Hertfordshire Green Belt: National Planning Policy

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Hertfordshire Greenbelt and the National Planning Policy Framework.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I especially welcome the opportunity to again bring threats to Hertfordshire’s green belt to the Minister’s attention. The importance of the green belt in my constituency and across Hertfordshire more broadly cannot be overstated. More than half of Hertfordshire is designated as being within the London metropolitan green belt.

Nationally, we have a housing crisis and an ecological crisis. When it comes to planning in the green belt, the answer is sustainable housing that responds to housing need, but that is not what the Government’s planning system delivers. It is developer-led, not community-led, it does not deliver the social homes that we need and it does not protect our green belt. Nationwide, of almost 18,000 homes built on the green belt, barely 10% were affordable. In my constituency, St Albans City and District Council is being asked to build more than 14,600 homes over the next 15 years. It can build 5,000 on brownfield land, so the remaining 9,000 will have to be built on the green belt. The neighbouring authority of Hertsmere wants to build 6,000 homes right on our border, removing the green belt altogether between two villages and creating a new monster-sized settlement, and the Conservative Government still want us to house a strategic rail freight interchange the size of 490 football pitches, which is also likely to attract thousands of lorries. Could this ever be described as sustainable development? No, it could not.

At the heart of the problem is the Government’s national planning policy framework. The Government have a standard methodology that produces top-down housing targets. Ministers have tried to tell me, in response to my many parliamentary questions on this matter, that their standard method for calculating housing does not produce targets per se, but is merely a starting point from which councils can start to work. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed how many councils have submitted a successful local plan with a housing target that has been revised down from the standard method.

Those at the very top of Government tell us that the green belt will be protected. At the recent Conservative party conference, the Prime Minister himself promised that the homes we need will be built on brownfield sites and “not on green fields”. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), told the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who is present, in his debate last month that the national planning policy framework gives the necessary protections to green belt land when local authorities come to draw up their local plans, but I am afraid that that is simply not the case.

I give the example of Roundhouse Farm, near Colney Heath in my constituency. I understand, given the quasi-judicial role of the Secretary of State, that it is not appropriate for Ministers to comment on appeals under consideration, but this one has been concluded. St Albans District Council and Welwyn Hatfield District Council jointly refused permission for a development of 100 houses at Roundhouse Farm near Colney Heath, which is on the Hertfordshire green belt. Both councils, having regard to the national planning policy framework, considered that it would be damaging to the green belt to allow an inappropriate development such as that to proceed. The Minister’s planning inspector disagreed, and yet another chunk of precious green-belt land was given over to development. The inspector gave more weight to the calculation of housing need under the Government’s standard method than to the protection of the green belt.

In setting out the reasons for overturning the decision, the planning inspector said:

“I am aware of the Written Ministerial Statement of December 2015 which indicates that unmet need is unlikely to clearly outweigh harm to Green Belt and any other harm so as to establish very special circumstances. However”—

this is the critical line—

“I note that this provision has not been incorporated within the Framework which has subsequently been updated and similar guidance within the Planning Practice Guidance has been removed. I can therefore see no reason to give this anything other than little weight as a material consideration.”

That is to say that he gave little weight to the green belt. The inspector’s appeal decision went on to say:

“I afford very substantial weight to the provision of market housing which would make a positive contribution to the supply of market housing in both local authority areas.”

If the Government genuinely believe that there are sufficient protections for the green belt in the national planning policy framework, I would be grateful if the Minister explained to me and my constituents how that decision came to be overturned by the Secretary of State on the recommendation of the planning inspector. I would be grateful to know whether the Minister accepts the planning inspector’s conclusion that the provision to protect the green belt has not been incorporated within the national planning policy framework, and that similar protections within the planning practice guidance have been removed. If the Minister does accept those findings from the planning inspector, I would be grateful to hear whether the Government intend to rectify the situation.

Following the shock decision, I asked the Secretary of State to intervene and urgently issue guidance to the planning inspector on determining appeals. This would mean attaching greater weight to the objective of protecting green belt than to the standard housing need method of calculation. When I asked this question, I got the following reply from the Government:

“The Government is firmly committed to protecting and enhancing Green Belt land for future generations as set out in our manifesto. That is why, for decision-taking, local authorities should regard the construction of buildings in the Green Belt as inappropriate and refuse planning permission, unless there are exceptional circumstances as determined by the local authority.”

However, the two local authorities in this case did precisely that but had their refusal overturned anyway. I would be grateful to understand whether the Minister now accepts that the national planning policy framework is simply not fit for the purpose of protecting our precious green-belt land. It must be updated without further delay, and new guidance should be issued to the planning inspector. I have outlined just one example of local authorities doing everything within their power to protect our natural environment and having their decisions overturned by the same Government who profess to be its protector, but I am sure there are countless others.

Let me turn briefly to the standard method and the green belt weighting. At some stage, every council in Hertfordshire will have to make a judgment call. Either they have to come up with a local plan that meets central targets and they have to wave goodbye to the green belt, or they have to try to call the Government’s bluff, claim exceptional circumstances to protect the green belt, and wait and see what the planning inspector says. However, the problem is that the planning inspector may well take their powers away altogether. Council leaders accept that that would almost certainly leave communities in a weaker position than they are in now, and any canny developer would immediately put in an application for the sites that we most want to protect. The situation is deeply unsatisfactory.

As we have discovered, the Government’s repeated claim that the standard method of calculation does not produce centrally imposed targets just does not stand up to scrutiny. In fact, the planning inspector’s day-to-day interpretation of the national planning policy framework shows that that is exactly how the targets are being treated. I ask the Minister again: will he commit to urgently issue guidance to the planning inspector that has principles for protecting the green belt? Will he ensure that those principles are given more weight when deciding appeals and examining local plans, and that they are given more weight than the arbitrary numbers that are being reached through the standard method of calculation? I ask him to do so urgently, as yet another Hertfordshire district has just put out its draft local plan for consultation.

Hertsmere Borough Council proposes bulldozing over a substantial swathe of the green-belt land that sits between two villages in my constituency. The shocking proposal for Bowmans Cross would see the effective conjoining of London Colney and Colney Heath. The plan would mean that 6,000 houses fall slap bang in the middle of fields and natural habitats that currently surround and separate the two communities. The impact of that monster development would not be felt by the residents in Hertsmere; it would be felt by my constituents in St Albans. None the less, I cannot help but have some sympathy for yet another Conservative-led council that has felt the pressure from its Conservative Government to meet their huge top-down housing targets.

I am more than aware of the critical shortage of housing supply in the country. Liberal Democrats are absolutely committed to providing the truly affordable new homes that are so desperately needed, and in St Albans I am proud that the Liberal Democrat-run district council is driving ahead to build those social homes. However, across Hertfordshire, Liberal Democrat-run and Conservative-run councils alike are all in the same position. Conservative-led Broxbourne has given up 15% of its district’s total green-belt land. That is more green-belt land sacrificed than in any other council in England. Research by the Campaign to Protect Rural England recently found that, in addition to the 17,500 homes that have already been approved or are being built on Hertfordshire’s green belt, more than 50,000 extra have been proposed.

To be clear, I am not asking for the Government to stop building; I am asking for the Government to strike the right balance and create a planning framework that delivers sustainable development. It is in the Government’s gift to do that by updating the national planning policy framework and the guidance as I have described. I hope that the Government will take this up without any further delay.

Building Safety Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Shaun Bailey]

The hon. Member makes an interesting point. On the face of it, we could say that the new clause streamlines the approach, but I still have a concern. For example, why could the agency not sit within the BSR or within the new regulator that we have just established? Why do we need to establish another one? I get his broader point—

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

Unless I have missed something, these are two entirely separate proposals for two entirely separate bodies that have two completely different functions. The Building Safety Regulator is there to regulate. The building safety works agency would oversee the remediation works. One regulates and one does the actual building work. They are two separate bodies. There is no confusion at all. A further amendment could put the building safety works agency within the regulator, but there is no need for that. They are two completely different bodies with two completely different remits.

[Shaun Bailey]

I can certainly see the hon. Lady’s point, but my point is: why do we need to bring so many actors to the table? We are trying to build a system that is accessible. I get what she says, but we both know that for vulnerable leaseholders, things might not seem straightforward. When someone is in distress and difficulty, they will not know the difference between the building works agency and the BSR. I can show her that from my casework.

[Daisy Cooper]

I think it became incredibly clear in our evidence sessions that there are many innocent leaseholders who have effectively become lawyers. They understand the legislation in great detail, and it is hugely disappointing that the hon. Gentleman thinks that many of these innocent leaseholders would not be able to understand the difference between two different bodies when they themselves have effectively become experts on the legislation. As I say, they are two different bodies. Leaseholders themselves are calling for a programme of find, fix and fund, and the building works agency would be there to do the fixing.

