Draft Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) (Construction Products) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
Mike Amesbury Excerpts(3 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Hollobone. I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the use of this statutory instrument, which is a technical amendment to the 2021 regulations on mutual recognition agreements. Conformity assessment ensures that what comes to market in Great Britain complies with regulations and meets specified expectations. The organisations that provide conformity assessments, testing, inspection and certification are called conformity assessment bodies, as the Minister outlined. Building on the 2021 conformity assessment regulations that were introduced earlier this year, this statutory instrument amends regulations to recognise conformity assessments for construction products issued by a Canadian conformity assessment body, providing a continuation of the arrangements that exist between the European Union and Canada, and ensuring that we comply with the UK-Canada trade continuity agreement.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. The statutory instrument is not contentious—Her Majesty’s Official Opposition support this technical amendment—but I would be interested in his comments on its interplay with the Building Safety Bill, which will obviously improve standards. Things that have been happening across the globe—with shipping, and undoubtedly with Brexit as well—have had a significant impact on the cost of construction products. If the Minister does not have an immediate answer, I would welcome written assessment of the impact on building safety remediation, and the cost.
Building Safety Bill (Fifteenth sitting)
Mike Amesbury Excerpts(3 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Just for my pedanticness, may I say that Members may take their jackets off if they so wish?
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?
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.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and I welcome the Committee to the last day of its deliberations on the Bill—and also, may I say, the 70th anniversary of the re-election of Sir Winston Churchill’s 1951 Government, which of course was a great home-building Government.
I thank the hon. Member for St Albans for having raised this important matter, and I entirely understand the motivations that lie behind her attempts to insert this new clause into the Bill, but I am afraid that I will not be able to accept it. Let me explain why, but first, by way of parenthesis, remind the Committee of the unprecedented commitment that the Government have already made: £5 billion of taxpayers’ money invested in grant funding for cladding remediation in buildings of 18 metres and above. As we know, that will protect hundreds of thousands of leaseholders from the cost of remediating unsafe cladding on their homes. We are also stepping in to provide a generous finance scheme for the remediation of lower-rise and, to that extent, lower-risk buildings, which we will say more about later.
I am afraid that our assessment of this proposed new clause is that, although it is well intentioned, it is disproportionate and does not strike the right balance between funding from the private and public purse. If passed, this new clause would mean that private and social buildings of any height could potentially be designated as defective and be eligible for grant funding of 90% of the property’s value, or repurchase by the local authority if we take the two measures together. New clause 3 lacks detail about the types of dwelling covered and clarity about the types of remediation or remediation works to be covered, which provides ample scope and grounds for all sorts of legal interpretation. It is important that our funding decisions are proportional, to ensure that taxpayers’ money is used effectively and protected as far as possible.
I should also point out the unintended—and I am sure that it is unintended—but necessarily consequential effect that this new clause would have on local government. It would place a responsibility on local authorities to purchase defective properties, which in a number of cases would place significant strain on those local authorities. In the past two years, Wandsworth has seen an average uplift in funding of 4.5%. The figure in Lewisham is 5%, and in Enfield it is 4.8%. The Committee needs to recognise the excessive burden that potential costs may impose on local government.
The hon. Member for St Albans mentioned the Housing Defects Act 1984, which is the predecessor of the 1985 Act that this new clause seeks to amend. That Act was designed for very different conditions: the policy was introduced due to issues with the post-war social housing stock. If we compare the costs of the 1984 scheme to which she referred with those of today, we see that the cost burden then was substantially lower than the estimates for remediation required now. In today’s money, the Housing Defects Act was about three times less costly in terms of grant funding than present remediation costs.
The hon. Lady said in her remarks—I entirely understand why she made them—that there are obstacles to the success of this new clause, and that it is for the Government to find a way. I gently say to the Committee that it is for whoever tables a new clause to find a way to make it work, because it is not the job of this Committee to make bad or defective laws, suggestions or reports to the House of Commons. Proposed new clauses or amendments need to be able to work; otherwise it is the Committee’s duty to ask the proposer to withdraw the motion or to vote against it because it does not do the job for which it is intended. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her suggestions, but I respectfully ask that she withdraw the proposed new clause.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the hon. Member for St Albans for introducing and explaining the new clause. Again, Labour supports the fundamental principle of rectifying the situation for the hundreds of thousands of people caught in the building safety scandal—to find, fund, fix and recover, using the polluter-pays principle.
Christopher Pincher
Again, I am grateful to the hon. Member for St Albans for the new clause and for how she comported herself. She mentioned the outstanding parliamentary question and, once the Committee concludes today, I will search for it, search for the answer, and ensure that she receives it as quickly as possible.
While I understand the intent behind the new clause, I am unable to accept it today. I believe it is unnecessary, as its intention is already being met. As the hon. Lady said, and as I have expressed previously, significant funding for leaseholders and for remediation is being made available, and I will unpack some of that for the Committee.
The hon. Lady will know that we are spending a significant amount of money on the remediation of in-scope high-rise buildings that are clad with ACM. For 97% of ACM-clad buildings, remediation has either happened or is under way. For socially owned ACM-clad buildings, 100% have been or are being remediated. We have also made available money through the building safety fund to ensure that non-ACM-clad buildings are made safe. So far, £734 million has been allocated. A significant number of buildings have begun their remediation process and 689 have been allocated support.
We have also said that we will bring forward proposals to ensure that appropriate support is available to leaseholders and building owners in the 11 to 18-metre cohort. We are doing further work to assess the prevalence of such buildings, and that will inform the final solution that we land on. We are considering all options to ensure that leaseholders are protected and helped.
The hon. Lady asked whether we believe in the polluter-pays principle. It is a rather—how can I put it?—crude term, but we certainly want to ensure that those who have the responsibility for the defects that have bedevilled so many buildings, and those who own them, pay what they are due. That is why we have announced a residential property developers tax, which we estimate will raise £2 billion. Clause 57, which we have agreed to, gives powers for a building safety levy on high-rise developers. We estimate that that will account for some half a billion pounds of income, and that is due at the gateway to approval stage for the new building safety regime. We certainly believe that those who have the broadest shoulders and those who are responsible for the defects that affect a great many buildings should pay their way, but we believe that the new clause will not work because implementing it will be costly, slow and disproportionate to the financial returns and their timely receipt, and that the Government will need to create a new administrative board to manage the fund.
I should tell the hon. Lady and the Committee that the new clause also risks the mortgage and insurance industries bringing significant and protracted legal challenges. We want them to undertake a much more proportionate and sensible approach to value ascription and risk definition, rather than the risk-averse, computer-says-no approach that they have taken to date. I think this amendment would obscure that sensible and simple objective.
Christopher Pincher
Whatever the hon. Lady has read in the newspapers before the Budget and the spending review, I can assure her that I will not add to the Chancellor’s woes or indeed the annoyance of Mr Speaker by making further comments about it before it takes place.
With respect to the new clause, we believe there is a risk that it will not allow us to levy moneys effectively from the builders insurance and mortgage sectors. We do not believe that the design and implementation challenges of the amendment will result in a material return for the resources that will be expended to deliver it.
Finally, there may be an unintended and undesirable further outcome, which is that a levy on insurers and lenders could very well—indeed, probably will—affect insurance premiums and the cost of borrowing for leaseholders. Given the challenges they already face, that is something I am sure we would wish to avoid.
Mike Amesbury
The hon. Member for St Albans asked whether the levy, the proposed tax that was leaked to the press by Her Majesty’s Treasury, made up part of the £5.1 billion. I note that the Minister did not answer that point, but it would be useful in terms of the journey of today’s new clauses if he could answer that question.
Christopher Pincher
I am happy to say that we expect that to be additional funding, but I will certainly not comment further on what the Chancellor may or may not say in his remarks—[Interruption.] It is in the newspapers; it is not on the record. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale is heckling from a sedentary position, but he needs to recognise the essential difference between what Ministers say and what newspaper journalists interpret them as saying, even before they have said it. There is a fundamental difference. He may be sitting at the feet or bending the knee at the altar of Lord Mandelson, but we must not do that.
In effect, by levying on builders and mortgage providers, the cost will rightly fall on the doorsteps of all homeowners, and potentially on those in the rental sector too. I entirely understand where the hon. Member for St Albans is coming from, and where she wants to go to, but I respectfully request again that she withdraws the new clause, not least because—finally—a number of such amendments and new clauses have been tabled over the past several months, some of which were associated with what is now the Fire Safety Act 2021.
Those proposed amendments were wide-ranging in their ambit and would have allowed, potentially, for a leaseholder to claim for a defective fire alarm that was 10 years old—defective potentially as a result of their own action. We would all—most reasonable people—accept, and those who are suffering the terror, the horror, of being trapped in a building they cannot sell because of this terrible scandal would also accept, that such a liability on a freeholder or builder would be unfair and improper, and might indeed risk what one might call a remediation industry building up, which would not help anyone. I am afraid that the wide ambit of new clauses such as this present an opportunity for that sort of misuse to occur.
I understand all the points that the hon. Lady has made, but I invite her again to withdraw her new clause.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 19— Review of Hackitt recommendations—
“(1) Within one year of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must carry out and publish a review on the Government’s implementation of the recommendations of Building a Safer Future, the final report of the Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety, published May 2018.
(2) The review must include an assessment of how legislative changes and Government policy have affected the wider building industry culture in respect of building safety.
(3) A report setting out the conclusions of the review as set out in subsection (1) must be laid before each House of Parliament no later than one year after the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would ensure the Government publish an assessment of the Government’s implementation of the Hackitt recommendations.
Mike Amesbury
The two new clauses speak to the recommendations of the Hackitt review—one more generally, and one on a specific point raised in the review. I will speak first to new clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). She has raised the issue before, and I believe she will do so again in the passage of the Bill. The new clause does not require any immediate action from the Government, other than carrying out a review of the impact on building safety of payment practices and associated commercial practices such as lowest-price bidding and onerous contracts. It embraces concerns expressed by Dame Judith Hackitt in chapter 9 of her May 2018 report, “Building a Safer Future”.
In her review, Dame Judith Hackitt lamented the lack of any “requirement or incentive” to prioritise building safety in procurement decisions, stating that the situation is further aggravated by
“unhelpful behaviours such as contract terms and payment practices which prioritise speed and low-cost solutions”.
The new clause requires the Secretary of State to review the impact of lowest-price procurement, poor payment practices and onerous terms and conditions on building safety, and to make recommendations to Parliament for regulatory and policy changes. It presents an opportunity not just to reset the regulatory framework but to address the commercial behaviours that compromise building safety.
New clause 19 was tabled in a similar spirit, despite its wider scope. The Government committed to implement the recommendations of the Hackitt review at the end of 2018. The Bill holds many of the reforms that were recommended. The new clause simply ensures that the Government publish an assessment of their implementation of the Hackitt recommendations within a year of the Bill passing. Given its centrality in implementing the recommendations alongside the Fire Safety Act 2021, and the significant amount of secondary legislation yet to be published even in draft form to support it, it is right that we take stock of how well it reaches its intended goal of implementing the findings after the regulations come into force.
As well as the issues covered by the new clause, there are questions to be asked about the extent of the review’s implementation of aspects including the regulation of building control for buildings under 18 metres and changes to the future testing regime for construction products—both important parts of Dame Judith’s recommendations. The new clause also includes mention of the need to assess changes to the construction culture in parts of Hackitt’s recommendations—something shared by all members of the Committee throughout the last three weeks. It is mentioned more than 40 times in the Hackitt report as an essential factor, alongside changes to regulation, developing good practice and ensuring well-built and safe homes in the future.
I ask the Minister to accept the new clause.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. I understand his intent and desire, through new clause 8, to ensure that common practices in the way that payments are charged and made within the built environment industry are incentivised so that building safety and quality are central to decision making. I also recognise—I think we all do—the argument that poor, adversarial practices can lead to unsafe, low-quality building safety outcomes, as well as poor value for money. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that we agree that this is an important issue.
Work with the industry to ensure fair and prompt payment and procurement practices is being addressed across several Departments. The Government’s construction playbook, which captures commercial best practices, is resetting the relationship between the construction industry and the Government. Making the process more strategic and collaborative, and focused on delivering a more sustainable, modern industry, better able to deliver high-quality built assets for its clients, is essential and crucial.
The Construction Leadership Council also has a business models workstream, whose work includes collaborative contractual practices; adoption of fairer payment practices; eliminating the need for retentions; and supporting the introduction of other complementary procurement approaches, such as the value toolkit and the construction playbook, which I have already mentioned.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Hackitt report. Following the Hackitt report, we also set up the procurement advisory group to advise on procurement practices in higher risk buildings and to provide independent advice on implementing the recommendations of chapter 9 of the report, which focuses on procurement. As part of that, we have sponsored the creation of guidance on how the industry can implement collaborative approaches to procurement, to deliver those safe buildings and to tackle poor behaviours across the supply chain. It will outline how those approaches support the future regulatory regime as set out in the Bill.
The group will then work with the industry to implement the principles of the guidance as widely as possible. The guidance will be iterative and will be reviewed in line with any amendment to the Bill ahead of Royal Assent; of course, as the hon. Gentleman will know, amendments can be tabled on Report as well as in the other place.
Our approach is to support the industry to develop industry-led solutions, rather than further regulation: creating regulation when that is necessary, rather than when we can do it. We want it to be meaningful and owned by the industry, which is vital in order to create the leadership and culture change we have agreed is needed to support the important changes introduced in the Bill.
Through our engagement, we encourage a focus on obtaining the best value, rather than the lowest cost in procurement practices. We recognise the importance of setting clear parameters for how construction services are procured at the start of a project, and how that drives the correct behaviours throughout the project supply chain. We encourage those involved in procurement practices to show leadership in that regard and to embed good practice.
The competence of those involved in procurement was also considered in detail by the industry-led competence steering group, and we encourage the industry to continue to develop and implement the competence framework for the sector. The Bill already ensures accountability for safety throughout the lifecycle of a building—I think we have agreed on that—and that risks are held and managed by the appropriate people. Our efforts are therefore rightly focused on delivering a more risk-proportionate building safety regime where life safety risks are tackled swiftly, but disproportionate caution and excessive costs are avoided.
We do not believe it would be proportionate to legislate for the way the construction industry charges or for the payment practices of private and commercial businesses. The new clause would be a significant expansion of the scope of the Bill, and could risk the timetable of our introduction of the new regime. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important matter, and I do not for a moment dispute his commitment to it. However, I respectfully ask him to withdraw the new clause.
I will briefly cover new clause 19. The Committee knows that the Bill provides a widely-framed review of the whole building safety regime, covering in-scope higher-risk buildings and out-of-scope buildings in clause 139, which was debated and agreed last Thursday. By comparison, the new clause would provide for a limited, one-off review within a year of Royal Assent. I do not believe that would practical, or that it would allow sufficient time for the new building safety system to be established or give the new building safety regulator the opportunity to deliver against the recommendations set out in the independent review of building regulations and fire safety. Therefore, I do not think that requiring an early review would have the intended effect.
The Government believe it is important to protect the independence of the review. As a result, we have not specified with whom the reviewer must consult when conducting the review and have allowed them to consult as widely as they see fit. The independent reviewer may choose to accept evidence from any interested party.
Clause 139 requires the Secretary of State to appoint a reviewer within five years of the Bill receiving Royal Assent and, thereafter, within five years of the previous appointment. It also allows the Secretary of State, in extremis, to ask for an earlier review within that five-year cycle. Therefore, unlike new clause 19, which is a one-off assessment, we are providing for an ongoing check on the building safety and construction products regulatory systems throughout their lifespan.
Given the establishment of a new system of regulation for building safety, including fire safety and defect remediation, it may not be practicable to conduct another comprehensive review similar in scope to the one undertaken by Dame Judith Hackitt sooner than the five-year limit stipulated by clause 139, unless in extremis the Secretary of State directs otherwise.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister for his response. Assessment planning implementation reviews are essential components of good policy. Given the significance of what we are collectively trying to achieve in Parliament and beyond this place, a review is vital. We argue that that five-year mark, while crucial and hard-wired into the proposed Bill, needs further checks and balances and assessment. However, in the spirit of co-operation and collaboration that we have had so far, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 9
Devolved Building Safety Standards Co-operation Review
“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review exploring how a formal mechanism of co-operation and information sharing on building safety standards across the United Kingdom could operate.
(2) The review as set out in subsection (1) must include reviewing—
(a) the feasibility of establishing a duty to consult with the government of Northern Ireland and Scotland on the best practices for building safety, including on—
(i) funding;
(ii) grants;
(b) the provision of funding of fire safety remediation work, and
(c) the provision of funding in place to prevent costs being passed to leaseholders.
(3) A report setting out the conclusions of the review as set out in subsections (1) must be laid before each House of Parliament no later than 3 months after the day on which this Act is passed.” —(Daisy Cooper.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of formal co-operation on building safety standards across the United Kingdom, in recognition that sharing best practice could promote improved building safety standards in all four nations.
Brought up, and read the First time.
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.
Christopher Pincher
If you will indulge me for a moment, Mr Dowd, I will briefly respond to a point that the hon. Member for St Albans made previously about the reasons behind the Scottish Government setting up a particular committee. Scotland has a different legal infrastructure and different financial mechanisms; that may well be one of the reasons why they have chosen to set up that committee, but that is, as I am sure she will appreciate, a matter for them.
I appreciate the hon. Lady raising this important point, in a similar vein to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale and new clause 8. However, in a similar vein, I trust that she will feel able to withdraw the new clause once I have concluded my remarks. The Bill already provides for a widely framed review of the whole building safety system. That will cover in-scope high-rise and higher risk buildings, and out-of-scope buildings through clause 139, which we debated and agreed to last week. By comparison, it is also rather akin to new clause 8. This new clause covers a more narrow subject matter, giving—entirely unintentionally, I am sure—no consideration to the independence of the review. When included alongside clause 139, which already stands part of the Bill, it would cause duplication and confusion.
As I said previously, I want to assure the hon. Lady that we recognise the intention behind her new clause, but we submit that it has been met in clause 139, which creates a non-prescriptive framework for the appointment of an independent person to review the work and the effectiveness of the Building Safety Regulator, the regulatory system for building safety, the national regulator for construction products, and the regulatory system for construction products. We therefore believe that the topics specified in new clause 10 are already covered by clause 139.
Ruth Cadbury
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Dowd. The new clause seeks an assessment of the mental health impact for leaseholders in dwellings with building safety risks.
It may be normal in areas such as health, social care and justice to consider in legislation the mental health impact on victims, but it is unusual in matters of the built environment. I hope in my comments to address the impact that the crisis is having on the mental health of millions of people across the country. Any MP who has looked into their postbag will know the turmoil and trauma that the crisis has caused to leaseholders. As the hon. Member for St Albans said earlier, they are innocent parties—the only innocent parties—and they have had the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.
The new clause makes three aspects clear. First, there is the trauma caused to people by living in a building that is unsafe and that they fear could go up in flames. Then there is the trauma of the financial bills that so many leaseholders face, which can run into tens of thousands for many. Finally, there is the trauma caused by being trapped and unable to sell or remortgage a home. That is a toxic trio that we know is impacting people’s mental health. Survey after survey has confirmed the huge impact.
In a survey for Which?, a leaseholder called Georgie said:
“I don’t know of any leaseholder whose mental health isn’t affected in some way due to this horrendous situation.”
That chimes with the findings in the landmark report by the Cladding Action Group, which found that nine out of 10 of those surveyed said their mental health had
“deteriorated as a direct result of the situation”.
Some 94% said they were anxious and worried, 83% said they were angry—rightly, I might say—and 59% felt abandoned, which is a point I will come back to later. People also said they had had to take time off work. Health conditions had been made worse. Many were seeking or planning to seek medical help for stress. Some 67% said their mental health had got worse since they were last interviewed. Those numbers should serve as a chilling reminder of the impact, toll and misery of this crisis—a crisis that this Government have effectively caused.
It is hard to convey just what the fear of living in an unsafe building must feel like—how it must feel for people to go to sleep at night not knowing if they are safe in their bed. A constituent who wrote to me after the fire at Grenfell told me that they went past and saw the fire raging from their bus. The images of that night are seared on that constituent’s brain, as it is in the minds of so many other people, even if we just saw it on the TV.
Grenfell was, of course, not the only residential fire with serious consequences. The Cube fire in Bolton and Richmond House in south-west London are just two in recent years. Locally, there are many more examples. Luckily, Sperry House in Brentford was caught in time before the fire raged across the full building—before life was lost. Thanks to the fire services, it was caught in time.
Mike Amesbury
Yesterday, Sky highlighted the case of Zoe, who lives in a cramped, one-bedroom flat with small children, but is unable to move out of the flat because of the toxicity of the building safety standards. That is having a huge effect on her mental health issues, including about schools in the future and just the anxiety my hon. Friend illustrates.
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend gives yet another illustration of the stress and mental health impact of this crisis. On the subject of people almost frightened to go to sleep at night, people with disabilities and their carers face even greater anxiety and worry over fire safety risks and whether they would be able to get out of their home to safety. Many are struggling to get adequate personal emergency evacuation plans sorted with their building managers.
Paragraph (b) relates to those facing staggeringly high bills. Every day, we see more and more reports of the skyrocketing costs facing leaseholders. One of my constituents, who is a shared owner in Brentford, is facing a bill of £15,000, and says:
“I fear it will be significantly higher...I don’t have this money and it will bankrupt me. I fear homelessness...I’m going to lose the home I worked so hard for.”
Leaseholders across the country are facing staggering and life-changing bills to fix cladding and fire safety defects, and more. Service charges are skyrocketing and, for many, insurance premiums are also shooting through the roof. Two of my constituents are facing an extra £2,000 on their annual insurance bill. Many people face bankruptcy. That is bad enough in itself, because of course it means a lifelong impact, whatever one’s financial future. However, for accountants, lawyers and others, their professional status is permanently destroyed if they are declared bankrupt.
Overall, there is the fear of homelessness for people who got on the housing ladder—they did the right thing, as we often say—but are now falling to the bottom of the snakes and ladders board.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I add my support for the new clause, for the reasons so well set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth.
I believe that there needs to be an assessment of the mental health impact for all leaseholders. My hon. Friend spoke about the impact of the financial bills that many leaseholders face. I would like to add some points from the leaseholders I have spoken to in my constituency about their fear of bankruptcy and the pressure that is placing on them, particularly those who would lose their professional title. I have spoken to a teacher and a social worker, who in their day jobs are dealing with young children who are already in temporary accommodation, or are supporting the needs of the Afghan refugees who have been placed in Luton.
Those constituents are working incredibly hard, in incredibly important jobs, but they are struggling because they are fearful that if they cannot meet the costs of the bills that they might have to face, they will lose their professional titles, not be able to pay those bills, be made homeless and then fall on to the responsibility of Luton Council, which we already know is incredibly pressured when it comes to providing housing. Our council house waiting lists are huge, with people living in temporary accommodation for many years. I did not need to watch the “Dispatches” programme on television last night—these emails come into my office inbox every day.
Finally, there are also wider mental health issues for those living together as partners and considering whether to start a family, when they are living in a home that is not safe and when they have concerns about when they will be able to remedy that, given the lack of action from the Government. The new clause on the need for a mental health impact report is therefore hugely important, and not only for the benefit of the leaseholders.
Mike Amesbury
Yesterday, Sarah Corker highlighted the case of a leaseholder in a flat who was finally going through remediation after waiting for years. The flat was wrapped in plastic and there was very little wraparound mental health support. Does my hon. Friend agree that that should be within the scope of an assessment?
Rachel Hopkins
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I agree that we need to look at everything in the round and bring it into scope to understand the longer-term impacts of unsafe cladding, and the lack or slow progress of remediation, particularly on leaseholders.
I really feel for those who cannot start a family because of those deep concerns, and the pressure they experience because, as time ticks on, it becomes more difficult. I want to add my support for leaseholders who are struggling in those situations by supporting this incredibly important new clause.
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth for raising this important matter and to other Committee members for speaking honestly and eloquently on it.
