Building Safety Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Debate between Ian Byrne and Mike Amesbury

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Dowd. The new clause is technical and the Opposition do not wish to oppose it.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. May I ask the Minister, where would the completed certificate be displayed within the building so that residents might see it?

Building Safety Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Debate between Ian Byrne and Mike Amesbury

Thursday 21st October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the Minister, and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South for her contribution.

In principle, the clause seems to be a step forward, but in reality, it will hardwire into the Bill the injustice that thousands—indeed, millions—of people are familiar with: they are trapped in their properties, and the Bill will ensure that historical remediation falls on the shoulders of leaseholders. The Ministers and the Department have been in a difficult position because it looks as though the Treasury’s door has been closed to any further financial progress.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)]

Let me read out something to put in context what my hon. Friend says about hardwiring and what the clause does. Darren Matthews says:

“I am ruined. Shared owner (50% for £63,000) and in May was billed £101,500 for remedial works. Block 13.5m tall so doesn’t qualify for BSF but possibly new loan scheme that’ll take 161 years to repay. Madness!”

That is a perfect example of what we are talking about. The clause hardwires unfairness into the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South has just mentioned, many leaseholders will be in the same position as Mr Matthews. How can that be fair?

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful and insightful intervention. He mentions the case study of somebody who is trapped in this nightmare, which the Ministers and the Department are very familiar with. I will give the Minister another example from social media; it is 47 minutes old. Lucy Brown is a leaseholder trapped in this nightmare that we are, hopefully, collectively trying to resolve. She wrote:

“15 months in the BSF”—

that is, the building safety fund—

“application process. Our managing agent/FH”—

that is, the freeholder—

“won’t agree to the BSF terms (likely those requiring the FH guarantee the works be done to an acceptable standard). The joys of the leasehold system—you own nothing, you control nothing + you pay everything.”

How will the clause solve the problem when that particular landlord—the freeholder in this case—has already decided that they have exhausted the process? The levy is thousands and thousands of pounds, and people are going bankrupt in the current climate. How will this move things forward?

Building Safety Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Debate between Ian Byrne and Mike Amesbury

Thursday 21st October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Amesbury]

I think it is about ensuring that the voice of tenants, residents and leaseholders is central to the new process—it is about bringing that to life. Throughout the Bill’s journey so far, Members from across the House have spoken eloquently about that, regardless of their political affiliation.

The programme that I refer to, and the issues it raises, brought shame on the country’s housing system and those involved in the neglect shown on ITV. It also highlights how the Government have defunded, diminished and undervalued social housing, and how little progress has been made since 2017 to bring in full social housing reform. The amendment brings us back to the reason the Bill was introduced: the tragedy at Grenfell Tower. Survivors of the fire at Grenfell are very clear that they were let down by the process. As tenants, they had no voice. They, more than anyone, support tenants having a voice and being heard.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. We are back to the point about a change of culture. The amendment would hardwire into the Bill a requirement to hear the voices of tenants. In the evidence sessions, we heard many examples of tenants feeling that their voice was not listened to. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth said, tragedies would have been averted if their voices had been listened to. The amendment hardwires into the Bill a change of culture, and fairness. It would ensure that everyone here strives to move forward. I would really like the Minister to consider it.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank my hon. Friend and not-far neighbour for that powerful intervention. Many scenarios were highlighted this summer by ITV, following a segment on the failings of a large housing provider, Clarion, which has, over years, failed to listen to what tenants said about collapsed ceilings, damp, mould, and rats. An investigation was opened, but just as the housing associations have ignored tenants, so did the social housing watchdog. In its investigation, it did not speak to a single resident on the estate in question. In its defence, I suppose, it is not in the social housing regulator’s remit to seek out residents’ views on the housing provider. That is absolutely crazy. We need to strengthen the legislation, and the amendment would certainly help with that.

Building Safety Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Ian Byrne and Mike Amesbury

Tuesday 14th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Ian Byrne]

Q Has there been any dialogue with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government regarding training and what you have just outlined?

