Building Safety Bill
Public Bill Committee, 14 September 2021.
Examination of witnesses
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
Before we begin, I have a couple of preliminary announcements. I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission, and to give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@ parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
We will now hear oral evidence from Sarah Albon, chief executive officer of the Health and Safety Executive; Peter Baker, chief inspector of buildings at the Health and Safety Executive; and Graham Russell, chief executive officer at the Office for Product Safety and Standards. Before I call 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 in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 10.15 am. May I start by asking the witnesses to introduce themselves for the record?
Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)
Good morning, Sarah, Peter and Graham. Does the scope of the Bill give you sufficient resources—the toolbox—to change the landscape of building safety in this country?Q80
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
Good morning to each of you. The Government have chosen not to legislate for a register of competent building safety managers, and said that any register should be industry-led. Are the Government right to leave it to industry?Q
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
Q The Government have not yet published the competency framework for the BSM. How important is the framework for recruiting and training people for the role?
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
Q The success of the regime will depend largely on there being enough competent individuals to fill the role of the BSM, which in essence is an entirely a new profession, as we know. From the Healthy and Safety Executive perspective, do you foresee any problems with the necessary upskilling and training?
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
Q You do not think there would be any problem tackling the cultures that have existed up to now. Cultural problems on building sites have been one of the main problems.
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
Good morning, everybody. Are the Government right to establish the new Building Safety Regulator within the Health and Safety Executive? We know that the HSE has faced huge cuts since 2010 in resources and experienced officers. Does the HSE now have the right expertise and resource to carry out this huge task?Q
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
Q Thanks, Sarah. Peter, do you want to add anything?
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
Graham?
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Conservative, Bassetlaw)
Good morning, everybody. This question is more for Sarah and Peter. Do you feel that the enforcement tools being provided are sufficient, and how do you intend to use them?Q
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Conservative, Bassetlaw)
Q You recently published some guidance on the safety case system. How do you see that system operating in practice?
Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)
This question is for Sarah Albon. Going back to Ian Byrne’s question about the Building Safety Regulator, what is Q the metric of success when it comes to embedding the BSR within the HSE? Given the aims of the Bill, how will the HSE ensure that, operationally, the transition is as smooth and effective as possible?
Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)
Q What would be the measures of success for you?
Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)
Does anyone else have anything to add to that comprehensive response?
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Good morning. If I have understood correctly, you seem quite comfortable with the new framework. You have talked about a smooth transition from one scheme to another, but some of the evidence we have received points to what could be described as a spaghetti bowl of governance. One organisation has questioned specific clauses in the impact assessment whereby the lay board of a right to manage company or commonhold residence could be expected to be simultaneously both the building safety manager and the accountable person who appoints the building safety manager. Other groups have suggested that there could be confusion between the accountable person and the principal accountable person. How should we as a Committee square that circle?Q
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q May I clarify one point, just to confirm something? Where any organisation believes that there is a vacuum of accountability, or confusion around accountability, in this new framework, do you believe that that is because they have not had enough time to look at the system, rather than because of a justified observation that there is confusion?
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q Our Committee is trying to explore it, but I am wondering what your view is. I am hearing mixed signals as to whether you think that the roles are clear and that other organisations are coming to it later than you because you have been working so closely with the Government, or whether you see that some clarity is still needed from the Government and officials on what the roles and responsibilities are. I was hoping that you might be able to give us your view to inform our consideration of that point.
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
I think Graham Russell wants to come in.
Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)
Good morning. I have two slightly different questions. One goes back to the issue we have touched on already, which is the competency of the two roles—the accountable person and the building safety manager. Is the current framework for skills and competency accreditation in the sector adequate to deal with what will be quite significant competency challenges in these two roles? Should it be left to just the private sector, presumably Q with HSE involved, or do the Government have some role in this as well through their skills and training policies, direction and possible kickstart funding, to ensure there is a standard level of competency in these two quite different—but very responsible—roles?
Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)
Q My other question goes back to this issue of complexity. Not all buildings are straightforward, and most of us in urban areas are very glad that many of these buildings are mixed use. In buildings with complex uses and complex ownership structures, it may be that the accountable person and the responsible person under fire safety legislation are different people, and the Government have addressed that issue through the duty to co-operate. Do you think that will suffice, or do you see problems arising over this?
Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)
Q Finally, do you think the Bill is too tightly defined, both as regards use—it does not address other residential uses, such as student accommodation, accommodation used for health and social care and so on—and as regards height being a key definer of risk? Do you think risk should have been defined in a different way? We are actually talking about building safety.
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
We have six minutes to go, and I have two people I still want to get in. That is just to alert you.
Siobhan Baillie (Conservative, Stroud)
My question is to Mr Russell, because we have not heard so much from you. First, how does this Bill help to upgrade the UK product safety system, and what could be improved? Secondly, we heard evidence in a sitting last week about the need to get the definitions of construction products right in the regulatory guidance, and there was a suggestion that we should look to the medical devices sector for good practice. I am interested in your views on that. We understand there is an awful lot of work to be done in that area.Q
Kate Osborne (Labour, Jarrow)
Are the functions and the objectives of the new regulator appropriate? To learn the lessons from Grenfell, how will you hardwire the residents’ voice into the regulatorQ ?
Kate Osborne (Labour, Jarrow)
Thank you. That is really helpful.
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee.
Examination of Witnesses
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
We will now hear oral evidence from Richard Silva, executive director of Long Harbour, and from Kieran Walker, technical director of the Home Builders Federation. We have until 10.45 am for this session. I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves for the record.
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q Good morning to both of you. This is a question for Richard. In paragraph 11 of your written evidence, you said:
“We all know that these problems have been caused by historic regulatory failures, dating back decades. We need to be careful that the solution doesn’t simply absolve the Government of its responsibilities and pass them on to consumers, whether that’s existing or future residents.”
If that is not the solution, then what do you think the solution should be?
Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)
Q Does the Bill ensure that key stakeholders in your industry, rather than the leaseholders, are paying their fair share for a mess that was created over a series of decades?
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
Q I have listened to your comments, but are the Government right to introduce the building safety charge on residents, by which building owners can recover the cost of building safety measures? If not, could that be done through the existing service charge instead?
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
Q The Government say that the purpose of the BSC is to cover the ongoing costs of the new regime, not historical costs. Is that explicit in the Bill as drafted, or could the Bill commit building owners to recover historical costs through the BSC?
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
Q Does the Bill provide adequate means of redress for residents who want to challenge elements of the building safety charge?
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
Q A burning question: does the Bill protect leaseholders from unaffordable costs?
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
I do not know whether Mr Walker would like to comment on any of those questions.
Theo Clarke (Conservative, Stafford)
My first question is to Richard. I am particularly interested in the reforms to the building control profession. Do you think that the problems identified by Dame Judith Hackitt have been addressed in the Bill? In particular, I am interested in the Government’s right to retain the power of duty holders to choose their own building control bodyQ .
Theo Clarke (Conservative, Stafford)
Q What would be the one thing you would want to see improved in the Bill?
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
Q I direct my question to Kieran. Will the Bill change the culture of profit over safety that has pervaded the industry for so long and caused the likes of the Grenfell disaster? The second part of my question is about the use of special purpose vehicles and accountability. Do you feel that the Bill tackles the way in which SPVs are used to close down an issue, resulting in the complete lack of accountability of the people involved? Should the Bill be amended to tackle that?
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
Q Thanks, Kieran. Richard, do you want to add anything?
Selaine Saxby (Conservative, North Devon)
Mr Walker, what key lessons have your members taken away from this process about how Government works with the sector, and what can we collectively do better in future?Q
Selaine Saxby (Conservative, North Devon)
Q What else can we do better collectively in future?
Kate Osborne (Labour, Jarrow)
Q This question is to Kieran Walker. You mentioned that you would have liked to have seen the framework sooner. Have the Government published enough detail about the new regime, on the roles and responsibilities of duty holders, the golden thread and the gateway process, for example?
Kate Osborne (Labour, Jarrow)
Q Do you think the industry is ready for the new regime?
