Building Safety Bill
Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2021.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Before we begin, I have a couple of preliminary announcements. I encourage Members, if they are able, to wear a mask when they are not speaking, to try to accommodate the fact that we are quite a large number of people in this room. Please can you also give members of staff space when you are seated, and think about social distancing when you enter and leave the room? Hansard colleagues would always be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes, if they speak. Can you also all ensure that electronic devices are silent? Teas, coffees and food are not allowed during the sittings.
Today, we will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. If you do not have a copy of that before you, please see one of our officials sitting at the side. Then we will consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication, and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence starts. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take those matters formally without debate. I call the Minister to move the programme motion standing in his name, which was discussed this morning by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and will be circulated to Members by email. I am sure that you have already received that initial email. Thanks to all the Clerks and all the staff, who are doing an amazing job on what is a lengthy and complex Bill.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
We will now go into private session to discuss lines of questioning.
Examination of Witnesses
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
We are now sitting in public again and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start to hear from witnesses, I encourage Members who wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill to do so. First, I will put my own interests on the record. My husband is a partner in Kingsley Napley LLP, whose clients include those involved in the building industry.
Rachel Hopkins (Labour, Luton South)
I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
I am still a sitting councillor in Liverpool.
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
I am also a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Eddie Hughes (Conservative, Walsall North)
I am a member of the Chartered Institute of Building.
Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)
I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Thank you. I remind colleagues that if you feel there are things that you should register, you can talk to the Clerks during our proceedings.
We will now hear oral evidence from our first panel of witnesses: Sir Ken Knight, the independent panel expert, and Dan Daly, head of the protection policy and reform unit at the National Fire Chiefs Council. Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings on the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 12.20. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Wonderful. Our first question is from Mike Amesbury.
Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)
Q It is great to see both witnesses. If there was one thing that you would like to see in the Bill to improve building safety for people, what would it be?
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q I have been struck by the approach of the Australian Government, particularly in the state of Victoria. Rather than just treating this as an issue to do with buildings, they have treated it as a public safety emergency issue. They have looked at the safety not only of people living in the buildings but of their neighbours, fire safety officers and people who might attend a fire. Do you have any reflections on whether this should be considered simply through a buildings lens or whether there is a broader public safety emergency issue here?
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
Good morning to you both. Will the reforms to the building control profession fix the problems identified by Dame Judith Hackitt? In particular, are the Government right to return the power of duty holders to choose their own building control bodyQ ?
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
Q It is good to see you both again. Is height the best measure of risk? If so, is the threshold in the Bill appropriate?
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
It is my Scouse accent. Is height the best measure of risk? If so, is the threshold in the Bill appropriate?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Mr Daly, would you like to reply to that?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Marie, did you have a supplementary question on this?
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
No.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Then I will bring in Brendan, who is just catching my eye.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Conservative, Bassetlaw)
Sir Ken, good morning. Given that, thankfully, the number of fires and deaths in buildings is low—although ideally it would be zero, of course—do you think the market has overreactedQ ?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Daisy has a supplementary question on this point.
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q I do, thank you, Mrs Miller. I am very much of the view that the Bill has taken a rather arbitrary approach by using height as well as the distinction between leaseholders and social tenants. Given the question around risk, do you agree that it would have been far better, and would still be far better, if the Government did a comprehensive audit of all buildings that are affected, then approach them on the basis of risk rather than height, the arbitrary ownership of the buildings, or the people who are living in them?
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q But yes to an audit, or not?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Unless there are supplementary questions on that, I will bring in Siobhan Baillie.
Siobhan Baillie (Conservative, Stroud)
Mr Daly touched on this earlier. What role do you think the fire services need to play in ensuring that a future system is proportionate, in terms of both their own work and working with the Building Safety RegulatorQ ?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
I am going to bring in Ruth now, and I know that Mike and Marie have further questions that they want to ask.
Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)
Thank you, Mrs Miller. I get the point that Sir Ken made about the need not to be too risk averse, but an estate of hundreds of students and leaseholders in my constituency was evacuated with a week’s notice. Also, Richmond House in south-west London burnt down in, I think, 11 minutes once the fire took hold, and it did not have what we think of as flammable cladding and was only four storeys high. I will ask both witnesses the question: to what extent does the Bill address that issue, or what else has to be done so that residents of all buildings, particularly those built in the last 15 or 20 years, can feel safe in their beds at night?Q
Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)
Yes, Richmond House in Worcester Park.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
We have got just under 15 minutes, and there are three more questions to go through. Keep that in mind, if you could.
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
Q Under clause 84, an accountable person
“must take all reasonable steps for… preventing a building safety risk materialising as regards the part of the building for they are responsible”.
The definition of the part for which they will be held responsible is to be defined in regulation. Should it not be defined within the Bill itself?
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
Q You just mentioned it coming forward very quickly after the Bill goes through, but there is nothing to guarantee that.
Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)
Q Will the new regime stop resident leaseholders being fleeced by the mediation costs—the EWS1 process, the astronomical insurance costs? The list goes on and on—not to mention waking watch, of course.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Have you anything to add, Mr Daly?
Siobhan Baillie (Conservative, Stroud)
Q I should have asked this question before, so I apologise. This is a pretty basic question, but we have gone straight into quite a lot of technical points. Since Grenfell there is understandably a lot of fear about high-rise buildings. How safe would you say a high-rise building is and what is the risk to life of a high-rise fire? I am interested in your expert opinions.
Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)
Q On that very point, I absolutely agree with Sir Ken. The six tower blocks beside the elevated section of the M4 in my constituency, Brentford Towers, were built roughly 50 years ago. In the 35 or so years I have been in and around Brentford as a councillor and an MP, I am aware of at least one fatal fire in a flat, which destroyed that flat, but the evidence that I saw afterwards showed that the fire did not spread, beyond some smoke damage in the hallway of the four flats on that floor—it did not spread elsewhere, because of the compartmentation and the way they were designed to deal with fire, in a way that was messed up with Grenfell.
In terms of new build, building professionals have told me that in this country we have moved from designing and building for fire safety, as Brentford Towers were built, towards concerns about thermal insulation and energy saving, so have started to lose the focus on fire, whereas in other countries the two have gone together. Do the witnesses agree with that? If so, do they feel that the Bill addresses that challenge?
Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)
Q The Bill covers modern materials but says less about modern methods of construction. Some building faults over the years have been the interaction between different elements of the building, such as corroding metal parts or condensation and so on. Do you think the Bill goes far enough to address modern forms of construction, as well as modern materials?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Just before you answer, I will point out that we have two minutes and then I will have to bring this to a close.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
I think that brings us to the end of questions for the first panel. I thank our witnesses for taking the time to be with us today, and for an incredibly useful set of answers. If I could ask you to exit through the doors, we will bring in our second panel of witnesses. Thank you very much.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Thank you for being with us today. Just before we start our questioning—Ruth Cadbury will kick it off—may I ask you both to introduce yourselves?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Thank you very much. I call Ruth Cadbury to start our questioning.
Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)
Q Thank you. This question is for both witnesses. Do you feel that the Building Safety Bill will significantly improve the building safety regime in this country, and make residents of existing and future residential and other buildings feel safe?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Before I bring Rachel in, I think the Minister has a supplementary question.
Eddie Hughes (Conservative, Walsall North)
Q On Graham’s point about the paradigm shift that the industry and sector have to go through, what is the CIC doing to help them? The legislation is obviously going through Parliament. People need to prepare for its arrival, so how are you ensuring that people are suitably well informed, and taking the right decisions and action now?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
If there are no more supplementaries, we will move to Rachel.
Rachel Hopkins (Labour, Luton South)
Q Thank you, Mrs Miller. That takes us to my question, which is about whether there is enough detail in the Bill. Have the Government left too much in secondary legislation, for example the golden thread and the gateway process? Those are two key elements of the new building safety regime—and you talked about professional bodies wanting information as well—that are not actually on the face of the Bill.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Daisy Cooper has a supplementary question.
