Daisy Cooper
Main Page: Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat - St Albans)Building Safety Bill (Second sitting)
Daisy Cooper Excerpts(2 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chair
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 (St Albans) (LD)
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.
Peter Caplehorn: What I was trying to do was to set the scene. We fully appreciate and support all the statutory moves that are being made. Equally, I wanted to emphasise that industry and a lot of organisations across construction have also been working in the same direction. Perhaps I did not express the point clearly. It was not a case of saying that the other non-statutory initiatives are more important; it is simply the fact that this body of work is going on. I think that that is really important because the objective is to reform, enhance and have culture change across the whole industry. That is brought about by having good statutory powers, and by having the attention of industry and making it move of its own accord.
On the point about overreaction, I wanted to keep my evidence fairly succinct, to be honest, but I was referring to the issues in the industry with insurance. All of us will be concerned about the various reports in the media about insurance issues, and the impact of those. This has to do with the analysis of buildings. Some are clearly in need of remediation, but a lot have been given that label because the industry has overreacted to things that have been going on with regard to safety.
We need regulation; it is crucial. Way back when we started, there was a strong deregulatory movement, and that was unfortunate; it led us to this position. We need good, proportionate regulation, but there should be an equal measure of activity and seriousness from the industry to ensure that its morals, obligations and ethics are in tune with what we all want. I hope that sets the scene for you.
Dr Steedman: I support Peter warmly. It is all about standards, including the regulations. We are looking to achieve a generational change in the culture of an industry, and that will be quite a long process. I applaud the work of the Department and the Ministers here, and their engagement that has brought the Bill to this stage, but we are designing a new structure of powers, which will include standards set out in regulation, standards set out in statutory guidance, supporting regulations, standards that will come from industry, and codes of practice used at an operational level. All of those need to be integrated so that they work together as a full ecosystem.
However, in the end, as Peter says—I totally support his point—you need the industry to want to do this. It needs to want to improve. You cannot police it on every nut and bolt; we know of countries where that happens, and it just does not work. If you want to achieve industry transformation, you need the industry to aspire to become better. We have seen that in important areas, including health and safety, where a change in approach has led to significant improvement in the health and safety of operatives on construction sites. This is an even greater task, in a sense. It is all about creating a system of standards, including higher-level regulatory powers and voluntary standards, that lead to the outcome that we want as a country.
Daisy Cooper
Q
Dr Steedman: My immediate reaction is that I think the Bill is proportionate, but there is a lot more work to do, and we look forward to working with the Department and industry on the supporting regulations and statutory guidance. They really ought to come along together—that would be very useful—but in so far as we are seeing the approach today, it is proportionate, and I welcome that. I do not think that it goes too far.
Peter Caplehorn: I absolutely support Scott in his analysis, which is exactly right. I add that it is important that industry sees that the Government are moving the agenda forward. I can point to several programmes in the past—nothing to do with building safety, of course—where the Government have announced a programme, industry has invested heavily, and then the programme has faltered. I think that is a shame. Many people with a memory of those circumstances will now see the Bill laid out in the way that it is, with all the elements to it.
Again, I reiterate that I do not think it is disproportionate; I think it sets the scene extremely well, and we can all see how we can work from it going forward. In fact, many people have already taken that up, but it is important that this is now a key moment, so that all the energy and effort from industry really get pushed forward. That is crucial.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Q
Dr Steedman: There are some points that I think are missing. The regulator role is complex. I think we need a new regulator. In the work that we have done recently on competence standards, it is very clear that there needs to be a regulator. I think that the Health and Safety Executive is the right place to put the Building Safety Regulator. However, this goes beyond a regulator role; it turns into an enforcer role. Part of the complexity of this subject is the risk of creating a two-tier structure where you have structures that are in scope and structures that are out of scope, and a regulator that is regulator and enforcer for some buildings but just an ordinary regulator for other buildings.
I appreciate that building control is supporting this, but on the relationship between the Department and the regulator, in its role as regulator and enforcer for the buildings in scope and ordinary regulator for the buildings not in scope, and where determination will lie if someone is disputing the regulator’s role as an enforcer, that kind of complexity will not help the industry. It needs to happen and we need to work it out, which will take time, but the role as specified is extremely important and well defined, and I think it is being taken up very earnestly. The people involved are extremely excellent. Peter Baker is a well-respected individual, and I think we are in good hands with him.