[Shaun Bailey]

We did see that, and I certainly do not want to undermine the work that individual leaseholders have done to get a grasp of the system. That is not what I am trying to say. I want to see a system that is as easy as possible to navigate. Yes, we have seen those examples and I completely get that, but I could equally refer to individuals in states of absolute emotional distress who would have to deal with this system, as we have touched on under previous new clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 17

Presumption of allowing urgent building safety remediation work

“(1) If a leaseholder or tenant has identified urgent building safety work needed to the property they occupy they should notify the freehold owner in writing.

(2) Should the freehold owner not reply to the written notification under subsection (1) within 90 days of receiving it there should be a presumption in favour of allowing the work to proceed.

(3) It is the freehold owner’s responsibility to ensure that all leaseholders and tenants have the correct details to provide them with a written notification as set out in subsection (1).

(4) The Secretary of State may issue guidance on the application of this section.

(5) A court considering a matter relating to this section must have regard to any guidance issued under subsection (4).” —(Daisy Cooper.)

This new clause would introduce the presumption of consent for leaseholders to carry out urgent building safety work, where absent freeholders cannot be contacted, or refuse to respond.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Daisy Cooper]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I spoke too soon early in proceedings; I thought I had finished all my new clauses for the day, but I forget about new clause 17. This new clause would introduce the presumption of consent for leaseholders to carry out urgent building safety work where absent freeholders cannot be contacted, or refuse to respond. I have moved this new clause following the evidence from the National Housing Federation, which spoke in detail about the challenges its members had faced when dealing with absent or offshore freeholders. Kate Henderson said in evidence to this Committee:

“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…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.”––[Official Report, Building Safety Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2021; c. 48, Q46.]

This new clause seeks to give the Government an opportunity to fix that specific problem.

There is, of course, a precedent for the concept of a presumption of consent, because the Government introduced it in their own legislation on broadband earlier in the parliamentary session. When I put that to the National Housing Federation during our evidence session, Members may recall that the NHF said there were concerns that the legislation to enable residents to get fast broadband into their homes could cause fire safety defects if the people installing the broadband inadvertently went through firebreaks. I recognise that my proposal is not without problems, but given that leaseholders have been given a presumption of consent in order to get faster broadband put into their buildings—whether or not that might cause problems with firebreaks—if those buildings face fire safety problems, one can see why a presumption of consent might be a good thing.

At an earlier point in proceedings, the Minister and I had an exchange about this new clause, and I believe he raised the question of unintended consequences from that presumption. I hope he may be willing to expand on his concerns and provide assurances that he is aware that this is a challenge for social housing providers, and that the Government will look to address it either through this new clause or in an amendment of their own.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged again to the hon. Lady for raising this matter, which we recognise is an important one. She asked me to expand on the concerns that I raised about the applicability of the new clause, as opposed to the motivation behind it. We have three concerns, essentially, but I hope that she will be further reassured as I explain what we are doing to ensure that tenants and leaseholders are protected.

My first concern is that the new clause does not make it clear what type of work constitutes urgent building safety work, how that would be funded or the rationale regarding the introduction of a 90-day notice period. That lack of clarity presents opportunities for all sorts of legal interpretation that might see the proposal and the wording challenged in the courts.

My second concern is that tenants would have to wait at least 90 days before beginning remediation. I know that the hon. Lady will say to me that a lot of people have been waiting a lot longer than 90 days for their properties to be remediated, and I hear that concern, but I do not see how putting a 90-day window in law will help them or anybody else who might be affected by this challenge.

My third concern relates to the common parts of the building, which are not the responsibility of the leaseholders and tenants. The new clause therefore runs the risk of undermining the role of accountable persons and their building safety responsibilities over the common parts of the building, which we are mandating as part of the new building safety regime.

Those are my three concerns, but I want to offer the hon. Lady some reassurance that we consider that the Bill already delivers the policy intent of her new clause by ensuring that there is a robust definition in place that identifies the accountable persons for buildings that fall within scope. The Bill automatically places statutory obligations on those persons, making them responsible for effectively managing building safety in accordance with the new regime. That is in addition to their active repairing obligations in the lease.

If leaseholders or tenants raise a complaint about an urgent building safety works matter with an accountable person and the accountable person does not adequately address those concerns, rather than the tenants or leaseholders carrying out the work themselves, there will be mechanisms enabling them to raise their concerns directly with the Building Safety Regulator. The Building Safety Regulator will be well equipped to use their expertise and resources to assess whether urgent building safety works are required, and subsequently to take the necessary compliance and enforcement action. Because of their expertise, they will properly be able to identify what is urgent, and that will stand the test of any legal interrogation.

I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise that there are some practical challenges with the new clause, notwithstanding the intent that lies behind it. I hope that she will also see that, vested in the Bill that she has already been voting on—almost entirely favourably, I am pleased to say—is provision that gives leaseholders and tenants the sort of protections that she is looking for. I hope that she will withdraw the new clause.

[Daisy Cooper]

I thank the Minister for his assurances. I note that the issue was still raised by the National Housing Federation. I will go back to it to ensure that it feels comfortable that the definition of the accountable person and the mechanism that has been set up for other properties will in fact operate well enough if the freeholder is absent. I trust that the Minister will be happy to receive any representations from it if it sees any further issues. But at this point in the proceedings, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 20

Assessment of the impact of building safety issues on social housing sector homebuilding

“(1) Within one year of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must carry out and publish a review of the impact of building safety issues on properties provided by registered providers of social housing.

(2) The review must consider in particular—

(a) current and future housebuilding,

(b) current maintenance of homes provided by registered providers of social housing, and

(c) homelessness.

(3) The review must in particular consider the impact of building safety issues on social housing provider finances, including the amount of funding provided to registered providers of social housing to remediate buildings with combustible cladding and the advice given by his Department on building safety since 14 July 2017, on—

(a) the proportion of registered provider of social housing funds that was previously allocated to social homebuilding or the maintenance or improvement of current social housing which has instead been allocated to building safety work, and

(b) projections of future housebuilding by registered providers of social housing in comparison with Government housebuilding targets and national homelessness rates.

(4) The review must make any recommendations for Government action necessary to ensure–—

(a) homebuilding targets are reached,

(b) current housing provided by registered providers of social housing is maintained and improved, and

(c) any rise in homelessness is prevented.”—(Mike Amesbury.)

This new clause would require the Government to publish an assessment of the effect of building safety requirements on the maintenance of current homes and building of future homes by registered providers of social housing, and rates of homelessness.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mike Amesbury]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would ensure that the Government published an assessment of the impact of building safety costs on registered providers of social housing. The National Housing Federation last week announced that one in 10 affordable homes planned by housing associations will no longer be built, because of the costs of making buildings safe. The impact of the Government’s decision to effectively lock out social landlords from funding, because costs are less likely to fall on the shoulders of leaseholders, is clear in the report: 12,900 out of 116,777 new affordable homes will be cut from plans in order to prioritise spending on building safety. Earlier this year, the G15 group stated that their bill would be £3.6 billion by 2036. Nationally, housing associations stated last year that it would cost £10 billion to make all homes safe from fire risk over the next 10 years. The National Housing Federation also announced last week that social rent homes would be the hardest hit, because they build the majority of that tenure within their own income envelope rather than with Government grants.

I need hardly remind the Minister that the country managed to build only 6,644 homes for social rent in 2019 and 2020, but lost 24,120 from the stock, resulting in a net loss of 17,476 homes for social rent. With one in 10 households stuck on waiting lists for more than five years to get a home, we absolutely cannot afford to be losing more social homes. We must build them at scale.

I was glad to hear that the new Secretary of State appears to agree with me and so I hope that addressing this aspect of the building safety crisis can form part of the thinking in this respect. It is not just home building itself that will be impacted. The 61 housing associations surveyed by the National Housing Federation said that they would have to divert £730 million away from routine maintenance such as upgrading kitchens or bathrooms or doing other essential safety work. Half a million social homes are considered to be non-decent—as we have seen in the coverage on ITV. Shockingly, 40% of those are classed as unfit for human habitation. These homes may have mould or damp, rodent issues, or physical damage.

Building Safety Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Eddie Hughes]

In line with other elements of the Bill, the certificate would be displayed in a prominent location.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 21 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 3

Duty on the Secretary of State to report on designations under Part XVI of the Housing Act 1985

“(1) Within the period of six months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, the Secretary of State must—

(a) consider the financial impact on leaseholders in England and Wales of building safety advice given by his department since 14 June 2017; and

(b) in conjunction with the Treasury and the Prudential Regulation Authority, consider the impact of building safety advice given by his department since 14 June 2017 on the supply of mortgage finance for leasehold flats in England and Wales; and

(c) publish a report setting out his determination, in light of the factors identified in paragraphs (a) and (b), as to whether designations under section 528 or section 559 of the Housing Act 1985 would improve conditions for leaseholders, or would improve the supply of mortgage finance for leasehold flats in England and Wales.