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q You mentioned that there is a bit of chicken-and-egg about what goes into primary legislation and what goes into secondary legislation—I think we are all alert to that—and that one way of squaring that circle would be to have additional scrutiny of secondary legislation. Could you expand on what you think good scrutiny of that secondary legislation would look like?
Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)
Q Does the Bill protect leaseholders from unaffordable costs, and focus the mind or regulate to ensure that the industry steps up and pays its responsibilities and its fair share, given previous incompetence and very shabby practices?
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
Q I have really enjoyed the evidence so far; it has been really good, but will the Bill improve levels of competence and, just as importantly, listen to the Grenfell inquiry and the shameful evidence that we have heard? Will there be accountability in the construction industry?
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
Q The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to regulate construction products. Does it contain enough information about the new regime? Is there enough certainty about what types of products would be regulated by the Secretary of State?
Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)
Obviously, the success of any legislation depends on how it is enforced once it is implemented. I am keen to understand from your perspective, how far in any enforcement regime is it about industry buy-in and co-operation? How far should the Government go in terms of really strict, hard enforcement regulation to ensure that it is not simply a case of the industry having to do it, but that there is actually buy-in from the industry to do it and to respect the regulationsQ ?
Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)
Q Graham Watts, you just said that you think the HSE is the right place to place the building safety inspector. Do you feel that the HSE has the right expertise and sufficient resources to do that, taking into account the additional resources that I believe the Government have committed for it?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Q If there are no further questions from Members, is there anything that we have not covered in our questioning and that you would like to add at this point?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Mr Dobson, would you like to add any other thoughts?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
You have provoked a supplementary question from Mike.
Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)
Q I want to pick up on that point of independent building scrutiny. Is that something that you would add to the scope of the proposed building regulator, or would you look at Victoria in Australia, going through building by building in terms of remediation and building safety at the moment? Indeed we, as an Opposition, are talking about establishing a building works authority. Which route would you choose, or where would that sit?
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q I am interested that you picked up on the point about whom they would be accountable to. I was very struck by some evidence that we received from the UK Cladding Action Group, which said that there is almost no way at the moment to make construction professionals accountable to residents—the people who are living there. I guess the question is: to whom do you think the different bodies should be accountable?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
If there are no further questions, I thank both our witnesses for a really excellent evidence session, and for taking the time to come before us today.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Before we start the next four evidence sessions that we will have before 5 o’clock, Theo Clarke wants to update the Committee.
Theo Clarke (Conservative, Stafford)
Thank you, Chair. I would like to draw attention to a possible interest: my husband is an estate agent at Hayman-Joyce.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Thank you very much. To remind colleagues, if you have any interests, you can talk to the Clerks and they will ensure that they are properly declared.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Q28 We now move on to our third panel of witnesses. We are joined online by Peter Caplehorn, who is the chief executive officer of the Construction Products Association, and in person by Dr Scott Steedman, the director of standards at the British Standards Institution. We have 45 minutes, colleagues. Before we start, may I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves for the record?
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
Excuse me, Mrs Miller, but a number of us are having difficulty hearing on this side.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Yes—when I chaired a Select Committee, I always used to remind everybody that these microphones are purely ornamental. They do not really amplify very much, so projection is always good at these events. I thank our witnesses for being with us today. Obviously we are hybrid. We have Peter online and Scott here in the room, so bear with me. Perhaps we will take this slightly slower to ensure that we include Peter in our conversation. Please just shout at me, Peter, if I have not quite seen that you want to intervene.
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
We have received a fairly hefty chunk of evidence from a number of different industry players who have set out to us the new regulations, the new technical frameworks and the new qualifications that will affect their bit of the industry, and quite a lot of it is statutory. I was particularly struck by the evidence that we received from the Construction Products Association, which mentioned only a competence framework and a code for construction, both of which appeared to be forms of voluntary “regulation”.Q
I noted that in your evidence you urged us to
“resist the consequent serious danger of disproportionate reaction.”
I was very struck by that because it was a very different piece of evidence than we received from almost every other actor in the sector. I would be grateful if you could set out whether you believe that those voluntary forms of regulation are sufficient, and what a disproportionate reaction would look like in relation to your part of the industry.
