is able to feel safe in their home, and that risks, whether they are known or might emerge from the continuing research into this field, are properly addressed. We will do our very best to work with her and colleagues in a constructive manner to ensure that that happens.

Today’s debate is also an opportunity to consider many of the broader issues around building safety that will come into play as we consider the Government’s plans to reform our planning system, increase our housing supply, bring in new forms of building into the United Kingdom and reform building regulations. A great deal of the report from Sir Martin into the Grenfell incident focuses on the role played by building regulations and their operation in the market for materials and design in the terrible disaster that took the lives of 72 people.

However, we should not waste an opportunity to consider more broadly how other parts of our housing system and our planning system can ensure that risks that might emerge in the future are dealt with effectively. For example, we are aware when a planning application comes forward that the safety and resilience of a building is not simply down to its construction and materials; it is also affected by its location, its proximity to other sources of risk and its design from its very inception. They all have a part to play. We know from points that have been made in the past by Members from across the House about the role that housing plays in the context of public health that, in the capital, for example, air quality is often worse indoors than it is outdoors as a result of buildings designed with poor ventilation and poor mechanical systems. That creates a long-term health and safety burden for residents which can be alleviated by giving due consideration to better design and resilience at the initial stages.

I encourage the Government to consider, as they embark on this process, how to manage some of the very complex interactions when seeking to improve the safety of buildings where there are freeholders, leaseholders and tenants all occupying some of the same space. I am aware, from experience in a local authority, that Hillingdon council had to go to court on 16 occasions to gain access to council properties to undertake basic maintenance and servicing work to installations against the will of the occupier, even though that work was being carried out at no cost to the tenant. That demonstrates some of the practical difficulties that that complex relationship can create in ensuring that local authorities and others are able to fulfil the duties that this House and the legislation place upon them.

It is also clear, from both the Grenfell report and other research, that the drive towards building efficiency, in particular energy efficiency, has created a risk of a loss of focus on safety. We know that this has been part of a global move to recognise the need to address climate change through better quality insulation and the more efficient construction of buildings. Increasingly, we see buildings being brought forward with modular construction of different types. Hotels arrive in a shipping crate: pre-constructed rooms are simply stacked up and then given a brick skin. Frame-constructed homes are a significant part of the delivery of the housing market. These provide an opportunity to make the available funds go further and create more homes more quickly. That is extremely welcome, but we need to ensure that the risks that might be associated with some of those forms of construction, especially where they take place at scale, are properly considered. I would like to hear a little more from the Government in due course about how the broader context of building safety and resilience will take those matters into account.

[Mr Betts]

Would the shadow Minister like to reflect on the fact that around four years ago the previous Government set up a committee to look at modern methods of construction, but the last investigation showed that it had not actually met? It is important that we get this right. We can see the problems with timber-framed homes and all the difficulties they caused in the 1980s. It is important we get the techniques and construction right, but there was a bit of a gap in the previous Government’s approach, was there not?

[David Simmonds]

Of course, it is embarrassing to hear that. Again, from experience of local government, I know that a great deal of work has been put in to ensure that modern methods of construction are put forward for Government consideration. Often there are exemplars around the country of how new estates and new homes have been delivered. There is certainly no lack of evidence on the opportunities available.

We also have an opportunity to reflect on the many challenges in our current housing stock, and in other types of buildings such as schools and hospitals. Once upon a time, aerated concrete and asbestos were regarded as wonder materials, and house builders and Governments would have been considered inefficient if they had not ensured their use. We now know that they have created problems and risks that require significant levels of expenditure to remediate.

That brings me to another important point: building resilience is not just about homes. The BBC recently did an excellent piece of work commemorating the original Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which was implemented by Government following a number of quite appalling incidents, mainly in factories, where significant loss of life occurred because the design of buildings meant that, in the event of a fire, for example, it was difficult or impossible for people to get away.

We know that school buildings have been destroyed and that thus far not a single school has been fitted with sprinklers where fire has resulted in total loss of the building. The cost of installing that equipment at the design and construction stage is relatively modest compared with the impact of retrofitting it, so there is an opportunity for the Government to reflect on how, as we take forward their strategy on investment in new schools, we ensure that that resilience is, as far as possible, built in and that the full cost to the taxpayer that occurs when a hospital or a school is lost is considered. We must reflect also on how we ensure that office buildings and factories under construction meet the highest possible standards, especially as they often face many of the same challenges around new materials and new forms of design that are intended to make them more efficient but potentially bring in risks that it is our duty to foresee and prevent as far as we possibly can.