(2) If the Secretary of State’s report under subsection (1) concludes that designations under section 528 or section 559 of the Housing Act 1985 would improve financial conditions for leaseholders in England and Wales, or would improve the supply of mortgage finance for leasehold flats in England and Wales, then at the same time as publishing his report he must—

(a) make arrangements to provide all necessary funding;

(b) make the appropriate designations under section 528 of the Housing Act 1985; and

(c) advise local housing authorities to make appropriate designations under section 559 of the Housing Act 1985.

(3) Before making any regulations bringing into force any section in Part 4 of this Act, the Secretary of State must make arrangements for—

(a) a motion to the effect that the House of Commons has approved the report prepared under subsection (1), to be moved in the House of Commons by a minister of the Crown; and

(b) a motion to the effect that the House of Lords to take note of the report prepared under subsection (1), to be moved in the House of Lords by a minister of the Crown.

(4) The motions required under subsections (3)(a) and (3)(b) must be moved in the relevant House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of five calendar days beginning with the end of the day on which the report under subsection (1) is published.

(5) If the motion tabled in the House of Commons is rejected or amended, the Secretary of State must, within 30 calendar days, publish a further report under subsection (1) and make arrangements for further approval equivalent to those under subsection (2).

(6) The Secretary of State shall make a further report under subsection (1) at least every 90 calendar days beginning with the day of any rejection or amendment by the House of Commons under subsection (5) until otherwise indicated by a resolution of the House of Commons.

(7) In this section—

‘leaseholder’ means the registered legal owner of a long lease; and

‘long lease’ has the same meaning as in section 76 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

(8) This section comes into force on the day this Act is passed.—(Daisy Cooper.)

This new clause places a time-limited duty on the Secretary of State to consider making designations under Part XVI of the Housing Act 1985 to provide funding for cladding and fire safety remediation and for Parliament to approve the plans for doing so.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. The new clause places a time-limited duty on the Secretary of State to consider making designations under part 16 of the Housing Act 1985 to provide funding for cladding and fire safety remediation and enables Parliament to approve the plans for doing so.

The principle behind the new clause will be well known to Committee members and, indeed, Members from right across the House. It comes from the eye-watering costs faced by fire safety victims. Earlier in Committee proceedings, we took evidence from Alison Hills, Stephen Day and End Our Cladding Scandal. All talked about the enormous bills they face and the fact that they simply cannot afford to pay them. The new clause requires the Government to report on whether the process of designating these premises as defective could improve leaseholders’ financial position. The 1985 Act presents an interesting precedent of a Conservative Government intervening to establish a scheme to reimburse people who later found themselves to be living in defective premises. The grant funding under the Act covered only 90% of remediation costs; alternatively, it would purchase the home for 95% of the defect-free value.

As drafted, the new clause, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), has a couple of challenges, but neither is insurmountable. The 1985 Act scheme applies only to homes purchased from a public authority, but I am sure the Government can find a way to amend that Act—through primary legislation or perhaps by accepting the new clause—so that it applies to the current crisis and bring forward a new proposal to include defective private homes.

The other issue is that the definition of defects in the 1985 Act focused on modes of construction, rather than the specific defects that need to be remediated. It would be a little tricky, but not impossible, for the Government to capture all the fire safety defects they would want covered under the new clause. Indeed, they could introduce statutory instruments that list them, or they could put a duty on the new Building Safety Regulator to report to the Secretary of State on what should and should not be included.

There are obstacles to overcome, but as I say, they are not insurmountable. The question is whether the Government want to overcome them. If the Government continue to refuse to resolve this crisis, Back-Bench Members will continue to find every opportunity to use the Bill to make sure that we can protect leaseholders from these enormous, eye-watering costs. Thatcher’s Government had the compassion and foresight to ensure that those who bought their homes under the right to buy were not left with defective homes through no fault of their own. If even Thatcher’s Government could do that, we hope that Johnson’s Government can finally step up and do the same.

[Mike Amesbury]

Her Majesty’s Opposition support the new clause. Fundamentally, and collectively, we will use every opportunity to try to protect leaseholders from historical remediation charges. As the hon. Member for St Albans argued, where there is a will, there is certainly a way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

I will respond briefly before deciding. I thank the Minister for his considered response. He said that the funding required under the new clause would create a disproportionate burden on the public finances. He will of course be aware that new clause 4, which we will discuss next, proposes a mechanism to enable the Government to recoup some of the costs from those responsible.

The Minister’s second point was about the excessive burdens that would stem from the new clause, but if those burdens do not fall on the state, they fall on leaseholders, who are the innocent parties—the only innocent parties—in all this, so I ask him and the Government to reflect on that.

The Minister’s third point was that it is not the role of the Committee or the Government to fix the new clauses. I respectfully say that it would be entirely possible for the Government to fix this particular problem without requiring any amendments or new clauses at all, because they have set up the building safety fund without creating legislation. They could extend the fund and get on with the job of making people’s homes safe within months, but they choose not to, which is why it falls to Back Benchers to bend over backwards to find ways of forcing the Government to do the right thing. None the less, I am happy at this stage of proceedings to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Building Safety Indemnity Scheme

“(1) There shall be a body called the ‘Building Safety Indemnity Scheme’ (referred to in this Act as ‘the Scheme’).

(2) The purpose of the Scheme shall be to collect money from levies and to disburse the money raised from those levies in the form of grants to leaseholders to pay all or any part of the following types of costs—

(a) remediation of any defect in any external wall of any building containing two or more residential units; or

(b) remediation of any defect in any attachment to any external wall of any building containing two or more residential units; or

(c) remediation of any internal or external defect other than a defect described in paragraphs (a) or (b); or

(d) any building safety works carried out by an accountable person under section 84; or

(e) any other cost of a type specified by the Secretary of State in regulations made under this section.

(3) The Scheme may disburse money for the benefit of leaseholders in any type of building, whether or not a higher-risk building and whether or not the building was completed before the coming into force of this Act.

(4) The levy imposed by the Scheme shall be determined by reference to each of the following—

(a) the Scheme’s best estimate of the reasonably likely total cost grants to cover any type of cost described in subsection (2);

(b) the Scheme’s best estimate of the costs of raising and administering the levy; and

(c) the Scheme’s best estimate of the costs of processing applications for grants to leaseholders and disbursing funds to leaseholders from monies raised by the levy.

(5) Members of the Scheme subject to levies shall include the following—

(a) any person seeking building control approval from the Regulator;

(b) any prescribed insurer providing buildings insurance to buildings containing two or more residential units, whether or not the buildings are higher-risk buildings;

(c) any prescribed lender providing mortgage finance in the United Kingdom, whether or not secured over residential units in higher-risk buildings; and

(d) any other person whom the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(6) The Scheme is to consult with levy paying members before determining the amount and duration of any levy.

(7) The Scheme must provide a process by which leaseholders, or persons acting on behalf of leaseholders, can apply for grants for the types of costs specified in subsection (2).

(8) The Scheme must provide an appeals process for the Scheme’s decisions regarding—

(a) the determination of the amount of any levy; or

(b) the determination of any grant application.

(9) A building control authority may not give building control approval under the Building Act 1984 to anyone unless—

(a) the person seeking building control approval is a registered member of the Scheme, or that person becomes a registered member of the Scheme; and

(b) the person seeking building control approval pays all levies made on that person by the Scheme under subsection (3).

(10) Any liability to pay a levy under this section does not affect the liability of the same person to pay an additional levy under section 57 of this Act.

(11) Within a period of 12 months beginning with the coming into force of this section, the Secretary of State must make regulations providing for—

(a) the appointment of a board to oversee the Scheme;

(b) the staffing of the Scheme;

(c) the creation and maintenance of a register of members of the Scheme;

(d) the preparation of the best estimates described in subsection (3);

(e) the amount, manner and timing of payment of the levies on members of the Scheme under this section;

(f) the process of joining the Scheme;

(g) the process of leaseholders applying to the Scheme for grants towards any of the types of costs specified in subsection (2);

(h) the process for handling any appeals against decisions of the Scheme on any levy or any grant;

(i) the Scheme to make an annual report to Parliament; and

(j) any other matters consequential to the Scheme’s operation.

(12) Regulations made under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.

(13) A statutory instrument under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(14) In this section—

‘building’ has the same meaning as in section 29;

‘building control approval’ has the same meaning as in paragraph (1B)(2) of Schedule 1 to the Building Act 1984;

‘building control authority’ has the same meaning as in section 121A of the Building Act 1984;

‘defect’ means anything posing any risk to the spread of fire, the structural integrity of the building or the ability of people to evacuate the building, including but not limited to any risk identified in guidance issued under Article 50 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1541) or any risk identified in regulations made under section 59;

‘external wall’ has the same meaning as in Article 6 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1541);

‘higher-risk building’ has the same meaning as in section 59;

‘prescribed’ means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;

‘remediation’ means any step taken to eradicate or to mitigate a defect, including employment of any person to temporarily assist in evacuation of any part of a building, and whether or not the defect in question existed at the date any residential unit in the building was first occupied. Remediation does not include anything required in consequence of omitting to effect reasonable repairs or maintenance to all or any part of the building over time, or anything which is the responsibility of an occupant of a residential unit within the building;

‘residential unit’ has the same meaning as in section 123.

