Building Safety Bill (Second sitting)

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Who would like to tackle that one?

Victoria Moffett: As far as I am aware, there is not anything in this Bill specifically about people with disabilities. The Fire Safety Act 2021, in making changes to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, is the place where that would be appropriate from a legislative perspective. You probably know that the Government have recently consulted on a requirement for a personal emergency evacuation plan for anybody who might need one. Without a doubt it is key that people who have disabilities or mobility issues feel safe in their property.

We made the point in the consultation that we want a discussion about the questions that would arise if that were made a requirement. There might be questions specifically about a person’s plan. For example, I think the Government talked about times when it could be appropriate for somebody to gain support from friends or family, and that might be right, but not in all cases. Those are the questions we need to find an answer to, but the premise of ensuring that people with disabilities or mobility issues are safe in their homes is absolutely non-negotiable.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

Q My question is a reflection on something Councillor Renard said about the implications for leaseholders who may be hit with a significant lessee charge or safety charge, but have only a small amount of time to pay it and then cannot pay. They will be evicted, or bankrupt and evicted; fall on their councils, who are already stretched; and end up homeless. Is there sufficient means of redress for leaseholders and residents, so that they can challenge elements of that charge, and is the provision requiring payment within 28 days reasonable? I would like some thoughts on that.

Kate Henderson: We welcome the emphasis from Government on ensuring the costs associated with building safety through the building safety charge are proportionate and kept as low as possible for residents. We are very committed to that. At this stage, it is quite hard to know what those costs are going to be without knowing the specific competencies of the building safety manager, the skills base and what that will cost.

On your question about protections for leaseholders, I must first say that as housing associations, we want to see all our residents sustain their homes, so we will do everything we can to support them with remediation costs—in pursuing funding from Government, pursuing developers or pursuing warranties. We will absolutely do that. On the building safety charge, the Bill suggests that it is separate from a service charge, and that you pay it within 28 days. Having looked at that, we think it places more vulnerabilities on leaseholders. With a service charge, there is case law, so you can hold your landlord to account, and that is an important point to address. If the building safety charge was transparently and openly included within the service charge, the leaseholder would have a right to redress through case law under service charges.

The other point here is that, if the building safety charge is within the service charge, it can be paid not within 28 days, but on a monthly basis. It would be estimated for the year ahead and then divided up by 12 months, as with service charges. You would then get to the point in the year when you compared budget with actuals and readjusted, and if that cost were to go up and your leaseholders were unable to pay it, you would work out an affordable repayment plan. Our recommendation is that there should not be 28 days. The charge should be included as a provision within the service charge, but in an open, accountable and transparent way, so that the leaseholder has not only a right to redress, but a more manageable payment plan.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Q My question rolls on from the last. The building safety charge is merely for leaseholders; I do not even know whether it depends on whether you are a leaseholder of a private developer, a housing association or even a local authority, and we are just talking about permanent residential housing. There are already many differences, and we already have the current difference in the building safety fund, which only applies for leasehold homes. Even housing associations cannot claim on it for their social rents, so they have to use funding for refurbishment or new build social rent housing to address those deficits. Do the panel members, particularly from the federation and the LGA, feel that if there was an indemnity scheme on freeholders, developers and builders, it would be more transparent and easier to claim, irrespective of who the user is or who the main building manager is, in terms of which sector?

Victoria Moffett: To be honest with you, that is an arrangement that we have not considered at all. Rather than answering on the hoof, we might have to go back and give that some thought. We can certainly do that and write to the Committee.

Councillor Renard: We will also provide a written answer to that. It is a really good question, and we will give it some thought and respond to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

That is fantastic. We can hear you loud and clear as well. I remind colleagues that this session lasts until quarter past four.

[Rachel Hopkins]

Q It is good to have both witnesses here. As many MPs have done in their constituencies, I have spoken to people in my constituency of Luton South who are affected by unsafe cladding and other fire safety defects. I note that in your written evidence, you set out a number of key flaws, including in particular something that I have experienced myself. During the passage of the Fire Safety Act 2021, many of us asked questions about covering all remediation costs for leaseholders, and we were told that that was not the right Bill because those matters would fall within the scope of the Building Safety Bill. However, your evidence suggests that that is being palmed off again. Can you elaborate a bit more on that so that we understand it, and do you think there are any other flaws in the Bill?

Liam Spender: Thank you for the question. As you have picked up on, we set out in our written evidence quite a lot of detail about the flaws we saw in the Bill. The fundamental issue is the one that you have identified: we were promised a solution that has not materialised in the Bill. In many ways, the Bill makes things worse. The key way it makes things worse is that it removes any legal doubt that leaseholders and residents of those buildings, who had no part in their design, regulation or construction, will be held responsible for past, present and future costs when things go wrong. That is an appalling failure of public policy.