We will shortly consider the Renters’ Rights Bill. That will have a wider impact, especially on the build-to-rent sector. We have seen new forms of developer coming into the market with the specific intention of constructing, from the outset, long-term rental homes.

[Emily Darlington]

I welcome the shadow Minister’s comments about working cross-party. One thing we need to do is establish the facts, the reality of what is going on, and the confusion left by the previous Government. People are being told by mortgage providers that they need an EWS1 form, but by freeholders that they do not. They are stuck, going back and forth for years. Would he like to take this opportunity to recognise the confusing legacy left by his Government and apologise to all the thousands of people who are stuck in places feeling that they have no place to go?

[David Simmonds]

Given the broad cross-party consensus in the last Parliament about the importance of the new forms of legislation and the regulation that follows from it, I think we should seek to maintain that consensus as far as possible, but as somebody who in a previous life worked in banking and as a mortgage adviser, I know that the challenges around the mortgageability of properties, especially properties of novel construction, go back many decades. For instance, a very limited number of lenders will provide for properties located above shops, because of that particular sets of risks. EWS1 was a similar example; despite apparent clarity from Government, there clearly was a lot of debate within the sector and some lenders preferred to go belt and braces, demanding the provision of something that was not required by law or regulation before making a lending decision—and the then Government did significant work in the previous Parliament to bring clarity and address those problems.

That is a helpful introduction to a point that I want to touch on briefly: the role of the insurance industry, both in the challenges that will follow from Grenfell and in the wider experience of our constituents. Many people find themselves significantly challenged because, owing to a lack of clarity or to uncertainty about the construction of their building, they face significant insurance costs, sometimes to the point where only one insurance provider is available. Others face very significantly increased costs because of the behaviour of a landlord who seeks to apportion the insurance costs across all the properties in their portfolio, rather than according to the risks of a specific property that a particular tenant or leaseholder inhabits. It would be helpful for the Government to give some consideration to how they can work with the insurance industry to ensure that those who are paying for insurance are paying a fair price and that it provides the necessary cover that mortgage lenders, for example, will expect.

It is clear that, as well as the strong commitment we on the Opposition Benches can give to support the Government and the Minister in taking forward the regulations and ensuring that they address the concerns that have been expressed, we must also make the most of an opportunity to consider wider issues of building safety. In London, for example, there are significant numbers of Bison blocks, constructed with pre-stressed concrete—at the time, it was considered a wonder material and a means of delivering significant numbers of new homes efficiently and at a low cost—which have particular structural risks around them that local authorities across the capital and the wider country have had to address. We have also heard a little bit about the role of the fire service in carrying out inspections and prosecutions where properties are found not to meet the fire regulations.

All those points are indicators of risk across the system, and there is an opportunity for Government to ensure that Ministers have a clear line of sight so that such indicators can be effectively addressed. If there is a role for we politicians to play in local government and here in Westminster, it is to ensure that all these other people are doing their job. I promise that the Opposition will support the Government as they seek to achieve that, and I hope that together we will be able to take this work forward effectively, so that all our constituents can sleep safely in their beds.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

With the leave of the House, I will close this debate for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.

It has been a very constructive debate, with a wide range of contributions from Members. I congratulate all Members who made their maiden speeches. It was striking that they covered a huge range of different issues which have been debated and will be debated in this Parliament. I was particularly struck by the expertise shown in areas as diverse as local government, housing, electronics and support for refugees, all of which, I am sure, will play a significant part in the future. I would also like to put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for his very entertaining maiden speech.

The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) made some observations about the Hackitt review and the liability of construction material manufacturers for the consequences of significant problems in the buildings in which their materials are used. As the Minister said, the £5.1 billion building safety fund, which was put in place in the previous Parliament, is a significant step towards addressing those concerns, but it is clear that that is just one example of the many issues that need to be addressed. I have a list of points to put to the Minister, and I hope we will be able to work constructively together as we take forward a variety of legislation.