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q I am pleased to hear both of your answers; thank you for them. If I may get to the nuts and bolts, we all agree that there has to be culture change—we have heard that from a number of people—and we all recognise that it will take some time. Given your language—you warn of the “danger of disproportionate reaction”—can you point to any specific measure in the Bill that does not go far enough or goes too far, because that is the issue that members of the Committee have to grapple with?
Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)
Are the new regulator, the proposals, the powers, the responsibilities and, indeed, the resources appropriate, and is anything missing from the Bill?Q
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Dr Steedman, do you want to come back in before I bring in the next question?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Please do, and then I will bring in others.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Peter, was there anything you wanted to add? I could see you nodding.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
We will move on to Siobhan’s question.
Siobhan Baillie (Conservative, Stroud)
The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to regulate construction products. Does the Bill contain enough information about the new regime? Is there enough certainty about what products or types of products will be regulatedQ ?
Siobhan Baillie (Conservative, Stroud)
Q This might be a question for the Minister, but do you feel, given how the Bill and the regulations are going, that there will be scope for that wider definition and the performance-based work? Do you think the groundwork has been done and that we can fit around it?
Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)
I asked the previous panel this question about construction products, but I should have held it for these two witnesses. By the way, I think that far too much plasterboard is used in homes anyway, and not for safety reasons but just because of quality of life, but that is another issue. The Bill does address construction products and future-proofs for products that we do not yet know about. That is fine, but quite a few historical building failures have resulted from the interrelationship—chemical, physical or whatever—between products that only emerged over time, or that should have been tested in the past. The products are safe on their own but not when put together in a certain way with other products. Could the Bill do more in that regardQ ?
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
Q I am particularly interested in the building safety fund. It is not accessible for properties that have social tenants in them. How does that impact on housing associations? I understand that 40% of all social housing built last year was without grant. If the building fund is not accessible, how do they finance it?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
I would even go so far as to say that the funds are slightly outwith the Bill, so it is slightly out of scope. Was there something else?
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
Q My concern is whether, under the Building Safety Bill, there is a risk of building safety being built for tenure, rather than risk.
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
For tenure. If you own a property or if you are a social tenant, it is not available for your home.
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
It is about building safety systems, the priorities, and if the owners of properties just put in for any grants that they are eligible for—they are, for instance, eligible to claim from the building safety fund—they are not allocated according to risk. It is allocated based on eligibility, or is available according to eligibility, not risk.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Yes, it is an interesting point, but we are drawing Dr Steedman into things that are probably outwith the Bill.
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
Sorry, I am not hearing you.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
It is something that would be outside the scope of the Bill.
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
Okay.
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
IQ am going to be quite blunt, Dr Steedman, having just listened to the evidence you have given. You mentioned safety and you mentioned culture change, so will the Building Safety Bill as it stands fundamentally improve the building safety regime in this country and change what many see as the corrupt culture that led us to the tragedy at Grenfell?
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
Q Won’t that come from the regulation?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
I can feel Peter listening patiently online. Would you like to add to those comments?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
This will probably have to be our last question to you and is from Ruth Cadbury.
Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)
Q It is the case for both of you that your competencies go across the building trade, yet the genesis of the Bill is residential buildings. Do you agree that the regime should be restricted? You have talked about buildings in scope—we are talking about residential buildings—yet there are fire risks to other tall buildings, including hospitals, student accommodation, care homes and offices, such as the BSI building in Chiswick. Do you think the fact that the Bill mainly focuses on residential buildings will cause problems down the line for the construction industry? We will start with Dr Steedman.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Order. I am afraid I am going to have to draw your comments to a close there, Peter. I am so sorry to interrupt you; we are strictly governed by the rules here. Thank you so much for the point you were making.
We have come to the end of the time allotted for this panel. I thank the witnesses, who have spent such a good deal of time with us today, providing such incredibly useful information—a huge thank you to both of you. That closes the third of our panels. Thank you very much.