The Government recognise—I certainly recognise—the difficult situation that many leaseholders have found or find themselves in, not least the financial implications and the emotional strain that it has placed on many people. We are aware of the research that has been conducted in the sector on the effects of building safety on leaseholders and their wider family and friends. The findings are sobering. They highlight the significant effect that building safety issues have on leaseholders and further demonstrate the importance of our work to improve building safety.
However, an important principle underpins access to mental health support: it must be based on clinical need. That must be right. It should be the right of everyone who needs that support to get it, without regard to any legislative or political pressure. If any individual, regardless of where they live, requires mental health support, they can contact their general practitioner to discuss those issues so that they may be referred to mental health services as appropriate. Information is available at GP surgeries and on the NHS website about how to access that. While I appreciate the points made by Committee members, we need to be careful, because the new clause cannot and, indeed, should not change the current approach to delivering these important services.
That is why, while I understand the motivation behind it, the Government cannot support the new clause, and why I will in due course ask the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth to withdraw it. It has implications not simply for building safety and my Department, but for how the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care provide such services.
Making homes safer will benefit leaseholders, and that is what we must be and are focused on. The Government are fully committed to making homes across our country safer, and that is why we are implementing the recommendations of the Judith Hackitt report. We also want people to be safe, and that is why we have since 2017 invested in more mental health nurses and services.
Throughout the work to reform building safety, the Government have regularly and extensively engaged with leaseholder groups. My noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, his predecessor and his predecessor’s predecessor have done that extensively since the Grenfell disaster. We recognise and understand the effects on a leaseholder who lives or who has lived in an unsafe high-rise building. That is why the Government have taken a range of steps to support leaseholders.
Given the tone of the debate on the new clause, I will not reamplify and recapitulate the support that the Government have given, and will continue to give, to leaseholders. There may be some disagreement about that support, but there is common understanding of our intent.
Through the Bill, we have a common intent to bring through new stronger protections for leaseholders and residents, providing them with the assurance that their buildings and the risks are being effectively managed, and that they are well informed and are given the chance to participate in the decisions that affect their building’s safety. Where the performance of those responsible for building safety falls short, there will be a clear route to have concerns heard and dealt with, backed by the new Building Safety Regulator. The regulator will have the powers necessary to put things right and tackle underperformance, giving residents and owners peace of mind.
We do not believe that a Government review of the effect on mental health is an appropriate or practicable approach. The practical effect of such a report might well be to recommend that mental health service provision be made to all leaseholders and possibly the wider community.
Mike Amesbury
How will the Minister and the Department approach helping the 90% of leaseholders surveyed who are affected by anxiety and mental health issues? What co-ordination is there between the Department and, for example, the national health service or other appropriate services?
Christopher Pincher
The national health service has well-established means of providing services through both primary and secondary care to the people, based on need and at no cost to them at that point in time. That has been a well-established principle since 1948. GPs can signpost their patients to appropriate resources in the NHS to provide them with the services they need, as can services such as 111 or the Government website, which indicate how people with difficulties can use the NHS.
Ruth Cadbury
If we were to push the new clause to a vote and it was accepted, the details of that are in there. This is not unique in legislation. It can be done and it can be enacted if the Government will is there. We are trying to establish whether the Government actually care about the people who are impacted by this crisis.
Mike Amesbury
When 90% of leaseholders surveyed by UK Cladding Action Group and End Our Cladding Scandal cite mental health and anxiety as a major concern, and when 25% have considered taking their own lives—suicidal thoughts—there is a big issue. It is nearly five years on from Grenfell. My hon. Friend, a good colleague, makes a powerful case for the new clause to be included in the landscape of the new building safety regime in this country.
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend confirms the power of this issue. Finally, I will address the Minister’s point about the Building Safety Regulator. To be honest, the point of the regulator is not generally, as drafted, to be concerned about people. The Minister said that the regulator will engage with leaseholders, but engaging with a leaseholder does not actually make them feel better.
My other concern is the growing number. We talked about the UK Cladding Action Group survey. It will have surveyed people who are probably aware of the situation they are in, but we know that people are still buying flats in buildings and more and more people are becoming aware of these issues. I would not buy a flat in a leasehold block, particularly one with a term of less than 20 years, because I have been enmeshed in this issue as a representative MP since before Grenfell. I know what it is like, but too many people are not aware, and are continuing to buy, get mortgages, set up homes and settle down in buildings that they then find are affected. I met the son of a friend of mine a couple of months ago, and he asked, “Could you explain to me this EWS1 problem? I am not moving, but some of my neighbours want to sell, and they did not know anything about it.” I said, “Well, how long have you got?”
Mike Amesbury
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Insurance costs are suffocating leaseholders up and down the country. I know that the Minister is keen for me to bring up casework during these sittings—indeed, the hon. Member for Bolton North East did so just last week—and it is a very relevant and appropriate piece of casework, so I make no apology for bringing it up. There is a development that is just outside my constituency, called The Decks. One part of the development is above 18 metres; the other part is below 18 metres, so one part is within the scope of the Building Safety Bill as it stands, and one is not.
The resident leaseholders in that development, regardless of whether they are in scope or out of scope, have faced a shocking rise in insurance premiums of 1,400% over the past two years. Their insurance rose from £34,000 in 2019, before the current problems with building safety were identified, to £254,000 in 2020. Despite the problems having been identified and work done with the local fire authority to put alarms in place to mitigate and reduce risk, the insurance then more than doubled yet again to £522,000 at the start of this year. Risk reduced, but premiums yet again going up—a situation mirrored the length and breadth of this country. That is just one case out of nine that I looked at in research published in The Sunday Telegraph this week, which provides a rough snapshot of the costs involved when leaseholders are hit by rocketing, sky-high, scandalous insurance premiums.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for again raising this important matter. I appreciate the issue that the new clause seeks to tackle: the challenge of freeholders and leaseholders of some residential buildings, in particular those that need remediation, who are struggling to obtain affordable buildings insurance; and the challenge faced by some construction professionals —the fire-safety professionals in particular—in obtaining affordable professional indemnity insurance.
As the hon. Gentleman said, engaging with the insurance sector and other relevant stakeholders—which the Government are doing on an ongoing basis—is vital to understanding the effects of building safety issues on insurance provision. We want—he has heard me say it before, and in no way do I apologise for saying it again— insurers to take a more proportionate approach in terms of the availability and cost of insurance, just as much as we want lenders to take a more proportionate approach with respect to mortgage lending.
The intention of the hon. Gentleman’s new clause—to improve access to affordable residential professional indemnity insurance—we believe should be met by other provisions in the Bill. Efforts to remediate existing buildings, as he knows, are supported by the building safety fund and other measures that we will bring forward shortly. A combination of those measures and this Bill ought to ensure that buildings are safer. Therefore, both professionals and residents should be able to access more affordable insurance. He will also know that Lord Greenhalgh and others have worked closely with the insurance sector to ensure that appropriate professional indemnity insurance in extremis is available to professionals so that they may carry out their duties.
Mike Amesbury
The evidence is crystal clear. Despite interventions by Lord Greenhalgh—just mentioned—premiums are still going up, regardless of whether a building is 11 to 18 metres or 18 metres-plus, which is in scope. Again, I urge the Government to accept the new clause and to add the amendment to the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but I was going to say that the Government have of course spent £700,000 to ensure that more fire risk assessors are available to undertake risk assessments to evaluate the challenges to building safety, thereby also contributing to a more proportionate risk and lending regime.
The hon. Gentleman said that this was straightforward. On one level it is, but on another it is not, by which I mean that is hard to disentangle the effect of building safety issues on the availability and cost of insurance from other issues and where other market trends apply. For example, heavy rains or flooding can also have an effect on market trends, lending, and risk assurance availability and its price.
In conclusion—this is important—following Royal Assent to the Bill, and indeed before it, we will continue to monitor closely the provision of insurance and we will work with stakeholders, including freeholders and leaseholders, to encourage a much more proportionate approach for insuring, for pricing insurance, and for ensuring and delivering its availability.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister for giving way again. He is generous with his time. To help focus minds in the insurance sector, will the Government consider a referral to the Competition and Markets Authority? For the life of me, I cannot understand how, when risks are reduced in some buildings up and down the country, we are seeing this pattern emerge of increases of 1,000%—
Building Safety Bill (Sixteenth sitting)
Mike Amesbury Excerpts(3 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I was concluding my remarks in response to a comment from the hon. Member for Weaver Vale, who had asked about interventions that the Government may consider to ensure that the insurance industry is proportionate and fair in its pricing and its availability. He asked about the Competition and Markets Authority, and while I would not want to bind the hands of Her Majesty’s Government on one particular intervention, it is certainly the case that nothing is off the table as we try to ensure that the insurance sector lives up to its responsibilities to deliver a fair and proportionate insurance-based set of products to its customers.
In concluding my contribution to the debate, the Government believe that a one-off review, as proposed under new clause 12, is not necessary or proportionate, and may well add inflexibility to the Government’s response, which needs to be swift and flexible. I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to welcome you to your place, Mrs Miller, for the final time on this Committee’s journey. I will withdraw the new clause, noting that we have the opportunity for more conversations on this matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 13
Assessment of the impact of Act on access to mortgage finance
“(1) Within one year of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must carry out a review of the impact of the provisions of this Act on access to mortgage finance for leaseholders.
(2) The review shall be laid before each House of Parliament.
(3) The review must consider the impact of building safety issues, confidence in the building safety industry and the impact of Government advice on building safety given since 14 July 2017 on—
(a) the availability and cost of mortgages and related financial services for leaseholders in the UK;
(b) difficulties accessing mortgage finance on the wellbeing of leaseholders; and
(c) the impact on the housing and housing finance markets.
(4) The review must recommend what industry changes and Government action are necessary to improve accessibility to mortgage finance for leaseholders.”—(Mike Amesbury.)
This new clause would ensure that the Government publish an assessment considering the impact of the building safety crisis on leaseholder access to mortgage finance and its impact on the wider housing market.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mike Amesbury
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 13 would ensure that the Government look into the impact on access to mortgage finance and make recommendations to Parliament on policy changes. Some estimates of the number of properties affected by this scandal put it at 1.3 million flats, and some indications suggest a cooling effect on the market for flats—up to 60% compared with three years ago.
Over the weekend, the Bank of England announced that it is looking into the potential impact on mortgage providers and their ability to cope with the crisis should leaseholders be unable to keep up their mortgage payments—something leaseholders across the country have told me they are increasingly worried about given the costs pushed on to their shoulders by the crisis. It is therefore vital that the Government and the Minister seek to properly understand the impact of allowing the current situation to continue, in terms of both the effect on the overall property market and the devastating consequences for individual leaseholders. The Minister will point to the Government’s interventions—several interventions now—that announced the unlocking of the market by trying to create restrictions on which buildings need EWS1 forms and require remediation. The evidence suggests that those announcements have not worked.
It is clear that the market is still making its own decisions, with the media reporting only weeks ago that several of the UK’s largest mortgage lenders still require some buildings under 18 metres to obtain the EWS1 surveys. Some lenders have previously stated that they are waiting for the Government to withdraw advice note 14—something that the former Secretary of State promised would be coming within weeks at the start of last month, alongside everything that the Government need to do. However, it has not arrived.
The impact of the market impasse on the lives of individual leaseholders can be huge. Without being able to move, leaseholders are putting off having families, as has been documented throughout the passage of the Bill so far. Some are forced to sell their property at a discount to predatory cash buyers, and some even declare bankruptcy. Thanks to the slow roll-out of the building safety fund and the fact that the Government have still not announced the details of the loan scheme, more than eight months after it was first announced, leaseholders are trapped worrying that they will be left paying remediation costs—many are getting the bills as we speak.
The new Secretary of State has said he will look afresh at the situation, to ensure that the Department is doing everything it can to support leaseholders. I urge Ministers to accept the new clause, so that a full review can be carried out on what decisive Government action must be taken to fix this mess.
Christopher Pincher
To respond to something that the hon. Gentleman said earlier—that we might return to some matters in the future—the future, like the past, is another country. We will see what the Report stage has to offer us.
I can assure the Committee that the Government are working with industry to unlock the mortgage market for those in leasehold flats, to ensure that lenders act in a proportionate and sensible way. We are conscious that there are flat owners who cannot sell their properties and who remain stuck in them because of the excessive industry caution. Such people should not feel that they are living in homes that are unsafe.
To assess the effect of EWS1 on the market, we have secured an agreement from banks and building societies to publish aggregate lender EWS1 data, so that homeowners can see how the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ EWS1 guidance is being applied and the effect of the process on mortgage applications, and we will continue to challenge industry on the inappropriate use of EWS1 forms. We have seen the expert advice that we received earlier this year from Dame Judith Hackitt and Ken Knight, who said that the use of EWS1 forms has got out of proportion. The degree of risk aversion is out of proportion, and it needs to be brought back into proportion—for example, EWS1 forms should not be used for buildings beneath 18 metres in height.
That advice has been accepted by a number of lenders to whom we have spoken, but to support the sector as we transition into a new regime, we have commissioned the British Standards Institute to produce a publicly available specification, the PAS 9980, which is a code of practice for professionals undertaking external wall assessments. That will provide a standard for professionals to follow, encouraging a consistency in approach that we have not seen to date. When it is published by the BSI, it will set out a methodology for professionals to follow and explain when a detailed assessment of an external wall is necessary. That code of practice will set out a methodology for professionals to follow, enabling us to withdraw the consolidated advice note to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The flexibility that we want is in line with our overall message on proportionality and the work that we are doing to ensure that more proportionate assessments of the external wall are carried out.
The Committee is well aware of the funds that the Government have allocated to high-rise buildings above 18 metres, and of the support that we are proposing to provide for buildings below 18 metres and above 11 metres, on which more detail will follow. Support will also be provided as a result of the Bill’s passage. We are considering how residents’ voices can be further strengthened in the remediation process. I will perhaps be able to say more about that at a later date, but we are minded to increase the voice of residents.
The Government also recognise and understand that construction professionals are struggling to obtain adequate professional indemnity insurance. We will continue to encourage the market to provide greater availability of adequate PII, and we will also make sure that our in extremis backstop measures are in place.
In view of the measures that we have already undertaken to encourage a more proportionate approach by industry, and the Government funding that we have made available so that residents and leaseholders have the peace of mind that they desire, I trust that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale will recognise that the new clause is unnecessary and that he will withdraw it.
Mike Amesbury
Although we will withdraw the new clause, we may come back to this issue on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 14
Agency to manage building safety works and funding
“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must create an agency referred to as the Building Works Agency.
(2) The purpose of the Building Works Agency shall be to administer a programme of cladding remediation and other building safety works, including—
(a) overseeing an audit of cladding, insulation and other building safety issues in buildings over two storeys;
(b) prioritising audited buildings for remediation based on risk;
(c) determining the granting or refusal of grant funding for cladding remediation work;
(d) monitoring progress of remediation work and enforce remediation work where appropriate;
(e) determining buildings to be safe once remediation work has been completed;
(f) seeking to recover costs of remediation where appropriate from responsible parties: and
(g) providing support, information and advice for owners of buildings during the remediation process.”—(Mike Amesbury.)
This new clause would create a new body set up to oversee a programme of cladding remediation, including assessing the need for remediation, overseeing the process of remediation, managing funding of remediation and recouping costs where possible from appropriate parties.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mike Amesbury
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We have had the same strategy for at least 35 years. The Government’s laissez-faire approach simply picked at the edges of a scandal threatening to engulf the whole housing market, mimicking the deregulation and the lack of accountability that caused the scandal in the first place, and leaving leaseholders caught up in a perfect storm. The individuals least able to bear the costs are not responsible for those mistakes.
We have tabled a lot of amendments and new clauses because although in many ways the Bill represents a step forward—at last—we want to highlight the large areas of this ongoing scandal that are not covered and will not be fixed by the Bill. It is clear, from looking at the amendment paper and considering all the aspects of the crisis that we are trying to address, that what is really wrong with the Government’s approach is that there is no central plan. By tabling the new clause, we repeat our call for the Government to act across the piece to solve the crisis, to put in place a building works agency, and to do what should have been done in 2017. We need a more interventionist, hands-on approach.
We propose a team of experts to do what the Government have not done: to go from building to building to assess real risk and decide what needs to be fixed and in what order, use the building safety fund to get those buildings fixed, and oversee the work. Crucially, the Government could then sign off the buildings as safe and sellable, bringing certainty back to the market.
Finally, the Government could then take on those who are responsible for creating the crisis and who need to pay. That approach was put in place by a cross-party group of politicians and experts in Victoria, Australia, after the fire in Australia and, later, at Grenfell Tower. It requires our Ministers and the new Secretary of State to be prepared to step up, look afresh, as the new Secretary of State said, and lead from the front, rather than rely on a broken market and leaseholders on the precipice of bankruptcy. I hope that the Minister can accept the new clause. It will not be the last time that a variation of it is brought before the House.
Shaun Bailey
We did see that, and I certainly do not want to undermine the work that individual leaseholders have done to get a grasp of the system. That is not what I am trying to say. I want to see a system that is as easy as possible to navigate. Yes, we have seen those examples and I completely get that, but I could equally refer to individuals in states of absolute emotional distress who would have to deal with this system, as we have touched on under previous new clauses.
Mike Amesbury
We have the Building Safety Regulator, as the hon. Member rightly pointed out, centralising what works in co-operation with the other stakeholders, including local fire services and local authorities, which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby advocated for. We also have the building safety fund. However, there sometimes seems to be a black hole in things. Things disappear and drift, and there is dither and delay. The new clause is about turbocharging the process, providing that leadership and drive that not only leaseholder residents require, but us collectively as legislators of the nation require to deal with this scandal.
Shaun Bailey
I think that we agree with the idea of turbocharging and streamlining the process, but where we disagree is on how we go about doing that. I question whether a building works agency in the form prescribed in the new clause would do that. My other slight concern is that we are already part way through a process of remediation. I want to see that process improved in the ambits in which it already sits. That is the point that I am trying to hammer home.
My concern is about the practical application. The hon. Member for St Albans rightly said, and I do not disagree with her, that many people have had to learn to navigate these difficult systems. On the flip slide, there will be many people who are totally lost and because of the circumstances they find themselves in, they may not be able to navigate these systems in the same way—notwithstanding her point, which I totally take on board; she is right.
To reiterate, I do not disagree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale and other hon. Members who have intervened. We do need a system that is accessible to those who have been most affected. My concern is about the practical application of new clause 14 and how it would work. I am conscious that we are already going through a process of remediation. The focus should be on ensuring that my right hon. Friend the Minister gets it absolutely right in the first instance.
Mike Amesbury
This is an emergency and an urgent crisis. We have a new Secretary of State, so we can look afresh at the matter. We have looked across the water at something that works. I know that Ministers, shadow Ministers and other stakeholders have spoken to governments in Victoria and New South Wales, looking at what has worked and sharing notes to take things forward. This is a crisis, so I would hope that the new Secretary of State can work with all stakeholders and politely bash heads together at almost a building safety summit. I hope that the matter will be looked at seriously to drive the process forward.
Shaun Bailey
The hon. Gentleman is right in what he says about moving things forward in the longer term, which is how I took it. It is incumbent on me and him to get the new Secretary of State to ensure that this works in the way that those who have been affected would expect. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister is waiting with bated breath for the representations that I will make to him to ensure that this works.
The hon. Gentleman has drawn on the example of the Australian state of Victoria and the conversations that have taken place. Of course, it is important that we look at international examples when we are deliberating the best way to solve this problem—he is right to label it as a crisis, because it is a crisis. I have already articulated this point, but my concern about drawing direct parallels with Victoria is the quantity and scale involved. As I said in my opening remarks, there are 2,000 properties in Victoria that fit the criteria and would fall within new clause 14, as opposed to 100,000 in England alone. My concern is about how we ensure that this system is practically operational, but I do not disagree with the philosophical sentiment behind new clause 14: the idea of streamlining the process, of having a culture in the longer term that is about prevention, and ensuring that those individuals who need to access the system can do so.
The Chair
I think the hon. Member for West Bromwich West can continue, and then when we come to the vote, I will note that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale wishes to withdraw the clause. Mr Bailey, do you want to finish your remarks?
Mike Amesbury
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause takes its lead from the Government’s statistics on ACM remediation. The most recent release, the September 2021 “Building Safety Programme: monthly data release”, covers 34 pages and breaks down in detail the types of building with ACM and the progress made in removing and replacing the dangerous cladding over time. It also covers the allocation of funding and gives an update on enforcement proceedings against owners of buildings yet to make their buildings safe. It is a detailed look at what progress is being made to tackle the ACM safety crisis.
We are not getting the same amount of information about non-ACM buildings. Instead, we receive an update covering the funding status of the 3,175 buildings that applied for the building safety fund. Although we are grateful that the Department is now releasing more information than previously on non-ACM funding, there is much more to be done to ensure that the Government’s progress in fixing the crisis is as transparent as possible without risking the security of individual buildings.
The new clause suggests one additional point to be included in a non-ACM monthly report, which could also be included in the ACM monthly report—information collected from local fire authorities outlining the interim safety measures that have been put in place. As we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth, waking watch and other interim safety costs are playing a large part in pushing leaseholders to the brink. It is important that they are included in released information on our progress fighting this crisis.
I would be grateful if the Minister could outline why there is a difference in the data release for ACM and non-ACM remediation funding and progress. Does he agree that transparency and being able to track the progress of remediation, as well as the safety measures involved, are necessary to build back trust in the system and in the Government’s interventions? If so, I hope that the Minister can accept the new clause.
Christopher Pincher
I hope that in responding relatively briefly to this new clause I can help the hon. Gentleman. I think that the new clause is unnecessary, and I want to assure him and the Committee that his intention has already been met by the Government, and will continue to be met.
In addition to the data released showing progress on ACM remediation, we also separately publish monthly data related to the progress of the building safety fund, covering remediation of unsafe non-ACM cladding, as well as monthly data on the waking watch relief fund. We will continually review the information we hold on cladding remediation and publish all appropriate information when it is ready, which involves undertaking necessary quality assurance. As we have done with the ACM database, we will expand the amount of data and analysis on remediation progress for buildings with unsafe non-ACM cladding when the data is available and once it has been appropriately quality assured.
The hon. Gentleman asks if we will do more; the answer is yes, but we will do it when we are able to provide quality data, properly quality assured. For example, further analysis is being undertaken related to the building safety fund, the data collection on the external wall systems on high-rise residential buildings and the material that is in use on residential buildings between 11 and 18 metres. Data on these areas will be published in due course, adding to what we already publish monthly.
The Committee has acknowledged that the data published on the progress of ACM remediation is high quality, full and transparent. We look forward to being able to do the same with non-ACM remediation and waking watch relief fund data as they are available. Given that explanation, I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his new clause; we intend to deliver just what he is looking for.
Mike Amesbury
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to expand the data that will be available in the public domain when it is quality assured. However, as a point of clarity: when is due course?
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.
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.
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend is giving an excellent description of the current state of much social rent housing. That is partly because the landlords—councils and housing associations—have not had adequate funding to bring them up to scratch, and the building safety crisis in relation to social rent homes is adding to that. The Minister may want to attack the Labour Government, because that is what Conservative Governments frequently do, but does my hon. Friend agree that, while the Labour Government brought 1 million social rent homes up to standard 20 years ago, such a programme needs to happen again now and this crisis is only making that pressure worse?
Mike Amesbury
I concur with my hon. Friend. When I was a councillor in the Manchester area, I saw the results of that very standards programme. But we cannot excuse landlords; it is on their shoulders to ensure that the types of horrific cases that we have seen are sorted quickly. We cannot afford to allow money to be taken away from tackling these issues. Analysis has shown that housing associations have paid six times as much as developers to get buildings fixed. Given the huge profits that have been made in the private sector, it is a scandal that it is not doing more to pay to fix faults, many of which it created.
The first amendment that Labour tabled in the Committee centred on the impact of climate change on building safety. Building safety considerations are competing with building green houses. The Government have announced funding, but it will take much more to ensure that social homes are warm and energy efficient. With housing accounting for 14% of our emissions, we must make that a priority.
