Building Safety Bill

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 21st July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]]

Sadly, this Bill is deficient in many areas. It focuses on higher-risk buildings, currently defined as those over 18 metres, leaving the safety of residents in buildings under 18 metres unclear. Does today’s EWS1 announcement now mean that combustible cladding under 18 metres should be ignored?

The issue of funding is still not adequately addressed. As the Government well know, the building safety fund only covers unsafe cladding, yet 70% of buildings surveyed have non-cladding fire and safety defects. Providing cladding remediation funding for buildings over 18 metres, yet forcing leaseholders in buildings under 18 metres to pay, is simply unjust. As Inside Housing has previously reported, even the minority of leaseholders who could apply for loans potentially face waiting for years.

As for social landlords, the National Housing Federation has stated that, “Social housing providers will be forced to draw money from improving tenants homes in communities to fund remediation.” This is staggering.

To address these inequities, the Government plan simply to extend limitation periods to 15 years, but that will still require leaseholders and social landlords to stump up the initial cost themselves, if they do not qualify for the building safety fund. Legal processes for the recovery of such funds could take years and be very costly, if the developers and contractors even still exist.

This proposal would not help leaseholders in my constituency at Transport House, who face bills of more than £100,000 each, as they fall shy of the 15-year period, and nor would it help the tenants and residents of Sovereign Point.

Aside from the unsafe conditions such residents are forced to live in every day, the mental strain takes its toll. In a survey by UK Cladding Action Group, 90% of leaseholders said their mental health has deteriorated and a fifth—a fifth—have had thoughts of suicide and self-harm.

Let us be clear: the only way to protect both leaseholders and tenants from the unfair costs of the crisis they did not cause is for the Government to provide upfront remediation funding, then recoup the cost from those responsible for those safety defects. As we have heard, they managed to do that in Australia, so this Government can manage to do it here.

Building Safety Bill

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 19th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

It is nearly five years since the tragic events at Grenfell Tower, yet thousands of my constituents in Salford and Eccles still live in fear. Some live in cold, draughty flats, having waited years for already removed cladding to be replaced, and for so many leaseholders every day, the bills for interim fire safety and increased insurance premiums rack up. They cannot move, they cannot sell, they struggle to get credit and the mental toll increasingly becomes unmanageable.

When the Secretary of State informed Parliament last week that he

“will pursue statutory protection for leaseholders and nothing will be off the table”—[Official Report, 10 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 285.]

it was welcome news, but we have been here before, have we not? All his predecessors have conveyed warm, fluffy, non-binding statements to the House about protecting leaseholders, but we have seen very little action. The Minister must understand why my constituents have asked me why we are not legislating to protect them today in the Bill. There have been no clear assurances from him today, sadly, that the amendments that will be tabled in the other place will comprehensively include all leaseholders and indemnify them against all fire safety defect costs and ancillary costs that they may have incurred over the past few years.

The absence of that protection raises many more unanswered questions, which I hope the Minister will address. For example, what about my residents who have already received financially devastating demands for payment? Will he confirm what they should do? Should they ignore those demands in the hope that the Government legislate? How will he protect them when they face forfeiture and losing their home, or worse, bankruptcy?

Furthermore, there is ambiguity once again about the non-cladding fire safety defects in the majority of the affected buildings in my constituency, so will he confirm what specific actions he will take to ensure that residents and leaseholders are protected from the costs of non-cladding fire safety defects in buildings of all heights?

What about the sums spent so far? I am informed that many sinking funds in my constituency have already been wiped out by virtue of fire safety investigations and other interim fire safety costs. In addition, residents have already been paying directly for interim costs and increased insurance premiums. Will they be able to claim a refund, and will that be legislated for in the other place?

Finally, I must highlight the significant and unacceptable delays both in the completion of the fire safety works themselves and in processing building safety fund applications. A number of housing association blocks in my constituency have been without cladding for some years now, leaving many residents living in freezing conditions, and numerous other private residential buildings are reporting significant delays at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in signing off funding agreements within the building safety fund.

If the Secretary of State cannot get the limited amount of money the Government have already committed out the door, how can he assure us that any wider package he announces will be more expedient in the future? What action are the Minister and the Secretary of State taking to fast-track, expand and train up new specialists in the supply chain to carry out the urgent work required at pace?

My constituents simply deserve two urgent things from the Government: first, to have their buildings made safe as part of an urgent national building safety mission; and, secondly, to be protected from the costs of a fire safety crisis they did not cause. Sadly, as drafted so far, this Bill delivers neither. I hope the Minister reflects on the amendments that will be required in the other place and delivers the safety and protection that my constituents deserve.

Building Safety Bill

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 20th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith). I pay tribute to him and to the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) for the work that they have done in this regard.

As others have said, we have made considerable progress, but it is a disgrace that, so long after the Grenfell tragedy exposed the scandal of cladding and fire safety issues, the Government have yet to provide the comprehensive response that would address all the issues faced by the thousands of leaseholders caught up in that scandal across the country. This evolving Bill—it was clearly still evolving yesterday, with a body of new amendments tabled by the Government—and, indeed, the Secretary of State’s announcement in January were significant steps, but they still fall short of the Prime Minister’s promise—and I think we all know how much that is worth—that no leaseholders should have to pay for the remediation of problems that are not their responsibility. Moreover, there is still too much uncertainty surrounding the Government’s proposals, which in itself is frustrating progress on making buildings safe.