Examination of witnesses
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Good afternoon to the four witnesses on our next panel, who are going to introduce themselves. Kate, can I ask you to start?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
That is brilliant—thank you. Victoria, and then I will ask Martin and David, who are joining us online, to introduce themselves as well.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Order. I am going to ask our technical people here if we can increase your volume. It is a little bit difficult to hear you. [Interruption.] The technical feedback is to ask you to stand nearer to the microphone, Martin. Is that possible?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
It is, though please be aware that it is a little difficult for us to hear you. Great. Could you just say again which organisation you are from?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Fantastic. David, could you introduce yourself, please? [Interruption.] We have no sound from David at the moment. [Interruption.] Are your headphones connected to your audio device? That is as much technical information as I can give. [Interruption.] We have lost David at this point. If you can hear me, David, can you make sure that your headphones are selected on the device you are trying to broadcast from? Hopefully, you will rejoin us shortly.
There are a number of questions we want to ask this panel. With four people on the panel, I am keen to ensure that we get cracking, as we only have until 3.30 pm for this session and then I will have to bring it to an end. If it is all right with colleagues, we will crack on, even though we are currently missing one of our witnesses. Mike Amesbury will kick off the questions and others can follow.
Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)
It is good to see you in person, Kate and Victoria.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
David, you are back—hooray! It is lovely to see you. Can we check your audio?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Yes. That is fantastic, David, thank you so much. Can you introduce yourself?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
That is fantastic. I will now hand over to Mike, who will ask the first question.
Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)
Q I have the same question for all the witnesses. What is welcome in the Bill? What is bad, with unintended consequences, let us say around affordable housing and ambitions to build that? What is missing from the Bill? What should be in it?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Who would like to kick off with that? Kate, go for it, and then I will bring in David.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Councillor David Renard indicated that he wanted to come in next.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Martin Taylor has been indicating that he wants to come in.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
That is really helpful. Thank you. Victoria, can I bring you in as well?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
That is brilliant; thank you. This is working well so far, with hybrid technology; thank you to our witnesses.
I will bring in Ruth Cadbury now.
Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)
Q This is a question for Martin Taylor; apologies if you have effectively covered this issue, Martin, but if you did, you did so very briefly. I asked a head of building control what his perspective was in terms of the way the system had gone in the last few years. He went back to the privatisation and choice-based system of building control, whereby building inspectors, including local authority building inspectors, had to compete on cost. Cost comes down if you have fewer visits on site, and he said that that was one of a number of causes of the failure that we have had in construction and buildings in recent years. Do you recognise that as an issue? Do you feel that the Bill addresses the competition to have less time on site for adequate inspection?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Witnesses should not feel compelled to speak to every question. That was a relatively specific one. Unless anyone has anything else to add, I will move on to Daisy’s questions.
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q I have two quick questions. The first is about how you think remediation should be funded. Some of us believe that leaseholders should not have to pay for fire safety defects that are not of their making. I note that the National Housing Federation’s evidence stated that the Government should fund it up front and then recoup some of the costs. A second proposal suggests that where those responsible are still a going concern, they should pay for it, and only where companies are not a going concern should the Government pay for it. Would you support that model, or do you still think that it should be the first model, whereby the Government fund everything?
Turning to my second question, we have heard a lot from industry players today who talk about long-term change. I have noticed that although we recognise that long-term change is needed, that is very different from the sense of crisis and urgency that we hear from our constituents who are affected. I want to hear from any of you where you feel this is on that spectrum of emergency, urgency and long-term change.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Order. The Bill does not include the building safety fund, so could we perhaps not focus on that too much? I am trying to draw the parameters tightly. Is that all right?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
I will bring in David, who indicated that he would like to make a contribution.
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
Q I want to touch on disabled people. You mentioned some of the tenures of the housing. BSI recently had to withdraw PAS 79-2 on personal emergency evacuation plans, because it did not cover disabled residents. We know that many disabled people perished in Grenfell. Will this Bill ensure that disabled people will be safe?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Who would like to tackle that one?
Rachel Hopkins (Labour, Luton South)
My question is a reflection on something Councillor RenardQ 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.
Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)
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?
Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)
I want to touch on accountable persons. As we discussed earlier with clause 84, accountable persons have to “take all reasonable steps” to ensure safety. I know this Q might sound like I am asking you to pick your shopping list, but what do “reasonable steps” look like? We have these debates all the time, and I know this is coming out in secondary legislation later. To dovetail into that, on the duty to co-operate, we know there are some quite complex ownership structures. In my patch, we have a situation whereby you will often have a tenant management co-operative, which is an arm’s length body of the council but is a separate organisation in its own right. In that scenario, how do you ensure there is not responsibility shunting? It seems that there is a risk there. In that scenario, how do we ultimately ensure that we have the accountability that the Bill, and the subsequent legislation, is trying to achieve?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Right, a little package of questions there from our colleague. David, do you want to start? Then I will bring in others.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Martin, do you want to add anything else on Shaun’s question about taking reasonable steps and the duty to co-operate?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
And our two witnesses appearing physically—would you like to jump in at this stage?
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q The Minister knows that the Government have introduced legislation to do with putting broadband into buildings where freeholders do not respond. The Government have introduced a presumptive duty, where you can put broadband into a building if the absent freeholder has ignored repeated requests. Might that principle enable that kind of work? Rather than having “take reasonable steps”, if you had a presumptive duty whereby you could have access if an absent freeholder ignored repeated requests, would that help?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
I was going to say that we had ended our questions, but Mike, please, come in.
Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)
Q Dan Hewitt from ITN has been involved in a campaign—an exposé, really—on some of the standards across the sector. By your own admittance, they are not acceptable. Will this new building safety regime actually start to alter that landscape with the regulatory framework?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Q Is there anything else to add on that issue? We have a couple of minutes at the end for anybody to raise any issues that you do not feel that we have covered so far. I can see that David has his hand up.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Q Thank you. Are there any other comments? Martin, would you like to raise anything that we have not raised yet in our questions?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Q Brilliant. Victoria, do you have anything to add?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
If there are no more questions from colleagues, on behalf of the whole Committee I thank all our physically present and online witnesses for your time, and your answers to all the questions. Thank you very much.
Examination of Witnesses
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Q We will now move on to our fifth panel of evidence for the Bill, and we will hear from Liam Spender and Giles Grover, both of whom will join us online. May I ask our two witnesses to introduce themselves and say which organisation they are working with? This also acts as a technical check that we can all hear you.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Liam, we can hear you loud and clear. That is fabulous.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
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 (Labour, Luton South)
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?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
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 (Labour, Luton South)
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?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
That is really helpful.
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q In my constituency of St Albans, I have a number of constituents who have been affected by this issue and are facing crippling costs to do with fire safety remediation. They have told me about the impact it is having on the decisions they make about their lives, such as not being able to start families because they cannot move house, and about people who are suffering from severe mental ill health. Liam, you mentioned that this Bill makes things worse in some respects. Can you expand on that particular point and talk to us about the real-life impact it is having on people who are affected?
Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)
Q It is good to see you both, from afar. I have a question for you both: does the Bill ensure that the polluter pays? They are still receiving billions of pounds of Government subsidies. Is that clearly outlined in any provision in the Bill to ensure that leaseholders are protected and the polluter pays?
Kate Osborne (Labour, Jarrow)
Good afternoon. Broadly, what are your views on the responsible person or persons? What do you think of the responsibilities placed on them? More specifically, is it reasonable to expect all accountable persons to be sufficiently knowledgeable to assume the responsibilities in the BillQ ?
Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)
Q Thank you so much for coming today, Giles, and for your candour. I want to talk about how the Bill addresses some of the inherent power and structural inequalities that we see, particularly when it comes to the industry. Broadly speaking, we have heard some positive overtures about how we change behaviours and the possibilities that are there. How do you think this Bill should go further to do that? From a personal perspective, I have seen what those inherent inequalities do day to day; I have lived through that. What it sounds like from your responses is that there is a system that needs to be ripped apart. How do you think, within this Bill and subsequent legislation, that can be done?