The new clause would ensure that the Government looked at the impact of this crisis on future levels of house building in the UK by social home providers, on homelessness and on the maintenance of social homes. It would require them to make recommendations for action necessary to ensure that building safety issues do not inhibit our ability to reach the house-building targets, and that current provision of housing is maintained and improved.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful again to the hon. Gentleman for raising an important matter. I do not believe that his amendment is necessary because a great deal of the information that he seeks about registered providers’ finances, their house building and the decency of their properties is already published. For example, the global accounts published annually by the regulator of social housing contain detailed financial information about individual private registered providers of social housing that own or manage 1,000 or more homes. That includes how much they invest in new homes and in maintaining their existing properties. A summary of those providers’ financial forecasts is typically published alongside the global accounts that set out their investment and development plans for the next five years.
The most recent global accounts published earlier this year reported increased spending by private registered providers on repairs and maintenance in 2019-20. They also showed a 13% increase in investment in new housing supply compared to the previous year, driven by greater spending on delivering new social homes for rent. That speaks volumes about how private registered landlords are continuing to invest in both new and existing homes, despite challenging circumstances. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale will know—we have debated it in the Chamber and elsewhere on a number of occasions—that the new affordable homes programme is worth more than £12 billion. It is the largest cash injection into affordable housing in a 15-year cycle. Of that, £8 billion has already been allocated and has been taken up by registered providers who are determined to build the homes that we require and that the hon. Gentleman has asked for.
Mike Amesbury
Residents in my constituency and across the country would not accept that definition of affordable homes: the Government have vandalised that definition over a number of years. How many homes were built for social rent last year?
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question. Since 2010, we have built nearly 150,000 homes for social rent, and 32,000 will be built in the new affordable homes cycle, market conditions permitting. That is double the number that were built under the current mechanism. We are building more social homes through the affordable homes programme. We are allowing councils to build homes, if they wish, by reducing the borrowing cap on the housing revenue account. We have created a hub in Homes England to help local authorities that do not have the wherewithal or the experience to build social homes to get that experience so that they can build those homes.
We are building affordable homes of a variety of types and tenures and we will continue to do that, market conditions permitting. We are also investing a significant amount of public funds in retrofitting properties in the social sector that absolutely need it to bring them up to the required standard. The heat and building strategy was announced just a few days ago. Before that, the social housing decarbonisation fund was making available £3.8 billion to decarbonise social properties to ensure that they are more energy efficient. The announcement that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy made a few days ago will ensure that further hundreds of millions of pounds are made available for such things as home improvement grants. That is why we can say that we are dealing with this challenging issue and that the new clause is therefore unnecessary.
The quarterly survey produced by the regulator of social housing shows that private registered providers forecast £70.5 billion of investment in the development and acquisition of housing properties in 2021-22. That exceeds the amount in the 12-month forecast reported by the quarterly survey in the year before the pandemic.
I hope that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale will see that we are making significant investment, which will ensure that homes are brought up to a fit standard, and that the available global account data is transparent and clear. Although I am sure that we will have further debates about how much money is being allocated and where it is being spent, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see that, in this particular instance, the new clause is unnecessary.
Mike Amesbury
I am sure we will have further discussions on Report, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 22
Assessment of the impact of building safety issues on shared ownership
“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out a review of how the following issues impact on leaseholders of shared ownership leases—
(a) building safety issues,
(b) the amount of funding provided to the social housing to remediate buildings with combustible cladding, and
(c) rules surrounding shared ownership schemes and subletting, and the impact of advice given by his Department on building safety given since 14 July 2017.
(2) The review shall assess whether the issues listed in subsection (1)(a) to (c) has impacted on—
(a) costs incurred by leaseholders of shared ownership leases for remediation and other building safety related costs,
(b) access to mortgage finance by leaseholders of shared ownership leases, and
(c) the mental health and wellbeing of leaseholders of shared ownership leases.
(3) The review must make a recommendation as to whether Government action is necessary to—
(a) ensure adequate transparency is readily provided for leaseholders of shared ownership leases in relation to building safety issues,
(b) ensure future confidence in shared ownership schemes, and
(c) encourage increased rates of leaseholders purchasing remaining shares of their shared ownership lease home.
(4) A report setting out the conclusions of the review as set out in subsection (1) must be laid before each House of Parliament no later than 3 months after the day on which this Act is passed.
‘shared ownership lease’ has the same meaning as in section 76(3) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.”—(Mike Amesbury.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mike Amesbury
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The very notion of shared ownership implies to me—and I am sure to others in Committee—an element of joint responsibility. Yet it is abundantly clear that, when it comes to picking up the remediation costs to fix a plethora of faults throughout the landscape of shoddy development, there is nothing shared about it. I know that Ministers and departmental officials will have seen the emails, letters and case studies, many of them exposed by the media, that shine a light on the desperation of many residents in shared ownership properties. I was recently made aware of one such building in London, which was covered in flammable cladding and has wooden decking. It is under 18 metres, so leaseholders are not covered by the Bill. They are not classed as high risk. A bill for £85,000 per household from their housing association has just landed through their doors. Some residents own as little as 25% of their flat, but risk being responsible for 100% of the cost.
Ruth Cadbury
Does my hon. Friend agree—from what he was saying, I think he does—that the Government must address this iniquity in shared ownership, where shared owners own only a proportion of their flat yet are responsible for 100% of the cost? Does he also agree that for constituents such as mine, fire safety has been a crisis? They were evacuated from their homes at a week’s notice by their social rent landlord from a property built by Berkeley Group. They are homeless, and they cannot get on the housing ladder, even though the housing association has been able to repay them the market cost of the share they own. Does he agree that that is wholly iniquitous?
Mike Amesbury
I do agree with my hon. Friend. That is a horrendous case and I hope things are resolved in the not-too-distant future.
Of course, elsewhere in the country, people who own as little as 10% of their flat face astonishing costs. Again, this is despite the Government’s statement that buildings under 18 metres do not generally meet the definition of high risk. This situation requires a rethink of not only how the current crisis is impacting shared ownership leaseholders, but how our shared ownership system is set up and how risks are communicated to shared ownership leaseholders. Shared ownership should mean shared responsibility, not a grotesque responsibility put on people, often on low incomes, that will prevent their being able to join the housing market in other ways, trying to get a foothold on the property ladder, or indeed staircase, into full ownership.
This new clause would ensure that the Government look holistically at the impact of the crisis on shared ownership and their response to it. It would also ensure that the Government provide transparency on the potential building safety implications of shared ownership contracts and reinstate confidence in the shared ownership system.
Christopher Pincher
Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising an important point. He is right to draw attention to the effect of building safety issues on leaseholders who purchased their home on a shared ownership basis. However, I do not think that this new clause is necessary, as the Government are already taking decisive action to support building owners to make their buildings safe without passing unavoidable costs to leaseholders of whatever type or tenure.
The Government, as the hon. Gentleman will know, are committed to providing grant funding for the cost of replacing unsafe cladding for all leaseholders in residential buildings of 18 metres and over in England. Shared ownership leaseholders can benefit from that funding on the same terms as other leaseholders. Fire risk is lower in buildings under 18 metres, and costly remediation work is usually not needed, as we have heard from the evidence provided by Dame Judith Hackitt and Sir Ken Knight, the former chief fire officer, earlier this year. Where fire risks are identified, they should always be managed, but managed proportionately.
We are looking closely at the specific issue of the 11 to 18-metre cohort to ensure that everything is being done to protect and support leaseholders, including those who purchased their home on a shared ownership basis. We will bring forward further detail on the support offer for leaseholders in those residential buildings once all the options have been fully considered; we have collected more data, as I may have said previously here and certainly mentioned in the Chamber yesterday.
I appreciate that not all building safety issues relate to unsafe cladding. However, long-standing, independent safety advice has been clear that it is unsafe cladding that poses the greatest risk to buildings because it can fuel a fire. The Government’s approach prioritises action on the risks of unsafe cladding as the costs of remediating it are high and the risks posed are also very high.
That does not mean, however, that we absolve building owners of their responsibilities to ensure that their buildings are safe—far from it. They should continue to pursue all routes to meet the costs, protecting leaseholders from costs where they can. We voted on and agreed to that following our discussion of earlier clauses. We have introduced proposals for a residential property developers tax and for a levy—also a means of ensuring that those who can and should pay do pay.
The new clause refers specifically to the rules around subletting. Let me tell the hon. Member for Weaver Vale that I will be happy to consider how we might make it easier for shared owners affected by building safety issues to sublet their homes when that would help them. That will, of course, depend partly on the acquiescence of their mortgage lender, if they have one. I will have a look at that issue for him.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the important issue of access to mortgage finance. Earlier this year—in July, I think—the Department published an expert statement saying that we do not think there is any systemic risk of fire in buildings under 18 metres, so EWS1 forms should not be required by lenders for those buildings. We have had positive feedback from a number of lenders on that.
The Government introduced a new model of shared ownership in April; it is being delivered through the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme that I referred to earlier. That will ensure that shared ownership is more consumer friendly, easier to access and fairer, and leads to a better experience for a future generation of shared owners. The new model of shared ownership reduces the minimum initial share required for purchase to just 10%, down from 25%, and implements a 10-year period during which the landlord will support shared owners with the costs of maintenance and repairs on new build homes. That will certainly encourage shared ownership.
In the roll-out of the new affordable homes programme, the first £8 billion of the strategic partnership funding has been successfully allocated, which suggests that our strategic partners—local authorities, but largely housing associations—see the opportunities that the new model provides and are prepared to build new shared-ownership properties at affordable prices for more people.
We believe that shared ownership will continue to play a vital role in helping more people to realise their ambition to own their own home; that is why we are investing heavily in it and reforming it. It is also why we are determined to make sure that funding is available to protect shared owners from the unaffordable costs arising from the need to replace unsafe cladding.
In light of the assurances and reassurances that I have tried to provide the hon. Gentleman, I hope that he will withdraw the motion.
Mike Amesbury
I welcome the Minister’s assurance and comments on actually doing an assessment of the subletting landscape; opportunities may exist in future. We might come back to the whole area of shared ownership, not only on Report but at other stages of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 23
Review of use of combustible materials
“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review on the use of combustible materials on external walls of buildings.
(2) The review set out in subsection (1) must include an assessment on whether the ban on the use of combustible materials on the external walls of buildings should be extended in scope with regard to—
(a) the types of materials used;
(b) the height threshold of buildings included; and
(c) the type of buildings included
(3) A report setting out the conclusions of the review must be laid before each House of Parliament no later than 6 months after the day on which this Act is passed.”—(Mike Amesbury.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mike Amesbury
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 23 would ensure that the Government publish a review, which they have yet to do, on the use of combustible materials and whether the scope of the current ban should be extended to other materials that are not covered at present; on whether the ban should be extended to a greater number of buildings, by lowering the height; and on the types of buildings included.
Of course, the Government have already commissioned a public consultation on the use of combustible materials on external walls of buildings. It was announced in June 2018, it opened in January 2020 and it closed five months later, but the outcome and Government response have yet to be published. The Government have introduced this Bill, which centres on building safety and seeks to define high risk, before it is clear exactly what the Government will consider to be unsafe cladding.
The Government consultation centred on other aspects, and the new clause raises other aspects, but again we come back to the problem of 18 metres. The scoping document for the consultation states:
“We consider that buildings with a residential use between 11-18m may be subject to similar levels of fire risk to many of those taller than 18m.”
The document states that in the absence of “robust scientific evidence” to support that,
“the best option…is to reduce the height threshold to 11m now”.
Is that still the Government’s opinion? The consultation proposes that that should only apply to buildings going forward. Given the caution we have seen in the market in response to the changes in previous Government guidance, I understand that that could very well have further implications for existing buildings, but the alternative is to continue to allow new buildings to go up with materials that may be unsafe.
It is not acceptable that in the middle of a cladding crisis, the Government still have not published the outcome of the consultation after 18 months, when the consultation itself closed three and a half years after the Grenfell fire. It is not acceptable that, as reported earlier this year, around 70 schools and 25 hospitals and care homes have been constructed with combustible cladding since Grenfell. I urge the Minister to accept the new clause and publish such a review.
Christopher Pincher
The Committee should know that the level of risk in buildings is proportionate to their height. That has been reported to us here and in other forums, and it is well understood, so it is appropriate to focus the strict ban on high-rise buildings.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that his new clause, and the intention behind it, is being met by the Government. The Government have already amended the building regulations to ban the use of combustible materials in and on the external walls of new tall buildings in the Building (Amendment) Regulations 2018—SI No. 1230. Combustible materials are not permitted on the external walls of new buildings over 18 metres containing dwellings, or on new hospitals, residential care premises, dormitories in boarding schools and student accommodation over 18 metres in height. We have restricted the use of materials in the external walls and specified attachments of those buildings to those achieving the top two “reaction to fire” classifications.
We are already committed to reviewing the ban annually through advice from bodies such as the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, as made clear in the explanatory memorandum published alongside the amendment made to the building regulations to ban the use of combustible materials in and on the external walls of buildings.
As the hon. Gentleman has identified, a review was conducted in 2019 and the Government subsequently published in January 2020 a consultation on proposed changes to the ban. The consultation included proposals to amend the scope, using a height threshold and the buildings covered. The consultation received, I think, 850 responses. We continue to analyse those responses to ensure that we achieve the right and proper, and best, outcome. I am entirely determined to make sure that that happens as rapidly as possible, and certainly to make sure that we respond effectively to that consultation. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the new clause.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister for his response. In terms of publication, can he put a date on that?
Mike Amesbury
In the spirit of collaboration, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 24
Review of Government support for building safety matters
“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of Government support of building safety matters, including but not limited to an assessment of the adequacy of—
(a) the measures in this Act, and
(b) the Building Safety fund and its use.
(2) A report setting out the conclusions of the review as set out in subsection (1) must be laid before each House of Parliament no later than 3 months after the day on which this Act is passed.”—(Mike Amesbury.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mike Amesbury
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is fantastic to be able to say this: this final new clause—[Hon Members: “Hear, hear!”]—gives us an opportunity to look both at the Bill’s measures and at the support available for building safety, because it relates to the adequacy of the building safety fund. I want to concentrate primarily, and fairly briefly, on the use of funding with regard to management fees, agents and product managers, and on the role of managing agents and freeholders in agreeing funding contracts.
Recent Government statistics show that 600 buildings had remediation costs of £2.5 billion. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether the Government’s building safety funding covers that total cost, or are parts of it not covered? The cost per building is about £4 million. Having been contacted by leaseholders across the country, I know that the fees charged by some managing agents and project managers are taking up to 14% of the total building remediation costs, as is the case with a building in Manchester. If the remediation costs of that building reach the £4 million mark, over half a million pounds will go to managing agents and project managers.
Back in June, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), the shadow Housing Secretary, was told in response to a question that the Government were not tracking the management and administration fees that leaseholders were being charged for applications for grants from the building safety fund. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have begun to look at the overall amount that agents are charging for applications to the building safety fund? Is the Department looking at the management and professional fees that are being charged for individual applications? With only £5.1 billion in the Government’s pot, we cannot afford for agents to charge the taxpayer and resident leaseholders more than is fair for their time and work.
Fees are even higher for the waking watch relief fund, with one agent charging over a third of the cost of installing a fire alarm. I have also recently been made aware of a case in which agents are threatening to charge leaseholders for the cost of the failed building safety application. A failed application, on top of the threat, also means that leaseholders face the cost of being issued with invoices to fix the mess in that particular building. There is clearly little impetus for professionals to adopt a true risk-based approach if fees are based on percentage rates of works required. The situation is only made worse with concerns over professional indemnity insurance, leading to risk-averse advice on remediation from fire engineer experts, as we have heard throughout this Committee.
As I have said in debates on a good few amendments up until now, a centralised and co-ordinated building assessment strategy would go a long way towards mitigating the wide range of fees levied and would help guarantee a consistent approach to managing the current pot of funds. I hereby move this last new clause.
Christopher Pincher
Although the hon. Gentleman says that this is his last new clause, sadly it is not mine, but we are nearly there. I am grateful to the Committee for its indulgence, patience and good humour throughout the several sittings in which we have enjoyed one another’s company.
I will talk about the tracking of fees in response to some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions in a moment, but I assure him that his intentions are already being met in the Bill by clause 139, which we debated last Thursday. That clause provides for a widely framed review of the effectiveness of the building regulatory regime, which includes building safety. The review will form part of the programme of reviews conducted or commissioned by the Department, which includes a review considering whether architectural practices should also be regulated.
To clarify, during the debate on clause 135 it was mentioned that clause 138 deals with the regulation of architecture firms, but I ought to confirm that the Architects Registration Board regulates only individual architects, rather than practices. I was told to tell the Committee that and so, being a good Minister, I have.
Returning to clause 139, it provides the Secretary of State with the discretion to specify wider matters for the reviewer to consider. That could include an assessment of the performance of the building safety fund—the performance of the fee mechanism and how fees are charged and paid. The tracking of performance may be another area that the review could consider.
The three-month timescale indicated in the new clause is impractical. The transition plan, which was published alongside the Building Safety Bill, indicates that the majority of the provisions will not be enacted until 12 to 18 months after the Bill achieves Royal Assent. Therefore, a review after three months—when many of the Bill’s provisions will not have even begun or, if they have, will be very nascent—would be insufficient to assess the adequacy of those provisions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that practical challenge. Furthermore, we do not think that the short period of operation for those that will be in effect gives enough time to consider their effectiveness.
It is our position that five years is a reasonable period to allow for the establishment of the BSR, after which a reviewer will be able to consider an established regulatory system. If the hon. Gentleman has specific concerns about the building safety fund, I shall be happy to hear about them. We have always had a good relationship across the Chamber. I am conscious, as I am sure he will be, that there are many mechanisms that the House of Commons may use to achieve proper scrutiny of Ministers and arm’s length Government bodies and funds for which both are accountable. I look forward to that scrutiny and having a proper, timely review process to scrutinise and assess the way in which the building safety regime, including the building safety fund, is run over the longer term. With that explanation, I respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his new clause.
Mike Amesbury
We all have a shared interest in ensuring that the maximum amount of funding provided by the taxpayers goes towards remediating buildings and making them safe. I will follow up on the Minister’s kind offer to look at buildings on a case-by-case basis. I have referred to one, but people have certainly expressed concerns about the management and project fees charged for other buildings. Based on that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1
Overview of Act
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
Only in the wonderful, marvellous, mysterious process that is House of Commons procedure could we come to clause 1 at the end of our deliberations on all the clauses. None the less, I am pleased to invite the Committee to debate it now. The Committee will no doubt be very familiar with the clauses of the Bill, but for the purposes of total completeness—we have an hour and 13 minutes left—I will inform the Committee of what the clause sets out.
Christopher Pincher
The first clause—briefly, Mrs Miller—acts as an overview of its constituent parts, which for the benefit of the Committee I may just run through again—or maybe I won’t. There are six parts and they contain provisions intended to secure the safety of people in or about buildings and to improve the standard of buildings.
Part 1 is purely an introductory overview. Part 2 establishes the Building Safety Regulator, sets out its functions in relation to buildings in England and provides key powers to enable it to undertake its functions. Part 3 amends the Building Act 1984, setting out the provisions for the new regulatory regime during the design and construction phase of the buildings in scope of the said regime. It also provides for the registration of building inspectors and building control approvers to improve competence levels through better regulation. Part 4 is concerned with buildings in scope during their occupation. It defines and places duties on the accountable person for building safety risks in their building and improves on aspects of accountability such as engagement with residents and the transparency of building safety information.
Part 5 details further provisions regarding safety and standards. For example, it provides arrangements for a new homes ombudsman scheme, requiring developers to become and remain members of it. It creates powers to make provisions about construction products. It removes the democratic filter that requires social housing residents to refer unresolved complaints to a designated person or wait eight weeks before they can access redress through the housing ombudsman. It also changes certain provisions in relation to the procedures of the Architects Registration Board. The aim is that an architect will be able to appeal against a decision taken by the ARB to remove them from the register, and I will consider whether a non-judicial appeal route should also be made available for architects to challenge such a decision.
Finally, part 6 contains general clauses about the commencement of the Bill’s provisions and covers applications to the Crown and other standard clauses. Clause 1 is uncontentious. It is an important overview intended to detail the Bill’s thematic structure, which is perhaps why it is so very dry. It may have been surmised during the passage of this Committee’s deliberations that many of the individual clauses and their amendments are rather dry. None the less, they have an important intent: to ensure that this country’s building safety is improved significantly, so that all sectors of society, be they developers, local authorities, architects and designers, building owners or residents, can have confidence in the industry that designs, builds and supports the homes in which people live. Members may have disagreed from time to time on matters in the Bill, but none of us disagrees about what we intend of it.
I am grateful to you, Mrs Miller, and the other Chairs for the occasional indulgence that you have allowed us. I am grateful to all the Clerks and the officials of the House for their support in bringing this Committee stage to a conclusion. I am grateful to my officials for all that they have done to provide us with the details and data to allow us to debate these provisions effectively. I am grateful to the Committee for the collegiate and collaborative way in which everybody has contributed to what we will report to the House. On that basis, and with an hour and eight minutes in hand, I commend clause 1 to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
I thank you, Mrs Miller, and Mr Davies, Mr Dowd and Mr Efford for chairing proceedings professionally and impartially over the past few weeks. I thank the Clerks and all the staff on the parliamentary estate. I also thank every member of this Committee, from both sides of the House. We have had passion, consideration and great, appropriate humour from time to time. I am sure that on Report, and during the other stages of the Bill, we will collectively contribute towards making people safer in safer buildings.
The Chair
Before I put the question, I should say, because the Committee has quite a lot of new Members, that sometimes those thank yous are done as points of order right before the close. I am grateful, as I am sure others are, for those thanks—it is very kind.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mike Amesbury Excerpts(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)
Local authorities are vital delivery partners for the Government’s grant-funding initiatives to decarbonise homes. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have been delighted to hear that the heat and buildings strategy, which was published last week, committed further funding to those initiatives, with £950 million for the home upgrade grant and £800 million for the social housing decarbonisation fund between 2022 and 2025. The strategy also committed to investing £1.4 billion in our public sector decarbonisation scheme to reduce emissions from public buildings.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I welcome the new Ministers to their place. In 2019-20, the Government oversaw a net loss of 17,476 social homes. House building fell short of its national target by 90,000 homes. That caps more than a decade of house building failure. Every year, the Government do not meet their housing targets and do not build enough genuinely affordable homes. Will the Secretary of State grab the bull by the horns and build a new generation of green homes for social rent at scale?
Building Safety Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Mike Amesbury Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)
It is a pleasure to have you back in the Chair and to serve under you, Mr Dowd.
The Government are committed to ensuring that leases reflect the duties and obligations placed on landlords and tenants to keep buildings safe, and that the costs associated with the regime are fair and transparent. Clause 120 implies terms relating to building safety into leases, so that both landlord and tenant have obligations associated with the new regime clearly set out in their leases. This cements the duties set out in other parts of the Bill.
Clause 120 also ensures that the landlord passes costs associated with the new regulatory regime, via the building safety charge, to leaseholders with long leases of seven years or more. The overriding principle behind the building safety charge is to give leaseholders further information about what they are paying for to keep the building safe and assurance that the manager of the building is charging reasonably. Without the building safety charge, many of these costs would be charged via a service charge. We are introducing this separate mechanism to deliver greater protection to leaseholders, ensuring that costs are transparent and reasonable. By introducing the building safety charge, the Government are ensuring that costs are clearly set out to leaseholders and that certain costs, such as the cost of enforcement against an accountable person, can never be recovered from leaseholders. In well-run buildings, leaseholders will likely see costs partially offset by a corresponding reduction in service charge costs.
Schedule 7 will enable the Government to set out certain obligations for the landlord to fulfil, including providing details of the building safety charge together with a summary of their rights and obligations to leaseholders. Schedule 7 will also give leaseholders the right to request further information about the charge, and they will be able make a written request for a summary of the relevant building safety costs. Once a summary has been obtained, the leaseholder can request more detailed accounts.