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
Order. Kieran, I am sorry to cut across you, but I am afraid that that brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee.
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
We will now hear oral evidence from Councillor Jayne McCoy, deputy leader of Sutton Council and chair of the Housing, Economy and Business Committee of London Councils, and from Andrew Bulmer, chief executive of the Institute of Residential Property Management. For this session, we have until 11.25 am. Please will the witnesses introduce themselves for the record, starting with Andrew, remotely?
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q Good morning and thank you for joining us. In the light of what you may have heard from leaseholders and other people who are affected by this crisis, do you believe that the scope of the Bill is sufficient?
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
Who do you want to go first?
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Jayne first, please.
Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)
Q What is missing from the Bill? This question is for both of you.
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
Q The draft Bill is largely a framework Bill, sometimes referred to as an enabling Bill, which provides for key parts of the new regulatory regime to be established by delegated legislation and building regulations. Do you find that acceptable? Is enough tied down to get the secondary legislation done quickly enough? There is no timescale—just what is “reasonable”. Is that acceptable, or do you have any concerns?
Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)
Q The previous panel had a representative who owns the freehold of a lot of blocks. Andrew, you represent the property management sector. Both of you have painted a picture of the Bill causing investors to leave freehold ownership. In your submission, you said that the legislation as drafted could mean that there is nobody willing and able, particularly within residential management organisations, to take on the responsibility of residential management. I think you said that the freehold interest could revert to the Crown. What should be in the Bill to prevent that from happening?
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q We received evidence this morning from witnesses from the Health and Safety Executive. They described how they had been working closely with Government officials in developing this new framework. They said they had received assurances from the Government that they will get the resources and staff they need and they seemed to think that, on the whole, most of the new roles created under this framework were reasonably clear. That seems to me to be in reasonably stark contrast to some of the evidence we are hearing now. I am interested to hear from Jayne in particular on behalf of London Councils whether you have also enjoyed a close working relationship with Government officials in developing this framework, and whether London Councils have been given any assurances that they will receive the staff and resources they need to implement this new system.
Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)
Q You may have already covered this in your submission, Andrew Bulmer. We have covered the knowledge required for the responsible person, but is there a risk of duty holders struggling to access professional indemnity insurance?
Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)
Q I asked a previous witness a question about the duty to co-operate in mixed use buildings with complex ownership structures. The Government have incorporated a duty to co-operate between the different accountable people and responsible people under fire safety legislation, who can be different people in a mixed-use building. Will this suffice, or do you see problems arising?
Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)
Q Councillor McCoy, in relation to building control and buildings below 18 metres, are there any changes you would like to see in the Bill?
Rachel Hopkins (Labour, Luton South)
This question is directed more to Andrew, and it is about residents having the ability to challenge the building safety charge. Is the Bill adequate if they want to make such a challengeQ ?
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
Q I will direct my question to Andrew first and then Councillor Jayne McCoy. What do you think of the responsibilities placed on the accountable persons? Is it reasonable to expect all accountable persons to be sufficiently knowledgeable to assume the responsibilities in the Bill?
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
Q Jayne, would you like to add anything to that?
Kate Osborne (Labour, Jarrow)
Q Staying on the subject of accountable persons, they will need access to residents’ premises to fully discharge their responsibilities. How big a problem do you think that could be, and do you think the provisions on that point are appropriate?
Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)
Q Engagement with residents will be a key part of this, particularly for the accountable persons. I have at times seen some very good engagement models, where residents feel they are in a partnership with property management, but I have also seen some pretty horrendous ones where that engagement is not representative of residents. Given your different perspectives and the different way you come in on this, how do you both feel we can maximise the resident engagement model? What interventions do you think Government can bring in to try to do so, to ensure an effective partnership between residents, property managers and freeholders?
Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)
Q Mr Bulmer, how do you feel we should enhance tenants’ representation?
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
If there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. The Committee will meet again at 2pm this afternoon, back in the Boothroyd Room, to continue taking oral evidence.
(Afternoon)
Examination of Witnesses
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
We will now hear from Martin Boyd, chair of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, and from Dr Nigel Glen, chief executive of the Association of Residential Managing Agents. I remind colleagues that we have until 2.45 pm for this session. Would the witnesses introduce themselves for the record, starting with Martin?
Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)
ThankQ127 you, Martin, and thank you, Nigel; it is good to see you both. Is extending the scope of the Defective Premises Act 1972 retrospectively to 15 years the game changer it is made out to be?
Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)
Q At the moment, it is six years or so, isn’t it? Is there much evidence of people pursuing their claims successfully under the current regime?
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
WelcomeQ to both of you as well; it is good to see you both. Can I ask quite a broad question: will this Bill protect leaseholders from any future financial impairments?
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
Q What would be the solution in your eyes, Martin?
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
Daisy Cooper.
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Thank you, Chair, and excuse me for being slightly late to arrive. In your second point in your written evidence, Dr Glen, you say that ARMA has publicly supported the polluter Q pays principle. As I understand it, the way this principle works is that the Government would fund remediation up front and they would then endeavour to recoup that money from those who are responsible, reducing the impact on the taxpayer. There would be a role for a regulator to determine whether something was or was not compliant at a particular point in time, and, by going through the regulator, litigation would be reduced. This process would sort out remediation quickly, protect the public purse, go after those who are responsible and avoid going to the courts. I would welcome thoughts from both of you on this particular principle, particularly any reason why a Government would not want it.
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q Thank you for explaining why you support this principle. A small supplementary. To play devil’s advocate—I am perhaps inviting you to do the Government’s job for them—do you think there are any reasons the scheme would not work? Can you see any holes in it, or problems with it? Is there any reason why you think anybody might object to this particular proposal?
Siobhan Baillie (Conservative, Stroud)
This is such a difficult area, and it has been very distressing for people who have been affected by the fire. We heard some really compelling evidence about the safety of high rises, and how to strike a balance of proportionality with the legislation, which is not easy. I think nobody expects the taxpayer to pay up front for everything. You have just said that, Mr Boyd, and that is completely right.Q
I was interested in your point about grants, Dr Glen, because ultimately we know that quite a lot of businesses have gone bust. Your proposal that we effectively get the taxpayer to foot the bills upfront, knowing that there will be a big gap potentially, is a problem. I am just playing devil’s advocate. On your point about grants, you are suggesting that the taxpayer pays. That is a point of concern for people who are not affected by this and are thinking about the overall financial purse.
Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)
Q Various Ministers have promised 17 times. The language has slightly changed. Originally, it was
“to protect leaseholders from historical remediation costs”,
and then it was “unaffordable costs”. Does this Bill do that? What key things are missing from the Bill?
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
On a similar line to my colleague on the right, will the Bill deliver what we are looking for in the future? We are talking about a Bill for the future and not historically. Does it handle the design of buildings? Does it adequately answer the questions about construction, materials and insurance? Will it prevent future incidents such as GrenfellQ ?
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
Q Thank you. Do you concur, Dr Glen?
Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)
Forgive my ignorance in asking some of these questions, but I want to go back to your response to my colleague Siobhan Baillie and look a little more at the responsibilities of the freeholder. My experience and understanding is that developers sometimes sell freehold a block that they develop. I am conscious that there are many different ownership structures and different types of freeholder, and I am acutely aware, for example, of the pressures on social landlords. As part of the broader conversation that the Bill is bringing about, do we need to re-examine how we look at freeholders? I want to try to square this circle a bit. If I am a freeholder with a lucrative portfolio of tower blocks and properties, how do we square that with the pact with taxpayers, particularly in my constituency, which is the 14th most deprived borough in the country, who would look at that and say, “We are paying to remediate this for you?”Q
Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)
Q That is really useful. Coming back to a point that Mr Boyd made, which I wrote down, would you say that one of the things that we have to combat with this Bill and subsequent legislation is around “market culture”? That is what I wrote down. Effectively, Mr Boyd, you said in your comments that a freeholder does not really care about the condition of that building. It does not matter because the profit margins are still the same. It ties in with the point you made, Dr Glen, about commonhold, in that it is this engagement piece and the power structure. We lauded commonhold when that first came out as a brand new, fantastic way we were going to do this, but if we are being honest, it has flopped, has it not? It has not really been taken up in the way anyone thought it would be. Do you think there is scope here, or should there be some way we can mandate better engagement between those different structures—developer, freeholder and leaseholder? Do you think that would go some way to deal with that market culture—those behaviours that really do seem to be at the core of some of these issues?
Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)
Q Dr Glen, do you have anything to add?
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q I think it was Martin who, answering an earlier question, said that under the commonhold system, there is a requirement to provide a full, independent survey, and that that provides a level of accountability to leaseholders. Do either of you have any suggestions about how you would embed the residents’ voice and accountability to leaseholders and residents through the new scheme, whether in legislation or the new regulatory system? We have been grappling with that throughout the evidence sessions.
Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)
I want to ask you both about the issues we were exploring in the earlier sitting on the capacity, skills and responsibilities of the accountable person and of the building safety manager. Martin, your situation is relatively unusual—certainly, in my casework, I am not aware of leaseholders also jointly owing the freehold of their block. Some of them are resident management organisations, so they contract the managing agents but do not have an ownership responsibilityQ . Is it clear in all circumstances who the accountable person or persons will be? Has adequate thought been given to the skills and responsibilities of the accountable person and the building safety manager?
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
If there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses and we will move on to the next panel.
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
Q We will now hear from James Dalton, Steve Wood and Dr Sarah Colwell. To remind everybody, we have until 3.30 pm for this session. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q Thank you all for coming today. I was particularly struck by a statement in the ABI’s written evidence:
“Although the frequency of fires over the last 10 years has decreased, insurers have seen a significant increase in the damage and costs from fire spread”.
I do not believe we have heard that from anyone else in our evidence so far. I wondered whether you could tell us a little more about that, particularly in terms of what kind of emergency status fire remediation should have attached to it and what the impact of the increase in damage and costs has had on the insurance industry and on leaseholders.
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q As a supplementary, could you comment on the second part of my question, which was about the impact that this has had on the industry, and on the insurance costs facing leaseholders?
Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)
Q Just a quick supplementary, because I will have to go shortly. You said that the fires that have happened have spread a lot faster in residential buildings in recent years. Is that a UK issue or is that an international issue in similar types of buildings?
Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)
Q Comparing residential buildings in the UK with those in other countries, have new forms of building internationally seen this growth in high-speed fires, or do we have a particular problem in the UK?
Selaine Saxby (Conservative, North Devon)
In your view, what is missing from the Bill? This is for each of you, starting with James.Q
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
Q James, I want to tease out something that you just talked about now, which was the issue of sprinklers. We are talking about the Building Safety Bill, so would mandating the installation of sprinklers in all buildings make them more safe?
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
Q So that is a glaring omission, in your opinion.
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
Q Does anybody else want to come in on that?
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
Back to James: are there risks that duty holders will struggle to access professional indemnity insurance? If so, what would be the consequences?Q
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
Would anyone else like to comment?Q
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
Has there been any dialogue with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government regarding training and what you have just outlined?Q
Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)
Q Will the measures in the Building Safety Bill increase or decrease insurance premiums on at-risk buildings? I noted that in your evidence, James, you referred particularly to extending the scope of the Defective Premises Act 1972 from six to 15 years. Could you expand on that?
Kate Osborne (Labour, Jarrow)
My question is really aimed at Sarah, given her expertise. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to regulate construction products. Does it contain enough information about the new regime, and is there enough certainty about what products or type of products will be regulatedQ ?
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q To take you back to the previous question, James, you were asked whether building insurance would go up or down. In short, the answer was that it would likely go down for the new builds, but there is a question mark over historical buildings because of liability insurance. You said that you do not know how we resolve this problem between the six and the 15 years. From your experience in the industry, if there was to be litigation to try to determine an answer to that, how long would you expect that to take, and how expensive do you think it might be?
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q May I push for a little more detail on what constitutes “complex and lengthy” to your average person? Do you mean three months or three years?
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses on behalf of the Committee.
Examination of Witness
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
We will now hear from Matt Wrack, general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union. We have until 4 pm for this session. Could the witness please introduce himself for the record?