A couple of Members touched on personal evacuation plans. A consultation took place in 2022, in which a wide variety of stakeholders were invited to express their views. A key concern raised by the Local Government Association—I declare an interest as a parliamentary vice-president of that organisation—was that current legislation implies that there is a duty on local authorities and social housing providers to anticipate, without having to be asked or informed by residents, the needs of those who may require special arrangements for evacuation in the event of an emergency. It is clear from feedback across the sector that, where there is no expectation that a tenant or an occupier will advise a particular individual or authority, that presents a significant challenge. I suggest to Ministers that as they bring forward the Government’s response, that issue is addressed with a high degree of clarity, so that everybody knows their responsibilities and where they stand.

I was struck by observations made by a number of Members about particular challenges, including issues with fire doors and latent defects in buildings, which may not be spotted at the time of a building regulations inspection. I have personal experience of working in a local authority that commissioned a school; we discovered afterwards that the fire doors, which looked robust and solid, only went up as far as the suspended ceilings that had been installed by the contractor. In such an example, the individual doing the building inspection may need to have a significant part of the building taken apart so that they can carry out their duties and see what needs to be done. We need to ask ourselves how we can ensure that that enforcement is seen as reasonable by contractors and can be resourced effectively by local authorities, so that latent defects in items such as fire doors and fire stopping do not arise and create risks that simply cannot be effectively managed for the future.

A number of Members made reference to the longer-term history of the current set of building safety challenges. I am well aware, having been in local government throughout that period, that the approach taken by the previous Labour Government was to create arm’s length management organisations for housing. Some Members, including the hon. Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), made particularly positive references to the last Labour Government’s retrofitting programme. I simply urge Members, as they begin to think how they would wish to resource some of this work in the public sector building stock, to ensure that we do not see a return of that approach: “Let’s create arm’s length management organisations, load them with the debt so it isn’t on the Government’s books, and then expect them to carry out the work.”

The number of arm’s length management organisations has diminished. There was a time, under a previous Labour Government, when local authorities could not access that funding unless they set up an arm’s length management organisation. A small number of those organisations remain, but the vast majority of local authority areas have determined that it is more efficient to do this work directly and in-house. Having a higher degree of control, visibility and accountability for that work is a step forward, so I urge those who might be tempted by the view that arm’s length bodies are the way to leverage additional funding into the sector without it appearing directly as a cost to Government to avoid that approach. We should be absolutely clear about the route for the provision of those resources, and about the accountability for them.

In her maiden speech, the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) made reference to flooding as an example of an additional issue that gives rise to building safety and resilience challenges. Although it was not touched on in today’s debate, we also need to reflect that this House has in the past had to get to grips with issues such as the impact of legionella and the significant building regulation changes needed to ensure that very vulnerable residents are not placed at risk by a failure to carry out the proper inspection of building safety systems, and has had to ensure that building regulations and installed systems are functioning as they should to keep people safe from that particular risk.

This wide-ranging debate has touched on many different elements of the building safety and resilience world, and I hope that that will inform Ministers’ thinking. However, I have a particular question on which I want to press them for an answer. At the beginning of the debate, we heard from the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), about the decision to return to, or enable, the use of the EU standards relating to construction materials. I know that mention of EU standards has a triggering effect on some Members; it does not have that impact on me, because I am a strong supporter of close co-operation with our neighbours.

I think that the Minister was probably referring to the written ministerial statement of 2 September, in which the Government announced the decision to remove the end date that had previously applied—the date by which CE-marked construction materials could be sold within the UK market—and to allow those products to continue to be supplied to that market with no end date. That strikes me as a reasonable decision, but I should like to have a specific assurance on one point. The EU regulations on the fire safety of construction products date from 2015, and those are the relevant regulations applying to products that meet the CE-marked standard. That was, of course, before the Grenfell Tower disaster occurred. UK regulations were updated in response to the disaster by the previous Government, in 2018, and took account of the specific risks relating to construction materials that were identified in the initial phases of the report.

