Building Safety Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Mike Amesbury and Siobhan Baillie

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Amesbury]

[Siobhan Baillie]

Building Safety Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Mike Amesbury and Siobhan Baillie

Thursday 16th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I do not think I was articulate enough when discussing the previous amendment, when we talked about the process of adding amendments. I feel strongly that legislation needs to be functional and clear, and that it should be implemented as swiftly and simply as possible. It has to be understood by lay people, even if they are reading it in a rush, as we have seen with the amazing witnesses who have come forward, having become building experts because they have had to look into issues in their own buildings.

I fear that giving the regulator a role and an objective to prevent the injury of the health and wellbeing of an individual is a recipe for challenge and confusion, even though it may be well meaning.

[Mike Amesbury]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Siobhan Baillie]

I will if the intervention is short.

[Mike Amesbury]

I will keep my intervention brief; you, Mr Davies, are seasoned in keeping them as such. The regulator is what it says on the tin: it is a health and safety executive, covering health and wellbeing and certainly safety. I actually disagree with the point that the hon. Member is making, quite eloquently and powerfully.

[Siobhan Baillie]

I will come to that intervention shortly, but I was just about to say that a quick google of the definition of the word “wellbeing” is quite telling. The top result notes that it is

“a state of being comfortable, healthy or happy.”

As Members know, one man or woman’s happiness and comfort is another man or woman’s woe. A quick search of “wellbeing” hashtags across Instagram is even more illuminating as to what makes people healthy, happy, and feeling that the “wellbeing” box is ticked. My overarching view is that we do not want to be too prescriptive to the regulator.

Building Safety Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Mike Amesbury and Siobhan Baillie

Thursday 16th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Siobhan Baillie]

My hon. Friend is right. We will address the climate emergency in many forms. I think the regulator will already be working on it, and I will come to that in a second.

[Mike Amesbury]

If the regulator and the Bill’s provisions genuinely address the climate emergency, why not add it to the objectives rather than making it an assumption?

[Siobhan Baillie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. I am somebody who does not think that we should add words for the sake of it, if the regulator is already doing the work. The explanatory notes describe the regulator’s core functions, stating that it will implement

“the new, more stringent regulatory regime for higher-risk buildings. This means being the building control authority in England in respect of building work on higher-risk buildings and overseeing and enforcing the new regime in occupation for higher-risk buildings. The Building Safety Regulator will work closely with, and take advice from, other regulators and relevant experts in making key decisions throughout the lifecycle of a building.”

We know from our constituencies that the Environment Agency, our local authorities and our parish councils are committing to looking very carefully at such issues—particularly, in my patch, those related to flooding. That work, and the work that the Government are already doing to combat flooding, will flow through. I am confident that the Bill as drafted achieves that.

[Mike Amesbury]

The hon. Lady referred to local authorities and other stakeholders giving due care and attention to flooding. In my constituency, given that new developments are still being built on flood plains, I do not think that is the case. I would again argue that, rather than making it an assumption that the regulator addresses the climate emergency, it should be added to the Bill.

[Siobhan Baillie]

Forgive me—I hear the point again, in a new form, but I still do not think that that is necessary. We have to rely on the expertise of the regulator and everybody who will be involved. We are so focused on building safety risk at the moment, and rightly so, given everything that has happened. I feel that the work is there.

I had my own mini-experience of coastal erosion growing up. It was not in Stroud, which is landlocked, save for the River Severn. I grew up in Yorkshire and went from Filey to Scarborough to school on a school bus. As we were going along, a hotel called Holbeck Hall fell very steadily into the sea. Many Members may know about it. It went on for many months. It was completely fascinating to school children, but even those many decades ago it was known about, thought through and seriously considered. Everybody was focused on it. Given the work that has been done in the Bill, I do not believe that, were a building in that state of peril, the regulator would not pick up on it and be able to help.

Building Safety Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Mike Amesbury and Siobhan Baillie

Tuesday 14th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

Q This is such a difficult area, and it has been very distressing for people who have been affected by the fire. We heard some really compelling evidence about the safety of high rises, and how to strike a balance of proportionality with the legislation, which is not easy. I think nobody expects the taxpayer to pay up front for everything. You have just said that, Mr Boyd, and that is completely right.

