Private Rented Sector

Debate between Eddie Hughes and Ruth Cadbury

Thursday 16th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Eddie Hughes]

I have to be blunt and say, “Under no circumstances”—that is simply not a Conservative policy and it is not something we are going to pursue. The White Paper contains some things that will be helpful to the hon. Lady’s constituents, such as abolishing rent review clauses. Abolishing section 21 means that people should not have to move property so frequently and will save money that way. The No. 1 thing I would say, however—I keep apologising for being such a cheerleader for my boss—is that, since the Secretary of State took his post in September, he has been championing the idea that the Government should build more social housing and more properties for social rent. That is an invaluable contribution that will help her constituents.

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

I, too, draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Like other Members, I endorse the direction in which the Government are going, but there are a lot of gaps that they could have addressed in the White Paper, only the summaries of which I have had time to see so far. Does the Minister agree that a key element of giving greater security, transparency and power to tenants is to ensure that letting agencies which act on behalf of landlords work to the highest standards as well? Could he commit to looking at a code of conduct for letting agents, as has been done in Wales?

[Eddie Hughes]

We have approximately 19,000 letting agents in this country and they need to belong to one of two landlord redress schemes. My understanding is that that is working quite effectively, but I am happy to meet and discuss any proposals that the hon. Lady might have. She is well informed in this area. I often see her in the Chamber discussing all things housing, so I value her contribution.

Non-commissioned Exempt Accommodation

Debate between Eddie Hughes and Ruth Cadbury

Wednesday 23rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I hear the good work that the Minister is doing on the pilots, but what is to stop a rogue landlord, who wants to just take the cash and provide no services, carrying on as before in the pilot areas that he is talking about?

[Eddie Hughes]

The hon. Lady gives me the opportunity to make an important point. The “more than minimal” line was not prescribed in law—to a degree, one might say that it is even worse than that, because it came about through case law and legal challenge. Landlords and the services that they provide are a difficult area and are difficult for councils to challenge.

Fortunately, through the pilots, we have been able to help to educate council officers and explain best practice so that they have been able to challenge. The problem is that that needs to be focused and done all the time. Obviously, any council can challenge the support that is being provided, but that requires the council to put in the effort—perhaps to go round and visit the property and speak to the tenants to understand the support that is being provided—and determine whether it feels that meets the threshold and subsequently challenge. Part of the problem is that councils have done that, but because of the low level, they have lost such challenges. We need to ensure that we are helping those providers because there are a lot of good providers out there. We need to do our best to support and encourage them and then, I hope, signpost people to the appropriate accommodation for them. I appreciate and accept the difficult situation, but as I say, I hope that we will understand best practice better from the pilots and share it more widely. As I have said, should legislative changes be required, that is not something we would shy away from.

Building Safety Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Debate between Eddie Hughes and Ruth Cadbury

Thursday 21st October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Ruth Cadbury]

I am interested to know whether “architect” means the individual named person or the company or practice for which they work, or which they are a member of. There is a very famous architect who is responsible for some iconic buildings and structures; some of those failed, notoriously, but that individual managed to avoid any litigation because of the way he structured his relationship with the building or structure that was constructed. That is a risk, and I wonder whether that has been considered in drawing up this clause.

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank the hon. Lady. My understanding is that clause 138 will deal with the point she makes.

To continue with clause 135, this proposal brings the architects’ profession in line with best practice in other professions and gives greater assurance to those procuring and inhabiting buildings. The objective of the clause is to ensure that all registered architects are suitably competent to undertake their work and that their knowledge is up to date.

Clause 136 relates to the list of services for which the Architects Registration Board may charge. Currently, the 1997 Act provides for a small number of services for which the ARB may charge. The costs of all the ARB’s functions are currently met by the annual retention fee, which is charged by the ARB to all registered architects.

However, the ARB offers a number of other services. This clause will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to expand the list of services for which the ARB may charge a fee on a cost recovery basis, meaning that only those using the services will cover the costs. The aim of this clause is to keep the retention fee low for all of the architects on the register. An example of a potential additional charge would be to charge a fee to international institutions that wish their architectural qualifications to be recognised by the Architects Registration Board in the UK.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 135 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 136 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 137

Housing complaints made to a housing ombudsman

Building Safety Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Debate between Eddie Hughes and Ruth Cadbury

Thursday 21st October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Eddie Hughes]

The point about fairness and transparency is incredibly important, not least given the comments that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth made about the opaqueness or otherwise of the existing service charge system. The reason why we will have two clearly defined separate charging systems is to ensure that everybody—leaseholders, landlords and tenants—understands completely what is being covered within the charging system. We will set out further details in secondary legislation, but it is critical that we know—I am sure the hon. Member for Weaver Vale was not confusing the two—that the charges that will be covered by the system are those that result from the introduction of the Bill, and safety aspects that will be applied going forward. It is not about retrospective remediation. There is a clear delineation between the two, and we will make very clear what is covered.