Dr Colwell: As part of the development work, we were part of the working group 8 looking at competency development. We are actively working with the regulator coming in on that and also within the Department as to where we would like that to go forward to.

[Mike Amesbury]

Q Will the measures in the Building Safety Bill increase or decrease insurance premiums on at-risk buildings? I noted that in your evidence, James, you referred particularly to extending the scope of the Defective Premises Act 1972 from six to 15 years. Could you expand on that?

James Dalton: Sure. There are two different types of insurance in play in your question. On the cost of buildings insurance, it is important to note—I think I heard this in the previous sitting—that the Bill is prospective. It is not retrospective except for the provisions that I will come to in a second. Will safer buildings be built as a result of the Bill and all the accreditation and certification, in terms of the golden thread? Buildings should be safer as a result. As I said to your colleague, safer buildings should be cheaper to insure, and that insurance should be more available.

On your question about the Defective Premises Act 1972, that issue is about liability insurance, not buildings insurance. The challenge in that space is that, without there having been consultation, the Bill retrospectively extends the period of liability from six to 15 years; some insurance policies will have excluded liability over and above six years. I do not know who is going to pay for the period between six and 15 years, when there is found to have been negligence. There may not be an insurer that is on risk to cover that liability. That is the big concern from an insurance industry perspective. Other insurance policies potentially would come on risk. Then we have a question about whether it is fair and reasonable to amend the Act retrospectively without consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Byrne]

Q We have heard a lot in the evidence sessions about culture and the prioritising of profit over safety and quality. Are you concerned that the poor state of buildings and the current culture put your officers at greater risk and in greater danger when there is a fire?

Mr Wrack: I was previously a firefighter in the London Fire Brigade—I have been in this position since 2005—and I think there is a problem with culture. I have lived through a decade in which the endless mantra from senior civil servants and Government Ministers of both parties has been that fire is a declining risk, and we can therefore afford to reduce our emphasis on fire safety. That was very clearly a theme that we heard for more than a decade. I think it fed through into the fire service itself, and senior managers and chief officers accepted that mantra. As I say, we were often a lone voice opposing that approach. That has allowed corners to be cut, and for deregulatory approaches to be taken. It has allowed standards to be cut. Over two decades, we lost something like 40% of fire safety inspecting teams. Then, of course, along comes Grenfell Tower, and people wake up to the fact that we have not been properly addressing risk.

To pick up a point made earlier by a representative from the insurance industry, one of the big problems in relation to fire safety and building safety in the UK is a complete lack of horizon-scanning. A question was asked about fires in the UK and elsewhere. The truth is that there have been warning signs from fires elsewhere. Clearly, you cannot necessarily draw an immediate analogy between a building in Europe or the middle east and one in Britain because the regulations may be completely different, but there were warning signs about external cladding systems, including in the UK. Regrettably, we have not had structures in place that allowed various professional voices, whether of construction specialists, building control specialists or fire safety officers, to discuss emerging risks and identify how we address them. I think a deep complacency about fire safety has emerged, particularly over the past two decades. Grenfell, hopefully, is a major turning point on that.

[Mike Amesbury]

Q Thank you, Matt, for everything that you and your members do. What is missing from the Bill? What would genuinely make buildings safer, and things a damn sight easier for your members?

Mr Wrack: A single system of regulation would be better than what is proposed. I understand that there may be a need for a phased approach, but I am not sure that is what is in front of us. I think that the 18-metre cut-off point is incorrect, too. There should be a move towards an elimination of private-sector interests in building control. The idea that people can choose their own building control system is wrong, and appears wrong to many people. Finally—this relates more to the background to the Bill—resourcing is a huge issue for us in the fire service, for local authority building control, and for the HSE.

Building Safety Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Ian Byrne and Mike Amesbury

Thursday 9th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Ian Byrne]

Q I have really enjoyed the evidence so far; it has been really good, but will the Bill improve levels of competence and, just as importantly, listen to the Grenfell inquiry and the shameful evidence that we have heard? Will there be accountability in the construction industry?