The panel before ours touched on all the difficulties with the complicated machine that is being set in motion, with building safety charges, accountable persons and building safety managers. I fear that we are heading for a situation where the Building Safety Bill will become a jobsworths charter, and leaseholders will be seen as one giant blank cheque.

Giles Grover: I will not take too long, because a lot of this is about the history since the catastrophic events at Grenfell, after which we had many years of Government—Prime Ministers and Ministers—saying that we must be protected from all those costs, which we played no part in creating, as Liam said. Those promises carried on for a couple of years, but it is kind of clear that as the scale of the issue has widened and more buildings have become trapped in it because they have been built so unsafely, the Government have rowed back on that.

In 2020, that promise was changed to “unaffordable costs”. Before a Select Committee in November of last year, Lord Greenhalgh, the building safety Minister, could not really give an answer on what affordability meant; it was a case of, “Hopefully, people won’t go bankrupt.” Sadly, that has already happened to a number of people, who have lost their homes or had to sell at a massive discount. The really frustrating thing, and what has really shocked us—perhaps we should not be so surprised—is the number of promises that were made during the Fire Safety Act ping-pong process. A number of Ministers—including Lord Greenhalgh again, and Kit Malthouse in February—kept saying that leaseholders should be protected, but that the Fire Safety Bill was not the correct legislation and that the Building Safety Bill would address that.

Despite many months of promises and many months of Ministers telling potential rebel Conservative MPs that they would address the problem of historical costs in the Building Safety Bill, the Bill is here and does nothing to address that problem. There is a little bit of tinkering, and something positive for the future of the Defective Premises Act 1972, but we will still have to pay tens of thousands of pounds in costs—sometimes hundreds of thousands—for issues that go far beyond cladding, as the Government and the Secretary of State have known for a couple of years, if not longer. I could go on, but I will leave it there for now.

[The Chair]

Rachel has a supplementary. I commend Rachel for the way that she phrased her question so that it was entirely in order, because she was referring not to the building safety fund but to the affordability of repayments. That is entirely in order.

[Rachel Hopkins]

Q Thank you, Chair. Following on from that, I will ask an open question, as we have limited time with you. If there were one thing you would improve in the Bill, what would it be?

Giles Grover: The one thing is for the Government to hold true to their word over the years and legislate to ensure that we are protected from historical remediation costs. The intention to protect us was in the draft Bill and in the impact assessment, but it has now been taken out, with the aim of transparency for the building safety charge, and there is still nothing to help people across the country who are being forced to pay bills for tens of thousands of pounds that are landing on our doorsteps daily. We need legislation that finally protects us. I am sure Liam can go into the McPartland-Smith amendments that will do just that.

Liam Spender: I think what is missing from the Bill is everything that is set out in the McPartland-Smith amendments. In particular, the Bill makes it very clear what the legal responsibilities of leaseholders are—the people living in these buildings—but does nothing to make clear what the responsibilities are of the people who put these buildings up and designed them. A critical part of what McPartland-Smith does, as well as providing money for current faults, is to provide a clear legal remedy if buildings are not built properly in the future. I think that is something that stands out like a sore thumb in the current draft of the Bill. That is what is missing, and that is what I would like to see added.

[The Chair]

That is really helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Are there any other questions from colleagues?

[Rachel Hopkins]

Q I just want to follow on about the interaction between the Fire Safety Act and the Building Safety Bill. When you have those complex structures, the accountable person and the responsible person under the fire safety legislation could be different, and the Government are suggesting that this is addressed with the duty to co-operate. As someone who has been a councillor for a long time and is no fan of the duty to co-operate—it does not work, and I am pleased to see it being ditched in the planning White Paper—I am surprised to see this duty to co-operate appearing here. Do you think this will work? Could it be problematic?

Giles Peaker: I suppose that it would be straightforward in a number of situations, because the building safety manager would, in effect, be appointing the person to carry out the fire risk assessments and would effectively work as the responsible person. However, there is obviously the potential for adding yet more people with yet more responsibilities in relation to the building.

Justin Bates: I am not sure that is a question for a lawyer, because a lot of it depends on the personalities involved. Joint working can work: think of the GLA’s taskforce, for example, which is doing good work on fire safety at the moment. They have local authorities and the fire brigade working together. There is no inherent, logical reason why joint working is bad. Much of it depends on the personalities involved and the political will behind each organisation to make it work. I am afraid that I am probably not the person to help you with that question.