(15) This section shall come into force on the day this Act is passed.”—(Daisy Cooper.)

This new clause would require the government to establish a comprehensive fund, equivalent to the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, to provide grants to remediate cladding and fire safety defects of all descriptions, paid for by levies on developers, building insurers and mortgage lenders.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Daisy Cooper]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would require the Government to establish a comprehensive fund, equivalent to the Motor Insurers Bureau, to provide grants to remediate cladding and fire safety defects of all descriptions, paid for by levies on developers, building insurers and mortgage lenders. The End Our Cladding Scandal campaigners have made it clear that they would like the Government to find, fix and fund all historical fire safety defects, or, as I have put it on a number of occasions, stump up the cash, make homes safe and go after those who are responsible. New clause 4 is an attempt at doing that last bit—going after those responsible.

The Minister mentioned in his answer to the previous debate on new clause 3 that the Government have put forward £5 billion, but he will be aware that the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government estimates that the cost of remediation could be from £10 billion to £15 billion, and that in the absence of a scheme to legislate to ensure that those responsible pay those sums of money, they will fall on the shoulders of innocent leaseholders.

We do not know the exact figure, because we still do not have the full data on all dangerous cladding on buildings under 18 meters. There is no complete data for non-ACM cladding on buildings of all heights. There are numerous fire safety issues beyond flammable cladding where the data has not been collected: missing firebreaks, flammable balconies, non-compliant fire doors and so on. In Victoria, Australia, as we have learned, they moved quickly to find it, fix it and fund it.

In the new clause the hon. Member for Stevenage has proposed another solution that could be adopted to fund the remediation. The building safety fund of £5 billion is insufficient. The Government have so far refused to tell us whether they agree with the polluter pays principle, on which we took evidence from Steve Day. I tabled a parliamentary question a while ago asking the Government what assessment they had made of the polluter pays principle, and the answer is overdue.

We have also heard mixed messaging. On the one hand, Ministers tell us that they are considering in detail the proposal for the polluter pays principle. On the other hand, they tell us that they are not sure it will work. It would be useful for the Committee to hear the Minister clarify what the Government’s thinking is on the polluter pays principle. None the less, the new clause is before us.

Of course, there are drafting concerns with this new clause, but they could probably be fixed in the fullness of time. However, I repeat that this is an attempt by Back-Bench MPs to find a way to fix the cladding and fire safety scandal and to go after those who are responsible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

Again, the hon. Lady is wrong; the residential property developer tax is a tax on the developer sector. The high-rise levy is a levy on the developer sector. We want to ensure we have a mechanism, and we believe we do have one, that is speedy, targeted and suitably flexible to meet the challenges of what we know to be a new—in the sense that it was not recognised until the Grenfell disaster—and evolving terrain.

[Daisy Cooper]

On the point about the residential property developer tax, which has been leaked to the press in advance of tomorrow’s Budget, can the Minister confirm whether that will bring in additional money beyond the £5.1 billion that the Government have put forward, or will the residential property developer tax bring in money that will then add up to the £5.1 billion? Is it new money on top of that, or will it reduce the amount of money the Government have to spend?

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

I was particularly struck by an analogy on “Newsnight” last night. A Facebook whistleblower was asked about how Facebook responds to accusations. She said, “It is a bit like my partner saying to me, ‘Have you done the washing up?’, and my answering, ‘I have done the washing up 150 times in the past year and I have spent £3 billion on washing-up liquid’, which is of course a way of not answering the question whether I have done the washing up.”

In answer to the first question, therefore, I was struck that the Minister was at pains to point out the progress that had been made on removing, specifically, ACM Grenfell-style cladding on high-rise buildings—very specific progress. In being at pains to highlight that progress, he sidestepped—I would say, respectfully—all the other fire-safety defects that exist and on which we have taken evidence through the proceedings on the Bill so far.

I was particularly disappointed that there was no answer to how constituents such as mine, who are expecting to receive bills of between £80,000 and £100,000 for fire safety and cladding remediation work, should foot those bills. The Minister’s third point was on the polluter-pays principle. I was a little confused to hear it described as a crude term. It is a very well-established legal principle that exists in other pieces of legislation, notably in domestic and international environmental law. Given the clarity of the situation—innocent lease-holders who have done everything right being left to pick up the tab versus everybody else in the industry, who are to varying degrees responsible for failures—it is actually a very simple principle that is quite easy to understand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 9 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of formal co-operation on building safety standards across the United Kingdom, in recognition that sharing best practice could promote improved building safety standards in all four nations.

There are two reasons behind new clause 9. First, the UK Government could learn from our neighbours, particularly in Scotland. Although only one high-rise building in Scotland—in Glasgow—has been found to have the ACM cladding that was responsible for the Grenfell tragedy, all owners of flats who have cladding have been offered free safety assessments to see if other types of cladding need to be removed.

In addition, the Scottish Government have established a ministerial working group on mortgage lending and cladding; this includes homeowners, insurers, legal professionals, housing associations and the fire service. When we were discussing a previous new clause, the Minister made it clear that he wanted to look at these issues. New clause 9 would provide the forum within which the UK Government could look at this model, and see what could be learned from the ministerial group on mortgage lending and cladding.

The Scottish Government made swift moves to ensure that the unnecessary EWS1 form certification was no longer needed. Arguably, there is also the case that through a forum like this the UK Government could reflect on whether Scottish building regulations, which have diverged from UK-wide fire safety standards since 2005, were able to prevent a widespread crisis like the one we have had here in England.

There is a second, less obvious reason why the clause could establish improvements in building safety standards. During the course of the evidence sessions, we heard from the Fire Brigades Union, who described the current state of affairs as “pretty abysmal”. They gave as an example the fact that fire officers had, for many years, noticed that fires were starting to spread faster and there was no way of getting that information to those in power. They cited as the problem that the Central Fire Brigade Advisory Council, which was established by the Fire Services Act 1947, had been abolished by the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.

This new clause, which looks at best practices across all four nations, could perhaps be part of a new tapestry, where any new problems that arise in the future as a result of new materials or new modes of construction could quickly be discussed across all four nations and be brought to the attention of Government.

[Christopher Pincher]

The hon. Lady may find that a theme is developing here and it is one of collegiality—I trust she will agree. I thank her for raising this important matter. Given that it is a Union matter, it is sometimes rather more complicated and, shall we say, delicate. I applaud the intent of the new clause, but I again ask her to withdraw it rather than asking us to accept it, because I do not think that it would achieve its intended effect. It could also, we believe, impede already existing and pretty effective relationships with the devolved Administrations.

However, I assure the hon. Lady that the Government have already established very close official-level working relationships on building safety with the devolved Administrations, as part of the BSP—the building safety programme. In fact, meetings with representatives of all three devolved Administrations take place at least fortnightly, enabling the sharing of information and latest policy developments and intentions. I will give the Committee an example. We have been working closely with the Welsh Government, including in relation to applying part 3 of the Bill to Wales. We are also liaising closely with both Scotland and Northern Ireland.

As the hon. Lady will be aware, the Bill will create a stronger and clearer construction products regulatory regime, which will apply to the whole United Kingdom. Building safety is a devolved matter, but the products regime will apply to the whole UK, and that will pave the way for a national regulator for construction products with a UK-wide remit to lead and co-ordinate enforcement of the new rules.

In January this year, we announced that that national regulator will be established within the Office for Product Safety and Standards, which gave evidence to this Committee in the witness sessions and which will receive up to £10 million this financial year to set up the new function. There is in the Bill a range of other provisions that apply to one or all of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and which we have debated previously.

As the hon. Lady will appreciate and as I have said already, unlike the regulation of construction products, building safety is a devolved matter and rightly, therefore, decisions on policy in that area ultimately rest with the devolved Administrations themselves. It is therefore important that we maintain the existing, well established relationships rather than perhaps foisting new and unexpected ones on those Administrations.

Taking all those factors into account and entirely understanding what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve, I hope that she will accept our assessment that formalising information-sharing and consultation mechanisms as she is suggesting could impede and slow down our existing mechanisms to ensure building safety standards in each of our four nations. I respectfully invite her to withdraw the new clause.

[Daisy Cooper]

I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurances about the close working relationship with the devolved nations, and interested to hear about the fortnightly meetings. If those meetings are happening every fortnight, that does, I say respectfully, beg the question as to why the Scottish Government have set up the ministerial working group on mortgage lending and cladding, and dealt with the EWS1 form, yet the UK Government are still battling with both.

The Minister mentioned that it is important not to step on the toes of the powers of the devolved nations. I absolutely, wholeheartedly agree with that, but my suggestion was that the UK Government could in fact learn from the devolved nations rather than imposing anything on them. None the less, I am grateful to have those reassurances and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

Assessment of building safety and emergency status

“(1) The Secretary of State must, as soon as reasonably practicable, conduct an assessment of the overall state of building safety and building fire safety defect remediation in England and lay before Parliament a report of that assessment.

