Building Safety Bill

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 20th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call shadow Minister Matthew Pennycook.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

This Bill has been a long time in gestation. First published in July 2020, it was subject to extensive pre-legislative scrutiny and was examined in exhaustive detail over five long weeks in Committee in the autumn of last year. Then, in January this year, the Government accepted that the approach they had taken to the building safety crisis over a period of more than four years following the Grenfell fire had not worked, and they announced that it would change. We raised a series of questions and concerns about what that change of approach would mean in practice, but we welcomed the fact that it had finally happened. It is of course right that we seek to ensure that those who profited from the sale of unsafe buildings and construction products pay their fair share when it comes to putting things right, that every developer and freeholder who can shoulders the financial burden of fixing their own buildings, that we restore common sense and proportionality to the assessment of building safety in general, and that leaseholders are properly protected from the costs of remediating all historical cladding and non-cladding defects. Labour has urged the Government to act on all these fronts, and more, for years, and we are pleased that we are now finally making progress toward some semblance of a comprehensive solution to the building safety crisis.

However, the manner and the pace at which this already complex and technical Bill has been overhauled to reflect the Government’s belated change of heart has been deeply problematic. Large sections of the Bill have been completely rewritten on the basis of hundreds of Government amendments tabled in the other place that the noble Lords had relatively little time to consider carefully or properly scrutinise. We welcome many of those amendments, particularly the removal of the building safety charge and the abolition of building safety managers, and we also welcome the important concessions the Government made in the other place in response to Labour amendments—for example, to exempt social housing providers from the levy. But that does not detract from the fact that this is no way to make good law, and I want to put on record the Opposition’s serious misgivings about the way the Government have gone about revising the Bill. As a result of the way it has been modified, it is now, by all accounts, something of a mess, and the five pages of complex Government amendments tabled yesterday afternoon, which again provided hon. and right hon. Members in all parts of the House with little time to properly consider them, do little to remedy that fact.

Nevertheless, the Opposition have always maintained that we want to see a version of the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible. As such, our focus is now on ensuring that its most glaring remaining defects are addressed so that it can be passed in what remains of this Session. To that end, there are five specific issues to be considered today: the duties placed on the Building Safety Regulator with regard to reviewing safety and standards, protection for leaseholders in buildings below 11 metres in height, protection for leaseholders in enfranchised buildings, the issue of buildings held in trust, and the proposed leaseholder cap.

The first can be dealt with very quickly. As well as having the resource and capacity to perform all the complex tasks assigned to it, it is critically important that the new Building Safety Regulator within the Health and Safety Executive be clearly tasked in the early years of its operation with assessing the benefits and costs of a range of measures in relation to safety and standards. Lords amendment 6 specified four—fire suppression systems, the safety of stairways and ramps, the certification of electrical equipment, and provision for people with disabilities—and we supported it. Having maintained in the other place that the amendment was entirely unnecessary, the Government yesterday tabled an amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 6 that almost entirely mirrors its provisions. On that basis, we will support that Government amendment.

The second issue is protection for leaseholders in buildings below 11 metres in height. As I argued on Report on 19 January, 18 metres was always a crude and arbitrary threshold that not only failed to adequately reflect the complexity of fire risk but was an entirely unsound basis for determining which blameless leaseholders were and were not protected by the state from the costs of remediation. The same argument applies to the 11-metre threshold. The blameless leaseholders who are trapped living in unsafe smaller buildings deserve the same protection as those in mid and high-rise unsafe buildings. As the Earl of Lytton argued in the other place:

“There seems no good reason for height exclusion on any moral, economic, safety or practical ground.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 March 2022; Vol. 820, c. 1508.]

The Government maintain—the Minister said as much again in his remarks—that there are no systemic building safety issues with buildings under 11 metres, yet we know from the devastating incident at Richmond House in Worcester Park in 2019 just how dangerous to life defective buildings under this height threshold can be. The Government further maintain that buildings under 11 metres in height that are dangerous are few in number. I suspect that is almost certainly the case, but all the more reason, then, to provide financial support to those blameless leaseholders who find themselves living in them rather than leaving them without protection. I noted what the Minister said when he gave a commitment that the Government would review such buildings on a case-by-case basis, but it begs the question: why will the Government not act by amending the Bill to cater for the exceptional circumstances that he spoke about?