May I ask the Minister to assure the House, from the Dispatch Box, that following the Government’s decision to set aside the end date by which only the CE mark was required and to allow UK standards to be effectively set aside, the standard of the products that are imported to the UK meet at least the 2018 UK post-Grenfell fire safety standards? Otherwise, there is a risk that products that we would not be satisfied to see installed in buildings and that have given rise to serious concerns in the past may continue to be supplied to the market because they meet those EU standards, even though they may not meet the new UK standards.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents are extremely concerned for their safety. They are living in constant fear because of building safety and resilience issues. I am sure the shadow Minister agrees that the pace of remediation has been too slow in the seven years since the Grenfell tragedy. Does he also agree that firm action needs to be taken by developers, freeholders, manufacturers and other organisations, and that the Government must push to ensure that the pace of remediation is quickened?

[David Simmonds]

I entirely agree about the need to ensure that this work happens apace. During the debate, the contributions from the likes of the hon. Members for Sheffield South East and for Runcorn and Helsby (Mike Amesbury) demonstrated the complexity of some of the issues with which Governments of all parties have wrestled over the years. I have the insulation material that was identified in the Grenfell report in my own home, because in certain applications it is considered to be within building regulations. We know that this is not a straightforward process, and we need to ensure that building regulations have the absolute clarity that local authorities require. That is why I press the Minister on this point: can we, as a House, be confident that the consequence of that written ministerial statement will not be a risk of materials that do not meet the standards that we imposed in 2018 being imported and sold into the UK market?

It is clear that there will always be a debate, not just in the context of housing but in the context of any complex public service in this country, between those who think that the best approach for regulation is to specify the outcome that we want to see—we want the resident to be safe in their home, we want the child to be safe in the children’s home and we want the patient to be safe in hospital; that is very similar to the approach taken in the aviation sector, which was mentioned earlier—and those who argue that the best approach is for Parliament and other relevant authorities to specify the precise safety features that we wish to see installed.

Each of those approaches has strengths and weaknesses. The previous Government, particularly in the early years, were keen to focus on the safety outcome that was being pursued rather than to specify individual measures that had to be taken, partly out of concern that those individual measures might not be as effective in practice as they needed to be. It is clear from the contributions by Members of all parties that they understand the complexity of this debate. The Minister will have to make decisions as we consider the future of building regulations. Does Parliament specify that there has be a sprinkler system in one building, but a mister system in another? Are we going to specify that there has to be a dry riser in one type of building, and a wet riser in another type of building? Or are those simply matters that we prefer to leave to local building control services, while specifying the level of safety that we expect to achieve? All of these are important elements in this complex debate.

As I said in opening for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, we are determined to carry forward the work that we did in the last Parliament, largely in partnership with Labour Members, on fire safety and building safety. Those pieces of legislation inevitably require the current Government to provide guidance to local authorities, building control services, builders, construction firms and other parts of the sector. By working together constructively to support the effective implementation of those measures and provide absolute clarity on the expectations, we will achieve our shared aim of ensuring that all our constituents know that the buildings in which they live and work, and in which they are educated and receive medical treatment, meet the relevant safety standards and are environments and places in which they can safely go about their daily business.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for that kind offer. Of course I will readily accept a visit to Burnley—perhaps through the lens of my role as the local growth and towns Minister. We could have a very interesting visit and I would be glad to do it.

I am conscious of the time; I am going to run out of it, unthinkably. We may have to pick up any further interventions in a different form, because I want to get to the points about buildings insurance, lending and service charges raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Runcorn and Helsby (Mike Amesbury), for Eltham and Chislehurst and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee).

One thing we know is that there has not been enough change in this space over the past seven years, but there has been change in the insurance bills that many leaseholders have been facing. We understand the financial and emotional impact that extreme insurance premiums have been having on leaseholders. Affected leaseholders have been burdened with paying too high premiums for too long. I assure colleagues that we are working actively to reduce premiums for leaseholders, and we are reviewing how better to protect leaseholders from costs and push for fair premiums for leaseholders in buildings with fire safety issues.

Colleagues have talked about buying, selling or remortgaging homes. We have seen improvements in that space, but we remain vigilant. We will continue to hold particularly the 10 largest lenders to account following their commitment to lend on properties even where remediation is not yet complete. They must keep that promise.

