Building Safety Bill

Royston Smith Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 21st July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

Welcome to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and perhaps I should declare an interest as a former firefighter and a former fire Minister.

I took the promise of the Housing Minister, who is a good friend and an honourable Gentleman, that the previous Bill, the fire Bill, was not the vehicle in which to bring forward measures to protect the leaseholders in my constituency. I tabled or signed some amendments as probing amendments, but then withdrew them, and I took a lot of flak from leaseholders in my constituency, who said I had let them down. I am not going to let them down with this Bill, because it was supposed to address their concerns.

Thousands of my leaseholders are trapped within their properties. Thousands of them have already paid unbelievably large amounts of money which they cannot afford, and even if they could afford to pay it is morally wrong in the first place.

[Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)]

While I understand that the ministerial statement was late in being shown to us, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is much in it to be optimistic about?

[Sir Mike Penning]

I agree. There is a lot in it that is good. I did not have a chance to read it while the Secretary of State was still making his speech because I am not that brilliant at doing such things, but I have read it since the Secretary of State sat down and there are some good things in there. There are questions about it and I hope to serve on the Bill Committee; I hope those on the Treasury Bench listen to me on that, although that might be slightly difficult for Ministers.

I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), I agree with the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), and I agree with much that was said from the Opposition Front Bench as well. This should not be party politics; this should be about what is right and what is wrong. This is a homeowning nation, and that includes freeholders and leaseholders, and the party I am proud to be a member of is a home- owning party.

On Grenfell, I pay huge respect to the families who lost loved ones or whose loved ones were injured, and to my former colleagues who went in the right direction with their paramedic friends and the police when the rest of the public quite rightly got out of the way— the bravery of the firefighters at that incident is to be commended.

However, there are issues that are not addressed in the Bill. This is not all about cladding. It is about the remedial works people are being charged for and the fire watch. I have heard of situations where residents in one block—a fairly low-rise block, actually—were told they could not have any mats outside their front doors. As a former firefighter, I think that is bonkers. They were told to take pictures of the wall in the communal areas. That is not what went wrong at Grenfell; what went wrong at Grenfell was a systematic failure across the picture—including within the fire service, to be fair. I was trained on high rise and in high-rise fires we told residents to stay in their flats. We told them they were safe in the stairwell, but often they would not be.

There is one area that fascinates me. We have heard about insurance and keep talking about insurance premiums, but where are the insurance companies paying out on premiums paid by the developers and contractors? When I was a builder I could not walk on to a building site without having liability insurance.

We can do this; we did this as a Government when the mesothelioma Bill went through this House and we compensated people dying from asbestos who could not find an insurer or a contract. The Government intervened to compensate those families and loved ones, and that is what we will have to do here, too.

I will be joining my colleagues on amendments that we have signed, and if I cannot serve on the Bill Committee what a great opportunity there will be for me on Report, not because I want to be difficult, but because I want to get this right for leaseholders. I was promised the previous Bill was not the answer. This has to be the answer to put things right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)]

For the avoidance of doubt, I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I do not think this does affect me, but just in case and for the avoidance of doubt.

I really hoped that we would have resolved the awful situation for leaseholders during the passage of the Fire Safety Bill, but of course we all know that did not happen. During those many debates, the Government told us that the McPartland-Smith amendments to the Fire Safety Bill were defective and the Fire Safety Bill was not the place to deal with who pays for remediation. The Government said that the Building Safety Bill was the Bill to address those issues. We now know that the Building Safety Bill in its current form does nothing to address the fundamental issue: leaseholders should not and will not have to pay.

Too many issues have been deemed fire safety defects when they are not. The Secretary of State and his statement have referred to it, but it cannot be repeated often enough. Most people in high and low-rise apartments are safe. Most buildings are not dangerous. Not all cladding is flammable. I am not sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, what you would have to do to ignite a wooden balcony, for example. But people living in properties with those features cannot sell and have extortionate insurance bills. Some simple changes such as smoke alarms and fire alarms and a realistic reinspection would make the properties that are currently dangerous safe again. I hope that the written statement becomes legislation and will go some way to address that. If we look at the properties that should not be failing EWS1 and we remove them from the process, the remaining buildings could be remediated far more quickly. Most properties would then see their values restored and the market will again operate successfully.

There are of course other issues, and in summing up, I hope the Minister will explain why insurers have apparently been let off the hook. Every development has professional indemnity insurance. It is the law. As soon as there is a complaint, the insurers are informed. As soon as they are informed, they should start the process of settling any claims. Why are they allowed to remain in the shadows while innocent leaseholders pick up the tab? Is it not time for us to name and shame the insurers that covered the risk of development, but have not offered to put right the defects?