Rachel Hopkins (Labour, Luton South)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Thanks, Matt, for coming before us today. I have a couple of questions. The first is a wide one; then I will ask more about the regulator. Will the Building Safety Bill significantly improve the building safety regime in this country?Q
Rachel Hopkins (Labour, Luton South)
Q A key aspect of the Bill is the establishment of the new regulator in the Health and Safety Executive. Are the functions and objectives of this new regulator appropriate? Does it have the right expertise and resources?
Rachel Hopkins (Labour, Luton South)
Q The new regulator will have to co-operate with fire and rescue authorities and local authorities or the private sector. Do you have any comments on those relationships?
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
Q It is good to see you, Matt. Is height the best measure of risk and, if so, is the threshold in the Bill appropriate?
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
Q We have heard a lot in the evidence sessions about culture and the prioritising of profit over safety and quality. Are you concerned that the poor state of buildings and the current culture put your officers at greater risk and in greater danger when there is a fire?
Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)
Q Thank you, Matt, for everything that you and your members do. What is missing from the Bill? What would genuinely make buildings safer, and things a damn sight easier for your members?
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
Q That covered part of my question, which was: were the Government right to retain the duty holder’s power to choose a building control body? Will the reforms in the Bill fix the problems identified by Dame Judith Hackitt?
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
Q In the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, there is a duty to provide adequate training to anyone carrying out a role in their employment. It seems to me that the resources have not been there to enable that training to be given. Where does the duty lie to resource people to do the training that, in law, must be given to everybody carrying out their role? You must be adequately trained to carry out your duties.
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
Q Do you think placing the Building Safety Regulator within the Health and Safety Executive might improve the situation or do anything to address it?
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
Q Is there still the facility to conduct desktop emergency incidents like the one at Grenfell Tower?
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Conservative, Bassetlaw)
ThereQ was mention earlier about pressures on funding and capacity, and so on, and you were asked whether there was anything that you would add to the Bill or that is missing in terms of relieving pressure. Do you not feel that the Fire Safety Act 2021 adequately dealt with many things?
Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)
Q I wanted to touch on accountable persons, because the Bill creates that role. One of the things that you have talked about throughout your evidence is the relationships that the fire service has to build with different stakeholders. What pressures do you think your members will have in terms of this new category of person? Notwithstanding what you said about resource, if tomorrow you had to build those relationships, operationally what would your members have to do? What pieces would they have to move around to ensure that they could adequately build those relationships with the accountable persons, who have this quite significant responsibility on their shoulders?
Kate Osborne (Labour, Jarrow)
Q Hi, Matt. Nice to see you. I was interested in the comments that you, and previous panellists, made on the mantra around fire risk. I was at one of the fire stations in my constituency within the last week, and one of the firefighters there was talking to me about how much more flammable both building materials and the furniture within are. Do you agree?
Kate Osborne (Labour, Jarrow)
Q We talked about the height of buildings, but, once built, a higher-risk building only remains within the scope of the regime if it has at least two residential units. What are your thoughts on that? Should it be restricted only to buildings that people live in?
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q I could hear the frustration in your voice when you said that the Fire Brigades Union has, effectively, been a bit of a lonely voice in trying to raise awareness and concerns over the fact that, while there have perhaps been fewer fires, those fires have been spreading faster. Do you think that some kind of standing committee, or a mechanism where best practice and horizon scanning can take place on a regular basis, would be the answer or is there something else that could happen?
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
If there are no further questions, may I, on behalf of the Committee, thank the witness for his evidence? I am going to suspend the sitting for 10 minutes until we can fire up our next witness on Zoom. Thank you very much.
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
Q We will now hear from Eric Leenders, managing director of personal finance at UK Finance. I just remind everybody that we have until 4.30 pm for this session. Eric, would you introduce yourself for the record?
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
Thank you. The sound is still a bit faint, so if you could make a point of speaking up, we would all be grateful. We are going to start with Shaun Bailey.