We expect that the protections included around the building safety charge will provide the necessary transparency to drive competition to reduce costs for leaseholders. Leaseholders will be able to challenge the costs associated with keeping a building safe in the same way as they can challenge the costs of unreasonable service charges—that is, through the first-tier tribunal.
Clause 120 is key to ensuring the smooth implementation of the new regulatory regime. Setting out further requirements in respect of the building safety charge in secondary legislation—for example, on the obligations of landlords, consultation requirements and excluded costs—ensures that the provisions remain relevant and responsive to changes in the duties of the accountable person or broader leasehold reform. Leasehold law is a highly technical policy area, and it would be inappropriate and counterproductive to include it in the Bill.
We wish to make it clear that remedial costs are not included in the building safety charge. This clause does not make leaseholders liable for the costs of remedial works. Whether or not leaseholders are liable for works is governed by the terms of their existing leases. Clause 120 is vital to ensure transparency on the costs of the new regime, empowering leaseholders to interrogate bills and hold their building owner to account.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve once again under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.
I have a number of questions. The building safety charge has proved to be somewhat controversial among leaseholders, residents, tenants and cladding campaigners—the UK Cladding Action Group, the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, the National Leasehold Campaign and so on. The Minister has mentioned that charges will be fair and transparent. What is the definition of fair and transparent? What is the Department’s assessment of what will be fair and transparent? Given that on 17, if not 18, occasions a promise was made not to put charges for historical remediation costs, which we will get on to in a moment, on to the shoulders of leaseholders, there is a real fear that there could be considerable interplay between the building safety charge, historical remediation costs, service charges and so forth. I would like the Minister to expand on that. Of course, many leaseholders over the past two weeks have had massive invoices arrive through the door for remedial costs relating to historical building safety defects. Some are going bankrupt, as I know he and Department officials will know.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the existing service charge system for too many leaseholders is opaque and inconsistent? They never know what they will be charged for and, more important, how much they will be charged in future quarters. Leaseholders need not only an improvement to the current service charge system but to be confident that any new charging system will be far better than the current one.
Mike Amesbury
My hon. Friend makes a powerful and pertinent point, which I am sure the Minister will respond to. I know that it has been a particular issue in shared ownership properties, particularly in London and the south-east. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the points that I and other Members have raised.
Mike Amesbury
I want to address a couple of points, for clarity. I thank the Minister for the explanation. Her Majesty’s official Opposition support commonholds and have argued for them for a long time. I am pleased to see the emerging consensus as we listen to stakeholders, whether the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, the national leaseholder campaign or others in the housing sector. I have one question in relation to the Minister’s opening narrative. In commonhold, are building safety expenses on top of the building safety service charge?
Eddie Hughes
I completely understand. No, that is not separate; it is one of the items that would typically be covered by the building safety charge in other buildings. Exactly the same principle applies.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 122 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 123
Interpretation of part 4
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Minister raises a pertinent point for many leaseholders in my constituency relating to cases in which builders, companies or developers have folded since they built a building. Those companies may have been originally responsible for remediation costs. I seek reassurance from the Minister that the need in the guidance and any regulations to explore every avenue will cover subsequent builders who took on folded companies or the relevant buildings. Just because the landlord cannot find the original company, or the company no longer exists and so that avenue does not exist, that is not an excuse for bundling the costs on to leaseholders. Those concerns have been raised with me and we need reassurance. I hope we will get that in any regulations and guidance.
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?
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful for the questions that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Luton South asked. I will try to address them in toto.
The Government have already committed a significant amount of public money to the remediation of unsafe tall buildings—£5.1 billion—and I am sure we will discuss these matters further when we come to the new clauses tabled by various members of the Committee, so there will be several opportunities to come back to this point.
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the hon. Lady. It gives me the opportunity to remind the Committee that, by altering the 1972 Act, we are not simply specifying these changes to taller buildings. It applies to all premises. That is one of the reasons why a whole range of people might use this legislation. To be clear, it is for a court to decide the facts of a specific case—whether a dwelling is fit for habitation. The existing case law, which may be built up and amplified in future, suggests that, in order for a dwelling to be fit for habitation, it must be capable of occupation for a reasonable time without risk to the health or safety of the occupants and without undue inconvenience or discomfort to the occupants. That is the case law definition that the court would understand. Should an appellant bring action against a developer or provider of a building that is defective, that is the definition the court will look at to see whether they have a case. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister and all those who have intervened. Clause 125 is welcome on this side, but it does not go far enough. We welcome the extension to refurbished properties, which we have debated at considerable length with regard to permitted development and additional floors. I know that the Minister will clarify whether the clause captures that scenario in the new building safety regime.
The Minister referred to case law. Others have referred to the nightmare of litigation and the costs in a David and Goliath process. How many claims have been made under the existing regime? The Minister referred to the existing case law, so I am assuming that the Department has made an assessment.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the clause. He asks two questions. The first is on the volume of case law that has been built up. I will have to write to him or inform him at a later point about the specific number of cases. I remind him that the Defective Premises Act 1972 was passed some 49 years ago—many members of the Committee were not born when that Act was passed. The case law is presumably quite voluminous and therefore the courts will be well able to assess any new cases in the light of that established case law of 49 years.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the evidence given eloquently by Justin Bates—I think that was his name; I apologise if I have got that wrong.
Christopher Pincher
Yes. He gave us some eloquent testimony in one of the Committee’s witness sessions. The reason why our court processes work so very well and why there are court actions—sometimes rather voluminous actions such as there may have been under the 1972 Act—is that there is always more than one view. There will be another lawyer countering the arguments made by someone such as Mr Bates, who will say that there are in fact very good chances for an individual to seek redress using this mechanism. I invite those who wish to use the new powers we are giving them to so do, to test the courts and test Mr Bates. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 125 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 126
Limitation periods
Mike Amesbury
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 126, page 133, line 1, leave out “15 years” and insert “30 years”.
This amendment changes the period for claims under the Defective Premises Act 1972 and the Building Act 1984 to 30 years.
Mike Amesbury
The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), admitted that most cladded buildings were built in the period between 2000 and 2017. Given that the Bill is likely to become law only in July 2022 or later, the limitation period is likely to capture only buildings completed up to and around July 2007, assuming that the Bill keeps making pace as quickly as it has. By the Government’s own admittance, then, extending the period for claims under the Defective Premises Act by only 15 years would miss a significant number of buildings, which is why our amendment proposes a change to 30 years. That is based on evidence, which I know other Members will bring to the debate today.
It is important that we do not mistake this change to the Defective Premises Act as giving more than some relief to a small number of leaseholders and residents in the current building safety crisis. Many of their building owners have become insolvent, as Ministers know. As has been mentioned, many leaseholders will simply not be able to tie themselves up in lengthy legal battles with wealthy developers. The Government must fund remediation up front. That does not require a Bill—it is a political decision. The polluter pays principle should be used to recoup the costs. That is the only way to address this.
Our time is certainly not wasted in this Committee Room. Over the last few weeks we have discussed some really good, solid, life-changing proposals and clauses, but the Bill does not address the fundamental principle of polluter pays. The amendment would certainly strengthen the clause. We might not believe it, but sometimes people listen to our debates, read Hansard and go through it line by line, so it is important that collectively we show this place at its best, give life to people’s voices and pass the amendment.
Ruth Cadbury
It is a pleasure to serve under you again, Mr Dowd. I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale has said about the number of dwellings that will fall outside the 15-year catch. Obviously, we welcome its being extended from six to 15 years, but a case from my constituency illustrates why 30 years would be more appropriate.
I have had the honour and pleasure to represent Brentford for over 30 years, and a lot of new homes have been developed during that time. My office is keeping tabs on construction issues with blocks of flats, including those in Brentford ward. I can tell which blocks have required no casework during all my years of representation—it is those that were built more than 30 years ago under a regime of good quality construction and in a culture of safety. Those constructed after that were built at a time when standards were starting to fall. The culture of competition and the privatisation of building control meant that there was price competition and a reduction in inspections. There was the demise of the role of the clerk of works, corners were cut, and there was a skills shortage in the construction industry. Taken together, as we have said many times, that created this crisis. My casework shows that well over 25 separate estates in my constituency that were built in the last 20 years—since around 2000—have issues with cladding, lack of compartmentalisation, and shoddy workmanship.
I also picked up casework on damp and safety as a councillor. I will give two examples Even before Grenfell, leaseholders at Holland Gardens, which was built by Barratt, had forced Barratt to replace all the window fixings because they had not been done properly. It was subsequently found that the building had flammable cladding, so scaffolding was put up again. I have already mentioned the Paragon, which was built in about 2003. We do not know what its future is, but it is empty because it is too dangerous to occupy. I absolutely endorse the amendment’s aim of extending the timescale from 15 to 30 years. There is so much evidence. I can see it on my own patch, but we all have evidence.
Mike Amesbury
On counter-litigation under the Human Rights Act, will the Minister elaborate on that scenario and the right to private property?
Christopher Pincher
I am not a lawyer and I cannot second-guess why an individual might choose to go to court using one particular Act of Parliament to defend themselves against another. However, we know that the Human Rights Act is cross-cutting. In any legislation that we scrutinise, we see reference to the Human Rights Act in its annexes. All I suggest to the Committee is that the longer the retrospective limitation period, the greater the chance that individuals may choose to go to court and test the legislation under the Human Rights Act.
Finally, I draw the Committee’s attention to subsection (3), which provides that the clause will be commenced automatically two months after Royal Assent. That will be the date from which the extended limitation period is calculated, including the retrospective period for action under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.
The Chair
I apologise, Minister, for my inappropriate limitation on your intervention. As a pre-’69 person, my levels of concentration are not what they should be, I suspect.
Mike Amesbury
I suspect that we will probably come back to this subject on Report, perhaps in a different form of amendment. I thank the Minister for his detailed and considered response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 126 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 127
Establishment of the new homes ombudsman scheme
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 128 stand part.
That schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 129 stand part.
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.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister for the explanation, and his enthusiasm for the creation of the new homes ombudsman scheme, which by his admittance he has rightly argued for in principle since before coming to this place as a Member of Parliament. In principle, the new homes ombudsman is a good thing, though some Committee members have raised concerns and advocated for ensuring that it will be truly independent. I think new build homes have an average of 157 snags at the moment. We will all be familiar from our casework, regardless of where we represent in Britain, that this is a big and very live issue. I would hope that the ombudsman will change the landscape.
On the New Homes Quality Board, which is operating as a shadow board at the moment, sits Jennie Daly, a group director of Taylor Wimpey. The board has representatives of housebuilders and the finance sector, and the hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) is the independent chair. I can think of examples in my constituency of Taylor Wimpey homes that have considerable snags and are what we call leaky homes. The 19 million leaky homes that are not properly insulated have been constructed with gas boilers, fossil fuels and the rest of it. All of them will need to be retrofitted and a number have snags. In fact, there is one such development that will probably go forward in the Sandymoor and Daresbury part of my constituency, on former farmers’ fields, despite all the rhetoric that we hear in this place. I would hope that they will not be leaky homes, full of snags. It is very important that those on the shadow board take things forward in future.
On the reassurance about independence, if someone is part of the club, whether they be Taylor Wimpey or another housebuilder, they are paying for that service. Then the complaint goes from our constituents—our residents—to the ombudsman. I have real concerns about the checks and balances, and the independence. The Minister mentioned that there are various models to take it forward. It could be done in-house or at arm’s length as a Government agency. That would certainly by the Opposition’s preference, via a principle, to ensure that checks and balances are hardwired into the process. In principle, we welcome the new homes ombudsman, which is very much needed, but we already have concerns about the evolution of the process, if we look at the shadow board.
Eddie Hughes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing some of his casework for us to consider. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth mentioned the demise of the role of the clerk of works. I started life as a civil engineer but then moved into building site management for housing projects. At that time, we would have had a clerk of works whose job it was solely to monitor the progress of the work and ensure that it complied with the relevant standards. With cost-cutting and other things, we no longer have that, but thanks to the clause and the prospect of the new homes ombudsman, the industry has bought into the concept that quality has to rise and that people will be held more accountable in future.
On the point that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale made regarding the number of snags in a property, we will all have seen that. A comparison that has been made previously is that someone has more rights if they buy a faulty kettle than if they buy a faulty home that has minor problems that do not qualify under the National House Building Council regulation. They do not have something such as subsidence; they just have niggly problems. The developer has taken the money and perhaps trades are no longer on site, and the buyer wants to see those things addressed.
I genuinely think that we will see the industry taking quality much more seriously than they might have previously, particularly with that line of accountability coming back to Parliament. I understand that the hon. Gentleman may have reservations about members of the shadow board. We need to draw the sector into the programme and get them bought into the idea that we will raise quality. I do not think that this Secretary of State or any future one would want to be associated with a product that was not delivering for the public, so they will ensure that that confidence remains.
Mike Amesbury
One of the roles that the ombudsman will be charged with will be dealing with rogue builders. What would happen if one of the members of the board seemed to be classed as a rogue builder? How would the checks and balances be assured going forward?
Eddie Hughes
Such a complex question may be outwith the coverage of the Bill; however, it would be beholden on the Secretary of State to ensure that the process was managed appropriately. Given that the scheme allows for builders who are not complying with the code to be ejected from the ability to develop, I am sure that the opportunity would be there for us to deal with members of the board appropriately. If we can chuck a builder out of the scheme, I am sure that we can deal with a member of the board.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 127 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)
Building Safety Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Mike Amesbury Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. To ensure that the developers of new build homes are accountable for their actions, they will be required to become and remain members of the new homes ombudsman. The principle of requiring organisations to belong to an ombudsman or redress scheme by law is not new. Clause 130 provides the legal basis for the Secretary of State, by regulations, to require developers to become members of the scheme, and to remain members for a specified period. That may extend to when they are no longer developers, which will ensure that they meet their responsibilities to the people to whom they sell homes.
The clause also allows the Secretary of State to require members to inform purchasers of the scheme, which may include requiring members to obtain, display or produce on request a copy of a certificate confirming their membership of the scheme. It also provides for an enforcement framework to be put in place to protect against rogue developers who breach the requirements in the regulations, and that includes the imposition of civil sanctions for breach of the requirements.
The proposal will create a flexible enforcement framework, allowing the Government to task an existing or new regulator or enforcement body with investigating and sanctioning breaches of membership and publicity requirements, and to resource that body accordingly. Proportionate safeguards are attached to the new power. Where provision is made for sanctions to be imposed, there must also be provision for the right to appeal the imposition of a sanction. The clause is vital as the basis for a future-proofed and comprehensive redress, accountability and enforcement framework.
Clause 131 places a requirement on the person who maintains the new homes ombudsman scheme to keep a register of the scheme’s members and make it publicly available. That will help instil more confidence in the transactional process, given that a prospective purchaser will, for example, have greater assurance that issues with their new build home, if they happen to arise, can be resolved via the new homes ombudsman.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Davies. I have a brief question for the Minister about examples of civil breaches and sanctions. He referred previously to the fact that, under current protections, new homeowners have fewer rights than those purchasing a new toaster, so enforcement measures and sanctions will be vital. Will the Minister briefly expand on that?
Eddie Hughes
I think, in terms of the spectrum of powers, that we are better focusing on the ultimate power: that developers could be expelled from the scheme if they do not comply with the ombudsman’s code. That would prevent them from developing in the future, which feels like a heavy stick with which to beat them should they decide not to comply. It is therefore important for that ultimate action to be available, so that people know that a developer not prepared to comply with the code will ultimately be prevented from building homes in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 130 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 131 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 132
Developers’ code of practice
Mike Amesbury
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling this important amendment. It is something that we are familiar with. My good friend and colleague, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth has alluded to the fact that the amendment could be somewhat broader. I am sure that the Minister and the Department will address that in the code of practice. The Opposition are happy to support the amendment.
Eddie Hughes
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East for raising this important matter. It is clearly an area of great concern in his constituency. Too many people have been let down, and I am sorry to hear about the terrible experience his constituents have faced. Unfortunately, this is something that happens far too often. When a new home is built or an existing building is converted poorly water ingress is a serious issue and may cause serious distress and detrimental effects to homebuyers and their properties.
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue in the wider context of improving the quality and safety of our built environment. Developers and warranty providers must meet their responsibilities and resolve issues quickly and fairly. It is unacceptable that people are stuck in homes through no fault of their own. However, in this case, the Government consider that the amendment is not necessary and that we have already met its intentions elsewhere in our statutory framework.
Developers are already under a legal duty to prevent water ingress. Requirements are set out in building regulations, in particular part C of the Building Regulations 2010, which already include requirements for resistance to contaminants and moisture. That includes ensuring that buildings are protected from ground moisture; precipitation, including wind-driven spray; condensation; and spillage of water. Guidance is available in approved document C on how to comply with this requirement.
In addition, the Building Safety Regulator has a duty in clause 5 to keep under review the safety and standards of all buildings, which would include ensuring that building regulations are fit for purpose and making recommendations if changes are needed. The developers’ code of practice provided for in this clause is about the standards of conduct and standards of quality of work expected of members of the new homes ombudsman’s scheme more generally, and may include developers complying with existing standards and requirements.
Eddie Hughes
The Government are committed to ensuring that construction products placed on the United Kingdom’s market are safe. The clause and schedule create a power to make regulations for the marketing and supply of construction products in the UK.
Not all construction products are covered by the existing regulatory framework, which derives from EU law. Schedule 9 contains powers to extend the regulatory framework to cover all construction products available on the UK market. The Government intend to use this power to ensure that construction products are safe before they are placed on the UK market. In addition to this general safety requirement, schedule 9 will give the Secretary of State the power to create a statutory list of safety-critical construction products where their failure as part of a construction would risk causing serious injury or death.
The power will enable the Government to require manufacturers to declare the performance of these products to a specific standard and put in place measures to ensure that this performance is consistently met. This will bring the regulation of safety-critical products in line with those covered by the existing regulatory framework, so that any purchaser or user of a safety-critical product will have reliable information about how it will perform. Schedule 9 will enable the Secretary of State to amend the existing regulatory framework or replace it in Great Britain so that it continues to meet the needs of Great Britain’s market.
We know the importance of claims made in the marketing of products. Schedule 9 will give the Secretary of State power to address false and misleading claims made about the performance of construction products. Dame Judith Hackitt recommended that the Government should ensure a more effective enforcement regime with national oversight to cover construction product safety. That is why schedule 9 paves the way for a national regulator for construction products and enables us to strengthen market surveillance and enforcement powers. It enables the Secretary of State to make provision for the national regulator and local trading standards to issue civil penalties and recover costs from economic operators where appropriate. Setting out regulatory requirements for construction products in secondary legislation will enable us to amend regulations quickly when needed so that they remain appropriate within a continuously changing industry landscape.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister for outlining the provisions in this clause, which we support. There is a need to strengthen the regulatory regime, so this regulator is welcome. We have seen the evidence of the building safety scandal. The Grenfell inquiry has shown that companies literally re-engineered—gamed—the system to ensure that their products seemingly met the appropriate standards at the time. This will strengthen that process and ultimately ensure that the building safety landscape is improved in future, and hopefully in the here and now, when the Bill passes through Parliament. [Interruption.] If I start smoking and steam starts coming from me, do excuse me—I seem to be surrounded by radiators. We are happy to support the clause.
Eddie Hughes
I welcome those comments. We have definitely seen during the course of the Grenfell inquiry that products have been either tested or marketed in an inappropriate way, and it is good to see agreement across the House. The clause will strengthen our hand in that regard.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 133 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 134
Amendment of Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
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
Mike Amesbury
I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 137, page 142, line 36, at end insert—
“(c) after sub-paragraph (1), insert—
‘(1A) He must as part of his investigation consult tenants or bodies representing the interest of tenants.’”
This amendment would ensure the Housing Ombudsman consults tenants as part of complaints made against social housing providers.
Mike Amesbury
The Minister has spoken before about his work on the upcoming social housing reforms. We are grateful to him for his hard work and to all those stakeholders currently involved, and I am glad to be able to add to the debate about reforming the social housing sector, with particular reference to this clause.
Clause 137 is a good clause, implementing something that was raised in the social housing Green Paper from 2018. Getting rid of the democratic filter for complaints from tenants to the housing ombudsman is a good thing, and I am pleased that the Government are using this opportunity to implement those parts of the social housing reforms that they have been saying they will make for some considerable time—since all the way back to Grenfell. We have tabled the amendment because we believe there is one other, related change that can be implemented now as part of the Bill.
The recent television series with ITV journalist Dan Hewitt has highlighted the unacceptable conditions in which some social housing tenants live. People are living in overcrowded, cold homes with mould, damp and holes in the ceiling, and some have considerable rodent problems—the kinds of issues that no Member present would tolerate for a single day. Thanks to the excellent investigation by Dan Hewitt and “ITV News”, we recently saw shocking examples of tenants not being listened to by housing providers. “Surviving Squalor” was an appalling reminder not only of the conditions in which some people are forced to live, but of the fact that such conditions continue because their pleas are ignored by social housing providers.
Ruth Cadbury
I gave examples earlier of the two blocks built in the early 2000s in my then ward, which is now in my constituency. As a councillor, I received complaints from tenants and leaseholders about damp, repairs and so forth. They were dealt with, or not dealt with, individually by the housing managers. Tenants and leaseholders were not listened to, and they were treated as individual complaints. Had the residents been listened to—they were meeting collectively—it would have been picked up a lot earlier that the individual problems were caused by systemic building faults in those blocks of flats. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is exactly why a voice for tenants is absolutely essential?
Mike Amesbury
I definitely agree with my hon. Friend—I wouldn’t dare not—and this cannot be allowed to continue.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
On Monday I met the National Housing Federation, and a point was made about tenant engagement. Sometimes the risk is that those who do not speak up have the most serious issues and are not being heard. As part of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, which is very interesting, how does he feel that, operationally, we can ensure that tenants who often do not make complaints are actually heard? Quite often it is the same people time and again, which is great, but those from whom we do not hear often have serious issues. How does he feel that we could do that?
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.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies. In the health service, the patient’s voice is at the heart of everything. It is absolutely right that residents’ voices should be at the heart of housing issues.
Mike Amesbury
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and for reiterating the point about residents’ voices. Clarion was cleared, despite the fact that hundreds of repairs took place once the television segment was aired, which demonstrates the depth of the issues that developed in homes. People from across the Committee and beyond have seen that programme. On Clarion’s board is a former Housing Minister, so it does have insight at a senior level.
Clearly, the amendment is only part of the reform needed to ensure that our social housing sector provides safe housing and listens to the needs of tenants. To reaffirm what the hon. Member for West Bromwich West said, tenants must be heard at all times, not just when issues develop to such an extent that tenants complain. There should be engagement over a period of time—and not just with, let us say, the usual suspects.
We have an opportunity to make a difference today. I urge the Government to strengthen the laws and support the amendment.
Eddie Hughes
It is unfortunate that my prescribed speech starts with the statement, “The Government are not able to accept the amendment.” However, context is important. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government had defunded and diminished social housing, and said that gave rise to the problems. However, in the same speech he also pointed out that one of the housing providers that was shown to be at fault during the programme that he referred to manages approximately 140,000 houses. This is an organisation with substantial resources—millions and millions of pounds in the bank—so clearly defunding was not the problem at play. There was a structural problem with regard to the organisation and its ability to communicate appropriately with residents.
Mike Amesbury
Surely, going forward, if complaints from tenants are going to the new regulator of social housing, and a systemic problem is picked up—as with, for example, Clarion housing and that particular estate—it is just common sense that engagement with tenants will be part of the remit.
Eddie Hughes
I have heard it often said that one of the problems with common sense is that it is neither common nor sensible sometimes, and so it proves to be in this case, because a different organisation is meant to take that duty: the housing ombudsman. Through this process, the removal of the democratic filter will mean that people who want to complain do not have to go to a councillor or their local MP; they will be able to escalate the complaint themselves directly.