One solution is a levy, as house builders now accept. They know, as I know and everyone else knows, that that is the only way out, and they want out of this nightmare as quickly as everyone else. They are suffering reputational damage for issues that were no more their fault than the fault of the leaseholders; it was down to regulation and legislation, and the failure of the insurance companies, which have some way to go on that. Taxpayers should not pick up the tab, but they can underwrite the remediation not covered by insurance. The levy can then pay back the underwriting and everyone can go back to living in a safe property, which is what they deserve to do.

Building Safety Bill

Royston Smith Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 20th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend has invested a considerable amount of time in his campaign and I have enjoyed the opportunity to have those discussions with him. I will come to that point shortly, but yes, as a Department we will deal with those buildings on a case-by-case basis. I shall give more details as to why we have come to that conclusion.

We are protecting qualifying leaseholders from costs associated with non-cladding defects, including interim measures such as waking watches. Building owners and landlords will be prevented from passing on the costs to fix non-cladding defects if they are linked to, or are, the developer.

While the Bill was in the other place, the Government made a number of amendments to it that will restore fairness to the system and help those who have been unfairly impacted by building safety issues. I know that many Members wish to speak, so I do not propose to go through each of the amendments made in the other place. The Bill now not only provides for a new regulatory regime but provides an extensive set of tools, in law, to ensure that those who bear the responsibility for defects are made to pay and to protect leaseholders from crippling bills for historic defects. In response to concerns expressed by Members in both Houses and by stakeholders, we have changed how the building safety charge works and removed the legal duty to appoint a building safety manager.

[Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)]

The EWS1 form, which was brought about by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, has caused many problems for people trying to sell their properties. We now have PAS 9980, which will not replace EWS1, but could the Minister say that from his perspective he would rather people look at PAS 9980, as opposed to EWS1?

[Stuart Andrew]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has also been heavily involved in all this work. Yes, I can confirm that. I will elaborate later in my speech.

Let me turn now to the Government amendments to the Lords amendments. Lords amendment 94 inserts a clause that sets out the meaning of “relevant building”. The clause defines the categories of buildings to which the leaseholder protection measures apply. The Government originally proposed to apply the leaseholder protection measures to buildings containing at least two dwellings above 11 metres in height, or with at least five storeys. Amendments made in the other place extended the definition of “relevant building” to buildings of all heights containing two or more dwellings. We will take a very dim view of freeholders who seek to exploit leaseholders to pay for unnecessary works. The Department is aware of a handful of low-rise buildings where freeholders have been commissioning such works and we are addressing such buildings, as I said a moment ago, on a case-by-case basis, but we must restore proportionality to the system. That is why the Government do not agree with the extension of the scope of leaseholder protections to include buildings under 11 metres. There is no systematic risk of fire with buildings below 11 metres. Low-rise buildings are therefore unlikely to need costly remediation to make them safe. Lower-cost mitigations such as fire alarms are likely to be far more appropriate and proportionate. Assessments carried out in accordance with the new PAS 9980 principles should produce more proportionate responses than costly and, ultimately, unnecessary remediation. The Government have been clear in their view that an EWS1 form should not be required for buildings below 18 metres in height.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

Actually, the responsibility lies with those who built the building defectively in the first place. They are the ones we are chasing. I pay tribute— I should have said this right at the beginning—to officials in the Department, who have worked incredibly hard to get this new package of measures from the developers in place. It has not been an easy task, but they have done it with great passion and have been incredibly successful. As I say, it is the developers who should be paying, and we expect a minimal number of leaseholders to pay.

[Royston Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I know he wants to get on. On insurance, which has been my bugbear as well, it is not just that many of the insurance companies insured the development beforehand, and therefore provided a warranty of sorts, but that since then they have increased premiums on leaseholders, sometimes by more than 1,000%. Does he have something to say about that particular activity from insurance companies?

[Stuart Andrew]

Yes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the Financial Conduct Authority to look at that, because it is an area of great concern. I hope to update the House on further progress in the near future.

Turning to Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 6, the Government have accepted the principle of the Lords amendment, requiring the Building Safety Regulator to conduct a series of safety reviews. We believe the new version provides clearer drafting and a more practical and pragmatic approach. The amendment inserts a new clause that increases the time available to the regulator from two years to three, reflecting the time needed for the regulator to develop the capacity to carry out those reviews alongside all its other functions.

The new clause aligns the reviews with building regulations to address safety issues, focusing on the costs and benefits of measures to improve safety. It sets specific priorities for the regulator to review while fulfilling its duty under clause 5 to keep,

“the safety of people in or about buildings”,

under review. The scope remains true to the intent of the original amendment, and it is important to assure hon. Members that the reviews will be conducted within the principle of proportionality placed on the operation of the regulator’s building functions by this Bill.

I now turn to a number of technical improvements that the Government are proposing to Lords amendments. Lords amendment 93 inserted a new clause called “Remediation of certain defects”, which provides an overview of the leaseholder protection measures contained within the Bill. Government amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment 93 make two minor and technical amendments to that new clause.