Peter Caplehorn: Again, I support entirely what Scott has just said. To contextualise this a little, one of the issues that has been upon us for at least the last 20 years is the lack of oversight and sanction that Dame Judith Hackitt pointed out clearly in her review, to such an extent that I think the generality of customer practice across the industry was that regulation can be treated with a certain degree of lip service—that we do not really need to focus on the essence of a lot of regulation, simply because nobody will pick up on it and there will be no real sanction.
This is a key turning point in where we need to go, because the industry needs to recapture a respect for regulation and for compliance. The regulatory situation that is mapped out in the Bill starts to address that, but I share the concerns that Scott has expressed over the complexity. We have to start somewhere. To me, there is a bigger question here about how we reform the whole industry and the mechanisms that come into play. At the moment, that is set out in terms of a definition of higher-risk buildings, with different implications for other buildings. We have to look forward to the prospect of a regime that would be the same in addressing all buildings. That would start to simplify some of the current complexity, but we have to start somewhere.
The Chair
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
Q
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.
Kate Henderson: We welcome the considerable funding in the building safety fund. That is a huge commitment from the Government, and recognition of the scale of this challenge. The cost of remediation will far exceed the £5 billion that has been put forward, but it is a welcome contribution. However, that money is available based not on the highest risk but on tenure. It is absolutely right that there be support for leaseholders—we do not think leaseholders should have to pay—but we also do not think social tenants should have to pay. There will be consequences to the fact that this funding is not available to social tenants and social landlords.
Our response to your first question is that we believe that the Government should provide the up-front costs for remediation based on a risk-based approach, with the highest-risk buildings remediated first, and then recoup them. No matter who has done the work, it is about how we expedite this based on risk. That is about prioritising safety and minimising the impact on leaseholders and social residents. The consequence of not having funding for social residents and landlords—this is non-negotiable; the work has to take place—is that money is diverted away from building much-needed affordable homes and investment in existing homes and communities.
This is absolutely a crisis. It is not a crisis of our making; it is a crisis that has been made over the last 30 years. It is a failure of regulation and of construction, development and workmanship. We are going at the fastest pace we possibly can to put it right, but there are huge uncertainties and complexities. One thing I have found incredibly useful is going out on site and seeing buildings that are going through this process with residents living there, and the time it takes to get that through. We absolutely think that this is a crisis, and that work needs to take place as quickly as possible, but the complexities of access to funding and establishing liabilities means that work is not taking place as quickly as it could. The building safety fund is hugely welcome. A number of our members have bids in with the building safety fund, and some have been successful—
The Chair
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?
Kate Henderson: That is absolutely fine. My broader point is that we are waiting for some Government timelines. Yes, there is a crisis, but the speed at which we can work is also dependent on access to some of that funding.
The Chair
And our two witnesses appearing physically—would you like to jump in at this stage?
Kate Henderson: Sure. The duty to co-operate is very welcome, but there is still the potential for some issues to arise. The example that we have just heard is not uncommon. We can have buildings that are owned by freeholders that are shell companies, and sometimes those companies then demise the internal parts of the building to a long-term leaseholder. They can also discharge their management duties to a managing agent. Sometimes the long-term leaseholder and the managing agent might be the same entity, but they might not be. In that scenario, we understand that the principal accountable person would still be the freeholder, even though they have appointed a managing agent and have a long leaseholder. Our members have told us that it can be really difficult to engage with the freeholder in this sort of set-up, especially when they need to do things such as assess external wall materials or identify what needs to be remediated. We would want some reassurance that the duty to co-operate has been really thought through for the most challenging of these buildings, in terms of absent freeholders.
A particular challenge is where the freeholder is overseas, potentially in the Isle of Man or Gibraltar. The entity might be outside UK jurisdiction, so I think we would like—we are seeking legal advice at the moment, which of course we will share with the Committee when we have it—an assurance from Government that we are working through the detail of this rather complicated situation. That is not just about us as social landlords; it is about the access that the new Building Safety Regulator can have to that freeholder, and it is about communication for residents. There is some really welcome content in the Bill on good communication with residents—we absolutely support that—but in that type of arrangement, how do we get the right information? If a housing association has a few properties in a wider block with an absent overseas freeholder, it is about making sure that we can reassure those residents and get them the information they require. It is those interrelationships that we still need to work through, and I am not sure that the duty to co-operate at this stage solves that, although we would like it to.