Shaun Bailey (Conservative, West Bromwich West)
Q Thank you for being here today. I want to go back to a point that was touched on in our earlier session about market culture. The narrative that we have seen painted so far is that the present structure is pitting freeholders and developers against tenants and creating structural inequality. From your perspective, how far does the Bill go to balance that out when it comes to safety? Particularly thinking of your members and the stakeholders that you deal with, how far do you think the Bill goes and how much further should it go to try to address that and balance the playing field?
Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)
Q What is missing from the Bill?
Rachel Hopkins (Labour, Luton South)
Q I have questions about whether the Bill provides adequate means of redress for residents who want to challenge elements of the building safety charge. Is the provision requiring payment of that charge within 28 days reasonable?
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
Q Eric, given the scale of potential mortgage defaults because of the debts being unfairly loaded on to leaseholders, what would that outcome mean to the health of the housing market?
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
Q Are the Government right to introduce a new building safety charge on residents by which building owners can recover the costs of building safety measures?
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
Q Does the Bill protect leaseholders from unaffordable costs?
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
Q The Government say that the purpose of the service charge is to cover the ongoing costs of the new regime, not historical costs. Do you think that is explicit in the Bill as drafted, and could the Bill permit building owners to recover historical costs through the service charge?
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
It is not clear, then. Thank you very much for that.
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
If there are no further questions, I thank you, Eric, on behalf of the Committee for your time and for your evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
We will now hear from Alison Hills, an affected leaseholder, and Steve Day, a campaigner on the polluter pays principle. We have until 5 pm for this session. Would the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q Thank you, Alison and Steve, for joining us today. Just to let the Committee know, Alison is one of my constituents and we have discussed these matters before. For the benefit of the Committee and for the parliamentary record, could you start by telling us in your own words what impact the fire and safety building crisis has had on you personally, and how this Bill could affect you if it goes through unamended?
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q Thank you. Steve, do you want to talk about your own situation?
Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)
Q Hello, Alison and Steve. I am sorry to hear of your experiences. I know that they are shared by hundreds of thousands, if not more, of people across the country. Steve, I have spoken to you before about the polluter pays principle, which collectively we have spoken about—Labour Back Benchers and others have been advocating that, rather than leaseholders. In terms of your proposals going forward, a lot of developers obviously set up special purpose vehicles. How would you ensure that your proposals—your idea—would be able to capture those characters and ensure that the money goes where it deservedly needs to go?
Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)
Q It is, but we had two esteemed lawyers—one a QC, who you will be familiar with—who spoke about extending the scope retrospectively of the Defective Premises Act. They spoke about case law and the potential of taking that forward successfully; it was minimal to say the least. In fact, a number of witnesses have said that. I am interested in why your very well-intentioned proposals would work more effectively than that, which is not very effective at all?
Mike Amesbury (Labour, Weaver Vale)
Yes.
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
Fire away.
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q At the very beginning, you both outlined the potential size of the bill you are facing for remediation work, but over the course of the past year or so, particularly in relation to the Fire Safety Act 2021, which came before this Bill, we have heard from leaseholders who talked about all sorts of costs. Could you talk us through the different kinds of costs that you have incurred and the cumulative impact they have had? Do you feel that the Government are addressing the issue with the necessary level of urgency?
Marie Rimmer (Labour, St Helens South and Whiston)
Q This is a building safety Bill; it is not about redressing the cladding or the issues with that. If anything, on the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government it was said that the introduction of the building service charge brought about the highest level of anger and scepticism they had ever experienced. That is all that the people affected can see in this Bill, so it goes nowhere near addressing anything like that. If anything, it has caused a concern: would they—could they—use the building service charge to recover historical costs from the leaseholders? We have heard from witnesses that they think it is not clear that that is not the case.
It seems to me that polluter pays is the only suggestion that can go forward. We are not saying that the present Government are responsible for all this, but do you know of any other way than the polluter pays mechanism? Is it New Zealand that has the public safety emergency, where the Government have addressed that? It does not seem able to be addressed. Has anyone put forward to you any other schemes or other ways of addressing this? There are hundreds of thousands of family units in these properties—I do express my sympathy; I sincerely empathise and sympathise—but this simply must be addressed.