(2) The report must include an assessment of whether the matters in subsection (1) constitute an emergency for the purposes of Section 1(1)(a) of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare in a place in the United Kingdom).

(3) In conducting the assessment, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) fire safety experts,

(b) leaseholders and their representatives,

(c) social housing tenants,

(d) local authorities,

(e) trade unions, and

(f) safety and construction industry bodies.”—(Daisy Cooper.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct an assessment of the state of building safety and fire safety defect remediation in England.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Daisy Cooper]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Colleagues will be pleased to hear that this is the last new clause from me. It would require the Secretary of State to conduct an assessment of the state of building safety and fire safety defect remediation in England, and to specifically assess whether it constitutes an emergency, as defined in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

We are now four years on since the Grenfell tragedy. We have heard that so many times in the Chamber and here in Committee. Not only are we more than four years on from the tragedy, but there are suggestions that, at the current rate of reform, it could potentially take up to 10 years to sort out all of the existing fire safety issues faced by existing leaseholders. That is simply not good enough.

It is clear that the fire safety scandal is an emergency. In Victoria, Australia, they treated it as a public health emergency. When we took evidence, everybody that we asked, “Do you consider this to be an emergency?” said, “Yes”. It is clear that the overall building and fire safety scandal

“threatens serious damage to human welfare in a place in the United Kingdom”.

That is part of the definition of what constitutes an emergency under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

We have seen, over the past 18 months, what can be done by Government when there is a crisis. We can see the scale and pace of change and reform when something is treated as an emergency. Waiting for two years, five years or 10 years is far too long, so I respectfully request the Government to reflect on whether four years so far, and potentially several years to come, is good enough; whether they could usefully use the Civil Contingencies Act; and whether the new clause—which would require the Secretary of State to conduct an assessment of whether the state of building safety and fire safety constitutes an emergency under the 2004 Act—would be a useful mechanism to ensure that we can move much faster and make all homes fire-safe within at least the next 12 months.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the hon. Member for St Albans for powerfully arguing the case for the new clause. As she stated, it is now nearly five years since Grenfell, when 72 people tragically lost their lives. A broad-scoped, urgent assessment is now needed, so the official Opposition support the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

Of course there is more to do, and I can assure the hon. Member for St Albans and the Committee that we will do what is necessary to ensure that we protect leaseholders from unfair charges and that those who ought to pay do pay. We will ensure that the risk and lending sectors, the risk appetite of which has gone out of all proportion to real risk, are brought back into kilter, so that risk and value are properly ascribed to homes and people can get on living in them and selling them as they see fit. Again, I hope that she will withdraw her new clause.

[Daisy Cooper]

I am grateful to the Minister for responding. I would highlight two points. The first is that the Minister suggested that new clause 10 was not necessary because of clause 139, but I respectfully highlight the fact that clause 139 relates to an independent review of the building regulatory regime and the regulation for construction products, so this is a process. Clause 139 relates to future regulation; it does not apply to the remediation of historical fire safety defects.

Secondly, although the Minister was at pains to highlight that he appreciates the urgency, I would highlight that clause 139, on the future review, requires only that the Secretary of State appoints a reviewer within five years of the Act passing. We have tens of thousands of innocent leaseholders who cannot wait another five years for their houses to be made safe so that they can get on with their lives. I said before that the purpose behind the new clause was to highlight the emergency and the urgency with which we would like the Government to act. Many of us feel as though the Government are not acting with the necessary urgency, but I hope the Minister hears that point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 11

Assessment of mental health impact for leaseholders in dwellings with building safety risks

“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out a review of the impact of building safety issues on leasehold tenants’ mental health.

(2) The review as set out in subsection (1) must be laid before each House of Parliament within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, and must consider the effect on leasehold tenants’ mental health arising from but not limited to—

(a) residing or being a leasehold tenant in a building which has had or currently has building safety issues;

(b) any financial pressures on leaseholders as a result of charges due to building safety work, conducted based on advice given by his department since 14 June 2017;

(c) supply of mortgage finance.

(3) The review shall include recommendations on any mental health support to be provided to leasehold tenants’ as a result of findings under subsection (2).”.—(Ruth Cadbury.)

This new clause would ensure the Government publish an assessment considering the impact of the building safety risks on leaseholders, and whether further specific mental health support is required.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Dowd. The new clause seeks an assessment of the mental health impact for leaseholders in dwellings with building safety risks.

It may be normal in areas such as health, social care and justice to consider in legislation the mental health impact on victims, but it is unusual in matters of the built environment. I hope in my comments to address the impact that the crisis is having on the mental health of millions of people across the country. Any MP who has looked into their postbag will know the turmoil and trauma that the crisis has caused to leaseholders. As the hon. Member for St Albans said earlier, they are innocent parties—the only innocent parties—and they have had the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.

The new clause makes three aspects clear. First, there is the trauma caused to people by living in a building that is unsafe and that they fear could go up in flames. Then there is the trauma of the financial bills that so many leaseholders face, which can run into tens of thousands for many. Finally, there is the trauma caused by being trapped and unable to sell or remortgage a home. That is a toxic trio that we know is impacting people’s mental health. Survey after survey has confirmed the huge impact.

In a survey for Which?, a leaseholder called Georgie said:

“I don’t know of any leaseholder whose mental health isn’t affected in some way due to this horrendous situation.”

That chimes with the findings in the landmark report by the Cladding Action Group, which found that nine out of 10 of those surveyed said their mental health had

“deteriorated as a direct result of the situation”.

Some 94% said they were anxious and worried, 83% said they were angry—rightly, I might say—and 59% felt abandoned, which is a point I will come back to later. People also said they had had to take time off work. Health conditions had been made worse. Many were seeking or planning to seek medical help for stress. Some 67% said their mental health had got worse since they were last interviewed. Those numbers should serve as a chilling reminder of the impact, toll and misery of this crisis—a crisis that this Government have effectively caused.

It is hard to convey just what the fear of living in an unsafe building must feel like—how it must feel for people to go to sleep at night not knowing if they are safe in their bed. A constituent who wrote to me after the fire at Grenfell told me that they went past and saw the fire raging from their bus. The images of that night are seared on that constituent’s brain, as it is in the minds of so many other people, even if we just saw it on the TV.

Grenfell was, of course, not the only residential fire with serious consequences. The Cube fire in Bolton and Richmond House in south-west London are just two in recent years. Locally, there are many more examples. Luckily, Sperry House in Brentford was caught in time before the fire raged across the full building—before life was lost. Thanks to the fire services, it was caught in time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I agree that we need to look at everything in the round and bring it into scope to understand the longer-term impacts of unsafe cladding, and the lack or slow progress of remediation, particularly on leaseholders.

I really feel for those who cannot start a family because of those deep concerns, and the pressure they experience because, as time ticks on, it becomes more difficult. I want to add my support for leaseholders who are struggling in those situations by supporting this incredibly important new clause.

[Daisy Cooper]

I will speak briefly to add my support for the new clause. Colleagues have covered many issues, but my constituents in St Albans have told me that their mental health has deteriorated because they do not feel safe in their own homes. Some cannot sleep at night and others have had to move out, so that they are paying not only for the mortgage on their flat, but for rent. That creates financial worries, which in turn worsens their mental health. Some can afford to buy those properties only with the support of the bank of mum and dad, who are possibly retired and have put their savings or their pensions into buying the properties, so we have people living in fire traps who are concerned for the welfare of their ageing parents.

As colleagues have pointed out, there is a concern about those who want to start a family. Some do not feel able to start a family because they feel too stressed to go through that process in the home that they are in, the flat is not large enough or they cannot afford in vitro fertilisation, given the eye-watering bills for remediation.

The mental health impact goes way beyond the people who live in the properties. It starts with them, but it has ripple effects on their families and the people in the community who know that the properties are not safe. Nobody wants to live in a community where they might see something even half as bad as Grenfell. The crisis has enormous and wide-ranging mental health impacts and I fully support the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

A number of colleagues have asked what the practical effect of this clause might be. It seems to me that, as the hon. Lady has just said, there is a lack of understanding and information about the impact this situation has on those leaseholders who are caught up in it. We could imagine that, under subsection (3) of the new clause where it says,

“The review shall include recommendations”,

some of those recommendations could, for example, include mental health first aid training in the blocks of flats that are affected, particularly during times when those buildings will be wrapped in plastic. They could include providing information sheets about the impact on people’s lives that those who are affected could take to their GPs, their councillors or others, so a number of practical things could be recommended as a result of a review that could be conducted under this new clause.

[Ruth Cadbury]

The hon. Lady makes a useful suggestion. I feel conflicted when somebody tells me excitedly that they are moving, or that they have just bought, because what do I say? Do I say how pleased I am for them, or do I ask, “Have you thought about this? Did you know about this? Was your solicitor employed by the developer?” and so on. These issues will lead to the mental health problems of the future among people who now are very happy and excited.