Victoria Moffett: On the question about reasonable steps, I agree with David and Martin about the need for guidance. I suggest that that guidance needs to be focused on what the risks are and what is appropriate to reduce those risks, as well as what outcomes in that building we want to achieve.
Daisy Cooper
Q
Victoria Moffett: That sounds like an interesting concept. We would want to have further discussion of it. It is an interesting comparison. Some of our members have raised the fact that the presumption of access for broadband could minimise the compartmentation that is there to contain a fire to a flat of origin, but the presumption for access in this scenario could be quite a helpful thing.
The Chair
I was going to say that we had ended our questions, but Mike, please, come in.
Daisy Cooper
Q
Liam Spender: You are quite right that the situation is worsening by the day. People are facing existential questions—do they carry on with their property or not? They are facing unpalatable choices. I think one of the ways that the Bill makes things worse is in relation to works that are required to remove building safety risks, an example of which could be cladding. The Bill makes clear that they are all recoverable through the ordinary service charge mechanism, so it removes any doubt that leaseholders have to pay for other people’s misdeeds and mistakes.
We are already seeing the consequences with cladding, so imagine what it will be like with the next thing that comes down the road. You have seen the stories in the newspaper and on “Newsnight” last week that people are already facing six-figure bills, some people have committed suicide and others are declaring bankruptcy. There is a pall hanging over these people and it is a blight on the housing market, which the Bill does nothing to address. I will let Giles add more colour to that answer.
Giles Grover: Again, everything is a long story. A lot of us have been trapped since very soon after the events at Grenfell when buildings were assessed for ACM, and everything has just snowballed and got a lot worse. Every so often, there are incremental positive steps in terms of funding, but you have to fight tooth and nail for those. As Liam said, and as you said in your question, Daisy, it is families, first-time buyers, pensioners—people from all walks of life who just wanted to fulfil that very British dream of being a homeowner or a flat leaseholder; a leaseholder is not necessarily a homeowner. Just the other day, someone told me that because she is so worried and because there is no detail about the loan scheme, she has accepted an offer that is £35,000—it will not pay off the mortgage—on an under-18m building just to be able to move out. She has a little child as well. That is just in Manchester, but it is happening across the country.
As Liam said, there have been suicides, for a mixture of reasons as well, but people just feel helpless. We are currently trapped. You start off being financially trapped, and everyone focuses on the finances. But then, especially during the pandemic, for a year and a half you are sat in your flat looking at the walls and not able to sleep at night from thinking, “What happens if there is a fire?”
This is people in buildings of all heights and all tenures, with defects of all types. As much as it started as a cladding scandal—we are called End Our Cladding Scandal—it has become a building safety crisis. It is not just cladding; it may be balconies, internal compartmentation or lack of fire protection for steelwork. With all these issues, once they are identified and once you have a proper fire risk assessment—a type 4 intrusive one—you start uncovering the lack of regulations, the lack of oversight and the poor development practice, but we are still being made to pay for it. We are still the ones on the hook for it, despite it being none of our fault. It is an absolute disgrace, and it is unfathomable that it is still happening. Government have done something, but not enough to solve this issue once and for all, to provide that certainty to leaseholders and the housing market, and to help us move on with our lives.
Mike Amesbury
Q
Liam Spender: No. The same builders that have put up buildings with the horrific array of defects that we are seeing are still perfectly entitled to draw on the Help to Buy scheme and the recently announced subsidies for affordable housing. There has been no accountability or payment from the polluter. All that has been offered, which is not in the Bill, is the residential property developer tax, which we do not know the details of. But it is wholly inadequate that it will recover only 13% of the estimated £15 billion cost. The bulk of the cost of the current crisis and/or future crises is being dumped on leaseholders, which is what this Bill does.
Giles Grover: I agree with Liam. It is not holding them to account at all. The latest figures are approaching £15 billion, and developments have made £2 billion since the catastrophic events at Grenfell. Government have supported them through the Help to Buy scheme and through instantly having a stamp duty land tax relief, and there is a mortgage guarantee scheme for first-time buyers that is open to everyone. The figure that always bothers me more than anything is the amount of money that the Exchequer loses every year—billions of pounds—to the zero rating of VAT on construction.