Siobhan Baillie (Conservative, Stroud)
Q Thank you both for coming. You are very compelling witnesses, and you have a great skill in being able to talk about something that is incredibly emotional to you, for understandable reasons, and give us a really clear account of what you are seeking to achieve and why.
I want to move you slightly off the redress issue. We have heard witness evidence today that, over two decades, multiple Governments of all colours have failed to address building safety issues. That is high rises and all sorts of things.
This Government are genuinely trying to do their best with the Bill, and we have had evidence that says that it is moving quite a few mountains and is proportionate. You are so expert in this area—although I am sure neither of you want to be such—what do you know about the accountable person part of the Bill? It is suggesting that for a block there would be somebody who would be in charge of things such as fire safety certificates and the gas certificate. They would be the point person. We have heard evidence today from the Fire Brigades Union that was really positive about such a role in terms of the person that they can contact, and similarly the management agent said it was really good to have a single person as a point of contact. We have also heard evidence that no one will take on that role—because it has so many duties and responsibilities that no one will be interested. What is your view? I fear that you two may be that role because you are so expert. Knowing your kind of neighbours, do you think somebody would take that role on if the Bill is enacted?
Siobhan Baillie (Conservative, Stroud)
That is really helpful.
Siobhan Baillie (Conservative, Stroud)
Q If the fire brigade felt it was useful to have a single point person, do you think in your block and other blocks that could be achieved, subject to the definition of roles and responsibilities that Alison talked about?
Siobhan Baillie (Conservative, Stroud)
Q I asked a really basic question of our witnesses in the first panel on Thursday last week about living in a household in a high-rise building. There is so much fear now, understandably, because of Grenfell and because of what you have all been through. It is hard to be quite rational. You are getting into the detail. As part of getting to trust the buildings that you live in, do you think more needs to be done to put out communications about safety of buildings and resident responsibility? We heard some quite compelling evidence that high rises and normal houses are equally problematic if certain things happen. Do you think there should be communication to build faith and trust, and a sense of safety as well?
Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)
Q I think that you have started to answer my question, and thank you for your presentation on the polluter pays principle, but I want to go back to what is in the Bill for existing buildings. The new building safety regime applies to buildings of at least 11 metres in height or at least seven storeys. Do you think that it is right that in effect there is a height limitation defining the risk, or do you have an alternative suggestion? What else is not in the Bill’s scope that you think should be?
Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford and Isleworth)
Q We have heard from both the housing associations, which of course manage both shared ownership and leasehold blocks, as well as social rent blocks, and from one of the private sector management organisations that there is a concern about access to flats. Of course, some leaseholders live in their flats and some have tenants in them. Do you think that the Bill does enough to ensure the safety of electrical and gas appliances in flats in non-communal parts of the building, or does this raise issues around privacy and rights for tenants and leaseholders?
Ian Byrne (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
Q Your evidence, and the level of expertise that you have, has been astounding. I am glad that you mentioned the mental health aspect of it as well, because during covid we cannot imagine how it must have been. We took evidence on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and what we have heard about what people have been through has been heart-rending, obviously with the pandemic on top of what has been going on.
I want to touch on residents’ engagement. It is hugely important. We saw that with Grenfell, and what was missing. Earlier witnesses said that the residents’ engagement section of the Bill is potentially one of the weakest parts. How do we strengthen residents’ voices, and the imbalance of power that exists? How would you reflect what residents need within the Bill to ensure that their voices are heard?
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat, St Albans)
Q My question has been slightly anticipated by the last one. I was going to ask about the residents’ voice and some of the challenges that you face, and you have already touched on the fact that you have found it hard to get accounts, reports and evacuation plans. One proposal that was put to us earlier, by another witness, was a suggestion that residents should have the right to have their voice heard, in some shape or other, on every single site. Would you support that proposal, and if so, how would you envisage that happening?
Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)
If there are no further questions, may I, on behalf of the Committee, thank the witnesses for their evidence today? That brings us to the end of today’s sittings. The Committee will meet again on Thursday, for line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. May I ask Committee members to leave the room promptly by the exit door and while observing social distancing? Thank you very much.