I will not press this new clause to a vote, but I am concerned about the rising tide of mental health problems, particularly among leaseholders, but generally among all residents in these blocks. I do wonder how many suicides there have to be before the Government take this on as yet another aspect of the emergency. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12

Assessment of the impact of building safety issues on access to insurance

“(1) Within one year of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must carry out a review of the impact of building safety issues, including the provisions of this Act, on access to insurance.

(2) The review as set out in subsection (1) shall include assessment of the United Kingdom insurance market.

(3) The review must consider the impact of building safety issues, confidence in the building safety industry and the impact of advice given by his Department on building safety given since 14 July 2017 on—

(a) the availability and cost of insurance for residential blocks;

(b) the availability and cost of professional indemnity insurance for workers in the building safety industry;

(c) requirements placed on buildings in order to access building insurance; and

(d) the wider insurance market.

(4) The review must make recommendation as to any further action needed by Government or the industry to improve access to affordable residential and professional insurance across the United Kingdom.”—(Mike Amesbury.)

This new clause would ensure the Government publish an assessment of the impact of the building safety risks on the UK insurance market for residential buildings and professional indemnity insurance for those working in building safety.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Building Safety Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Christopher Pincher]

This is a technical amendment to ensure that the devolution settlement is protected.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 142, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 143 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 144

Regulations

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 144, page 146, line 24, at end insert—

“(8) But the Secretary of State may not—

(a) lay before Parliament a statutory instrument under subsection (6), or

(b) make regulations in a statutory instrument under subsection (7)

(9) That condition is that the Secretary of State has consulted—

(a) fire safety experts,

(b) leaseholders and their representatives,

(c) local authorities, and

(d) safety and construction industry bodies”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with stakeholders before making regulations.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Daisy Cooper]

I apologise for not being ready—I have some rather urgent constituency things coming in that have consumed my mind for the past few minutes.

There has been a lot of talk about how much detail is in the Bill and how much information is not in it. When we took evidence, a number of people said that they had worked closely with officials in the Department and they were hopeful that that would continue. They also emphasised the importance of scrutinising any legislation that came through via statutory instrument.

I think the purpose of the amendment is fairly obvious. Any statutory instruments that are laid should receive proper democratic scrutiny by Members of this House, the public, leaseholders and everybody in industry. It is self-explanatory. I hope that hon. Members will see it merits and I look forward to the Minister’s assurance that the Government are looking to ensure proper democratic scrutiny of any statutory instruments laid under the Bill.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the hon. Member for St Albans for tabling the amendment, which we support. This culture change in building safety—making people safe in buildings in the here and now, and in the future—requires consultation with the maximum number of stakeholders to help shape legislation and regulations going forward. This is a very common-sense amendment; it strengthens the Bill.

[Christopher Pincher]

I thank the hon. Lady for introducing the amendment and the hon. Member for Weaver Vale for his comments. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with specific stakeholders before making regulations.

I entirely understand the hon. Lady’s intention and I agree with the principle that there should be appropriate consultation on regulations made under the Bill. I hope that, by the time I have concluded my remarks, she will see that the amendment is at best superfluous and at worst could be rather confusing. I will explain why. I do not mean in any way to detract from what she is trying to achieve.

The Government have introduced provisions to ensure appropriate consultation in clause 7, which we debated some little while ago, before the rather long conference recess, in the proposed new section 120B of the Building Act 1984 in schedule 5, and in the specific procedures to ensure appropriate scrutiny of changes to the scope of the higher-risk building regime. I am grateful to the Committee for agreeing those provisions already.

I remind the Committee that we have already said that we will include consultation provisions when making regulations. Those regulations will always be subject to consultation.

Save for certain limited special procedures, the independent Building Safety Regulator may propose regulations to the Secretary of State after consulting on them and drawing on the benefit of its technical expertise and expert committees. Where the Secretary of State initiates proposals, they must first consult with the independent Building Safety Regulator and other persons they consider appropriate before regulations can be made. It pays to stress that I appreciate the spirit of the amendment, but maintaining the existing provisions in the Bill has three fundamental advantages.

First, on a technical point, the amendment would apply only to regulations made under this Bill and not to regulations made under the Building Act 1984, including under the provisions inserted by part 3. Committee members may remember that I spoke, some might say monotonously, about the 1984 Act in previous sessions. We need a consistent approach to consultation across building safety standards legislation, to make sure that it is simpler and fairer, and I think this approach is preferable.

Secondly, the amendment would create a degree of confusion and duplication, because it would insert an additional consultation provision into the Bill on top of the existing one in clause 7. The practical effect would be some duplication and delay. To give an example, where the Building Safety Regulator has proposed regulations to the Secretary of State after a full and proper consultation under clause 7, the effect of this amendment would be that the Secretary of State was required to conduct a further consultation with the key stakeholders listed in the amendment. We believe that that would create unnecessary delays in tackling important building safety issues.

Thirdly, we believe that the general requirements to consult in the Bill are more likely to support effective consultation than the approach set out in the amendment, which seeks to list a specific set of consultees in primary legislation. That would, as we all know, be much more difficult to unwind and change as the building safety landscape changes.

A wide range of regulations will be made under the Bill. They will range from technical regulations setting out what functions the Building Safety Regulator and the local authorities may share information on, or the form on which certain applications must be made, through to very complex regulations that are necessary to deliver the new national regulator for construction products. We do not think that a one-size-fits-all approach to which parties need to be consulted is appropriate to that range of subject matter. Instead, we believe that the consultation requirements stipulated in clause 7 will support more effective and tailored consultation.

Members of the Committee should be reassured by the fact that the Bill’s approach to making regulations learns from the approach that has successfully been taken in respect of health and safety regulations. The Health and Safety Executive, with the Secretary of State, has taken a proportionate approach to consulting parties before regulations are made, and it has been doing that for more than 40 years.

We understand that expertise will not stop at the door of the Building Safety Regulator, nor, for that matter, the Secretary of State. We agree that consultation on regulations is necessary, but we think that adding this amendment would unintentionally create duplication, confusion and—because of its disapplication from the Building Act 1984—a narrowing of the application of the provision. Given the assurances that I have provided to the Committee, and the fact that the Bill already ensures appropriate consultation mechanisms, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.

[Daisy Cooper]

I thank the Minister for his assurances that he agrees with the spirit of the amendment, and I am sure that during proceedings on the Bill, others may look at the scope of the application of this measure. I am grateful for his assurances on the parliamentary record that he agrees with the spirit of the amendment, which is designed to continue the democratic scrutiny of secondary legislation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Clause 144 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 145 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 146

Commencement and transitional provision

Amendments made: 20, in clause 146, page 147, line 18, at end insert—

“(3A) As regards Part 3 and section 134—

(a) the following provisions come into force on such day as the Welsh Ministers may by regulations appoint—

(i) section 30 so far as relating to section 120I of the Building Act 1984;

(ii) section 31(3) so far as relating to section 91ZD of that Act;

(iii) section 41 so far as relating to section 58Z2 and 58Z8 of that Act;

(iv) paragraph 56 of Schedule 5 (and section 54 so far as relating to that paragraph);

(v) paragraph 77 of that Schedule so far as relating to section 120C of the Building Act 1984 (and section 54 so far as relating to that section);

(b) the following provisions come into force, in relation to Wales, on such day as the Welsh Ministers may by regulations appoint—

(i) section 31 except subsection (3) of that section;

(ii) section 32 except so far as relating to paragraph 1D(3) of Schedule 1 to the Building Act 1984;

(iii) sections 33 to 40;

(iv) section 41 except so far as relating to section 58Z2, 58Z7 or 58Z8 of the Building Act 1984;

(v) section 42 and Schedule 4;

(vi) sections 43 to 51;

(vii) section 52 except subsection (1) of that section;

(viii) section 54 and Schedule 5 except—

(a) paragraphs 38, 39 and 86 to 88 of that Schedule (and section 54 so far as relating to those paragraphs);

(b) paragraph 77 of that Schedule so far as relating to section 120B of the Building Act 1984 (and section 54 so far as relating to that section);

(ix) section 55 and Schedule 6 except paragraphs 7 and 29 of that Schedule (and section 55 so far as relating to those paragraphs);

(x) section 56;

(xi) section 134 except subsection (8) of that section so far as relating to Article 22B of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005;

(c) subject to that, Part 3 and section 134 come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint.”

This amendment confers certain powers of commencement on the Welsh Ministers.

Amendment 21, in clause 146, page 147, line 22, at end insert—

“(5A) Regulations under subsection (3A)(a) or (b) may make transitional or saving provision.” —(Christopher Pincher.)

This amendment provides that commencement regulations made by the Welsh Ministers may make transitional or saving provision.