A lot of those things have laudable aims, but do they actually help the supply side? They do not; they are all about demand. Government are happy to praise the economic effects—the jobs, the flow of taxpayer money—and it certainly pans out to support the construction industry. The collective state of industry failure is affecting hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. It has taken two and a half years of kicking and screaming to get a bit of money out the Government every so often. Every year there is a little bit more. They keep telling us, “We’re not going to give you any more; we aren’t going to help you out”, but then we get further. There will be a point next year, hopefully, when the Government will say, “Here’s a little bit more”, but everything is a little bit here and little bit there. We are not being helped.
Why are we being forced into a planning tax loan scheme? Why are the Government not forcing the developers to pay that? The simple point goes back to: it was never our fault, it was never anything we did. The regulations are terrible, weak and inadequate. A lot of people knew that for years; the Government were advised of that for years. Builders were allowed to do whatever they wanted and to cut corners. Dame Judith Hackitt says there is a race to the bottom, focusing on profits over safety. But now, we are the ones on the hook to make that right. I do not get how that is at all fair. We need more funding from Government, we probably need more funding from the developers, and we need more funding from the product manufacturers as well. Leaseholders should finally be protected.
The Chair
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?
Justin Bates: Not immediately is the answer, for two reasons. One is that there is so much to be fleshed out in SIs that it is pretty hard to know where this will ultimately go. Until you see the SIs and, in some cases, the guidance, it is quite a nice framework, but it does not matter until you get the secondary legislation.
The other reason why things are unlikely to change immediately is that the focus of the new regime is primarily tall buildings—18 metres-plus—and, as you can all appreciate, there are lots of buildings, both new and existing, that are under 18 metres. While I anticipate that, over time, they will be brought within scope of the regime, that is not the starting point, so nothing much will change for them immediately.
To be frank, I am not sure that legislation can change culture. You can legislate for all the things you want, but if people build on the cheap because there is no real comeback on them, that is the position. For example, you cannot sue building control, regardless of whether it is local authority or private, if they sign off rubbish buildings. If you want to make building control a lot more effective, let people sue them when they get things wrong. We will talk about this later, but one of the flagships in the Bill is extending the limitation period in the Defective Premises Act 1972. You can have the longest limitation period you want, but if all the building is done by SPVs—special purpose vehicles—worth £1, which are wound up the minute they are built, the law does not help you at all. There is a limit to what you can do via legislation, and the Bill is a pretty modest start, even at that.
Daisy Cooper
Q
Justin Bates: There is probably no way of doing this without significant SIs, because to legislate at the level of detail that you probably need, you would have a 10,000-page Bill—you guys would still be in Committee at Christmas. There is also a value to doing it by SI for an element of future-proofing, because it will be easier to update it as things change. I do not see why you could not have at least a draft of the SIs to accompany the Bill, to be considered as part of the scrutiny. One assumes that the thinking as to what will be in the SIs must be reasonably advanced. The moment you have them, this Committee or some other Committee is as well placed as anyone else to do that kind of scrutiny and to bring in the leaseholder and external voices. At the risk of sounding like a typical lawyer, I suspect I am sitting somewhere in the middle.
Giles Peaker: I think I would agree. There are very significant operational elements of this Bill that will be done by statutory instrument, so we are largely in the dark about the way in which it will play out and operate, inasmuch as we have no idea what will be in the SIs. The difficulty with scrutiny of SIs is, I suppose, a parliamentary problem rather than a legal one, but I support Justin’s suggestion that at least drafts, indications or outlines of where the SIs will be going would be significant at this point.
Shaun Bailey
Q
Giles Peaker: I suspect that would be a matter for guidance; guidance would not necessarily avoid the risk of litigation on the issue, but it would mitigate it. The risk for all involved, particularly those who will end up paying for it, is that “reasonable steps” will be seen to be taken as doing every single thing possible to avoid any prospect of being sued or losing one’s insurance, and with that sort of risk avoidance there is a clear risk, particularly when you are looking at potential criminal liability in some aspects. We need some sort of clear guidance on the extent of “reasonable steps”. The difficulty is, of course, that you are looking at a wide range of potential safety issues, and I do not think you could draw a bright line under every single one. Inevitably, without something beyond clause 84, the accountable person will be running scared of what the potential consequences for them will be, if they do not do literally everything.