We are trying to ensure that residents know how to complain and that the system is fair, easily navigated and, hopefully, brings clarity to the situation. Although I have seen the programme that the hon. Gentleman refers to, and I completely sympathise with his intentions, I do not believe that the amendment is appropriate. I must point out our concern about the unintended effect that it would have. I assume that the amendment seeks to ensure that wider issues arising from or relating to an individual complaint, and which may affect multiple tenants, are picked up and addressed. However, the approach to which the amendment would give effect raises issues of privacy and data protection. Under the amendment, a resident making a complaint about their landlord would face the prospect of having information that they submitted to an ombudsman—personal and perhaps highly sensitive information—disclosed to third parties.
It would not be appropriate to require the housing ombudsman to consult unrelated third parties as part of its investigation into an individual’s personal issue. Cases that enter the housing ombudsman’s formal remit may be resolved through early resolution. The housing ombudsman works with complainants and landlords to try to agree a negotiated solution, within a time limit. The housing ombudsman’s approach to investigations into individual complaints is inquisitorial; evidence is sought from both the resident and landlord. There is engagement with the resident at different stages of the process to determine the scope of the complaint, the outcome being sought and the evidence. This engagement is with the individual resident and their landlord and should not be fettered through consultation with unrelated third parties.
Regarding engagement with residents, landlords and other organisations, the housing ombudsman service regularly engages with and consults residents and landlords on a range of activities relating to the service in a range of ways. Activities include consulting on their three-year strategic plan, their annual business plan, and revisions to the housing ombudsman scheme. The scheme enables residents, and others, to have complaints about members investigated by the housing ombudsman. It sets out, for example, how the service investigates complaints, membership terms and conditions, who may use the scheme, which complaints the housing ombudsman service may or may not investigate, how it will investigate and its powers and functions.
Consultations are open to individual residents and representative bodies and groups, and the housing ombudsman engages proactively with both. The housing ombudsman service has a resident panel that is open to all social housing tenants, and has a membership of over 600 residents. It provides an opportunity for residents to be involved in the development of the housing ombudsman’s service as well as giving direct feedback on their experience of the service, and to engage with many different aspects of the housing ombudsman’s work—for example, providing views on its investigations into sector-wide issues such as damp and mould.
Further engagement work takes place through regular meetings with resident bodies, and quarterly “Meet the ombudsman” events across the country. Issues discussed at these events have included the housing ombudsman’s role in providing advice and assistance while complaints are within the landlord’s process, as well as how it formally investigates once the landlord’s process is complete; the housing ombudsman’s expectation that all landlords should adopt a positive complaint-handling culture and what this means in practice; and how the housing ombudsman works with the regulator of social housing. Another issue discussed has been the learning reports that the housing ombudsman produces for landlords, which are focused on different categories of complaint. These reports identify failings and make recommendations for improvement.
The housing ombudsman service publishes a range of other information to inform and support residents, including all of its determinations on individual cases, anonymised so that residents’ names are not used; annual landlord performance reports; guidance on making and progressing complaints; and insight reports that look at complaints data, individual cases and wider learning points, and that share knowledge and learning from its casework. The housing ombudsman service has agreed a memorandum of understanding with the local government and social care ombudsman and the regulator of social housing, which commits it to sharing information on issues which affect multiple residents.
Earlier this year, the housing ombudsman published a new systemic framework, which set out how it will look beyond individual disputes to identify key issues that affect multiple residents and signal wider issues with landlord services. Again, learning is shared across the sector to promote good practice and support a positive complaint-handling culture. I hope that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale will withdraw the amendment.
Turning to clause 137, removing the democratic filter is one of a range of measures the Government are committed to in “The Charter for Social Housing Residents”—the social housing White Paper referred to earlier. It will ensure that landlords provide good services and engage positively with residents, treating them with courtesy and respect, and being accountable and transparent in how they operate. The charter sets out that this includes:
“To have your complaints dealt with promptly and fairly, with access to a strong Ombudsman who will give you swift and fair redress when needed.”
The housing ombudsman service, created in 1996, delivers an independent and impartial service to ensure that disputes are resolved and residents receive redress where appropriate. We are clear that residents should be able to raise concerns without fear, and get swift and effective resolution when they do. Currently, however, social housing residents who wish to seek redress because they believe they have received unsatisfactory service from their landlord have to refer their complaint to a designated person. This can be an MP, councillor or recognised tenant panel. Alternatively, residents have to wait eight weeks from the time that their complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process before they can formally refer their complaint to the housing ombudsman. That is known as the democratic filter.
Clause 137 relates to the removal of the democratic filter stage—a requirement that was introduced by the Localism Act 2011. This gave a role to a designated person in dealing with disputes between social landlords and their tenants or leaseholders. The democratic filter was intended to strengthen the accountability of social landlords, enable housing complaints to be resolved using local knowledge, and help reduce the number of formal investigations by the housing ombudsman. In practice, it has resulted in social housing residents having less direct access to redress rather than consumers accessing other redress schemes.
The Green Paper consultation in 2018 identified this as an issue, which we then tested at consultation. We asked whether we should reduce the eight-week waiting period to four weeks or remove the requirement for the democratic filter stage altogether. Some 5% supported no change, 38% supported the option to reduce the waiting time, but 47% supported the option to remove the democratic filter stage.
Separate consultation undertaken by the housing ombudsman also established that although some designated persons’ arrangements work well, in many cases they do not operate effectively. It also emerged that in some areas tenant panels either do not exist or are not used. During 2019-20, only 6.9% of the cases entering the housing ombudsman’s formal remit were referred by a designated person. Removal of the democratic filter received support from the majority of respondents when the housing ombudsman service consulted on its 2019-22 corporate plan and 2019-20 business pan, with low support for the designated person role.
We all know how important our homes are to us. When things go wrong with our homes, we should expect to be listened to, have repairs carried out quickly, faults rectified, and maintenance work carried out to prevent faults from recurring. We want to know that our homes are safe for us to live in, safe for our families, and fit for purpose. When repairs are required, they should be carried out speedily and efficiently. When we are not listened to, landlords need to rectify issues. It is stressful, worrying and frustrating. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
Neither clause 137 nor the explanatory notes mention the voice of residents, tenants or leaseholders. The Minister correctly referred to the current structure of the housing ombudsman and the recommended changes, including the democratic filter. Labour Members agree with that. It is very sensible to speed up the process. I speak regularly to representatives of Grenfell United —I know that Ministers and departmental officials do, too—and their view is crystal clear. They are dissatisfied with the measure because it does not capture or build on the principle of active engagement with residents, tenants and leaseholders. We will not, therefore, withdraw the amendment; we wish to press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Christopher Pincher
The purpose of clause 138—rather as clause 39 does for the Building Act 1984—is to make it clear that where individuals who control a corporate body participate in committing criminal offences under parts 2 and 4 of this Bill, they, too, are criminally liable for those offences. Many of the persons who will have duties under the new regime will be corporate bodies—legal persons, as they are known—rather than individuals, who are often known legally as natural persons. Any corporate body operates only through the actions of its employees, controlled by its managers and directors. Therefore, if there is an offence by a corporate body, there is likely to be some measure of personal failure by those in positions of seniority.
This liability is already provided for in a number of other pieces of legislation, including notably the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974; the Committee has heard me speak about that in previous sittings. The end result is that directors and managers are just as criminally responsible as the company where either they have made decisions that led directly to the offence being committed, or they have been negligent in allowing the offence to occur.
We have addressed similar points that were raised in debates on previous clauses. If there is one director of a company, it is likely that two prosecutions—for both the company and the director—would be brought, although in practice there would be one case to answer. If the company had dissolved, the company itself would not be liable for prosecution, but that would not prevent a prosecution from coming forward against any one or a number of the managers or directors of the company who were there at the time the offence was committed.
The potential for criminal liability of directors and managers reinforces the duty of those who direct the actions of companies to uphold and promote building safety throughout the operations of their companies—again, inculcating the culture that we want to see. The Government consider that this is a key contributor to our stated purpose of embedding building safety at all levels of the industry, contributing to residents both being and feeling safe in their homes. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
I want to draw out a point that the Minister referred to. In the construction sector, as has been mapped out in the journey of the Bill so far, special delivery vehicles or special purpose projects are set up and then dissolved. How would this provision apply to the individuals and directors involved? We welcome this clause, which is a real step forward, but we just want to draw out that point.
Christopher Pincher
I am happy to help the hon. Gentleman. In my previous remarks, I may have said, “if a company folds”; what I hope I said was that if and when a company dissolves, the dissolution of the company does not prevent an individual—a senior person, a manager or a director—from being liable for offences if they were there at the time the offence was committed. I hope that that confirms the issue that the hon. Gentleman rightly draws out. We are essentially in agreement, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 138 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 139
Review of regulatory regime
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mike Amesbury
If the Crown commissions a new build above 18 metres or seven storeys, the new regime applies. Can the Minister expand on this scenario? If there is a serious fire that results in deaths, and those acting on behalf of the Crown are found to be culpable, who would be criminally liable? Would the Crown be exempt?
Christopher Pincher
I will try to help the hon. Gentleman as best I can. As I have said, the effect of this clause will be that the Crown is regarded as an accountable person for in-scope buildings. The clause will cover the responsibilities of an accountable person, and it will ensure that they apply to the Crown. The Crown is also responsible for adhering to the provisions of the new homes ombudsman. In the event of a specific fire in a specific place, I imagine that it would be for the prosecuting authorities to determine where culpability lies. A range of measures are set out in the Bill and in existing Acts of Parliament to ensure that those who are culpable for criminality can be charged, tried and, if necessary, brought to justice. I hope that helps the hon. Gentleman with his question.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 141 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 142
Power of Secretary of State to make consequential provision
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 (Eleventh sitting)
Mike Amesbury Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)
Before I address this group, I would like to say that since this Committee last met we have suffered the very sad loss of two much loved and much respected colleagues, so I want to put on the record my condolences to their families and close friends, who are trying to come to terms with their tragic loss.
Following the pause in proceedings yesterday, the business of the House continues and we must now turn our minds to saving the lives of other people.
Clause 58 serves as an overview of part 4 of the Bill, which contains provisions for the management of building safety risks in higher-risk buildings. Part 4 is concerned with occupied buildings. It defines a building safety risk and it defines and places duties on the accountable person in relation to risks in their building, including duties regarding resident engagement.
Clause 59 defines “building safety risk” for the purposes of the Bill as a risk to the safety of people in or about a building due to the spread of fire or structural failure. The accountable person for an occupied higher-risk building must consider the spread of fire, structural failure and anything which may trigger them, through the safety case approach.
The Government’s approach embraces the independent review’s recommendations that the new, more stringent regulatory regime should focus on fire and structural safety. Our consultation referenced fire and structural safety, and we have engaged stakeholders on what the appropriate building safety risks should be. That engagement has supported that our approach covers the appropriate risks.
The clause also creates a power for the Secretary of State to add other building safety risks in the future, should evidence come to light that that is necessary. The Building Safety Regulator will oversee building safety and through that gain knowledge about the built environment. Therefore, it is only right that it must provide a recommendation or advice, or be consulted, before the power to specify new building safety risks is used. However, the spread of fire and structural failure cannot be removed in the future. They will and must remain at the heart of the new regulatory regime.
Clause 60 will enable the Building Safety Regulator to recommend that the Secretary of State makes regulations under the power in clause 59(1)(c). It also specifies the conditions that must be met for the regulator to do so. Through its duty to keep the safety of people in and about buildings under review, the regulator will be aware of the risks to and in buildings. It is only right that the regulator should be able to make recommendations based on that knowledge. In making a recommendation to change the definition of building safety risk, the Building Safety Regulator must have regard to the regulatory principles in clause 3, including proportionality.
We are focusing on preventing those rare incidents that have the highest consequences. The conditions that must be met for the regulator to make a recommendation reflect that, including the three-part test for simultaneously adding a new category of higher-risk building and a new building safety risk.
Finally, clause 61 provides that the Building Safety Regulator must provide advice about proposals to make regulations under clause 59(1)(c) to the Secretary of State, if requested. The regulator will be able to provide expert advice and will be a wealth of knowledge on risks such as the aforementioned spread of fire and structural failure. Moreover, it is important for the regime to be flexible and to be able to respond to new risks, if and when they arise. Thus the ability for the Secretary of State to request formal advice when considering altering the definition of building safety risk is an important step in ensuring that the Secretary of State is expertly informed and to keep the regime flexible.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 59 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 60 and 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 62
Meaning of “higher-risk building” etc
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 62, page 81, line 37, at end insert—
“(aa) has characteristics relating to function, material used for construction or inaccessibility of emergency routes out of the building as must be defined by the Secretary of State in regulations which make it a high risk to its residents, or”
This amendment would require the Government to define high-risk buildings which are not at least 18 metres or 7 storeys high in regulations.
Mike Amesbury
It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and to follow the Minister, whom I welcome to his place on the Front Bench. I concur with his comments on the tragic events surrounding Sir David Amess and on the loss of James Brokenshire, who served this House and, indeed, the Department well over the years.
The amendment seeks to broaden the definition of risk. During Committee stage, Members and Ministers have heard and reviewed evidence from many stakeholders, including the Construction Industry Council, which has argued that the current definition—which applies to buildings below 18 metres or with fewer than seven storeys—is not a sufficient definition of genuine risk. Indeed, the Fire Brigades Union argues in its written evidence, provided just a few days ago—I am sure that Members have had the opportunity to read it—that the scope is not broad enough.
For example, the fire at a residential care setting in Crewe not very long ago—we have referred to it throughout our deliberations—would not have been covered by the proposed definition because it was below 18 metres and had fewer than seven storeys. Yet the residents who called that building home were undoubtedly at a higher risk than many of us in this Committee Room.
The fire at the Cube student accommodation in Bolton, which has also been referred to throughout this Committee, would not have been covered by this definition, either. Yet in a relatively short period, a significant fire destroyed the building and—there but for the grace of God—nearly cost lives.
Although it is acknowledged that hospitals and care homes are covered by previous clauses, which have been debated, their focus is also on buildings below 18 metres or with fewer than seven storeys. The 18-metre threshold has caused considerable debate, as have comments made by officials in the now renamed Department. I am not at all confident that the Department itself believes that it is an appropriate figure. Indeed, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), said that relying
“on crude height limits…does not reflect the complexity”
of the risk, as many Committee members will know. He concluded that height would need to
“sit alongside a broader range of risk factors”—[Official Report, 20 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 24.]
Finally, given that buildings below the proposed threshold are no longer deemed to be at high risk, I find it rather perplexing that the Government would advertise for and recruit a civil servant on a salary of £77,000 to take charge of the new proposed loans regime to remediate building safety issues on buildings from 11 to 18 metres. If they are not at risk, they are not at risk.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Dowd. I echo the comments made across the Committee about our departed colleagues Mr Brokenshire and Sir David Amess.
I rise to support amendment 12, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale and the hon. Member for St Albans. I reinforce the point that risk to building safety should be defined by actual risk—as assessed by the many experts we have in this country and the systems that we use but should probably improve—and not by some arbitrary cut-off.
I will describe two examples. On building risk, my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale mentioned the risk of occupation, which should be covered but from which so many users and so many types of residential building are excluded—a point that I have covered in previous Committee sittings.
In my constituency, we have six 22-storey tower blocks called the Brentford Towers, which are council blocks with a mixture of tenants and leaseholders and were built more than 40 years ago. Not so long ago, a man died in a fire in his flat in one of those blocks. The fire did not spread. There was smoke damage in the communal hallway, which was shared by three other flats, and a lot of the smoke went out of his windows or through the smoke escape hatch on the stairwell.
The fire did not spread upwards, downwards or into the other flats on the man’s floor, because the building was designed with fire safety in mind and had not subsequently been messed around with. The fire doors were all shut and the smoke vent was open. That is what was supposed to happen: it was a tragic death, but sadly the man might have died in any kind of home-based fire. No one else was injured, no other flat was damaged and the cost to the community was minimal.
The other example is a block of flats that I have mentioned before, Richmond House in Worcester Park in south London. It had four storeys, I believe, with just over 30 flats. Once the fire took hold, it took 11 minutes for that building to burn down completely. By the grace of God, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale said, no one died, although some people had smoke injuries.
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.
Mike Amesbury
The FBU and Leeds University have carried out recent research that for residents in buildings of 11 metres-plus the risk of fire is somewhat higher. The current scope of the Bill suggests that it captures about 13,000 buildings, but if the definition were broadened to buildings of 11 metres-plus, it would be about 100,000. There has been no effective risk assessment of the risk in individual buildings, and people who reside in them may have disabilities, for example. They would be at significantly higher risk. There are also care homes, hospitals, prisons and educational institutions, so more effective and concerted effort needs to be made by Government and Departments to assess risk properly.
Eddie Hughes
The stakeholders we have consulted—Dame Judith Hackitt, the National Fire Chiefs Council and the Building Research Establishment—all think we have taken a proportionate approach in setting the level at 18 metres. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned prisons, but we should not be distracted by other things. My understanding is that the fires that there have been in prisons in recent times have not involved a spread from the source location. Clearly, risk safety means that there is a limited amount of combustible materials in cells. I understand the point that he is making and we are sensitive to it. We do not in any way avoid the fact that the Bill might need to evolve at some point in the future. More risks may become apparent and we will talk again when we come to later clauses about how the Bill may develop to accommodate that.
The definition of high-risk building for the occupation regime that is outlined in part 7 was determined on the basis that the risk to multiple households is greater when fire spreads in buildings of at least 18 metres. That followed extensive consultation, including a stakeholder listening exercise following the publication of the independent review by Dame Judith Hackitt, stakeholder engagement and our public consultation on building a safer future. Therefore, we think the current definition is correct, proportionate and deliverable for the new regulator. The amendment intends to create a power that duplicates clause 62(5), which already contains a power to alter the definition of higher risk building.
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.
Mike Amesbury
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, Mr Dowd.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 63
Regulations under section 62: procedure
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Eddie Hughes
Clause 63 sets out that the Secretary of State must consult the Building Safety Regulator, unless advice or a recommendation has already been provided, before making regulations under clause 62. The regulations may supplement clause 62, exempt categories of building from the definition of higher-risk building, and provide definitions or alter the clause, apart from subsections (2) and (5). The regulator will oversee building safety and through that gain knowledge about the built environment. It is therefore only right that it is consulted before the powers in clause 62 are used.
Clause 63 also states that the Secretary of State must consult any other persons they consider appropriate before making regulations under clause 62. As the powers cover a few areas, we do not think it right to specify particular other people to consult. However, we recognise that there may be other appropriate people to consult before regulations are made, so we have included that general duty. The powers in clause 62 should not be used lightly and must be used in a proportionate way. This clause provides one of the checks on that.
Clause 64 provides extra checks. If the Secretary of State proposes to use the powers in clause 62 to add a category of building to the definition of higher-risk buildings, it stipulates that the Secretary of State must have received advice or a recommendation from the Building Safety Regulator, and a cost-benefit analysis must be undertaken and published. The Building Safety Regulator oversees building safety and is therefore in the best position to assess if a category of building should be higher risk. It is vital that the regulator’s advice be obtained if it has not already provided a recommendation if the definition of higher-risk building were to expand. To ensure that we are being proportionate in the measures we place on buildings, a cost-benefit analysis must be carried out. If the definition of higher-risk building were to expand, it is only fair and transparent that the analysis must be published.
Clause 65 provides for the Secretary of State to use regulations to disapply or modify clauses from part 4 of the Bill for a category of higher-risk building. We cannot predict incidents that may occur in the future, nor how the evidence base on risk will evolve. There may be circumstances in future where it would be prudent to include a different category of building within the definition of higher-risk building for the occupation elements for the new regulatory regime. In this case, it may not be appropriate to apply all the clauses within part 4 of the Bill to that category of building—for example, resident engagement duties in a non-residential building. The clause provides for that scenario. Any substantial change to the regime that we have so carefully thought through should be open to comment and scrutiny. That is why the Building Safety Regulator and any other appropriate person must be consulted, and it is why regulations to do that must be approved through the affirmative procedure by both Houses.
Clause 66 specifies when the Building Safety Regulator must make recommendations to the Secretary of State that a category of building should be added to the definition of higher-risk building for the purposes of part 4 of the Bill. Through its function to oversee building safety, the regulator will be aware of the risks to and in buildings, and the regulator should therefore be able to make recommendations based on that knowledge.
Any change to the definition of a higher-risk building must be proportionate. That is why the regulator can recommend adding a category of building to the definition of a higher-risk building only if it believes that a three-part test is met. First, it must believe that the level of building safety risk is greater in the proposed category of building than in buildings in general. Secondly, it must believe that if the building safety risk occurred there is the potential for it to cause a major incident in the proposed category of building. Lastly, it must believe that the occupation parts of the new regulatory regime should apply to the proposed category of building.
To ensure that the process is transparent, if the Secretary of State does not make regulations to put the regulator’s recommendation to add a category of building into effect they must publish an explanation. If the regulator considers that a category of building should no longer be a higher-risk building it must provide a recommendation to the Secretary of State. It would not be appropriate to continue to apply the occupation parts of the new regulatory regime to a category of building that should no longer be a higher-risk building.
Clause 67 provides for the Secretary of State to request advice from the Building Safety Regulator about the definition of a higher-risk building. The regulator will be able to provide expert advice. Therefore, the ability of the Secretary of State to request formal advice when considering altering the definition of a higher-risk building is vital. Any change to the definition of a higher-risk building must be proportionate, which is why the regulator can recommend adding a category of building to the definition of a higher-risk building only if it believes that the three parts of the test that I referenced when discussing clause 66 are met.
Similarly, if the Secretary of State requests advice about whether a category of building should no longer be a higher-risk building the regulator must provide it. To ensure that the process is transparent, if the Secretary of State does not make regulations to put a recommendation made under subclause (3)(a) into effect they must publish an explanation of why not.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister for his comments. We have some questions and points of clarity. On clause 63, who would the appropriate stakeholders and consultees be? On clause 64, the notion of a cost-benefit analysis raises important issues. Who bears the cost, and how will that benefit be measured? Could clause 67 include flood risk, for example? An early amendment that we tabled referred to climate change, as we march towards COP26.
Eddie Hughes
With regard to who to consult, the question would be: what is the circumstance in which we are seeking information? For the sake of argument, one example given in the explanatory notes is increased wind speeds. If buildings suffered as a result of that, we would need to consult structural engineers. Were it a different issue, we would need to consult a different group of people, so it is helpful for it to be an open category, and for the Building Safety Regulator, and probably the Secretary of State, to understand and determine from whom they would need to seek advice.
On the cost-benefit analysis, I suspect that we will come later in our discussions to who bears the costs in various circumstances. Clearly that will depend on the leasehold arrangements that are in place in that particular building. Given that we have seen changing climate conditions, flood risk is certainly one of the things that could be considered in the future, depending on how weather conditions change in the coming years.
I conclude by saying once again that the powers in clause 62 should not be used lightly. They must be used proportionately, and clause 63 provides one of the key checks on that. Combined with clauses 63 and 65 to 67, and with parliamentary scrutiny, clause 64 ensures that using the powers in clause 62 to expand the definition of a higher-risk building is done appropriately and in a transparent way.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 63 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 64 to 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 68
Meaning of “occupied” higher-risk building etc
Eddie Hughes
Clause 68 defines the meaning of “occupied” and a resident of a higher-risk building. They are key definitions that determine the application of the obligations under the new, more stringent regime provided for in part 4. As the Committee will recall, the definition in clause 62 defines the meaning of a higher-risk building as one that is at least 18 metres in height, has at least seven storeys and contains at least two residential units.
Clause 68 gives details of the meaning of an occupied higher-risk building. It states that if a higher-risk building is to be classified as occupied, residents must actually be living in the building. Specifically there must be residents in more than one residential unit in the building. If there is a building that meets the definition of higher risk but that is not occupied for the time being, it will not be subject to most of the obligations under part 4 such as the registration requirement or production of the safety case. I will discuss that later. However, some of the provisions kick in regardless of occupation. A reference to a resident of a higher-risk building is to a resident of a residential unit. The definition of a residential unit will be discussed at clause 123.