Clause 146, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 147 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)

Building Safety Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Christopher Pincher]

Yes, we will produce statutory guidance, and will consult on it. We will certainly make sure that we consult not only landlords but leaseholders on the guidance, so that leaseholders have input on what constitutes “reasonable steps”. I appreciate that not all leaseholders are legally savvy, so we will make that guidance as plain as possible, to allow them as much power as possible to seek redress when they need to.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Christopher Pincher]

I will, and then I will make some progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

Does the Minister recognise that throughout the Bill, leaseholders are not only being left to pick up the tab for these enormous costs, but are having to become lawyers to navigate complex statutory instruments that have not even been published, so that they can get their head around what “reasonable steps” might be? Once that guidance is published—it has not been published yet—there will be reams and reams of litigation, which can drag and drag, because there may well be a disagreement about what constitutes reasonable steps. Does he honestly think it is fair that leaseholders, who are entirely innocent and have done everything absolutely right, are being left to pick up the tab, and are having to become lawyers in order to understand the guidance and the clause?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the hon. Lady for that point; I understand it, and the passion that she brings to the issue. We need to get this right, and to make the process as transparent and digestible as possible. She refers to reams and reams of litigation; if we get the guidance right by consulting the right people, including leaseholders and their groups, we can make it as simple, clear and effective as possible. As for applying to the first-tier tribunal, there is plenty of case law already, and the tribunal has experience of working expeditiously; we will try to make sure that that continues.

I am grateful to Committee members for their questions. Clause 124 is key to making certain that the landlord explores and evidences to the leaseholder—that is very important—all possible avenues for funding remedial works before any remediation costs are sought from the leaseholder. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 124 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Building Safety Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Dowd. I echo the comments made across the Committee about our departed colleagues Mr Brokenshire and Sir David Amess.

I rise to support amendment 12, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale and the hon. Member for St Albans. I reinforce the point that risk to building safety should be defined by actual risk—as assessed by the many experts we have in this country and the systems that we use but should probably improve—and not by some arbitrary cut-off.

I will describe two examples. On building risk, my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale mentioned the risk of occupation, which should be covered but from which so many users and so many types of residential building are excluded—a point that I have covered in previous Committee sittings.

In my constituency, we have six 22-storey tower blocks called the Brentford Towers, which are council blocks with a mixture of tenants and leaseholders and were built more than 40 years ago. Not so long ago, a man died in a fire in his flat in one of those blocks. The fire did not spread. There was smoke damage in the communal hallway, which was shared by three other flats, and a lot of the smoke went out of his windows or through the smoke escape hatch on the stairwell.

The fire did not spread upwards, downwards or into the other flats on the man’s floor, because the building was designed with fire safety in mind and had not subsequently been messed around with. The fire doors were all shut and the smoke vent was open. That is what was supposed to happen: it was a tragic death, but sadly the man might have died in any kind of home-based fire. No one else was injured, no other flat was damaged and the cost to the community was minimal.

The other example is a block of flats that I have mentioned before, Richmond House in Worcester Park in south London. It had four storeys, I believe, with just over 30 flats. Once the fire took hold, it took 11 minutes for that building to burn down completely. By the grace of God, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale said, no one died, although some people had smoke injuries.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. On a number of occasions during the passage of the Fire Safety Act 2021 and this Bill, we have heard from the Government that the number of fires has gone down, but does the hon. Member agree that it is important that we remember the evidence we have heard from a number of organisations that fires are now spreading a lot faster and that there is therefore a much greater danger when fires do break out?

[Ruth Cadbury]

The hon. Member is absolutely right: we need to look at the evidence from actual fires. Many of us have had examples in our own constituency; the one that I mentioned was not in mine, but there was a fire in a block of flats in my constituency as a result of flammable cladding that had not yet been removed. Luckily, the fire brigade got there in time, before serious damage, injury or death occurred.

I conclude by referring to so much high-quality, professional expertise that has submitted evidence to the Committee and said that the risks should be based on actual risk and not on an arbitrary cut-off by height or number of storeys.

Building Safety Bill (Tenth sitting)

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I would say, somewhat reflecting what Justin Bates said in evidence a couple of weeks ago, that we could put a great deal in the Bill—in primary legislation—but that would make the law exceptionally unwieldy and unresponsive to the developing terrain of building assurance, building safety and methods of construction. As Mr Bates pointed out, it would also mean that we would have to sit here from now until some time in 2022 for line-by-line consideration of the clauses in the primary legislation. Secondary legislation allows us to be flexible and respond to the changing terrain, while also giving Parliament an appropriate degree of scrutiny and control.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Given that the Government intend to use secondary legislation to such a large extent, does the Minister accept that it is vital that all stakeholders, particularly leaseholders affected by the legislation, have sufficient time to scrutinise it?

[Christopher Pincher]

The hon. Lady makes a fair point. She will know that we often consult on secondary legislation before laying the regulations, so that there is time for the community, in its widest context, to give feedback on that legislation. Whether the regulations are subject to the affirmative or negative procedure, there is ample opportunity for Parliament and the House of Commons to consider them, have a say and scrutinise that secondary legislation, either in a Committee such as this for the affirmative procedure, or with the entire Chamber praying against regulations subject to the negative procedure.

We have already published secondary legislation and a number of factsheets to support the primary legislation. We will continue to do so throughout the parliamentary process, which, I remind the hon. Lady, is likely to be longer rather than shorter; this Committee stage will be followed by Report. There will be ample opportunity for the Committee and the House to look at the legislation and the regulations and to comment and vote on them.

The insurance market for approved inspectors is intricate and some bodies have specialist insurance expertise in this area. The power in clause 47 will enable the Secretary of State to appoint specialist bodies to undertake this important and complex work, as the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston alluded to, where the Government think that appropriate. I commend the clause to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins]

I thank my hon. Friend for making those key points so well. I will reiterate them: the Local Government Association and housing associations have warned that building safety costs will put at risk their ability to build much more affordable housing, as she pointed out. The required subsidy per affordable home currently sits at approximately £50,000; £3 million spent on remediation costs would mean 58,000 fewer homes over the next 10 years. Shelter also estimates that we need 90,000 new social homes a year to fix our housing crisis, and that does not go into what is needed to get social homes to a decent standard or reach our net zero targets, which the Minister will know we discussed in the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee earlier this week.

The Local Government Association—or should I say the Conservative-led Local Government Association—stated in its written evidence:

“Imposing the developer levy on councils would leave council tenants paying for the failings of private developers. If the Levy is imposed on social providers, their ability to deliver the improvements and additions to the housing stock that the Government requires will be put at risk.”

[Daisy Cooper]

Has the hon. Lady received any estimates of the cost of the levy for social providers? If not, does she agree that it might be helpful if the Minister could tell us what estimates the Government have made?

[Rachel Hopkins]

I thank the hon. Lady for her important contributions. There are different levels, because this is such a complex area, but research that the LGA commissioned, which just looked at the total cost to deliver compliance with the high safety standards, the installation of sprinklers and compartmentation across the entire housing revenue account council housing stock, would be more than £8 billion over a 10-year period, with the majority of the investment taking place in the first five years.

There is so much at stake here that will have an impact on social housing and the likelihood of being able to build good social housing. The conclusion is that the levy, if imposed on councils and social landlords, will increase the cost of building or refurbishing social housing, or increase the rents, yet the benefits to funds will not be available to the tenants who would otherwise have benefited from lower rents or better housing.

Finally, imposing the levy on councils means council tenants will be subsidising the failings of private developers and paying the costs of both remediating council housing and private housing. I am pleased to move this amendment; I hope the Minister will accept it, and I look forward to hearing his comments.

Building Safety Bill (Seventh sitting)

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the hon. Member for Weaver Vale. We are clear that the process should be as collaborative as possible. We want it to be fair and transparent. When disputes arise, we envisage that the first stage of that dispute will be an informal discussion between the parties. That is normally part of the process that the HSE employs in other examples. If there is an internal review and if that is followed by an appeal to a first-tier tribunal, all those discussions and decision points will of course be publicly aired in the normal way.

What we want fundamentally to ensure is that the BSR has the flexibility to do its job effectively and to build casework and a casebook of knowledge and expertise that it can then use in cases as they develop. That is one of the reasons why—to answer the question from the hon. Member for Weaver Vale about secondary legislation—we are employing statutory instruments largely through the affirmative procedure. That will give the Commons in Committee and in the full House the ability to scrutinise, debate and vote on the issues. Fundamentally, it allows us as the Government, on the recommendations and advice of the BSR, to improve legislation rather than write it into the Bill and thus require further primary legislation should we find that events and examples arise to require that. We are trying to be flexible.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. The Minister talked about internal discussions and internal reviews and, if necessary, going to the first-tier tribunal, which he said ordinarily happens under the HSE. How long might that process take? How long does it normally take under the HSE? Will he address the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud about the need to build trust into the system?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. It is true to say that the first-tier tribunal element of any dispute resolution procedure can take months before a hearing is held. The tribunal is a busy organisation. It can, indeed, take a little longer, depending on the nature of the case, for a decision to be handed down. That is why informal discussion and decision between the appellant and the Building Safety Regulator are sensible in resolving smaller disputes, particularly in the early stages of the regulator’s existence when there are likely to be a number of disputes and a body of casework by which internal dispute resolution will be conducted. The two-tier mechanism is the right way of ensuring swift dispute resolution, enabling all parties to get on with their work.