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
Q Thank you, Liam and Giles, for the extremely powerful evidence. I really hope you are listened to when we come to the amendment stage of this process. I want to touch on the voice of residents, which we have not really talked about. How important is the engagement of residents to the operation of the occupation phase of the new building regime? Does the engagement process outlined in the Bill do what is required?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Are there any other questions from colleagues?
Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)
Q I have a couple. Like many Members, I have a lot of affected leaseholders. The McPartland new clause 4 proposes a building safety indemnity scheme, equivalent to the Motor Insurers’ Bureau. Will that address some of the challenges about who ultimately pays for the historic defects in buildings that leaseholders are living in? Do you feel that will be suitable to apply to leaseholders, whether they are leaseholders of private owners, housing associations, councils or other providers?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Thank you, Giles. I think you were referring to new clause 1. Ruth, did you have a second question?
Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)
Q Yes. I do not know whether you heard the evidence from the National Housing Federation. One of the issues it raised was seeking an appropriate mechanism to gain limited and proportionate access to properties for essential safety works, where that is not granted by a resident. That presumably also goes for private landlords of leasehold properties, as well as housing associations.
That clearly raises a challenge for your members, whether the building manager or owner is a resident management organisation or housing association or private sector freeholder or leaseholder. How do you respond to what the federation says, and presumably other building owners and managers say as well?
Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)
Thank you.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Shaun Bailey.
Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)
Q I just want to come back on the really good question that was asked about resident and tenant representation, because we know that when that is done well, it ensures that people can live in safe communities and make the representations that they need to. We also know what it looks like when it is done horrendously wrongly and the power of a few is collated around a small minority, who seem to dictate what happens for everyone else in a community.
May I just ask you both: where should the driver be to ensure that tenant representation is effective? Should it be prescribed from national Government, in the context of this Bill? Should there be a mix? We have so many different types of ownership and of tenant model; I have three that are utilised in my own local authority alone. How do we ensure that every single person who needs that representation actually gets it, and where should the prescription for that come from—from national Government downwards, or from local government upwards? How do we do that? As you said in response to me before, the core of this is the importance of ensuring that those communities are accurately represented. So I am interested to hear from you both your thoughts on that.
Kate Osborne (Labour, Jarrow)
Q Have you considered or anticipated any possible increases to service charges or rent as a result of the Bill? If so, do you have any idea what that impact might look like to you as leaseholders or tenants?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Q Thank you. Unless there are any other questions, we have a couple of minutes left at the end. Giles and Liam, is there anything else you want to add that we have not yet covered? You have just a couple of minutes each to do that. That would be really helpful to us. Is there anything you feel we should have questioned you on but have not covered yet? Over to you, Liam.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
If there are no further questions from members, let me, on behalf of the whole Committee, thank you, Liam and Giles, both for taking the time to join us this afternoon and for your incredibly comprehensive and thorough answers to the questions posed. We are very grateful for your first-hand insight. I will let you get on with the rest of your afternoon. Thank you for joining us. That brings to a close the fifth panel of witnesses, and we will now turn to our final panel of witnesses, who have just been referred to by Liam and Giles.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
This is the sixth panel of witnesses before us today. We will now hear from Justin Bates and Giles Peaker. Before we start the questioning, could I ask you to introduce yourselves and the organisations that you are representing?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Thank you. Our first question is from Ian Byrne.
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
Q Thank you, Chair, and welcome to our witnesses. I have an easy question for you. Will the Bill fundamentally improve the building safety regime in this country and change the culture of profit over safety that we have witnessed over the last 30 years? If not, what will?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
So just a small question to start with.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Giles, could I ask for a favour? Please move your iPad slightly. The microphones are a tiny bit directional, so that helps pick up the sound. Justin?
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q I have a question about statutory instruments. One of the issues that many of us are trying to grapple with is what should be in primary legislation and what should be in secondary legislation. We have heard from representatives of the Cladding Action Group and other leaseholders that they want to have a voice when it comes to fleshing out the statutory instruments. At the moment, they see it as a stitch-up between the Government and the industry. On the other hand, we have received evidence from industry bodies that this is a necessary evil, because they think they will have to flesh out some of these things as they go, and the critical thing for them is to ensure that there is sufficient scrutiny of statutory instruments. I would welcome your view on where you are on that spectrum. Do you see the process moving forward by giving residents a voice or having further scrutiny?
Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)
Q I am slightly repeating what I asked earlier, but on clause 84 of the Bill and reasonable steps, from your perspective as lawyers, is there a way to scope the drafting of this legislation, either through primary or secondary legislation, so that we limit the need for judicial intervention later on? The phrase “reasonable steps” always strikes fear into me, and we could end up just going round and round. Is there scope there to try to define that, either in the body of existing precedent or from what we know from a policy perspective, to try to scope that definition of reasonable steps in respect of this legislation?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Practical solutions.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Conservative, Bassetlaw)
Good afternoon, gentlemen. Which parts of the Bill do you feel will be the key areas of interest for the legal profession? Following on from that, which do you think will take the most time to understand and prepare forQ ?
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Giles, do you want to add anything to that?
Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)
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?
Selaine Saxby (Conservative, North Devon)
Could you expand on how, or even if, clearer accountability for a building across its design, construction and occupation will help improve safetyQ ?
Selaine Saxby (Conservative, North Devon)
Q You said, “if this works”. Could you expand on the risks around that?
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q The Bill as drafted would to my mind enshrine a legal principle that leaseholders who are not at fault have to pay for defects not of their making. Could you talk us through the legal implications of that in terms of what leaseholders may choose to do if the Bill goes ahead unamended, and for housing and building law in general?
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q To ensure that this is absolutely right for the parliamentary record, am I right in saying that, if the leaseholders want their freeholder to take reasonable steps and the freeholder refuses, they might end up having to pay for litigation to prove that the freeholder has or has not taken reasonable steps? If the freeholder then does take some reasonable steps and gets some legal advice, they then may choose to take action or not, and if they take a decision that the leaseholder disagrees with, that may also end up in litigation. If the freeholder decides to try and take legal action against those who they deem responsible, and that fails, the leaseholder may have already gone through one or two stages of the investigation, and if that fails, they are then facing the costs, as you said. I do not know whether you said “epic” or “massive,” but there was a word you used—
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Immense—there you go. I was almost there. They are facing immense costs on top of that. Am I right in saying that those are the choices you have just outlined facing leaseholders under this Bill?
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Thank you.
Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)
Q My first question is whether there is added complication if, in between the leaseholder and the freeholder, there is a head leaseholder such as a housing association or another property owner.
Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)
Q My question is about the concern raised in the joint evidence we were sent by the UK Cladding Action Group and End Our Cladding Scandal. They use the term
“moral hazard between the roles of the accountable person and the building safety manager”,
particularly the use and misuse of concerns about fire safety to do works that are not about fire safety, and may not even be necessary. I think I was reading that they feel this legislation could be used for work that is not the intention of this Bill. Do you recognise that, and is that an issue?
Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)
Q So it does not address the existing mess.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
Are there any other questions from colleagues?
Rachel Hopkins (Labour, Luton South)
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?
Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)
Q Could a developer facing potential litigation utilise human rights legislation?
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q I want to return to Rachel’s question on the duty to co-operate. Just to push back a little bit, it is not really about joint working; it is about a legal obligation to work with another party. The reason why it is such a headache in planning law, as I am sure you know, is that you often have two authorities that are diametrically opposed in terms of what they are legally obliged to do. Both are legally obliged to build more houses, and they both want to offload onto each other. It is possible that they might both fail their duty to co-operate.
My question, to follow up on Rachel’s point, is this. Based on what is currently published in this Bill, are you able to ascertain whether or not there is a situation in which the two roles that Rachel mentioned—the responsible and accountable people—might be diametrically opposed in what they are legally obliged to do, or are you simply of the view that not enough has been published to ascertain that?
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Please do. Thank you very much.
Maria Miller (Conservative, Basingstoke)
If there are no further questions, I will draw this evidence session to a close. I thank our witnesses for their time. We are really grateful to them for bringing their expertise to the Committee.