Clause 68 creates a power for the Secretary of State to amend the definition of “occupied” and the resident of a higher-risk building. By way of regulations, the Secretary of State has a power to define the meaning of being the resident of a residential unit. This is to ensure that the scope and definitions can be amended to meet future policy relating to building safety regulation.
Mike Amesbury
I have a quick point for the Minister. If one person were resident in a high-risk building of above 18 metres, they would not be covered by the Bill.
Eddie Hughes
That is correct. In those circumstances, that could be an individual’s home and we are not in the business of legislating to that extent. The idea of the Bill and proportionality is that it covers properties in multiple occupation.
Eddie Hughes
This group of amendments makes provisions on who the accountable person is for higher-risk building when the title to the building is held in commonhold. The commonhold association owns and manages the common parts of the building in accordance with the commonhold community statement framework. Amendment 48 ensures that the Bill is explicit in providing that where the title to the building is held in commonhold, the commonhold association will always be the accountable person for the building. That works to ensure that the building safety risk will be properly managed by providing that an accountable person is both identifiable and, more importantly, responsible when considering that building ownership type.
Amendment 49 aligns the definitions of commonhold land and commonhold associations with the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, thereby maintaining consistency across the interacting pieces of legislation. Amendment 41 makes consequential changes necessitated by amendment 48. Amendments 42 to 46 and amendments 50 and 51 are technical and deal with the definition of an accountable person in relation to higher-risk buildings, where the right to manage has been exercised. Currently, the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 provides that where the right to manage has been exercised by leaseholders, the right to manage company takes on all the management functions for a building under the lease. That includes the repairing obligations for common parts. By virtue of clause 69(1)(b), the Bill provides that a right to manage company will therefore become an accountable person for the higher-risk building. Amendments 42 and 46 ensure that when that is the case, a person who is an accountable person by virtue of clause 69(1) is now expressly excluded if all the remaining obligations in relation to the common parts are subsequently the obligations of the right to manage company.
The amendments clarify where the responsibility for building safety duties sit when the right to manage has been exercised, thereby avoiding any confusion where it may appear that there is more than one accountable person captured by the definition for the same common parts of the building. I point out to the Committee that where repairing obligations are not provided for under a lease, and do not therefore become functions of the right to manage company, persons will still rightly also be captured as an accountable person under clause 69(1)(a) or (b) for their respective parts of the building. That maintains a whole-building approach to building safety management.
Amendment 50 aligns the definition of a right to manage company with the existing definition in the 2002 Act to maintain consistency across the interacting pieces of legislation. Amendments 43, 44 and 45 make consequential changes necessitated by the changes made by amendment 42. Amendment 51 is consequential on the motion to divide clause 69 into two separate clauses. Subsection (3) will now form its own clause entitled “Part of building for which an accountable person is responsible”.
On amendment 47, the Committee will be aware that clause 69(1) defines an accountable person for a higher-risk building as
“a person who holds a legal estate in possession in any…of the common parts”.
However, in some complex leasehold arrangements it may be that the person who has the active repairing obligations for some of the common parts holds a legal estate in the building but does not have the legal estate in possession. Under the current Bill provisions, that would mean that those persons are not currently being captured as accountable persons but they should be, as they have the active repairing obligations for some of the common parts. The amendment addresses that issue by ensuring that where such leasehold arrangements are in effect, the landlord or superior landlord who has the relevant repairing obligations pursuant to a lease for any of the common parts will be accountable persons for those respective parts of the building. In that scenario, the person with the active repairing obligation will therefore be the accountable person instead of the person who holds the legal estate in possession in those common parts under clause 69(1)(a). The amendment gives due consideration to the whole building approach to building safety by ensuring that where a superior landlord or landlord is under a relevant repairing obligation for only some parts of the common parts, both they and the person with the legal estate in possession will be captured as accountable persons for their respective parts of the building.
Turning to the clause itself, the independent review concluded that having a clear and identifiable person with responsibility for managing building safety during occupation and maintenance was clearly necessary. Clause 69 enacts that recommendation, and creates the statutory definition that identifies who the accountable persons for occupied higher-risk buildings under the new building safety regime are. These accountable persons will have legal requirements under the Bill to ensure that fire and structural safety for their parts of the building are being properly managed in accordance with the new building safety regime.
Having clearly identifiable accountable persons is critical to managing buildings safely, enabling residents to feel safe in their homes and enabling the Building Safety Regulator to regulate effectively. The effect of this clause is that accountable persons could therefore be landlords, freeholders, right to manage companies, management companies or commonhold associations that are in charge of repairing the common parts of a building. The clause defines common parts to include the structure, exterior and any other part of the building provided for the common use of the residents.
Clause 69 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to amend the definitions of accountable persons, to ensure that the new regime is adaptable and fit for purpose for many years to come. To provide further clarity to accountable persons about the areas that fall under their remit for the purposes of fulfilling their duties, the clause allows the use of regulations to define the parts of a building accountable persons are responsible for. The Government recognise that the success of the enhanced building safety regime rests with ensuring that it is clear where responsibility lies, so that building safety obligations can be adequately complied with.
Mike Amesbury
Many of these amendments are technical tidying-up exercises, looking at the legislation coming through the other place at the moment on leasehold, ground rents and commonhold. In principle, these measures support that direction of travel on commonhold, but to get the new regime right, to stop the ping-pong of people passing the buck that we are all familiar with, there is still more work to be done on the accountable person—the principal accountable person. I noted that on, I think, Thursday 14 October, 200 factsheets were published by the Department. I know every Member on this Committee will have read them in great detail over the past few weeks.
The amendment tries to add some clarity, but again it relies on secondary legislation. The Minister mentioned the right to manage and commonhold, the relationship with the building owners and the demarcation of who will be the principal accountable person versus the accountable person. How will the disputes that will undoubtedly arise be resolved?
Eddie Hughes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. My understanding is that, if there is contention over who is responsible, the principal accountable person will first and foremost be the person responsible for the exterior of the building. That gives us an easily defined headline position, but, as he rightly points out, there is incredible complexity in English law when it comes to property ownership. It is good that the opportunity arises within the Bill to allow flexibility for the Secretary of State to redefine the accountable person, should it transpire that for some reason there is an entity that has escaped the clutches of this clause. Hopefully we have covered everybody now, given the complex amendments we have tabled; but, should the need arise in future, the Secretary of State has that flexibility.
Amendment 41 agreed to.
Amendments made: 42, in clause 69, page 85, line 35, after “person” insert
“(‘the estate owner’) who holds a legal estate in possession in the common parts of a higher-risk building or any part of them (‘the relevant common parts’)”.
This amendment and Amendment 46 provide that a person within subsection (1)(a) is not an accountable person if their repairing obligations in relation to the relevant common parts are obligations of a right to manage company.
Amendment 43, in clause 69, page 85, line 35, leave out “a higher-risk” and insert “the”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 42.
Amendment 44, in clause 69, page 85, line 37, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 42.
Amendment 45, in clause 69, page 86, line 1, leave out “person” and insert “estate owner”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 42.
Amendment 46, in clause 69, page 86, line 4, at end insert “, or
(c) all repairing obligations relating to the relevant common parts which would otherwise be obligations of the estate owner are functions of an RTM company.”
This amendment and Amendment 42 provide that a person within subsection (1)(a) is not an accountable person if their repairing obligations in relation to the relevant common parts are obligations of a right to manage company.
Amendment 47, in clause 69, page 86, line 4, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (2B) applies where—
(a) under a lease, a person (‘the estate owner’) holds a legal estate in possession in the common parts of a higher-risk building or any part of them (‘the relevant common parts’), and
(b) a landlord under the lease is under a relevant repairing obligation in relation to any of the relevant common parts.
(2B) For the purposes of this section and section 70—
(a) the legal estate in possession in so much of the relevant common parts as are within subsection (2A)(b) is treated as held by the landlord (instead of the estate owner), and
(b) if (and so far as) the landlord’s actual legal estate in those common parts is held under a lease, the legal estate in possession mentioned in paragraph (a) is treated as held under that lease (and, accordingly, subsection (2A) and this subsection may apply in relation to it).”
This amendment provides that where, for example, a landlord of a person within subsection (1)(a) has covenanted to keep the common parts held by the person in repair, the landlord is the accountable person (instead of the person).
Amendment 48, in clause 69, page 86, line 4, at end insert—
“(2C) Where a higher-risk building is on commonhold land, the commonhold association is the accountable person for the building for the purposes of this Part.”
This amendment provides that where title to a higher-risk building is held in commonhold, the commonhold association is the accountable person for the building.
Amendment 49, in clause 69, page 86, line 15, at end insert—
“‘commonhold association’ and ‘commonhold land’ have the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (see sections 34 and 1 respectively);”.
This amendment, which is consequential on Amendment 48, defines “commonhold association” and “commonhold land” for the purposes of this clause.
Amendment 50, in clause 69, page 86, line 21, at end insert—
“‘RTM company’ has the same meaning as in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (right to manage).”
This amendment, which is consequential on Amendment 46, defines “RTM company” for the purposes of this clause.
Amendment 51, in clause 69, page 86, line 23, leave out “subsection (3) or”. —(Eddie Hughes.)
This amendment is consequential on the motion to divide this clause into two clauses.
Eddie Hughes
Amendments 52 and 53 amend clause 70. The Committee will know that clause 70(1)(b) sets out that the principal accountable person for a higher-risk building where there are multiple accountable persons is the one
“who holds a legal estate in possession in the relevant parts of the structure and exterior of the building”.
That is a more eloquent answer to the question put earlier by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale. However, there is a scenario where an entity holds a legal estate in possession in the relevant parts of the structure and exterior of the building but is not subsequently captured as an accountable person under clause 69. In those circumstances, the provisions as drafted would not capture a principal accountable person for the building. Specifically, this occurs when accountable persons within clause 69(1)(b) have the relevant repairing obligations in relation to the structure and exterior of the building, but do not hold the legal estate in possession to these common parts of the building.
Amendment 52 is technical and caters for this issue by ensuring that the accountable person who has the repairing obligations for the structure and exterior by virtue of clause 69(1)(b) can become the principal accountable person. It also aligns with amendments made to clause 69, which are aimed at ensuring that the accountable person is the person who has an active repairing obligation through their legal estate in possession or, where they do not have a legal estate in possession, has an active repairing obligation pursuant to a lease. Amendment 53 makes a consequential change necessitated by the changes made through amendment 52.
Amendments 54 and 55 amend clause 71, which sets out that an interested party may apply to the tribunal for a determination on who the accountable persons for the building are, who the principal accountable person is, or the parts of the building for which an accountable person is responsible. Under the current provisions, an interested party is either the regulator or a person who holds a legal estate in any part of the building. This does not therefore allow an accountable person who has an active repairing obligation, but does not hold a legal estate, to apply to the first-tier tribunal for a determination.
Amendment 55 addresses the issue by capturing a person who is under a repairing obligation to the common parts of a building to now be classified as an interested party for the purposes of clause 71, enabling them also to make an application for a determination to the first-tier tribunal. This works to effectively align clause 69 with clause 71.
Amendment 55 also limits applications that can be made to the first-tier tribunal from a person with just a legal estate in the building to a person holding a legal estate in the common parts of the building. This ensures that the court’s resources can be dedicated to resolving complex issues from those that are, or may be, directly responsible for managing building safety for the building. Amendment 54 makes a consequential change as a result of an amendment made to clause 70.
I will now move on to the clauses themselves, beginning with clause 70. We concur with the independent review’s recommendations that a “clear and identifiable dutyholder”, with overall responsibility for building safety during occupation and maintenance, is needed for higher-risk buildings. Clause 70 makes certain that all occupied higher-risk buildings will have at least one clearly identifiable accountable person, known as the principal accountable person, who will be responsible for ensuring that fire and structural safety is being properly managed for the whole building.
This clause sets out that, where there is a single accountable person for a building, they will automatically become the principal accountable person. Where there are two or more accountable persons, the one responsible for the repair of the structure and exterior of the building will be the principal accountable person. The principal accountable person will have overall responsibility for meeting specific statutory obligations for the whole building, such as complying with registration and certification requirements for the building. Where there are multiple accountable persons for a building, the principal accountable person will have the same statutory obligations for assessing and managing building safety risks in their own part of the building as each individual accountable person. This will be as well as additional obligations arising from their role as principal accountable person.
As part of the registration process, the principal accountable person will identify themselves to the Building Safety Regulator as being the person with overall responsibility for managing fire and structural safety. If a principal accountable person does not come forward to register the building, the Building Safety Regulator can identify who the principal accountable person is by using the statutory definition, or by applying to the first-tier tribunal for a determination. Having a principal accountable person for each higher-risk building is critical to effectively managing buildings safely, as a whole, and ensuring that residents feel safe in their homes.
Clause 71 allows an interested party to make an application to the tribunal for a determination on who the accountable persons are, who the principal accountable person is, or which parts of the higher-risk building an accountable person is responsible for. We recognise the importance of ensuring that the correct persons with responsibility under the Bill are identified, and that the extent of where their responsibility lies is clear. The clause is to be used in complex cases requiring judicial oversight, as the tribunal will decide and provide clarity to those who may be affected by the Bill.
Once an interested party makes an application to the tribunal, the tribunal would make a decision that may bind persons as the ones with obligations pursuant to the extent applicable by the Bill. The clause specifies that an interested party who may apply to the tribunal is either the regulator or a person who holds a legal estate in any part of the building. Buildings must have only one principal accountable person, and in cases where more than one person fits the definition of a principal accountable person clause 71 allows the tribunal to decide, as it considers appropriate, who the principal accountable person for the building is.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister for his thorough explanation, which was a great credit to him. I have a couple of questions. The clauses make sense—again, they are technical, tidying-up exercises. Earlier, I referred to 13,000 buildings. We have principal accountable persons and accountable persons. That is a lot of people who require the skills, qualifications and competence to ensure that this new landscape emerges. Are the Minister and his team convinced that it will be properly resourced, and that we genuinely will change the landscape for existing residents, leaseholders and other people? Also, on clause 71, at what stage should the determination be made at the tribunal? Must all buildings in scope have a clearly identified principal accountable person?
Eddie Hughes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. The question of capacity is an interesting one, although it may be that various people will hold principal accountable positions, as with building safety managers. Some people might hold the position for multiple buildings. There are big companies that own lots of buildings and will therefore already have managing obligations for multiple buildings. With regard to capacity, we are talking big numbers. According to my notes, the number of buildings in scope is 12,500, but some of them could be covered by multiple people. There are already large practices operating in this area.
As I said, given the existence of the Bill, and subsequent to Grenfell Tower, there has been a huge increase in the number of people who are concerned and active in the building safety sector, so I do not feel that there is any need to be concerned about capacity at this stage. However, the point and purpose of the Building Safety Regulator is to be live to changing circumstances so, should there prove to be challenges once the Bill is implemented, it will be for the regulator to monitor any challenges and report back to the Secretary of State. I am sure that we will talk about that in the House in future.
Eddie Hughes
The Bill makes the principal accountable person responsible for registering a building and applying for a building assessment certificate. Building on those responsibilities, clause 72 requires that all occupied higher-risk buildings are registered with the Building Safety Regulator. The principal accountable person will commit an offence if they fail to register.
For new buildings, the principal accountable person will be required to register their building before it becomes occupied. For existing occupied buildings, there will be a transition period in which the principal accountable person must register their building. During the registration, the principal accountable person will provide important information about the building and its duty holders to the Building Safety Regulator. It will include core details of the building, including address, height, date of completion and the name and contact details of all accountable persons and any building safety manager.
The Building Safety Regulator will use the information obtained through the registration of the effective regulation of higher-risk buildings. For example, registration information will support the regulator in prioritising building assessment certificate applications. The regulator will also use registration information to publish the national register of higher-risk buildings.
Clause 72 sets out the maximum penalty for the criminal offence of breaching the registration requirement. If tried by magistrates, the offence will carry a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine and/or 12 months’ imprisonment. If it is tried in the Crown court, the maximum penalty will be an unlimited fine and/or two years in prison. These measures are tough but fair and are an important addition to engender compliance with the regime.
Clause 73 makes provision for the registration of higher-risk buildings and allows the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out procedural and administrative details for registration. The information obtained through the registration will ensure that the Building Safety Regulator has a record of all occupied higher-risk buildings in England and those responsible for managing them. Information collected through registration will be used to produce the national register of higher-risk buildings, which will be published. That means that higher-risk buildings can be easily identified and give the regulator excellent oversight and data on buildings in scope.
Clause 73 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations about registration applications. Information required in the registration process will be set out in regulations and will comprise core details of the building, including address, height and date of completion, and the name and contact details of the accountable persons, principal accountable persons, and any building safety manager. Regulations will also set out the procedures for submitting and withdrawing a registration application.
Mike Amesbury
The Minister referred to national registration. For residents and leaseholders who want to access the information, what form will it take? Will it be digital? The Joule Group International Ltd made a lengthy written submission on that topic. I would be interested in hearing the Minister comments.
Eddie Hughes
One of the things that needs to underpin the way the Bill operates is the access to digital information. We need to ensure that residents and leaseholders have no difficulty in accessing information about their building, and that the Building Safety Regulator has access to that information.
With regard to the capacity that we have discussed, once the register is published, the sector will understand the extent of the buildings in scope, where they are geographically and so on, and it will be able to respond in kind by developing appropriate resource in those areas. The information will be available digitally, which is one of the things that underpins the functioning of the Bill.
Mike Amesbury
The Minister refers to a resident engagement strategy. What would a good resident engagement strategy look like and where would people find information on that? What information will be contained in the building safety certificate? Where are the reference points for that?
Eddie Hughes
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to wait for another day to hear about the resident engagement strategy. That is an exciting episode that we will discuss in detail later in the Bill. I look forward to engagements on that.
I explained some of the information that will be displayed on the certificate but I think the pre-eminent role of that is to ensure that residents know who is responsible for building safety within their building. The certificate will identify the principal accountable persons so that residents know where the line of responsibility lies. That is why it is important that such information is displayed prominently in the building.
Eddie Hughes
Clause 83 relates to the undertaking of comprehensive and regular assessments of building safety risks in occupied higher-risk building.
The independent review identified that, too often, building safety has not been proactively maintained over a building’s life cycle, and that fire risk assessments were frequently inadequate and in some cases not carried out at all. We are taking steps to ensure that this lax culture changes and are making it a clear duty on accountable persons to ensure that assessments of building safety risks are carried out. Risk assessments must consider hazards that may originate from outside of the part of the building under the direct control of accountable persons, including in mixed-use buildings where commercial activities may be carried out.
Where there is more than one accountable person for a building, each is duty bound to co-ordinate and co-operate with others. At a minimum, risk assessments should be shared to ensure a whole-building approach is delivered. We are also clear that risk assessments must enable accountable persons to comply with the ongoing duty to take all reasonable steps to manage building safety risks and risk assessments must remain up to date.
The clause requires further risk assessments to be carried out not at specified intervals but based on the accountable person’s knowledge and experience of the building. We recognise that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution and the challenge for the industry is to take greater ownership and responsibility for ensuring safety, rather than relying on being told what to do and when. The regulator will, however, have the power to require that a risk assessment be undertaken where it considers it necessary.
Established best practice risk assessment principles, including the use of management systems that deliver evaluation and monitoring, will continue to play an important role. Those building owners who have been acting responsibly will not find they are presented with a significant additional burden, but we must ensure that the right legal framework is in place to make sure that residents of higher-risk buildings are and can feel safe in their homes.
The Government are committing to providing the right framework to deliver on the challenges and recommendations set out by the independent review. The clause places a clear duty on accountable persons to take all reasonable steps to deliver ongoing management of fire and structural safety while a building is occupied, ensuring that residents are safe and feel safe in their homes.
There are two clear purposes for the management of building safety risks: to prevent an incident from happening and to limit the consequences should one arise. The new safety case approach is based on delivering those tangible outcomes, not on blindly following guidance, which was a criticism of the previous system levelled by the independent review. The steps required by the clause must be taken as a direct response to the results of risk assessments carried out under the previous clause. Accountable persons must make an informed judgment on the steps they take and safety arrangements that they need to have in place to deliver safety for residents.
The new regime promotes a proportionate approach and requires people to think for themselves. It is not about requiring all buildings to be brought up to existing standards, which would be disproportionate and, in many cases, impractical. Accountable persons must deliver and maintain a combination of preventive, control and mitigation measures to guarantee that effective and efficient layers of protection are in place. Regulations will be made to set the principles accountable persons must follow when managing building safety risks. These will establish a best practice approach, helping accountable persons make informed decisions.
The expectation on duty holders in an outcome-focused regime is that they adopt a systemic and proactive approach to risk management. The clause requires that approach to be delivered. The review’s recommendation set a clear expectation that duty holders adopt and can describe the building safety management systems they have in place to deliver that approach. Accountable persons must have systems and policies in place that ensure that their safety arrangements are maintained and remain effective. Such arrangements help ensure that potential safety risks are proactively identified and managed on a continuous basis, improving performance and delivering better safety outcomes. The Health and Safety Executive has vast experience of delivering effective regulatory oversight of industry that requires similar approaches to the management of risks and delivery of safety.
We, and the shadow regulator, recognise the need to work with industry as we move towards the new framework, and have been working closely with industry, including the early adopters group and the joint regulators group, to support that. The shadow regulator recently published a paper setting out the key principles and requirements of a safety case regime. That will help preparations for the new regime and support the development of future guidance. Many responsible building owners already operate in that manner, and the new framework will further support them to deliver safety for residents.
Mike Amesbury
Of course, the new regime is resource intensive. We have principal accountable persons, accountable persons, building safety managers and 12,500 to 13,000 buildings. There will be new builds each year; I am not sure what the projections are. It is about having that reassurance that the new regime can be effectively implemented, and that people will have the competency and qualifications. Who will pay for this landscape? It seems potentially very costly. What salary level would a building safety manager, a principal accountable person or an accountable person have?
Eddie Hughes
We return to the question of capacity. I touched on the idea that organisations such as housing associations or councils already have their buildings under a management structure and a safety structure, and already have appropriate people appointed to those roles. They will have a benchmark with regard to the legislation that sets out the requirements of a building safety manager against which to measure that they have the appropriate skills and competences in place. The fact that within those organisations they will need to identify a named person who has those competences will focus minds, albeit that the person with those responsibilities might not need to discharge all the duties; they can delegate them to others.
The hon. Gentleman is right that this is a big endeavour, but it already exists in many organisations. On the appropriate salary levels, I think it is beyond the scope of the Bill to identify the remuneration for people employed in this, but as I say there are already people doing this role and I am sure that those who are already managing their buildings effectively and safely will not find this a much more onerous obligation.
Eddie Hughes
It is an important point. We need to strike a balance between being prescriptive, and setting very specific regulatory periods within which tasks have to be performed, and allowing some latitude for people to continue to manage their buildings in an appropriate way. If we give prescription for one thing it certainly will not apply across all 12,500 buildings, or however many more might be created in future. I return to the point about the Building Safety Regulator being live to developments within the sector and ensuring that it can respond accordingly.
Mike Amesbury
We have both been involved in the social housing sector. The Minister rightly referred to the exemptions. The current landscape and resourcing are there for some in the sector—for some who will be within the scope of the Bill—but it will be different for others in the private sector and, indeed, for some in the third sector. He referred to the regulator and associated committees and to the industry looking at competences and qualifications. Surely, they will look at salary levels. That will not be a role for Ministers or members of the Opposition, but it is important that it is resourced and attracts the right calibre of people.
Eddie Hughes
I think there is a terrible possibility that I may not have completely understood the case the hon. Lady was making. The point about the assessment is that it will be a live assessment of the risks in a particular building and then the mitigating factors that will be introduced in order to minimise those risks. With regard to the prescription of building height set out in previous clauses, that simply determines which buildings are in scope. If we assume that a building is in scope, that the legislation applies and that the principal accountable person needs to submit their building case to the regulator in order for it to be assessed, that will be bespoke and determined by individual building requirements.