[Daisy Cooper]

I thank the Minister for his patience on this point.

I note from the Minister’s use of language that it is “anticipated” that most cases will be dealt with informally at an early stage and that only exceptional cases will go to the first-tier tribunal. Can he assure the Committee that in the event of many cases going to tribunal and lots of leaseholders getting caught up in this lengthy, slow and bureaucratic process he will consider intervening to bring in other mechanisms to speed up the resolution of disputes?

Building Safety Bill (Sixth sitting)

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Shaun Bailey]

I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. One point that I would make, now that I have been able to gather my notes, is that clause 5 kind of addresses the issue. It says:

“The regulator must keep under review—

(a) the safety of people in or about buildings in relation to risks as regards buildings, and

(b) the standard of buildings.”

To pick up on the point that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth made, the Bill already does that.

On the points that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale articulated very well on wellbeing and the need for homes that are placed so that people can live and thrive, from my experience those conversations are had at the planning stage and the determination stage. On the safety element, again I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth. She is right that the regulator needs to look at that. From my reading of the Bill, clause 5 address that. Although the sentiments behind the amendment are absolutely right, clause 5 half deals with that, and we have a planning process that deals with the other half. From that perspective, we are already doing this within the structures in which we are already operating. Again, I agree with the sentiments, but operationally there are ways in which we are already doing it.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I have been struck by the outbreak of cross-party consensus on the content of this and the previous amendment. The dispute is about where it sits. If Government Members do not wish to see it in the Bill and we do not yet have a planning Bill to look at, I wonder whether the Minister might be able to provide some assurances that he would be willing to consider setting up an alternative mechanism that would be in between planning and housing, to look at precisely these kinds of issues that come up, as a form of horizon scanning.

On a slightly different note, which is slightly tangential to the amendment, we took evidence in our hearings, particularly from the Fire Brigades Union, on the need for a mechanism to do horizon scanning. I wonder whether that might be the place to take up these kinds of issues, and whether the Minister might be willing to provide assurances that he would consider such a proposal.

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I do not think I was articulate enough when discussing the previous amendment, when we talked about the process of adding amendments. I feel strongly that legislation needs to be functional and clear, and that it should be implemented as swiftly and simply as possible. It has to be understood by lay people, even if they are reading it in a rush, as we have seen with the amazing witnesses who have come forward, having become building experts because they have had to look into issues in their own buildings.

I fear that giving the regulator a role and an objective to prevent the injury of the health and wellbeing of an individual is a recipe for challenge and confusion, even though it may be well meaning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shaun Bailey]

Absolutely, and the hon. Lady made a really interesting point that allows us to think about how that would operate. We talk quite abstractly about things, and the clause in particular sounds very nice, but when we consider the detail of its operational function, we realise that a lot of people caught by the provision will have someone above them in the ownership chain. How can we ensure that those obligations are met?

Broadly speaking, I agree with the clause. It is absolutely right to ensure proactive engagement between the regulator and the relevant persons. As my right hon. Friend the Minister touched on in his contribution, the regulator should not be there just to slam down when things go wrong; it should be proactive in ensuring that things are done correctly in the first place. I will listen very intently to his response to the hon. Lady’s interesting points. From an operational perspective, it is important to remember that there will be people between those relevant persons, and that the regulator, as it carries out its engagement practices under the clause, will encourage best practice from those people as well.

[Daisy Cooper]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.

I always welcome the idea of regulators having proactive powers, and it is good to see that the regulator can provide proactive assistance and encouragement, but how can a regulator provide assistance and encouragement to absent freeholders? That point was raised by the National Housing Federation in evidence. An idea that I mooted then was that it might be possible for a regulator to favour pursuing remediation if a freeholder repeatedly fails to respond to requests. Has the Minister reflected on that suggestion, and does he think that the clause, as it stands, would give the regulator enough powers to deal with the situation of absent freeholders in particular?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions. With respect to the question from the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth, we have been careful to define in-scope buildings. In-scope buildings are those over 18 metres or seven storeys that contain two or more dwelling places. Other in-scope buildings include, for example, care homes and hospitals that meet the criteria. We have also been careful to draft the clause in such a way that we are confident that student accommodation, for example, as well as the other examples that she gave, are properly covered.

On the suggestion from the hon. Member for St Albans, I am clear that we want the regulator to have the responsibility to encourage, to nudge and to cajole, but ultimately, as I said in my remarks, to enforce good and best practice. I will certainly consider both what she said and the oral evidence from witnesses, but I will certainly not make any commitments until we have thought through how those things can work effectively and what the possible unintended consequences may be. We want the Building Safety Regulator to have a clear and proportionate role that does not have unintended and unforeseen negative consequences for residents. That is quite a broad definition of “residents”, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth outlined.

I thank the Committee for its consideration of the clause. In summary, I remind the Committee that the clause places a duty on the regulator to assist and encourage those responsible for the safe construction and management of high-rise residential and other in-scope buildings, as well as residents, to secure the safety of people in or around those buildings. That duty is a vital part of creating the cultural change that we need and that we will see. Amendment 6 is a minor and technical amendment that corrects an omission in the list of “relevant persons” so that we have a fuller and more complete list. I hope that, having heard those final remarks, the Committee will agree both to our technical amendment and to the clause.

Government amendment 6 agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Duty to keep safety and standard of buildings under review

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

I want to pick up on clause 7(4)(b), which says that the Secretary of State must consult other persons as he or she “considers appropriate.”

The evidence the Committee received was divided. Those in the industry praised the Government for their extensive consultation, with the draft Bill being improved as a result. We also heard pleas and cries of anguish from residents and the Fire Brigades Union, who said that for many decades they have been shouting into the wilderness, hoping that someone would listen. Might the Minister reflect on that? Although it may be appropriate for the Secretary of State to choose who he or she wishes to consult, there may be others who also need to be consulted and who need to be heard. I hope that is reflected in the clause or elsewhere as the Bill continues its passage.

[Christopher Pincher]

I will not dwell overmuch on the residents’ panel, because you are quite right, Mr Davies, we address the panel in clause 11. Suffice to say that, be it relevant Government Departments or the members and composition of residents’ and other panels, we do not want to be prescriptive in the Bill.

We have to recognise that as time passes compositions of groups or committees may become redundant and—I will use this word again later on in my remarks—they may even ossify. It is right that the Secretary of State should have the flexibility, like the Building Safety Regulator, to react to and reflect on the scenarios of the future, whatever they may be, which is why we want the clause to retain its flexibility. The key objective of the clause is to ensure that the view of the expert, independent Building Safety Regulator, with all of the inputs that the regulator may collect, is provided and is always taken, before the regulations reach Parliament. Therefore, there is always an appropriate level of consultation before regulations are made by Ministers.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Duty to establish system for giving of building safety information

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Building Safety Bill (Fifth sitting)

Daisy Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Amesbury]

It was Bolton South East, yes.

I know it is important to hon. Members that HSE is resourced appropriately, but given the evidence from the inspection regime, with the number of inspectors cut from around 1,400 in 2011 to 900 in 2019 and funding cut by over 30% by HSE, I am not filled with confidence. Will the Minister ensure for residents and leaseholders, let alone Members of Parliament, that the new regulator does indeed have the necessary resources?

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

While it was reassuring to hear that HSE has been assured by the Government that it will receive the resources it requires, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is imperative that local authorities are also given the resources they require to deliver this new building safety regime?

[Mike Amesbury]

I concur with that powerful point. Indeed, the Local Government Association made the same representations. Of course, local authorities have been somewhat hammered over the past decade in terms of resources and austerity. The hon. Lady makes a good point.

In conclusion, Labour welcomes the regulator overall, but we would of course go further and establish a building works agency to deal with the crisis here and now, building by building, with the principle of find, fund, fix and recover, and that the polluter pays. That is the immediate way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shaun Bailey]

The hon. Member for Weaver Vale makes an interesting point, but I come back to my point about the environment we are dealing with from a legislative point of view. As an esteemed former member of Manchester City Council, he is much more experienced than me, and he understands the issues. We are crossing into the boundaries of planning reform as well. I do not disagree that that needs to be looked at in this space. However, while I do not disagree with and can subscribe to the amendment’s intentions, broadly speaking, I am concerned that doing it like will mean missing other opportunities for a much more comprehensive reform of this space to ensure that the issues that both the hon. Gentleman and I have experienced in our communities can be resolved.

[Daisy Cooper]

Given the rumours that the Government’s proposals for planning reforms have been dropped, does the hon. Gentleman agree with the content of the amendment? If he does not want to see it in the Bill, where does he imagine he would be able to put it over the course of the legislative agenda?

[Shaun Bailey]

The hon. Member is trying to tempt me into speculation on matters I have no control over, unfortunately. I could not possibly say, purely because I do not wish to speculate. To round up, I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Weaver Vale’s sentiment, but there is a better way that we can do it, outside the amendment.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Scott Mann.)