Graham Watts: I think the answer to that is yes, because competence is in the Bill and it underpins and supports all of the work that the industry has done over the last four years—some of the things that Adrian talked about earlier in the different sectors. As I said before, I would personally like the Bill to go further in defining the levels of competence and in making sure that the people who are registered actually have the competencies. I think that is absolutely necessary.

Adrian Dobson: I would tack slightly along the same line. I think the Bill is very good at trying to address the competence issue, although, for example, there are weaknesses in other areas of the industry. Procurement is complex in construction. I know that has been discussed in the Select Committee and various places. There is a duty on the principal designer to monitor design work for compliance, and a similar duty on the contractor. “Monitor” is quite a weak term. In design and build procurement there is no requirement for independent inspection, or no duty on the designers to return to the building and say, “Has this building been designed and constructed in accordance with that design intent?” So I think it is stronger on competence than it is on addressing some of the realities of the construction industry. Will the hard stop at gateway 2 really be a hard stop, because the commercial realities of the construction industry will tend to want to keep the project moving forward, and that is a risk? So it is good on competence and perhaps a bit weaker in other areas.

Right to Food in Legislation

Debate between Ian Byrne and Mike Amesbury

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Ian Byrne]

I do endorse that call. I am a huge supporter of universal basic income. It should be looked at as one of the possible strands of the solution to what we are facing as a society. I hope the Government listen to some of the calls for universal basic income and look at different solutions. We are in extraordinary times at the moment. Universal basic income could be one of the strands of the solution, so that we do not have 9 million people who are struggling to put a meal on the table. That is hugely important.

As I said, the right to food should not be seen in isolation. We are living through extraordinary times and seeing a spotlight shone on the inequalities in society. According to the Independent Food Aid Network report, 82.7% of food banks in its sample that collected relevant data

“indicated waiting on a benefit payment or decision as one of the three most common reasons for food bank use, and 73.8% of food banks indicated interruption or reduction in benefit payments as one of the three most common reasons for food bank use.”

The solidarity shown during the covid-19 pandemic has been heartwarming, and it is one of the positives that we can draw from the period, completely at odds with the ideology of Thatcher and the infamous quote about there being “no such thing as society”. That has been exemplified in grassroots mutual aid efforts across the country, in all our communities, and we can all be proud of that. I speak with personal knowledge from Fans Supporting Food Banks, an organisation started in Liverpool five years ago and built with the magnificent efforts of football supporters from across our nation, particularly Newcastle, Leeds, Burnley, Aston Villa, Manchester United, Manchester City and West Ham. That sort of collaboration has been absolutely magnificent and has been welcome in our communities.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for all that he has done in working with the football community and the broader community, and even Man United fans—I declare an interest. He walks the walk and is passionate about the issue, but there are things we can all do together, collectively. We come here to make a difference. We should not even be talking about the right to food. Let us all come together and make a difference. I pay homage to my hon. Friend and thank him.

[Ian Byrne]

Many thanks. Fans Supporting Food Banks says, “Hunger doesn’t wear club colours”. It certainly does not, and we have fantastic friends in Manchester and across the board, and solidarity with Manchester in these troubling times.

I also pay tribute to the trade unions that have been involved locally, such as the GMB north-west and Irish region, which has been magnificent in supplying help, aid and support. That is acting collectively, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) said, to tackle food poverty in the communities they serve. It has been a joy to behold, but we cannot forget that it is just a sticking plaster on a broken leg.

Sabine Goodwin of the Independent Food Aid Network has said:

“The amount of people needing to go to food banks is not remedied by food banks… The problem is a lack of income and a lack of food. It stems from the fact that there is a level of poverty that is being ignored.”

We cannot tinker around the edges of food insecurity. It must be addressed head on with political courage and a morality that has been lacking in the past decade. Ensuring that millions of our fellow citizens do not go hungry and that their basic rights, including the right to food, are protected is a moral duty. Those things should be a legal right.

I thank the Minister. I enjoyed the chat we had, which was informative. I look forward to working with her. I also thank hon. Members who have attended the debate. I note with interest that the Leader of the House wrote to his Cabinet colleagues calling for bold and ambitious Bills for the upcoming Queen’s Speech.