Mike Amesbury
On the safety case reports, a lot of the detail will, again, be elaborated on in secondary legislation. Sometimes this is rather difficult—we are operating blind—in terms of scrutiny and challenge. Something that we are all familiar with, in regard to the history and journey of the Bill, is the practice in the construction sector of setting up special delivery vehicles and then folding them. How will the information be retrieved, in terms of the safety case report, if those organisations no longer exist?
Eddie Hughes
I have two points. With regard to the idea that some of this information will be developed as secondary legislation and the idea of scrutiny and challenge, we will use the affirmative procedure, so I strongly suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I might be standing across from each other in a room like this, deliberating on the content of those statutory instruments, in the future.
With regard to the structure of companies that are set up, if the hon. Gentleman is referring particularly to new buildings, the idea of the golden thread that runs through this process means that we will be capturing more information, more or less from conception of the building through to its construction and occupation. It means that we will have better access to information, and safety will have been built in early on and a more rigorous process adopted in order to ensure that safety, given the fact that named people will apply throughout the whole process, so I think assurance will be built in once the Bill is introduced.
Building Safety Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Mike Amesbury Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Eddie Hughes
The Government are committed to bringing about the biggest improvement in building and fire safety for a generation. The clause creates a power to make regulations to require a golden thread of information for all occupied buildings in scope of the more stringent regime.
The golden thread is the information that allows someone to understand a building and keep it safe, and the information management needed to ensure that the information is accurate, easily understandable and up to date. The clause enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to require the people responsible for those buildings—the accountable person—to put in place and maintain the golden thread. The clause also creates the power to make regulations to set out the information and documents that must be stored in the golden thread, and to set out standards that the golden thread must be held to. The independent review recommended that a golden thread be put in place for all buildings in scope of the regime.
We agree with that recommendation, recognising that it is critical to ensure that buildings are safe. Currently, there is a lack of information about buildings in the new more stringent regime. That lack of information makes it difficult to manage and maintain those buildings safely and to ensure that they are safe for those who live and work in them. We are also aware that, even if there is information, it is often not kept up to date, is not accurate or is not accessible.
The clause will ensure that the information is recorded and that it is accurate, kept up to date and accessible to those who need it. Having accurate, up-to-date information is critical to ensuring that buildings are managed safely. Clause 88 is vital to ensuring that all buildings in scope of the new, more stringent regime are safe and remain safe.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I welcome you to the Chair, Mrs Miller. I have one question for the Minister about the golden thread. How will it apply to buildings that are converted by permitted development and are in scope—that is, buildings of 18 metres and above or of seven storeys or more?
Eddie Hughes
Regardless of how buildings have ended up in scope—whether through permitted development rights or otherwise—they will be part of the regime. Therefore, the golden thread will apply. My understanding of permitted development rights, however, is that currently a permitted development right cannot convert to a building over 18 metres. Someone would have to apply for planning permission.
In the absence of further questions, this feels cheeky but speaking as someone who has managed buildings from construction to operation and seen documents handed over that are out of date, inconsistent or incomplete, I know that it is incredibly important to have that golden thread running through not only newly constructed buildings, but existing buildings. It will be invaluable to their safe management.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 88 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 89
Provision of information etc to the regulator, residents and other persons
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Eddie Hughes
Clause 89 creates a power to make regulations to ensure that the information in the golden thread is shared with those who need it. This will help ensure that all buildings in scope of the more stringent regime are safe. It enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to require the people responsible for these buildings—the accountable persons—to share information with prescribed persons. Prescribed persons include the Building Safety Regulator, residents, other accountable persons in the building and owners of residential units within the building, among others.
Clause 89 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to set out what information must be shared, when and how it must be shared and in what format. We know that it is currently difficult to access information about buildings in scope of the new, more stringent safety regime. Clause 89 will ensure that the appropriate information from the golden thread is shared with the people who need it. Having easily accessible information is critical to manage buildings safely, for residents to feel safe in their homes, for people to understand their responsibilities in keeping their home safe and for the Building Safety Regulator to be able to regulate effectively.
The independent review recommended that information on buildings should be available and that this would drive greater accountability throughout the system, which would support safer buildings. We agree with this recommendation, recognising that it is critical that information is available on buildings in scope of the more stringent regulatory regime. Clause 89 is vital to ensuring that information is available on these buildings.
Clause 90 requires the golden thread to be handed over whenever the person responsible for the building—the accountable person—changes. This applies to all occupied buildings in scope of the more stringent regime. The golden thread is the information that allows someone to understand a building and keep it safe, and the information management needed to ensure the information is accurate, easily understandable and up to date.
Clause 90 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to set out what information is handed over, when and how the information is handed over, and in what format it needs to be. We know that currently there is a lack of information. This lack of information makes it difficult to manage and maintain buildings. The clause will ensure that the information is handed over and is not lost when the accountable person leaves their role. Regulations under this clause will ensure that the information is handed over in a timely and appropriate manner. The independent review recommended that a golden thread is put in place for all buildings in scope of the regime and that there are requirements to ensure the golden thread is handed over throughout the life cycle of the building. We agree with that recommendation, recognising that this is critical to ensuring that buildings are safe.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 89 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 91
Residents’ engagement strategy
Mike Amesbury
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 91, page 99, line 20, after “management” insert “and ownership structure”.
This amendment would ensure that residents of buildings receive information about the ownership of a building.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part and clause 92 stand part.
Mike Amesbury
The amendment would strengthen the provisions laid out in clauses 91 and 92 by bringing the ownership of the building, as well as its management, under their scope. This issue has been raised by residents and leaseholders going through that ping-pong of building safety remediation. The amendment would enhance transparency and, ultimately, the building safety regime. I know that a number of colleagues will want to interject and contribute to the broader debate about residents’ engagement, drawing on my earlier comment on what makes a good residents’ engagement strategy.
Eddie Hughes
I thank hon. Members for raising this important matter, but I am afraid that the Government are not able to accept the amendment. However, having listened to the hon. Member for Luton South speak, I now understand more fully the intended purpose of the amendment. Personally, I feel that the role of the accountable person fulfils the intention that she seeks.
As we have touched on, ownership of buildings can be complex. We need to be able to point to the person or entity that residents can go to if they have the kinds of concerns mentioned by the hon. Lady. The accountable person fulfils that purpose and will be a useful addition to the needs of her constituents. Our assessment is that this amendment would not deliver improved building safety protections for residents in high-rise buildings.
Clause 91 requires that the accountable person must prepare strategy “for promoting the participation” of residents in decision making about building safety and decisions relating to the management of the building or performance of the accountable person’s duties. Inserting “ownership structure” in the clause would not require residents to be provided with information on the ownership of the building, but it would require an accountable person to include in their strategy ways to promote the participation of residents in decisions related to the building’s ownership structure.
I assure hon. Members that their intention of ensuring that residents have information on and are able to hold to account those responsible for their safety has been met by the Bill. Information about accountable persons will, by virtue of clause 73, be publicly available on the register of higher-risk buildings, which will be published by the Building Safety Regulator.
In addition, clause 77 requires important details about the identity of those responsible for managing building safety to be displayed in a conspicuous position in the building by the principal accountable person. This will further ensure that residents have information about key people responsible for their buildings. Clause 90 provides that where there is a change in accountable persons, the regulator must be notified and residents given updated information about their accountable person through the notice displayed conspicuously in the building. This ensures that when there are changes to who is responsible for a building’s safety, this is captured and residents will be informed. Therefore, I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Weaver Vale to withdraw the amendment.
Mike Amesbury
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 91 and 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 93
Complaints procedure operated by principal accountable person
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Eddie Hughes
The Government are committed to making sure that residents’ safety concerns and views are never ignored by those responsible for managing the safety of their building. Residents need to be able to hold the accountable person to account when things go wrong, and be confident that prompt, effective action is taken. Clause 93 places an obligation on those responsible for managing a high-rise building to establish and operate an internal complaints process to handle and resolve residents’ complaints about their building’s safety. This process should be clear, quick and effective.
In buildings that are managed by multiple accountable persons, a single complaints system will be established. Each accountable person will be responsible for safety concerns raised by residents in the area of the building for which they are responsible. The complaints system will provide residents of all tenures and owners of residential units in high-rise buildings with a clear process to raise safety concerns, and with a right not to have those concerns ignored. Residents will be able to further escalate their concerns to the new Building Safety Regulator.
The independent review found that residents did not have a strong enough voice in matters about the safety of their homes, and that residents struggled to get their complaints addressed. The Bill addresses this by placing an obligation on those responsible for managing high-rise buildings to establish and operate an internal complaints system for residents to raise their safety concerns.
In addition to an internal complaints system, residents will be able to further escalate complaints relating to building safety to the new Building Safety Regulator. This will be available where the accountable person has not resolved the safety concerns. We intend that secondary legislation will set out how the complaints process will operate, and what subsequent action the regulator must consider in response. The new Building Safety Regulator will consult the residents panel before establishing its complaints system and, subsequently, before any significant change is made. The accountable persons’ and Building Safety Regulator’s complaints processes are vital in increasing transparency. Strengthening building safety complaints handling in high-rise buildings is critical to providing residents with a strong voice.
Mike Amesbury
I seek clarity on clause 93(2), which says:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the establishment and operation of complaints systems under this section.”
Should that be “will” rather than “may”?
The Chair
Can I check that no one else wants to speak? In that case, can I bring the Minister in to respond?
Eddie Hughes
The entire purpose of the clause, as I say, is to avoid our ever ending up in a position where we have another Grenfell. Therefore, the idea that the accountable person now completely understands their responsibility, and that that is set out in legislation, is increasing in and of itself the focus on safety within the sector. We are seeking to prevent any occurrences by focusing minds and ensuring that even in this new, stricter regime, if people are still prepared to be reckless and ignore the legislation, a custodial sentence can, and hopefully in certain circumstances will, follow. I completely understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.
That is in line with the enforcement principles that we set out in our 2019 consultation document, and in the Health and Safety Executive’s published enforcement principles. Those documents set out that minor infringements will normally attract informal action, which will be escalated as necessary. More serious breaches will probably attract more formal action, such as compliance notices. The most serious breaches envisaged by the clause will normally attract immediate prosecution. An offence can carry a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine and/or 12 months’ imprisonment if tried in a magistrates court, and an unlimited fine and/or two years’ imprisonment if tried in a Crown court. Either court may also issue a level 1 fine of £200 for each day the default continues after conviction.
The measures will help to ensure compliance with our new regime, and they reflect our strong stance on breaches and enforcement.
Mike Amesbury
What assessment have the Minister and his Department made of the effectiveness of section 21 notices under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974?
Eddie Hughes
In all honesty, I am not sure of the answer to that question. However, I would be reassured by the fact that the Building Safety Regulator, in its shadow form—[Interruption.]
Eddie Hughes
I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s point. What we have seen through the development of this Bill is that specific people will now be accountable for very specific functions: the accountable person, the building safety manager and, in the case of the building safety manager, a specific person identified with that responsibility. Now that there is a clear line of sight to who is ultimately to be held accountable, I think we will see increased professionalisation and the sector responding to that, in terms of developing the professional capacity of the people involved.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister for his description of the new regime under the clauses. I do not know whether he remembers Mr Benn—he probably does—who could be something different every day, or several different things in one day. This reminds me of that, with the principal accountable person, the accountable person, the responsible person, the building safety manager and the special measures manager. Certainly, in a lot of cases, they will be one and the same thing if they have the competency, knowledge, experience and so on to do that. What would be incredibly helpful going forward—for us all, collectively—would be some kind of diagram. I know the Minister referred to things becoming clearer now in regard to accountability. I am not convinced that they are. That is not meant as a criticism, but I would find a diagram incredibly helpful.
I worry also that we are having almost a first and second-class approach to building safety. Again, I go back to the point about 18 metres or seven storeys. This whole regime, this whole professionalisation, that hon. Members have referred to is for the higher-risk buildings. There are still risky buildings from 11 metres up to 18 metres —below the seven storeys—that do not have this regime.
Eddie Hughes
Clause 117 sets out in one place the key powers of the Building Safety Regulator to issue guidance with statutory force on its functions under part 4, and the constraints on it doing so. If Members wish me to go into detail on any of the specific powers to issue guidance, I am happy to do so, but given that we have already discussed each of the clauses about which guidance may be issued, I do not propose to detain the Committee further.
I should point out that subsections (1), (2) and (5) enable the regulator to issue, withdraw or amend guidance, but only with the consent of the Secretary of State. Subsection (3) makes similar provision to that in the Building Act on the approved documents. That means that compliance with the guidance can be relied upon in court or tribunal proceedings as tending to establish compliance with the provision to which the guidance relates, while not following the guidance will tend to establish non-compliance with the relevant provision.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 117 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 118
Cooperation and coordination
Mike Amesbury
I beg to move amendment 40, in clause 118, page 118, line 39, at end insert—
“(5) In the event that one or more accountable person or responsible person considers that another accountable person or responsible person is in breach of any requirement or duty imposed by this section then that dispute shall be determined in accordance with such arrangements as the Secretary of State may direct by order.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), a ‘breach’ includes—
(a) any failure to act on the duties imposed by this section; and
(b) any dispute about the extent of steps taken, or said to be required, pursuant to the duties imposed by this section.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to arrange a resolution in a dispute between accountable or responsible persons.
Mike Amesbury
This is a simple amendment, the reason for which has arisen in the oral and written evidence given by housing lawyer Justin Bates, which addresses what happens when the duty to co-operate between two accountable persons, where the accountable person is not the same as the responsible person, reaches an impasse. Our proposed solution is simply that the Secretary of State would arrange a resolution in a dispute between accountable and responsible persons—something that is currently missing from clause 118.
Eddie Hughes
I thank the hon. Member for raising this important matter. The amendment would give the Secretary of State the power to make arrangements by order to resolve disputes between accountable persons, or between accountable and responsible persons, in relation to the co-operation duties provided for in clause 118. Our assessment is that the amendment would not achieve the intended effect of formally resolving such disputes more than would be achieved through the provisions already in the Bill. The amendment would therefore not deliver improved building safety.
I must point out that the policy of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel sets out that an order made by the Secretary of State would no longer be the suitable way to deliver the outcome sought by the hon. Member’s amendment; rather, it should be done by regulations. I must also point out that the primary objective of the Bill is to ensure that building safety duties, including duties to co-operate, are delivered through the robust regulatory powers that we are creating. Where a lack of co-operation will have, or is likely to have, a negative impact on building safety, we are confident that there are already sufficient provisions in the Bill to deal with that.
The hon. Member’s amendment would require the Secretary of State to create a further mechanism to deal with disputes regarding failures to co-ordinate and co-operate. This would not only undermine the power of the regulatory functions upon which we will rely, but might have the unintended effect of adversely impacting on building safety, through delays caused by adding another layer to the regulatory and enforcement functions that we are already providing for. I must therefore tell the hon. Member that the Government cannot accept the amendment. While we consider the policy intent of his amendment to be sound, I would like to assure him that we believe it is addressed elsewhere.
Mike Amesbury
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 118 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 119
Managers appointed under Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Eddie Hughes
We recognise the need to ensure that the building safety regime is compatible with existing legislation and provides clarity as to the avenues of redress for any breaches of building safety obligations. Clause 119 makes amendments to section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 to ensure that the new building safety obligations, as set out by the Bill, are kept separate from other general management functions for buildings.
The clause makes amendments that provide that a tribunal cannot appoint a manager under section 24 where the breach of obligations complained of by a resident is a breach of the accountable persons building safety obligations. This means that where a manager is appointed under section 24, the tribunal cannot confer upon that manager building safety functions, which are to be carried out by an accountable person.
Building Safety Bill (Ninth sitting)
Mike Amesbury Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Christopher Pincher)
It is once again a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I welcome the Committee back to this final line-by-line scrutiny session before we go into recess again.
The Government are committed to ensuring that there is a stringent regulatory framework to enable the design and construction of better and high-quality homes while providing industry with the clarity and certainty that it needs. Dame Judith’s review found that unnecessary delays in the system must be minimised, and we wholeheartedly agree with that finding. The gateways and building control system have been designed to ensure appropriate consideration of building regulations compliance, including building safety, throughout design and construction.
Applicants in England are encouraged to work with the Building Safety Regulator to ensure that decisions are reached in good time or extensions are agreed, and the Building Safety Regulator will make decisions on a variety of matters relating to building control. They include deciding whether to approve or reject the following types of applications: gateway 2 building control applications, change control applications, gateway 3 applications and certain refurbishment applications. To provide industry with certainty for project and financial planning, the Building Safety Regulator will have prescribed periods in which to decide such applications.
Where further time is required—there may be occasions when that is necessary—extensions can be agreed between the regulator and the applicant. However, it is necessary to have an alternative route through which an applicant can get a decision on their application if the Building Safety Regulator has not issued a decision within the required timeframe and an extension has not been agreed, and clause 36 provides the legal basis for the Secretary of State, or a person appointed to act on their behalf, to make a decision on applications in England in such circumstances. We envisage that there will be very few applications that follow this path each year. Like applications decided by the Building Safety Regulator, there will be no set timeframe in which applicants can expect such a decision.
In Wales, failure by the building control authority to decide on an application relating to a higher-risk building will similarly allow the applicant to apply to the Welsh Ministers, or a person appointed by them, for a decision on the application. This is a means by which decisions can be expedited, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
This is a really important clause. My right hon. Friend was rather succinct in his comments, but he touched on the balancing of the environment with the Bill. As we talked about in our previous deliberations earlier this week, we want to ensure that we can still have the environment in place in order to continue to build, because we still need to build homes and ensure that there is an adequate process in place. The important part of the clause, which links to other clauses that we have debated so far, is about ensuring that there is an adequate process in place to ensure that there are no delays and that we have adequate building taking place in an expedient manner.
We also need to ensure that those who want to play according to the rules, as I discussed on Tuesday, know how to do that and can ultimately have their matters determined in an expedient manner. I am sure my right hon. Friend will touch on that in his remarks when he responds later, but I want to ensure that in the clause we maintain the balance between a proper determination to ensure safety for leaseholders and residents and an expedient manner to determine applications, which will be important.
I will not talk about the impact in Wales. I commented on that during our previous deliberations, but I fully support the clause, which strikes the right balance in the underlying tensions in the Bill. I look forward to hearing my right hon. Friend’s comments in due course.
Mike Amesbury
I should have said earlier, Mr Efford, that it is yet again a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
We welcome the increased regulation—the compliance and stop notices recommended by Dame Judith Hackitt in the independent review—but I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Will these powers given to the regulator apply to buildings that are 11 to 18 metres tall, and will compliant products be kitemarked for ease of inspection to ensure that they are compliant, or not?
Shaun Bailey
I should also have said in my previous contribution that it is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair today, Mr Efford, and I thank you for your indulgence during our previous deliberations. You are being very generous with your time in the Chair.
I have a few questions for my right hon. Friend the Minister as well, dovetailing with what the hon. Member for Weaver Vale just said. The one concern I have is about individuals who purchase their property pre-completion of construction—because that does happen in these settings too—and what protections we can devise for that. I have seen it happen before: people have put down a deposit or spent significant amounts of money on legal and transactional fees to get to a particular point. I heard what my right hon. Friend said, and I agree that we are talking about extreme cases of individuals who are flouting the rules or not following them, but my concern is that as we embed new sets of regulations, issues often become apparent quite commonly and quite quickly. I am sure that those of us who have been Members much longer than I have will have seen the array of issues that arise when new legislation comes into effect during its initial implementation.
My question to my right hon. Friend the Minister is whether he is open to a broader discussion about what we can do to avoid potential blockages in transactions as an unintended consequence of this. What we see is that people who are trying to let or purchase properties are left in limbo, with a back and forth for months on end, while stop notices are issued and remediation is done. Clause 37 seeks to ensure that remediation is taken, and, more importantly, that work in the initial process is compliant in the first place and we do not reach a situation where stop notices have to be issued.
Shaun Bailey
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. Dame Judith Hackitt’s review highlighted a shameful system. Putting in place a criminal offence shows that we will not and should not tolerate this shoddy behaviour any more, and nor should those individuals who have had to suffer the highest cost as a result of it. He is right in what he says in the spirit of his intervention. He listed the plethora of individuals who would be caught by this and I do not disagree that they should. People should not be able to hide behind the corporate veil and dodge liability. He is right that, in drafting the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Minister and his team have ensured that it is all-encapsulating. What we do not want to see—perhaps I am being optimistic, but I hope not—is individuals being able to dodge this.
Mike Amesbury
On a point of order, Mr Efford. For clarity, are we talking to clause 37 or clause 38, which is about offences?
The Chair
I am grateful for the point of order, but as far as I am concerned, the hon. Member for West Bromwich West is in order. He seems to be speaking to sections of the clause. I think you can take it as read, because I have not interrupted him, that he is in order.
Christopher Pincher
A breach of building regulations can have serious consequences for residents in occupied buildings We saw that four years ago in the Grenfell Tower fire and we have seen it on other occasions. The independent review found that
“where enforcement is…pursued, the penalties are so small as to be an ineffective deterrent.”
That is why, to repeat some of the points I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, the Government are committed to ensuring that where building regulations are contravened, building control authorities have the necessary powers to enforce the rules and offenders receive a proportionate penalty for their non-compliance.
Clause 38, alongside clause 37, will provide a stronger deterrent to those doing building work and, where necessary, stronger sanctions for building control authorities to use. At the moment, offenders can only receive unlimited fines for their contravention of the law. Even where directors or managers are complicit in their company’s wrongdoing, they are sheltered from the consequences, a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw.
The new custodial sentence we are introducing serves to reflect the gravity of breaching building regulations and, alongside clause 39, which we will discuss shortly, brings the threat of imprisonment to any director or manager of a company who is found to be complicit or negligent in an act of non-compliance. We intend for the higher custodial sentence to operate as an effective deterrent against negligent, reckless or dangerous behaviour.
Where previously prosecution under section 35 of the Building Act 1984 had to be brought within two years, making the offence triable in a Crown court removes the time limit altogether, enabling building control authorities to prosecute breaches of building regulations even when they come to light much later. There is no longer a two-year limit to court action.
This clause goes further and makes clear that the section 35 offence applies not only to breaches of the building regulations themselves, but to requirements imposed under building regulations, such as conditions imposed as part of building regulation approvals. The increased coverage will send a signal that no requirement under building regulations can be ignored without consequences.
As with other changes we have already discussed, this provision aims to encourage those involved in building work to do the right thing and to disincentivise substandard building work. To return briefly to a previous debate, in order to make this absolutely clear, whatever planning route a building is subject to, all relevant building work must comply with building regulation, whether it is on a higher-risk building or otherwise, and whether it benefits from permitted development rights or not. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale made that point in our previous sitting and alluded to it in his previous contribution.
In addition, the extension of the enforcement period under section 36 of the Building Act from one year to 10 years will provide another effective route through which building control authorities can enforce building regulations. This clause responds to the review’s recommendation that the sanctions available under the Building Act be enhanced to enable building control authorities to act effectively but proportionately whenever they encounter non-compliance. They will now have stronger powers to ensure that all buildings are designed and constructed in line with regulations. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
We welcome the stronger sanctions, given the gravity of the consequences and the context, which the Minister referred to, of the tragic events of Grenfell over four years ago.
Shaun Bailey
I, too, welcome the clause. I wish to raise a couple of points with the Minister about the defences under proposed new section 35(2) of the Building Act, relating to instances where duty holders believe wrongly that another duty holder has reported an incident. It will be
“A defence to the offence of failure to report where the person being prosecuted was not aware of the occurrence which gave rise to the requirement to report”.
I want to ensure that the scope of the defences is as tight as it can be. Clearly, there is a balance to be struck. We are fully aware that incidents happen; human failure can happen and we cannot eliminate that, so we have to take account of that within the regulatory framework, but we need to tighten the circumstances where this defence can be used. I am conscious that there is a risk that developers will see this as an opportunity to do some finger-pointing and say, “It wasn’t me. It was him,” or, “No, he missed that and I missed that.” I know that is not the intention behind the defences under clause 38, but can my right hon. Friend the Minister assure me that there will be appropriate guidance on implementation and enforcement of the provisions of clause 38, which is really important?