With regard to what might be considered fair, I genuinely feel that, as the system develops people will be able to see within one building what amount is being charged for a particular service or constituent elements of it, and to make a direct comparison with other buildings, how they are being managed and what charges are being applied. They will then be able to use that as evidence to challenge their own bill in the future. Ensuring that people can challenge their bill and ask for further details will be pivotal to the success of the process.

[Ruth Cadbury]

With respect, although it is good to know that there may be yet another, possibly complex, mechanism by which leaseholders can challenge, would it not be better if they did not need to challenge, except in exceptional circumstances? If the system were clear, transparent and honest at the outset there would be less need for challenges.

[Eddie Hughes]

If there was any ambiguity in what I said, I apologise. The expectation is that this will be clear and transparent from the start. We are not setting out in any way to obfuscate; however, it will be reassuring to know that the safety net of challenge exists should it need to be deployed, which I hope will be a rarity.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 120 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clause 121

Provision of building safety information

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

The clause contains key definitions used in part 4 of the Bill. It also clarifies the fact that the requirements in part 4 do not apply to the Palace of Westminster. For example, the clause refers to clause 59, citing that we have defined a “building safety risk” as

“a risk to the safety of people in or about a building”

due to “the spread of fire” or “structural failure”. We see those definitions as appropriate and considered, and they are an important addition to aid the understanding of the various clauses that refer to those terms. The clause provides for a specific place in part 4 that can act as a helpful index of the defined terms used in said part.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I am intrigued to know why the Palace of Westminster is included. I do not believe it comes under a definition of a residential building, because I thought only one household lives here. We also know that it is a historic building that is a fire risk and has lots of risks, but it cannot be unique in that, either. Why is it in particular drawn out in the Bill?

[Eddie Hughes]

On the question of one person officially residing here, it may be that two people end up officially residing here at some point due to historical reasons, so it was worth taking it out, just in case that situation could fluctuate. With regard to other elements of the building’s safety, other legislation applies and ensures safety.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I realise that the other person who once resided here was Emily Davison, who resided one night in the broom cupboard downstairs. I wonder whether that is the second resident to whom the Minister refers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I completely agree with the premise of his point, which is that that independence needs to be present in such a way that those making complaints can have confidence in it. The scheme could be set up in a number of ways. For example, it would be possible for it to be done in-house so that the Government have tighter control of it, or it could be done by another party. With the New Homes Quality Board, a shadow version is being constituted at the moment. We will be able to see further details on that, but there is no presumption that the shadow board would become the final board once the Bill is passed into law. We will be able to get some indication of how the scheme will work by looking at the workings of the shadow board, and details are available for that, but as I say it will be for the Secretary of State to determine in what form it continues to ensure that there is the confidence that the hon. Gentleman so rightly says is important.

[Ruth Cadbury]

May I ask the Minister a question on another aspect of the scheme? It is a voluntary scheme, so I believe that for the developers it is voluntary whether they join or not. Can he clarify that point, and if that is correct, what is the redress for leaseholders and other affected parties in blocks developed by developers that are not voluntary members of the scheme?

[Eddie Hughes]

I apologise if there was any ambiguity in the point that I was making. Housebuilders will have to be a member of the scheme, so if they do not comply with the scheme requirements and are therefore rejected from it, that will effectively prevent them from developing in the future, and that is why we are making provision for them to rejoin subsequently.

[Ruth Cadbury]

May I get absolute clarification? Is the default that all developers of defined blocks are members of the ombudsman scheme, unless they are excluded? Is that correct?

[Eddie Hughes]

That is correct.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Thank you.

[Eddie Hughes]

The purpose of the ombudsman is not only to resolve complaints but to drive up standards of quality. Therefore, the scheme must include provision for the making of recommendations by the ombudsman to improve widespread or regular unacceptable standards of conduct or quality of work by the scheme’s members. Additionally, the scheme must include provision about the provision of information to the Secretary of State and reports on the operation of the scheme. The clause sets out a comprehensive framework for an effective ombudsman scheme that will afford homebuyers substantially more protection and redress than they currently receive.