Justin Bates: The phrase “reasonable steps” is one that the draftsman of this Bill really likes, because it crops up in quite a few places. Contrast clause 84 with clause 124, inserting proposed new section 20D(9) into the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. That is the one about how you regulate service charges, and in that one the Secretary of State is giving himself a power expressly to issue guidance about what will be reasonable steps. I cannot see that he has done the same in clause 84. He is making the accountable person go back to the prescribed principles, but prescribed principles are not the same thing as guidance. I do not see why you could not add a new subsection (6) to clause 84, stating that the Secretary of State may issue guidance from time to time about what constitutes a reasonable step for these purposes. That would be quite useful—and if you wanted to make him lay it before the House before it takes effect, you could even scrutinise it.
Selaine Saxby
Q
Justin Bates: Until we see all the secondary legislation, you cannot start to work out where all the problems will be. You have Dame Judith Hackitt’s report in the background. Dame Judith effectively concludes in her interim report that we have a building industry that cuts corners and throws up the cheapest buildings it can, to sell for the most profit as quickly as it can. That is the cultural problem. If you have still got that culture, people are going to find a way to get around the law. That is what they do. If you are really worried about building standards, you have to address that cultural bit first.
I am not saying that I have any answers to that, which was one of the earlier questions. Legislation by itself cannot make people be morally good, but you can impose enormous and painful penalties on people who do bad things. For example, building control is liable to pay damages if it turns out it was negligent in some respect. That will focus a lot of minds. It will end the practice that is rumoured to exist of some building control being very keen to say yes, because it does not want to get the reputation of being the person who says no, because then they do not get any other work.
Giles Peaker: There is indeed case law on building control signing off on non-existent flats without having seen them. Despite being clearly negligent, and potentially fraudulent, no liability was found. Yes, there is certainly a case for focusing building control’s minds on what it is they are doing.
Daisy Cooper
Q
Giles Peaker: The current position on leaseholders potentially having to pay for building defects is somewhat hotch-potch. By and large, for the huge majority of leases, they will have to, because it will be under the lease. There will be some leases where that is less than clear and some where they may not have to. So far, there have been no such successful cases at the first-tier tribunal or the upper tribunal, but it is theoretically possible—I am not ruling it out.
The Bill certainly takes as read that the cost of remedial works will pass under the service charge. There is no envisaging otherwise; it is simply the case, as far as the Bill goes. In terms of inserting, for instance, a direction by the regulator, it makes it 99.9% certain that the costs will indeed pass under the service charge. Not so much by specifying but by presenting the framework by which the remedial works will be assessed under the serviced charge, yes, it does enshrine that principle.
Justin Bates: Clause 124 is the critical one for this. Clause 124 assumes that the leaseholder is going to have a contractual liability under the lease, and it is right to make that assumption. In 99.9% of leases the starting point position will be that the leaseholder pays. By one route or another, there will be a clause in the lease that could be used. I agree it is theoretically possible that you have a lease that does not allow for that. I do not think it is very likely.
Clause 124 does not actually do anything to stop that. It takes the contractual position—that the leaseholder pays—and says, “We are going to ameliorate that in a relatively limited way.” First off, it only applies to a particular type of work, which is going to be specified by the Secretary of State in regulations. We do not actually know what kind of work it will apply to yet. I know it is not just cladding we are talking about here, but for simplicity’s sake let us say the Secretary of State passes an SI that says it applies to cladding replacement. In those circumstances, the Bill puts the freeholder under an obligation to look at alternative sources of funding. He has to go and look at granting funding—building safety fund money would be an obvious example. He has to look at insurance funding that might be available. He has to look at any other third parties that might have to pay because the developer could sue them, and he has to look at anything else the Secretary of State specifies, which is why it would be useful to know what the Secretary of State intends to specify. But it is only a duty to take reasonable steps to see whether any of those parties can pay up. What will reasonable steps mean in these circumstances? Once the building safety fund is exhausted, there is no publicly announced plan for any further grant funding. You know the building safety fund will get exhausted, because the Select Committee has done the work on that.
On insurance, it is good to have it enshrined in law that you should be looking to your insurers to pay up—frankly, case law has got there already, so it is not much of a development but it is always useful to have it confirmed in one place. The one that troubles me is the idea that the freeholder has to take reasonable steps possibly to sue third parties. What will reasonable steps mean here? Presumably, the freeholder will go and get legal advice from someone, and lawyers being what they are, they will say the prospects of success are somewhere between x and y. If he says there is a 51% chance of success, does the freeholder have to do it? Bear in mind that the legal costs of a failed claim will almost be certainly be a service chargeable cost. If he says it is 70%, does the freeholder have to do it?