[Rushanara Ali]

On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government do not act to safeguard such blocks, the people who live in those kinds of accommodation will find it very difficult to be insured and to get mortgages? This is a short-sighted response, when the Government could address these issues in the round.

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it has been a consistent position of ours that we ensure that all leaseholders affected by the building safety crisis are protected irrespective of circumstance, including what height their building happens to be. For that reason, we will oppose Government amendment (a), tabled yesterday to Lords amendment 94, and seek to ensure that the Lords amendment remains unmodified.

I turn to the third issue we are considering this afternoon: enfranchised buildings. Under the Bill, enfranchised leaseholders will, in effect, be treated as freeholders when it comes to the costs of remediation. That cannot be right. Buildings that have exercised a right to collective enfranchisement, or those on commonhold land, may be few in number, but it has been the policy of successive Governments to encourage leaseholders to enfranchise and to promote the right to manage. Indeed, the Government have promised legislation in the next Session to make it easier and cheaper for leaseholders to buy the freehold of their building, yet the Government have put forward no solution whatever to the issue of enfranchised buildings in the Bill as it stands, and they are seemingly content, at least until this afternoon, to see such leaseholders completely excluded from the protections enjoyed by those in buildings that remain unenfranchised. We vehemently disagree with that position. It is imperative that such leaseholders are afforded the same protection as those who do not collectively own or manage their buildings. As Lord Young put it in the other place,

“it would be perverse if the legislation before us today put enfranchised leaseholders in a worse position than leaseholders who are not enfranchised”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 March 2022; Vol. 820. c. 1509.]

It is essential that the service charge protections set out in schedule 8 to the Bill apply clearly to enfranchised buildings and buildings where the right to manage has been exercised, which is another reason why we cannot support Government amendment (a), tabled yesterday to Lords amendment 94, and why we will seek to divide the House on it. The Minister is right to say that pressing the amendment to a vote is not enough, and that at some point the Government will have to go further than simply accepting Lords amendment 94 or a version of it, because the Bill in its current form would not prevent resident-owned companies from making unlimited demands on leaseholders in their capacity as shareholders, to cover the costs that they would be unable to pass on via service charges if the Lords amendment, or a version of it, were to remain part of the Bill. So the Government will have to act.

I noted what the Minister said about a consultation, but I have to say that I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). It is too late in the day to consult on this matter. Four and a half years after Grenfell, the Bill needs to be amended to reflect and deal with this issue.

I turn to the fourth issue we are considering this afternoon, which is buildings held in trust. As it stands, buildings held in trust on behalf of a third-party investor, where the landlord is a professional depository or custodian regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, or buildings owned on trust by what I can only describe as ground rent grazers—almost invariably based offshore—do not meet any of the association tests or the net wealth test in the Bill. Unless the Bill is revised to capture such trustee arrangements, they will escape the so-called waterfall system as set out in schedule 8, and the leaseholders will find themselves picking up a proportion of the costs of non-cladding remediation. The Minister is right to say that, in the other place, the Government accepted that the Bill needed to be so modified, and yesterday they tabled an amendment to Lords amendment 98 as a result.

Let me be clear that the inclusion of Lords amendment 98, as amended in the way the Government propose, would make for a better Bill than one that has no provision addressing the trustee loophole whatever. However, the Government amendment tabled yesterday afternoon has serious deficiencies, which are almost certainly the result—I make no charge against the officials involved—of the hurried timescale in which it has been drafted and tabled. Let me take the two most obvious problems with it. First, the Government amendment covers only partnerships or bodies corporate that are a beneficiary of a trust; private individuals are entirely excluded. That cannot be right, and they must be brought within the scope of these arrangements.

Secondly, the Government amendment makes no distinction whatever between types of trusts. A local authority pension fund, for example, will be liable under the waterfall system in precisely the same way as an offshore ground rent grazer. We believe that that is wrong and that the Government should think further about how they might better protect trusts where there is a clear public interest in doing so. We will not oppose Government amendments (a), (b) and (c) to Lords amendment 98, but I urge the Minister and his officials to go away and consider whether the flaws in the Government amendment as currently drafted can be rectified as the Bill progresses.