We have an obligation to follow through on what Dame Judith Hackitt noted in her report, particularly about the regulatory landscape. Ultimately, we do not want people who have not done right by the people we are trying to protect to find some way of getting round things. I know my right hon. Friend has worked hard to ensure that does not happen, but given that the broader point of the clause is to send out a message, particularly through custodial sentences, that breach of building regulations is serious—we are dealing with human life, as we saw with Grenfell—I want to get some reassurance from him that he will tighten that up.
I welcome the enforcement period extension. I think that is right. My right hon. Friend touched on that in his comments, so I do not need to repeat that. If he can give me those reassurances, I will be immensely grateful.
Christopher Pincher
My hon. Friend is quite right. As I said earlier, corporate liability is already provided for in other pieces of legislation—the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, for example. By embedding this clause in the Bill we remind corporate players—directors, managers and other appropriate senior parties in businesses—of their responsibility, and that their businesses and they themselves can be prosecuted if the standard of work or the actions that they undertake fall below the standards required in the Bill, which then allows for criminal prosecution.
The clause will further engender and embed the culture change that we all desire, so that at some point in the not-too-distant future these sorts of court actions will become a thing of the past, because all players act in a responsible way to ensure that buildings are designed, built and managed safely. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister and other members of the Committee for their contributions. The clause responds directly to the Grenfell residents’ voices, which is most welcome. We had a situation where developers, subcontractors and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea put in inferior products and cladding, despite the recommendations for that building. We have seen that sort of thing littered throughout the industry, as people have said. The clause will act as a very effective deterrent, drive the culture change that we have spoken about, and apply the tragic lessons learned in recent years.
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich West and for Bassetlaw for their contributions, and to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale for his recognition that once again the tragedy of Grenfell has opened our eyes to issues in the sector, the loopholes in compliance, and the paucity of penalties, which we are now collectively attempting to rectify. By agreeing to the clause we are taking a significant step in ensuring that accountability for building safety lies with those who are responsible for it—individuals, corporate bodies, or the individuals in senior positions who make up those corporate bodies. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
This is no back-door attempt to reduce standards now or to introduce poorer standards in the future. It is simply a necessary technical means of allowing standards to be introduced by overriding a now defunct Act; otherwise, we would not be able to repeal or change standards and regulations relating to it. For example, our future homes standard and, indeed, the future buildings standard go way beyond anything that was required of us when we were a member of the European Union or that is required of us under the European Communities Act. I assure the Committee that this is a technical change—a necessary legal and technical change—and not an attempt to reduce standards by subterfuge. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister and other Members who have made contributions. As the Minister said, this is a technical but necessary clause. He referred to the future homes and future buildings standards, and I would like to explore the interplay between the Building Safety Regulator and those up-and-coming standards.
Christopher Pincher
The future homes standard, which we will consult on and will legislate on in 2023-24 to introduce in 2025, will require all buildings built from that point to be at least 75% more carbon efficient than buildings built under present regulations. Importantly, they will also be zero carbon rated, so they will not need to be retrofitted as we change the electricity grid. Those regulations will be in force from that point—clearly, they are not law yet—and all regulators will need to have regard to them and will need to issue appropriate guidance once those changes are enacted in law, so that local authorities, the Building Safety Regulator and product manufacturers understand what needs to be embedded in product creation and the design and management of buildings, subject to the law as it stands.
I will conclude—unless anybody else wishes to intervene; I do not think they do—by saying that this is a very technical clause that is very necessary to ensure that we have a regulation landscape that we can properly manage. I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 41
Regulation of building control profession
Christopher Pincher
This group of amendments deals with duties to co-operate and information-sharing powers between Welsh Ministers, fire and rescue authorities, local authorities and fire inspectors. Schedule 3, which we debated and disposed of on Tuesday, already contains very similar provisions for England. To reiterate, that schedule creates statutory information-sharing gateways and duties to co-operate between the Building Safety Regulator and other relevant public bodies. Furthermore, it allows local authorities and fire and rescue authorities to share information about building safety and standards and issues across all buildings, including buildings outside of the higher-risk regime regulated by the Building Safety Inspector.
Amendment 29 places duties to co-operate on Welsh Ministers and creates information-sharing powers for them, enabling them to work with other Welsh statutory bodies—fire and rescue authorities, fire inspectors, and local authorities. Sharing of information and co-operation are key elements in delivering the improvements that the Bill proposes. For Welsh Ministers, those duties and powers relate to their functions under part 2A of the Building Act 1984. Amendment 18 addresses the need for Welsh Ministers’ duty to co-operate and power to share information to be cascaded down where their functions in respect of building inspectors and/or building control approvers are delegated.
Amendment 25 removes the limitation on co-operation and information sharing between Welsh fire and rescue authorities, local authorities and fire inspectors, so that it is no longer restricted to higher-risk buildings only. Those bodies will work together across the whole range of buildings in Wales.
Amendments 24, 28 and 31 clarify that the duties to co-operate and powers to share information apply to Welsh fire and rescue authorities, as defined by amendment 33, and fire inspectors, defined by amendment 30. Amendment 34 mirrors clause 26, which we have already discussed and voted on. It confirms that information sharing under this provision must comply with the data protection legislation, so that people’s privacy rights are overridden only in certain specific circumstances. Amendments 23, 26, 27 and 32 make the consequential changes necessitated by the substantive amendments.
I am sure that Committee Members have followed all those amendments very closely, and I commend them to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
Again, these are very technical but necessary amendments, which ultimately simplify and unify building control legislation, processes and procedures, and enforcement.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Government amendment 18 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
We want to make sure that such a body has the right sanctions available to it. We want to give it a robust set of powers to investigate performance and, where appropriate, impose escalating sanctions. In the most serious cases, the powers will include the cancellation of the registration of the building control approvers. It will mean potentially the effective taking over of the function of a local authority building control by appointed officers from another local authority. We want to give the regulator the tools to ensure that building control bodies are improving safety and performance, driving up standards, and that, where they themselves are not performing, there is a means by which sanctions can be applied. Clause 41 is essential to creating a more robust and competent building control sector, and I commend it to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
As the Minister says, this will raise the bar and raise the standards of building control throughout, as recommended by Dame Judith Hackitt and the review. It will do so through its process procedure and, very importantly, enforcement and deterrent. One of the concerns the Opposition raised with other clauses is the potential to have a two-track approach to building control with buildings below 18 metres. What assurances can the Minister give that that will not be the case and that standards will be raised in buildings that are below 18 metres, say, from 11 to 18 metres?
Shaun Bailey
I, too, welcome clause 41 and its effect on the Building Act. I want to raise a point with my right hon. Friend the Minister around clarity. We will effectively have two bodies in England and Wales that will deal with this. In England it is the regulator itself and in Wales it is Welsh Ministers. I would be grateful if he will confirm that he will ensure that his Department will keep that discussion ongoing. The importance of the clause, as with the rest of the Bill, is to ensure consistency. We talked in previous deliberations about cross-border work. We need to ensure that the professionals who would sit within this regime have consistency and are conducting work across the English-Welsh border to ensure that we keep the market going and continue to meet those home building targets.
I agree that the Bill is long overdue. As the hon. Member for Weaver Vale pointed out, it is about raising standards and ensuring that the profession knows what is expected of it. There is a broader point to be made on communication: making sure the points contained within clause 41 are communicated clearly, not just within the profession but more broadly. We have talked about how the impacts of making these regulatory and standards changes need to be communicated with the sector and with training providers, but they need to be communicated with the industry more broadly. If that is not done, we might have a situation in which people enter the industry without necessarily being clear about where they need to be. I would therefore ask the Minister to be sure that his Department continues to engage.
Considering the issues, the measure is long overdue. It is common sense and something that any other regulated profession would do. There is detail about the power to have investigations, and again we need to ensure that that system works and that the regulator is in place for that, in particular for proposed new section 58H—that system must flow properly. Sanctions, too, must be proportionate. The clause is a significant one, so I will not go into every single element of it, but will the Minister ensure that its implementation is reviewed and that we continue the discourse on it, notably on proposed new section 58I on sanctions for professional misconduct?
The regulator must ensure that it continues those discussions of what is appropriate. As we have touched on in other deliberations, circumstances change and things develop. I reiterate that to the Minister, and I ask him to ensure that his Department continues those communications, that the expectations of the industry are communicated and that under the mandate of clause 41 the regulator continues its conversations with Welsh Ministers, so that we can have consistency—that will be key, given its cross-border nature. We must ensure that the clause is implemented so it is how we want to see it work. I am sure he will, but I will be grateful for his reassurances.
Building Safety Bill (Tenth sitting)
Mike Amesbury Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I have made a request that people stand in their place if they want to speak. I call Mike Amesbury.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I concur with the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 43
Functions exercisable only through, or with advice of, registered building inspectors
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
I will speak a little to this clause, because I think it bears some scrutiny. The Government are committed to driving up the standard of building control. Clause 44 strengthens the powers in relation to failing local authorities by giving the Secretary of State a new power in England to make an order to transfer building control functions of a failing local authority to another local authority. Currently, the Secretary of State only has the power to transfer the functions of a failing local authority to himself.
The clause should be read in conjunction with clause 41, and in particular proposed new section 58Z7 of the Building Act 1984, under which the regulator will be able to recommend that the Secretary of State makes an order to transfer the functions of a failing local authority building control department. Where such a department has consistently failed to meet the required standards and that is putting the safety of persons in or about buildings at risk, the Secretary of State could, for example, transfer only the management of the building control function to another local authority. That would mean that senior officers or managers from another authority would manage the failing building control department to return it to full compliance. Once the performance issues of the failing authority have been addressed, the Secretary of State will consult the regulator and revoke the order, returning the building control function to the local authority.
The clause makes a number of consequential and clarificatory amendments to sections 116 to 118 of the 1984 Act, including amending section 118 of the Act to allow for the variation or revocation of an order by the appropriate national authority to return the transferred functions to the original local authority. The Secretary of State must first consult the Building Safety Regulator and make additional provisions to deal with the transfer and discharge of any liabilities through the revoking or new order.
The amendments in clause 44 are important for improving the competence of building control teams, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
I will be brief in my remarks to the Minister. I am just looking for some clarity and reassurance. The Executive and the Secretary of State obviously hold a lot of power here. What checks and balances will be built in, regardless of the political complexion of the Secretary of State?
Christopher Pincher
Just to clarify, the present law allows the Secretary of State to transfer only to himself the power to take on the functions of a failing local authority. In terms of checks and balances, what we are trying to do is allow the Secretary of State greater discretion to transfer to another appropriate local authority the authority to discharge those functions on behalf of the failing local authority while it is brought back into competence. The effect is to ensure that another local authority—possibly one that is closer to the one that has failed or is similar in terms of the housing stock, and that has a greater degree of historical success in dealing with such issues—can perform the role of the local authority.
As I said in my concluding remarks, we have also ensured that any liabilities—in other words, any costs incurred by the local authority that is taking on the responsibility—can be properly recovered by that local authority, so that it is not out of pocket as a result of taking on those responsibilities. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues appear to support the clause, and I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 45 and 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
Insurance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
The hon. Lady makes a fair point. She will know that we often consult on secondary legislation before laying the regulations, so that there is time for the community, in its widest context, to give feedback on that legislation. Whether the regulations are subject to the affirmative or negative procedure, there is ample opportunity for Parliament and the House of Commons to consider them, have a say and scrutinise that secondary legislation, either in a Committee such as this for the affirmative procedure, or with the entire Chamber praying against regulations subject to the negative procedure.
We have already published secondary legislation and a number of factsheets to support the primary legislation. We will continue to do so throughout the parliamentary process, which, I remind the hon. Lady, is likely to be longer rather than shorter; this Committee stage will be followed by Report. There will be ample opportunity for the Committee and the House to look at the legislation and the regulations and to comment and vote on them.
The insurance market for approved inspectors is intricate and some bodies have specialist insurance expertise in this area. The power in clause 47 will enable the Secretary of State to appoint specialist bodies to undertake this important and complex work, as the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston alluded to, where the Government think that appropriate. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister and other Members for their helpful contributions. As has been said, insurance, particularly professional indemnity insurance, has caused considerable debate and angst, not only for the professionals involved, but about the future role of the accountable person and those involved in building control. The ABI and AXA refer to that in their submissions.
Members have spoken about secondary legislation. The market has to respond to this measure, and that is why more detail would have been helpful. The Minister’s comments on consulting key stakeholders are constructive and reassuring. I assume that the ABI will be one of those stakeholders, and those discussions may be taking place not quite as we speak but over the next few weeks—I hope that that is the case. Ultimately, this is about ensuring that the clause and the new SIs provide adequate cover and deliver the culture change that we all want.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
I will keep my comments brief. I want to touch on whether primary legislation is the appropriate place to set out the specification.
I fully appreciate and do not disagree with the comments that have been made on the need to see the detail. I completely agree with the comments of members across the Committee about the need to consult and to ensure that stakeholders are appropriately engaged. If we put this in primary legislation, I think there might be a slight unintended consequence of pigeonholing it too far.
My interpretation of the ABI’s evidence is that there is a need to ensure that appropriate stakeholder feedback is reflected in regulation. In other areas, it is not uncommon for insurance mechanisms such as those in clause 47 to be delegated to secondary legislation, because it allows time for that engagement and the pulling together of stakeholders. It also allows for drilling down into the detail, because that secondary legislation can focus specifically on those really important points. As my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, it is appropriate to delegate to secondary legislation, but I also agree with the points raised by the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston. There is concern in the industry, as we have heard, particularly about incidences of fire and the inability to obtain appropriate insurance. Clause 47 seeks to remediate that and to interlink that more widely, so that we can have the safety we have been talking about and the cultural change that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale mentioned a moment ago.
This is an important but technical debate on whether primary or secondary legislation is the appropriate place for the requirements in clause 47. Broadly speaking, I think my right hon. Friend is right, but I say to him again, and this has been echoed across the Committee, that Members are seeking to ensure the broadest level of engagement with different stakeholders as this progresses. That will be important in ensuring that the subsequent legislation that feeds off clause 47 reflects accurately what we are trying to bring about and, ultimately, that the clause achieves its aims.
Christopher Pincher
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. As I say, when we apply new responsibilities to local authorities, it is usual practice to apply the new burdens doctrine and thereby determine what further support local authorities might require. Incidentally, last year local authorities received their best funding settlement in 10 years. The Government are committed, through the spending review process, to ensure that this Building Safety Bill, the regulations that flow from it and the organisations and officers created by it are also adequately funded. Having made that point to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
Briefly, I am sure these clauses are welcome; information sharing will be vital to the new landscape of building safety. The introduction of an electronic portal—I might refer to the Minister’s previous profession and experience in IT—will result in greater systems efficiency, but will require some investment in hardware, systems, development and training. Could the Minister touch on that?
Shaun Bailey
I will keep my comments brief, to keep in line with the culture across the Committee so far. To complement what the hon. Member for Weaver Vale just said, I had hoped to intervene on my right hon. Friend the Minister’s point about consistency of process. The portal in clause 52 is welcome, but the back-office processes required to ensure that that is usable and feasible will clearly be important. We have been discussing this duty to share information throughout the Bill, but it is particularly highlighted by clauses 51 and 52. Clearly, for that to succeed, we must be able to ensure that it can be done in the way that we would require.
The point that I really want to press on my right hon. Friend the Minister is that we should ensure that we have that consistency of approach. Perhaps he could reassure us that his Department will work with local authorities to ensure that, in respect of these clauses, we can get that consistency? As hon. Members have said, operational delivery is the one thing that this might fall down on. I am also heartened to hear what he said on the funding point, but, as this progresses, it may need a somewhat flexible approach.
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the hon. Lady. Yes, I believe it has. As we know, local authorities share services and a variety of functions, some of which are statutory. They are able to share those functions across geographies and still execute their statutory responsibilities, and I do not foresee any issue here. She is quite right to say that smaller authorities often have challenges with resources that do a multiplicity of things. One of the reasons why we want in the Bill to see the development of multidisciplinary teams—the Building Safety Regulator and its functions, fire and rescue services, local authorities —is to ensure that even smaller authorities that have in-scope buildings are able to use those multidisciplinary teams to do the work that the Building Safety Regulator will require of them.
I hope that Members will agree that these regulations serve an important purpose and will support the clause. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury
I have just one brief question—and a plea. Again, they refer to personal emergency evacuation plans, or PEEPs, and a submission from the Leaseholder Disability Action Group, or Clad Dag, which I know the Minister is familiar with. In earlier clauses that we have considered, we spoke about the importance of residents’ panels in shaping the current landscape, and of ensuring that disabled people are a key voice on those panels. So I would be interested to hear the Minister’s observations on that point, briefly.
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I think that we heard in evidence from the Health and Safety Executive that the shadow regulator is already doing work to—using that awful phrase—reach out to various communities and groups, to make sure that the residents’ panel, when it is fully constituted, is also fully representative.
With respect to people with disabilities, I do not believe that anything in the Bill cuts across or undermines disability rights or legislation.
With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54
Minor and Consequential Amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christopher Pincher
I will try to ensure that I keep my teeth in as I whistle through the s’s in clause 56.
We are committed to ensuring that the Building Safety Regulator receives the funding required to enable it to deliver. Members of the Committee have made that point in discussion of the previous clauses. Dame Judith’s review recommended that the regulator for buildings in scope of the new and more stringent regulatory regime should fully recover its costs from those it regulates. The recommendation reflected that duty holders who require the most intervention by the safety regulator should pay more. The Bill needs to enable the Building Safety Regulator to charge fees, both to implement the recommendation of the independent review and to put the Building Safety Regulator on a firm financial footing. The power could also be used to charge for other Building Safety Regulator functions under the Building Act, such as registering building inspectors and building control approvals.
In a previous debate on clause 27 on the power to charge regulator fees, the Committee was rightly interested in any effects on leaseholders. We expect that the power under clause 56 would be used to charge fees for building control during the design and construction of new high-rise residential buildings, just as building control is charged for currently. Leaseholders will not directly bear the cost of such fees. However, the purchase price for a new home may reflect the costs of construction, including any regulatory costs, as is the case now. We do not intend that the leaseholder bear directly the costs of these particular fees.
For building control during refurbishments, the position remains as it is now. Building control fees can be passed on only if the terms of the lease allow—of course, different leases have different terms. This is a complicated area, and I remind the Committee that although the position on building control fees is broadly unchanged from current practice, we are introducing a new regulatory regime in occupation under part 4, for which the regulator may charge fees under clause 27.
For costs under part 4, there are specific provisions that deal with the effects on leaseholders under the building safety charter. The charge includes the costs of delivering a defined set of safety measures, to ensure that leaseholders and residents feel safe in their homes. The charge includes regulator fees specifically associated with the activities covered by the building safety charge, such as checks on the safety case to ensure the building is being managed safely. The building safety charge provisions also contain strong safeguards for leaseholders that prevent fees resulting from enforcement action by the Building Safety Regulator or from any negligent or unlawful act by the accountable person being passed on to leaseholders.
This clause also provides powers for regulations to extend the scope of current local authority building control charging schemes. Currently, local authorities can charge for specified building control activities, as set out in the Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations 2010, namely checking plans, inspecting work, dealing with building notices, dealing with reversions from approved inspectors and dealing with requests for regularisations. Local authorities can also charge for advice given in relation to any of those activities. However, local authorities carry out a number of other functions under the Building Act that are not in the scope of the current charges regulations.
We want to give local authorities the opportunity to recover more of their costs. Therefore, clause 56 provides wider powers for regulations to set fees and charges in relation to any local authority function under the Building Act. It enables the regulations to prescribe what fees should be set and that local authorities can set out their charges in schemes established in accordance with principles set out in the regulations. This is in line with the approach in the current regulations, which enable local authorities to set out charging schemes and principles that those schemes must follow. The clause also enables Welsh Ministers to charge for their functions under part 2A of the Building Act in Wales.
Mike Amesbury
After how many days will the building safety charge be payable, and how much will it be? That is vital, obviously, to resident leaseholders. On the finer detail of the scope, will the charge be levied on buildings from 11 to 18 metres, and on those that are18 metres-plus?
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South, and I welcome the direction of travel, which demonstrates how this place can work most effectively for the good of the affordable housing sector as a whole.
On clause 57, the principle of the levy is most welcome. Campaigners up and down the country have been pushing for a levy—sometimes under the polluter pays principle. There is a history of failure and deregulation in the construction industry, and resident leaseholders are certainly not responsible for the mess. Then we get to some of the details. The principle of polluter pays is a good thing. Looking at the evidence from the Select Committee—we have colleagues present who are key members of that—the cost of remediation is estimated to be some £15 billion. The Minister referred to conversations with his good friends in the Treasury, who are referring to a levy of £2 billion—a fraction of that.
On the scope of the levy, I understand some of the practicalities of gateway 2, but to whom will that money be directed to provide support? Will it be by way of grants? I notice another reference in clause 57 to the provision of loans, but loans to who? The principle is good and we welcome a levy, but it is nowhere near sufficient to deal with the building safety scandal, which is exactly what it is. We urge the Minister to look again at the size and scope of that with his good friends in the Treasury. Of course, voices outside this place will continue over and over and get louder and louder until justice is done.
On other potential exclusions, looking at the Department—I am not on top of its new name, by the way, so excuse me—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
Mike Amesbury
It just rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it? According to the Government’s own figures, 274 hospitals of 18 metres and above are in scope at the moment, as well as 10 care homes. For the hospitals, that will affect capital spending in other Departments. I am sure that we all have ambitions to get renewed hospital facilities in our constituencies via capital spending. Drawing on the previous amendment, I am sure that that is something that Ministers are strongly considering. Of course, the Opposition—or Members across the piece, actually—would urge them to look at those exclusions.
Shaun Bailey
I am really pleased to speak both to the clause and to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Luton South. As someone who probably would not be here were it not for social housing, I completely agree with the sentiment behind her amendment and with most, if not all, of what she said about the need to build more social housing, and in particular, her point about improving the quality of existing stock. I am sure that the biggest issue we both deal with is the quality of the existing stock in which people currently live. I do not disagree with the sentiment behind the amendment, which seeks to enable social housing providers to retain their limited resources—I am sure she would agree that they need more—to improve their stock.
I am heartened to hear from my right hon. Friend the Minister about the positivity that appears to be coming from Her Majesty’s Treasury on this matter. It is fantastic to hear that those deliberations and conversations have been positive. I will probably not articulate it very well—apologies, this is a bit personal for me—but I am really pleased to hear that. It is important, and I was probably struggling with the issue a bit given my background and experiences. I am glad to hear that the Treasury have heard that point, and I thank the hon. Lady for tabling the amendment.
The clause is the right move in respect of developers and the levy. As Dame Judith Hackitt pointed out, we will ultimately ensure that our system works and is financially robust. As the hon. Member for Weaver Vale pointed out in his contribution, the regulations will be the meat of the legislation. I note the exemptions listed. I listened with real interest to the point the hon. Gentleman made about hospitals and care homes. Many of us, across the piece, can have discussions about that and perhaps work on it. We have talked about unintended consequences all day, and what we do not want to see is any sort of inhibition of the Government’s agenda of building more hospitals, improving social care, and doing what we know needs to be done in our communities. The hon. Gentleman made an important point. I do not necessarily expect an answer from my right hon. Friend the Minister today; I appreciate that the conversations are ongoing, and I am sure he agrees that they are important.
We have heard some well-articulated speeches, and it is always a bit of a nightmare speaking after them because we tend to say what everyone else has said. To keep my comments as brief and to the point as possible, the sentiment behind the hon. Lady’s amendment is absolutely spot on, and I am really heartened to hear the response from my right hon. Friend the Minister. The levy is right, but we will need to scrutinise the accompanying regulations, particularly on exemptions, which I will consider with interest. The principle underpinning clause 57 is right and has my wholehearted support.