Building Safety Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Selaine Saxby and Mike Amesbury

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Again, we accept the provisions in the clause giving the Welsh Government the desired and important flexibility particularly for buildings that are at risk. Buildings at risk have caused considerable debate and the Minister has referred to the original recommendations by Dame Judith Hackitt. There has been lots of debate in the built environment and among key witnesses. I know that members of the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government have heard similar evidence advocating for a broader definition of what is at risk. Clearly, many residents and leaseholders are in buildings below 18 metres that are certainly at risk.

I referred earlier to the fire in a care home in Crewe, not far from my constituency in the north-west of England. It was a home for vulnerable people and was constructed out of interesting materials and the results were unfortunately all too plain to see. Thank the Lord, nobody lost their life, but they did lose their home and their possessions. They were definitely at risk. In Runcorn in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), the Decks development has had a live application to the building safety fund. A number of buildings are 18 metres and above so they are in scope of the definition in the Bill, but some are below 18 metres and they are constructed with even more inflammable material. Again, they are very much at risk.

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

It was Dame Judith Hackitt who initially suggested that the threshold be 30 metres. Does the hon, Gentleman agree that 18 metres or seven storeys is significantly more ambitious?

[Mike Amesbury]

Yes, but what I heard from the witnesses —the evidence is crystal clear—is that there are buildings, such as hospitals, that have vulnerable people. One thousand hospitals will not be within the scope of the Bill, because they are below 18 metres. According to the Department’s own figures, 13,200 care homes will not be classed as at risk under the current regulatory landscape.

The clause will provide that flexibility, which the Minister referred to. If there are thematic incidents, fires or failures related to building safety, the Secretary of State has the welcome flexibility of the regulator in the future. We certainly want the definition of risk on the record, as witnesses have requested throughout.

Building Safety Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Selaine Saxby and Mike Amesbury

Thursday 9th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Amesbury]

Q What more could be done to protect leaseholders from historical remediation costs and ensure that those responsible for this mess are pursued and pay? You have referred to suing them. How would you strengthen the role?

Giles Peaker: The extension of limitation is a start. The problem with suing developers and builders has always been twofold; limitation is one, because problems usually do not manifest themselves within the first six years. The other problem is finding somebody worth suing, and that is the big problem. I get a lot of inquiries about potential new build cases. Most of them are out of time, but most of them also do not have anybody they can actually sue, because developers have liquidated or wound up. One thing that could be considered—although it is difficult and goes against some fundamental tenets of English company law—is to allow tracing profits, to make parent companies liable for special purpose vehicles. That would be one way to cut out the simple “take the profits and run” approach. Justin suggested properly enabling the suing of building control; that is currently off the table, but it might improve the attention to detail, although the professional insurers are already going bust.

Justin Bates: Again, if you are feeling adventurous, you could make directors liable for the acts of their companies—make them personally liable for any building defects. That is not as radical as it sounds—you did that to directors of rogue landlord companies in the Housing Act 2004 and the Housing and Planning Act 2016. I appreciate that every company director hearing this is having a wince and every company lawyer is pulling their hair out, but you have done it twice in relation to rogue landlords, so it is not that big a stretch to go to rogue developers.

There is a danger in asking litigation lawyers for policy advice because every problem that I see involves suing people. That is what I do for a living, so take everything I am about to say with a large pinch of salt. Fundamentally, Parliament has to decide what is the nature of the current building safety crisis that it is dealing with. Is it one that requires a collective response or an individual response in individual buildings? The Bill is about individual buildings. If you are lucky enough to be a leaseholder or freeholder who benefits from the Defective Premises Act 1972 extension and you can find someone worth suing, there is some good stuff for you in here. I personally think that would be, at most, 15% of affected buildings at the moment, and you have got the June 2020 National Audit Office report if you want to see MHCLG’s response to that. It thinks that even that would be a higher figure.

Likewise in clause 120 and the restrictions on when you can pass service charges on. There will be some buildings that benefit from that, but it is all happenstance. You are not solving the collective problem. You are creating some remedies for some buildings. If you think this is a collective problem, the only way is for some collective body to take control of it, such as central Government, to fund works, at least up-front—that would be one solution—and then recoup.

You could have a scheme, which I understand is a variant of what is in Australia, whereby central Government fund works on affected properties but a condition of the funding is that it requires all affected parties to assign their rights to central Government, who then get round to suing when they feel like it, because central Government do not really care if their litigation takes five years to work through. Central Government will still be here in five years’ time, whereas individual leaseholders do not have five years to wait for cases to pan out. There is lots you could do if you want to adopt a more collective approach, but you need to be clear that this is a very individualistic response here. That will help some people, but probably not many.

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

Q Could you expand on how, or even if, clearer accountability for a building across its design, construction and occupation will help improve safety?

Justin Bates: If the Bill works in the way it is envisaged, you should at the end of the construction stage of the building be able to go to one place and have all the documents relevant to that building. You should have the plans, the design and so on. One problem that you have seen coming out of the Grenfell inquiry, for example, is that no one had all of the plans for the building. Firefighters went in and discovered there were two floors that did not exist on the plan that they had. If this works, this will be better for pulling together a centralised and collective set of records, which will help. That is the obvious one that I can think of, comparing it with a problem that we know exists. Can you think of any others?

Giles Peaker: There will be more accountability via the accountable person, certainly from the point at which the building is occupied. I am not clear how far that accountability will transfer back to the people actually responsible for the problems, if there are problems. The basic idea of having a person accountable for the building’s safety is in itself a good idea, but the complexities that follow on are immense. I am not sure that the issue of establishing who is the accountable person, particularly in properties where there might be multiple people who would be candidates or would fall under the list of who would be an accountable person, has been adequately solved.

How can I put it? I am fine on the principle; I am less certain about the practice, particularly as we are still waiting for statutory instruments—quite a lot of them—on how the accountability will be seen through. A lot of it will be down to the approach taken by the regulator. As we have seen with the regulator of social housing and so on, that can be quite a variable approach.