The first amendment, to leave out “under qualifying leases” at line 12, is a minor and technical amendment to reflect that some of the protections in schedule 8 apply to leases that are not qualifying leases. When the landlord is, or is linked to, the developer they will not be able to pass costs on to any leaseholders in the building, including non-qualifying leaseholders. The second amendment, at line 23, is a minor and technical drafting change.

I now turn briefly to Government amendments (a), (b) and (c) to Lords amendment 93 regarding trusts. I must take this opportunity to pass on my appreciation to the noble Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Blencathra, who raised this matter through their work in the other place. I acknowledge the concerns raised about the use of trusts and how their misuse could undermine vital leaseholder protection provisions. The Building Safety Minister, my noble Friend Lord Greenhalgh, committed on Report in the other place to consider this further. Government amendments (a), (b) and (c) amend clause 120 to ensure that a body corporate or a partnership can be regarded as associated with another if they are the beneficiary of a trust that has an interest in a relevant building. In other words, the existence of a trust will not enable a group of companies to evade their responsibilities under the leaseholder protections. We have also inserted wording into clause 130 so that beneficiaries of trusts can be considered for building liability orders—that is, can be required by the High Court to contribute to remediation. The remaining amendments to Lords amendments 107, 108 and 190 are consequential to the amendments I have described.

--- Later in debate ---

[Royston Smith]

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I thank the Secretary of State, the Minister and the Department for what they have done to get us to this stage. I also pay tribute to the cladding groups, which have acted with great integrity and determination. If they are not completely content today, at least they are in a much better place than they were during the passage of the Fire Safety Bill.

That Bill now seems quite a long time ago, but that is nothing compared with how long it has felt for the leaseholders who are still caught up in this awful scandal. We were promised at the time that the Building Safety Bill would deal with the issues of leaseholders having to pay. It seems that the Government have been as good as their word and have made sure that at least leaseholders will not be held responsible—we all know that they are the only people in the entire situation who are not responsible. I was cynical when the Government said that they would deal with the issue in the Building Safety Bill, so I am particularly happy. Of course, I was not nearly as cynical as the leaseholders who were facing bills for tens of thousands of pounds and were wondering whether the issue would just be kicked down the road and into the long grass. I am pleased that at least we are now somewhere that we can all be a lot happier.

The Bill is infinitely better than what we have seen before and is definitely a move in the right direction. I have mentioned to the Minister, who has made himself available numerous times now, my concerns about buildings under 11 metres. I think it was the Chairman of the Select Committee on Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who said that if a building were 1 cm lower than it needed to be, that could be the most expensive centimetre in history. That is exactly the point: some of these numbers are a bit arbitrary.

What the Minister has said at the Dispatch Box has given me some comfort—enough comfort, as it happens, to support the Government today. Going forward, however, we need to make sure that we are all as good as our word. If we say that things will be assessed on a case-by-case basis, they must be. When I remove myself from the national picture, which I never intended to be involved in, and go back to representing my constituents first and foremost, although perhaps not exclusively, I hope that each time an issue comes up and I take it to the Government, they will be as accommodating as they suggest they will.

I know that everyone is talking about the insurers, which I spoke about in one of my first speeches on the Fire Safety Bill. In a way, I am really pleased that we are all fed up with talking about the insurers, because if we are all talking about them, hopefully the Government will hear us. We think—and it is not an unreasonable position—that insurers should be part of this. As the Chairman of the Select Committee said, when the ABI was in front of the Committee it said that some of these premiums were helping them to put money aside in the event that they would need to pay in future. The way I look at it, they think they will have to do something anyway, so let us make sure that they are involved.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

May I suggest that it would be a good idea if the Government had a roundtable with the insurers about what informal provision they are making in case there are successful actions, and about whether they would like voluntarily to contribute, say, £4 billion to £5 billion? No residential leaseholder would then carry the cost, and the insurance company would know that it would not be chased with legal claims that were likely to succeed.

[Royston Smith]

That is an excellent suggestion. The Government have been very successful in talking to developers and persuading them to sign up voluntarily, and there is no reason why they could not have similar conversations with insurers.

I do not want to make a case in defence of developers. I have made the case throughout that they should pay, but we need to be a bit careful about the possible unintended consequences of only going after them. I am pleased to note that they are taking responsibility for their own buildings, although they should have done that in the first place and they are a bit late to the party. Asking them then to remediate buildings that are not their responsibility will have all sorts of effects, not least in making them think about whether they will want to be in that particular market any more. I doubt that they will ever withdraw from the house building market, because it is their business, but if we want to ensure that we can build 300,000 homes a year—a proportion of which would, I am sure, be high-rise—we should bear in mind that some developers will now be saying, “This may not be for us in the future.”

I promised that I would not speak for too long, because we want to get through this business as quickly as possible, so I will end my comments by thanking the Minister again for what he has done and welcoming the changes that have been made. Given the Minister’s assurances today, I will be supporting the Government.

[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.