I was interested in your point about grants, Dr Glen, because ultimately we know that quite a lot of businesses have gone bust. Your proposal that we effectively get the taxpayer to foot the bills upfront, knowing that there will be a big gap potentially, is a problem. I am just playing devil’s advocate. On your point about grants, you are suggesting that the taxpayer pays. That is a point of concern for people who are not affected by this and are thinking about the overall financial purse.

Dr Glen: I understand that. The specific example that I was using for grants was that we strip a building down, take the cladding off, look at the building and say, “Oh my gosh. Something has happened to the concrete.” I completely understand why the Government should not be making every building as new. It is the practicality, because the way that service charges work means there is no profit margin in them. If there is any leftover at the end of the year, you give it back. If there is a deficit, you demand it.

This is the problem: let us say that you, Siobhan, are a leaseholder in a particular building, and I say, “Terrible news: we’ve found that there’s a bit of problem with the concrete, so we need to do some work on that. It’s not applicable for the building safety fund because it’s nothing to do with the cladding; it’s just Father Time.” If you then say, “I’d love to—I can understand where you’re coming from—but I just don’t have £2,000,” what do we do? If you do not pay, the others should not pay for you surely, so suddenly I am £2,000 short. That means that I cannot do anything as a managing agent, because I cannot place that contract. I am talking about short-term mechanisms to mean that we can get that building safe. That is why it is a complex situation with no absolute way forward.

On should the taxpayer pay—I am a taxpayer and would like not to pay—it is undeniable that, under successive Governments, there have been changes in regulation where, perhaps, a developer has said, “I would like to put this material up—it’s not cheap— can I?” and the local council has said, “Yeah, it’s fine”. That same local council and, in fact, sometimes the same person, is now saying, “Actually, you shouldn’t have done that”. Is it right that the developer or whoever in good conscience who did what they thought was right at the time should pay, or is that something where we should say, “Sadly, there are some things that taxpayers should front up for”? It is a very complex situation. I come back to it again: there is no single solution. The only one I can see is to let the Government pay now and then figure out how to get the money back later.

I would like to think a bit further than that. This will not be the last issue we have in housing over the next decades. Let us form this fund, so that when whatever it is that next comes up, whether it is something toxic that we did not know about or something else, money is in the bank so that we can start moving on these things straightaway. Let’s think forward as well.

Martin Boyd: I have a letter sitting here from officials in December 2017, after we had written to Ministers saying it is very urgent that Government intervene early on or we will end up with leaseholders going through a rather nasty experience that will drag on for years. I did not think at the time it would be so many years. The assumption was that, well, of course, the law will allow you to take your building owner, as we keep saying, to court and make them pay. It has not happened. The law was never ever going to make that happen.

The statements that we made have been made in Parliament too, and said that building owners should do the right thing. It is not what the law says they should do. They are under a fiduciary duty to represent the interests of their company. If you happen to own ground rent investment and therefore are deemed to be the building owner, which will only represent possibly 1% of the property value, or even less, how on earth are you expected to pay to remediate the cladding? It was never, ever going to happen. Grants have been the only way the system would work from the very beginning. I think it is still the only way that we have left.

[Mike Amesbury]

Q Various Ministers have promised 17 times. The language has slightly changed. Originally, it was

“to protect leaseholders from historical remediation costs”,

and then it was “unaffordable costs”. Does this Bill do that? What key things are missing from the Bill?

Dr Glen: No, I do not think it does, because the Bill says that historical costs can be levied on the leaseholders at 28 days’ notice et cetera. I heard in an earlier session about whether that would really help. It could increase costs, because we will have two separate charges now. We might want to touch on that later. No, it does not. There are some amendments around. As we said, the polluter pays is part of the amendments, because we need to try to figure out where the money is coming from. I go back to my earlier statement: the only way I can see it happening, unless we are going to be here in four years’ time still discussing this, is something big like Government—I think the Government are the only size that can do this—to make sure that we front-fund pay. Then, absolutely, Government should figure out how to get the money back to protect the taxpayer. So I do not think it does it, in short.

Martin Boyd: I agree. I have nothing to add to that, it is just not going to do it.