On service charges, by law, variable service charges must be reasonable. As colleagues have raised, that has been stretched significantly by some of the practices we have seen. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 contains measures to ensure that leaseholders get key financial and non-financial information so that they can scrutinise and hold to account the organisations that they are working with on service charges. Not all of that legislation has been commenced; secondary legislation is required, but we are working on that actively. We just want to get it right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) talked about the pace of remediation. Again, we accept that the pace is too slow; we have said that throughout, and what we have seen in Dagenham and Slough are horrific reminders of the risk that unsafe cladding still poses to far too many people. The Deputy Prime Minister has been very clear on her intention to drive that forward—again, there is that political will—and to get more action out of manufacturers, freeholders, developers and organisations with responsibility for making sure that buildings are safe. Too many building owners are still not acting quickly enough, so we will investigate, pursue the most egregious actors who are creating unacceptable delays, and hold them to account. The message from this Dispatch Box and from this Government is clear: “Use the routes we have created to get your buildings fixed, and get on with it.”

I now turn to the points made by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) about the inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman expressed concern that the report would be shelved, and the hon. Lady was concerned that it would just be words, so again, let me make the commitment—this speaks to the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner)—that the report’s recommendations must be considered with the seriousness that this tragedy deserves. We will look at all 58 recommendations in detail; there will be a debate on the Floor of this House; we will respond in full within six months; and we will be listening to the community throughout the process. We will update Parliament annually on our progress so that we can be held to account, but we will also get on quickly with the things we can do, whether that is speeding up remediation or reforming construction products. The change has not been at the pace that it ought to have been, but it will get better. I can commit that the report will not, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, just be shelved—far from it.

The hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) and for Woking (Mr Forster) mentioned buildings under 11 metres. Our approach to cladding remediation has been to prioritise the risk of loss of life. It is generally accepted that the risk to life is proportional to the height of buildings, so the risk to life is usually lower in buildings under 11 metres, and they are very unlikely to need the same costly remediation. Building safety remediation works may be required in a very small number of those buildings, but so far, our casework as a Department over the past couple of years shows that of the more than 160 cases that have been raised, only three have fallen into that category. As such, we think that is an appropriate distinction to draw.

My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) made a point about RAAC. This issue is different in Scotland than it is in England: Scotland has its own responsibilities, which the Scottish Government must work within, and as I said to my hon. Friend, we will work within the best practices too. It is the duty of building owners, including local authorities if they are the owner, to fulfil their duties to manage building safety and performance risks of all kinds—including RAAC—in a proportionate manner.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), talked about personal evacuation plans, or PEEPs. We must ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are protected. On 2 September, through a written ministerial statement, the Government announced that the Home Office will bring forward in the autumn proposals to improve fire safety and the evacuation of disabled or vulnerable residents in high-rise and higher-risk residential buildings in England. Those proposals will be called residential PEEPs. Through them, residents with disabilities and impairments will be entitled to a person-centred risk assessment to identify the appropriate equipment and adjustments to aid their fire safety and evacuation, as well as a residential PEEP statement that says what vulnerable residents should do in the event of a fire. The Government have committed funding next year to begin that important work by supporting social housing providers to deliver PEEPs for their renters.

The shadow Minister also mentioned product hallmarks. We stand by what was said in the written ministerial statement—I would have hoped that gave enough confidence —but for clarity, this is about stronger standards, not weaker standards. I hope the hon. Gentleman can take confidence from that.

[David Simmonds]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alex Norris]

Very briefly.

[David Simmonds]

I would just like to press the Minister for the assurance I am seeking: that the Government have taken steps to ensure that all products that meet the 2015 European standards, and therefore are within the scope of what the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) said in the written ministerial statement, will also—as a minimum—meet the 2018 post-Grenfell UK standards.

[Alex Norris]

My colleague and hon. Friend, the Minister for building safety, has heard that intervention. As I say, everything that we have said is about higher standards, not lesser standards, but my hon. Friend will write to the hon. Gentleman about the issue he has raised. Again, I hope that I can assure him that this is about greater standards, not lesser ones.

To conclude, as the Prime Minister made clear, the Grenfell Tower tragedy was the result of unacceptable, inherent and systematic issues and decades of failure from both industry and Government. It is going to take political will to change that, and we offer it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered building safety and resilience.