Let me give just one example. Mandale House, in my constituency, faces a range of problems, and has secured £3.4 million from the building safety fund towards the necessary remediation. However, that falls short of what is needed, and Mandale House is left with £7.4 million to find in order to complete the work. The building’s original developer is one of many to have gone into liquidation, so the building management are on their own. The builders who had been scheduled to carry out the remediation works have now pulled out because of the uncertainty over whether they would be paid. That leaves no foreseeable prospect of the building’s being made safe. The building management are now worried that if the money they have been granted from the building safety fund is not used promptly, it may be withdrawn. I understand that that has happened in respect of other buildings, and I would welcome the Minister’s confirmation that it will not happen in this case—as well as his advice on how Mandale House leaseholders should now proceed to make their building safe.

The second point that I want to make concerns enfranchised buildings. I urge the Government to think again about Lords amendment 117, and I hope to persuade them to do so by citing the case of Wicker Riverside, another building in my constituency, whose residents were evacuated just before Christmas 2020 because of safety concerns.

It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to write to us, as he did yesterday, saying that the amendment highlights a real problem which must be addressed, but then to reject it without putting anything else in its place. I welcome his late announcement today of a consultation, but it should have been possible four years on, and after all the months of knowing that this remained a problem following the Government’s January announcement, to include an amendment that addressed the concerns and provided a solution that the Government felt was robust, along with the bundle of amendments that were added yesterday.

Let me illustrate the problem. In 2019, Wicker Riverside leaseholders took their freeholder to court after years in which building maintenance had been neglected, with the freeholder also failing to provide proof of whether the money collected through service charges had actually been spent on the building. The freeholder did not even turn up for the court case. The leaseholders then exercised their right to manage, and took over responsibility for the building. Now they are being penalised for doing so. By treating right to manage companies in the same way as institutional freeholders, the Government are excluding them from the protections that exist for other leaseholders, such as the remediation bill cap. I would like us to go further and provide zero liability for leaseholders, but the fact remains that the cap is there for some and is not there for those in Wicker Riverside. They should qualify for the same protection as others, because without it they will face unmanageable costs, and as a result the building will not be made safe.

The Government must set out their plans. If they will not accept Lords amendment 117, I respect their concerns, but the Minister needs to explain—and I hope that he will, in his closing remarks—exactly what they intend to consult on to ensure that right to manage leaseholders are protected. I hope the Minister will also give a clear guarantee that the outcome of the consultation will be that those leaseholders will have the protection that is being provided for all others.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

Like many Members on both sides of the House, I welcomed the Secretary of State’s assurances to Parliament earlier this year that leaseholders

“are blameless, and it is morally wrong that they should be the ones asked to pay the price.”—[Official Report, 10 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 283.]

However, despite the progress that the Secretary of State and Members across the House have undoubtedly made on this issue, there are still inadequate legal protections in the Bill to ensure that residents and leaseholders do not bear the costs of a crisis that they did not cause. I therefore support Lords amendments that seek to widen the scope of the Bill, including the amendment to reduce leaseholder contributions to zero, tabled by Baroness Hayman, and the proposal for an extension of leaseholder protections to buildings of all heights, tabled by the Earl of Lytton and supported by Lord Blencathra and Lord Young. I thank Members of this House for their hard work, and I thank all the cladding campaign groups, many of whose members are present today. I want to mention in particular Manchester Cladiators, which has supported residents throughout Greater Manchester through rain and shine in their hour of need.

Those campaigners have to keep going, because the sad reality is that many residents in my constituency still fall through the gaps in the proposals that the Secretary of State has outlined so far. Indeed, a recent survey by End our Cladding Scandal of more than 2,200 properties and buildings over 11 metres tall shows that more than 64% of leaseholders outside London and more than 83% of leaseholders in London will not be protected from the costs of non-cladding fire safety defects. The recent pledges from developers to remediate the buildings that they have built over the last 30 years sadly do not go far enough, and there is continued ambiguity about the treatment of non-cladding fire safety defects. Leaseholders in buildings that are under 11 metres remain unprotected, and there is still no funding commitment from house builders for the £4 billion required for the remediation of buildings where the developer no longer exists. As we have heard today, there also remains a huge question mark over social housing.

Further to that, we still do not know what residents who have already received devastating demands for payment should do. There is no detail at all on how to recoup any sums of money already spent by residents, as sinking funds are depleted to catastrophic levels. For example, one development in my constituency has been unable to receive support from the waking watch relief fund simply because the residents acted proactively to try to reduce the cost of their waking watch by agreeing to fund the installation of a fire alarm system. Because they did this prior to the waking watch relief fund’s cut-off date of 17 December 2020, their application to the fund was rejected. Sadly, had they waited and incurred even more waking watch costs, their application probably would have been successful. The Minister must agree that that makes no sense at all, and this is just one case.

The Secretary of State informed Parliament in January that he would pursue statutory protection for leaseholders, and that nothing would be off the table. The Bill does not give that protection, and all I ask today is that the Government support the amendments that would protect leaseholders and go some way towards providing that statutory protection that they all deserve.