If he does have to bring litigation, in the meantime, what will you do about the actual work on the building, because suing someone does not get a building made safe? In the meantime, all the leaseholders—your constituents who write to you about waking watches and higher insurance premiums—will keep paying that while the freeholder and the developers have a fight about who should pay the ultimate work.
I understand what it is trying to do: it is trying to give freeholders a meaningful kick to make sure they exhaust other sources of funding before they go to leaseholders. I just see this generating a lot of litigation to achieve very little.
Giles Peaker: To follow that through, clause 124 appears to make it an obligation for the accountable person to actually carry out works in the meantime while searching for the other sources of funding. Where is that money coming from? It is not going to happen. There will be no money, unless they charge the leaseholders in the meantime and then refund them, but they cannot do that.
If you are looking at potential litigation by the freeholder, I do that kind of work—you are looking at two or three years before there is an outcome, whether successful or not. Costs of failed litigation could be immense and will go through the service charge—that is entirely right under this Bill. But if the accountable person does not bring litigation, you are looking at the leaseholders prospectively bringing a challenge in the tribunal that they do not have to pay the remedial costs, whatever they are, as specified in the statutory instrument, because the accountable person has not complied with the relevant section of 20D. You are then asking the first-tier tribunal to reach a finding on what the landlord’s reasonable prospects of success would have been had they pursued a claim against the developer, as a condition of whether the charge has to be paid. That is a huge stretch for the FTT. How do you evidence that? The leaseholders bring along someone like me who says, “I put it at 70%.” The freeholder brings along their solicitor who advised them and said, “It’s a 40% chance.” What is the FTT to do? I cannot see that working. It is years and years of litigation one way or another.
Daisy Cooper
Q
Giles Peaker: Immense.
Daisy Cooper
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?
Justin Bates: All of those scenarios are plausible on clause 124 as drafted, yes.
Ruth Cadbury
Q
Justin Bates: Oh, yes.
Mike Amesbury
Q
Giles Peaker: We have been wracking our brains about this one. I know the clause that you are referring to. We are not entirely sure why it is there. I think it is probably just to avoid there actually then being a human rights challenge to BSA on whatever relatively spurious basis. I cannot see a valid human rights challenge, and certainly not in terms of the removal of the six-year limitation. A limitation defence is not a property for the purposes of article 1 of protocol 1; they could not pull an article 1 complaint.
I do not think that there are any article 6 issues, because limitation does not stop you being liable; it just stops you being sued. You are still responsible for the problems. If the period for which you can be sued is extended, where is the article 6 problem? You will still get your fair trial in court. After wrestling with it, I cannot see one.
Justin Bates: What has almost certainly happened is that because we are designing for legislation with retrospective effect, the draftsman of this has realised that retrospective law is something that does flag up human rights concerns. You can do it—your Parliament is sovereign; you can do whatever you want—but it does flag up human rights concerns. Rather than having a fight about whether there is a human rights defence or not, the draftsman has said, “If anyone ever manages to succeed in one, this will be the outcome”.
These words could be hostage to fortune, but I suspect that it is a clause that will not go very far because you would see more litigation about whether the defence was available at all. This assumes that the defence is available, and it has decided what the outcome will be. I can understand why it has been put in there, because if it is not in there and a developer brings a human rights defence and wins, what happens is that the developer is still liable in damages, but a declaration of incompatibility is made, and you then have to deal with your incompatible legislation. I can see why the possibility of that has been headed off at the beginning, but I do not think it will go anywhere. I know that Giles takes a slightly different view.
Giles Peaker: I do take a slightly different view. I have a horrible feeling that that clause will invite people to try, which would inevitably mean at least three to five years of litigation on that issue, but we will see.
Daisy Cooper
Q
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?
Justin Bates: At the moment, I would lean towards the latter. I do not think the planning analogy is a good one, because this is not like two elected bodies, each with their own political concerns, fighting over where the houses should be; it is between two supposedly neutral public authorities. I see the co-operation duty as closer to the duties that exist under the Housing Act 2004, whereby local authorities and fire brigades have to work together when they are doing certain kinds of inspection.
I am not for a second pretending that you do not get areas of conflict. In pure housing law disputes between district councils and county councils about homeless children, you get enormous fights—a very common fight is about whether it concerns housing or social services—so I am not saying that there are no fights to be had. As far as I am aware, that problem does not come up under the Housing Act. That is probably the closest analogy. Can I think about it and send something in afterwards if I think of any particular problems?
The Chair
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.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)