The new homes ombudsman scheme will allow new build homebuyers to complain to the new homes ombudsman about a developer for up to two years following the purchase of a home from a developer. Clause 129 provides definitions which determine who may complain to the new homes ombudsman, and a definition of a developer, who the Government can require to belong to the ombudsman scheme. The definition of developer includes those constructing new homes and converting existing buildings into new homes, so that complaints about developers of converted homes under permitted development rights, or those creating additional homes from larger buildings with the intention to dispose, sell or grant them to someone else, can be required to become scheme members and subject to the scheme’s rules under clause 130. I hope that offers the hon. Lady some reassurance. Clause 129 also includes a power to include an additional description of a developer, which could include organisations connected to developers.

Building Safety Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Eddie Hughes and Ruth Cadbury

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Ruth Cadbury]

The hon. Member is absolutely right: we need to look at the evidence from actual fires. Many of us have had examples in our own constituency; the one that I mentioned was not in mine, but there was a fire in a block of flats in my constituency as a result of flammable cladding that had not yet been removed. Luckily, the fire brigade got there in time, before serious damage, injury or death occurred.

I conclude by referring to so much high-quality, professional expertise that has submitted evidence to the Committee and said that the risks should be based on actual risk and not on an arbitrary cut-off by height or number of storeys.

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank hon. Members for raising the important question of the definitions for high-risk building safety and safety in buildings of under 18 metres and a height of seven storeys. I am afraid the Government will not be able to accept the amendment.

We recognise that the height and the use of a building are not the only factors that affect the level of risk found in each building. However, they are commonly used factors in determining the level of risk. We consider that other factors, including the materials used for construction, the presence of fire protection measures and the distance to emergency exits, could be used to define a high-risk building, but we concluded that it would be inappropriate to base the regime on factors like that because we were concerned that there would be unintended consequences. For example, when considering the materials used in construction, a large number of materials can be found in various quantities in various combinations. A material or product may be safe on one building owing to its placement, use and combination with other materials yet unsafe on another. Apart from particular circumstances such as the ban on combustible materials in and on external walls of certain buildings, a blanket approach to specific materials would therefore be inappropriate.

As for the accessibility of emergency routes, our assessment is that this would be a subjective factor. Different people may have different opinions about whether a building has sufficiently accessible emergency routes and therefore whether the building is or is not a high-risk building. This would not provide the clarity residents, industry and the regulator need.

We recognise that it is important that the risk of a fire occurring is low in any building. We must be proportionate in the application of the new regulatory regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes]

I understand the passion with which the hon. Lady makes her case, but I simply do not accept that point. We have been highly proportionate. Dame Judith Hackitt is well respected in this field. We have taken her advice and that of the Building Research Establishment—experts in the field—into consideration. The Building Safety Regulator will be responsible, through the Health and Safety Executive, for monitoring ongoing situations and therefore will be well placed to make recommendations to the Secretary of State should new evidence come to light. We are alive to the issue, and the Bill responds to it.

[Ruth Cadbury]

The Minister speaks of waiting for evidence to come to light. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston asked whether we have to await an incident involving death or serious injury. Is that the definition of evidence? If not, what is?

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. We need to acknowledge how much the building safety sector has changed as a result of Grenfell Tower and of this Bill. People are more attuned to fire safety and the risks and are more engaged in the process of addressing it. I speak following my engagement with social housing providers. I know from the work that we are doing on the social housing White Paper that they are much more engaged. They are listening to their residents and working with them. We are providing an opportunity to ensure that residents’ voices are heard more in the future. With the resident engagement set out in the Bill we will be in a much better informed position to determine safety risks.

I assure Members that the safety of people in buildings under 18 metres high and under seven storeys is of no less importance to the Government. We have a wide programme to strengthen the fire safety regime that includes improving fire safety in all premises regulated by the fire safety order and introducing specific requirements to protect residents’ safety in multi-occupied residential buildings of any height.

I shall not go into the details of clause 134, which takes forward our proposals on fire safety reform, as it is due to be debated at a later sitting of the Committee. However, it is another step in the delivery of our reforms and the Committee will be aware that the Government intend to lay fire safety regulations specific to multi-occupied residential buildings this autumn.

In the light of the work that the Government are doing to protect residents’ safety in multi-occupied residential buildings under 18 metres in height and under seven storeys, and given how the power to amend the definition of higher-risk buildings in clause 62(5) works with clause 143(3), I urge Members to consider withdrawing the amendment.