Levelling Up

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. A little reminder that the Secretary of State should not refer to hon. Members by name.

It is going to require a lot of self-discipline if we are to have any chance of getting everybody in, so I ask for very short questions. The Father of the House will provide a marvellous example of that, I am sure: Sir Peter Bottomley.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that those in the south-east hope this will be successful, giving individuals opportunity and changing the economic geography of the parts of this country that need to be connected to the thriving country we hope to create together. Will he heed council leaders such as Councillor Kevin Jenkins in Worthing, who wants Ministers to pay attention to things that they could do that would help and to stop doing things that do not help, because all over the country we need Ministers to pay more attention to local leaders?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and in the levelling-up White Paper there is a commitment to ensure greater devolution all round. I signalled the county deals we are green-lighting for Derbyshire and Durham, but we are also devolving more power to local authorities across the country, including through the new UK shared prosperity fund. He is also right to remind us that, while deprivation is concentrated disproportionately in the north and midlands, there are pockets of genuine poverty in communities such as Worthing and Hastings that we need to pay close attention to.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady makes her point eloquently, and of course I agree entirely.

Some of us here have been on the receiving end of antisemitism—I know the right hon. Member for Barking has on many occasions. I recently received a letter telling me to teach my “Jewish Zionist wife” to “put out fires”, as they intended to burn our house down and cremate our children.

As Communities Secretary, I encouraged universities to adopt and use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, a cause taken up strongly by the current Education Secretary, but despite those entreaties some universities have not done so. Only last year the University of Bristol, one of our most respected universities, acted painfully slowly to discipline Professor David Miller, a purveyor of antisemitic conspiracy theories that went well beyond the bounds of free speech. Such incidents are one of the reasons I champion the brilliant Union of Jewish Students.

I will end my speech today as the right hon. Member for Barking would have done, by quoting a diary extract of her grandfather’s. Old, ill and interned, deemed an enemy alien at the time, in an entry before Christmas, he wrote,

“Is the present time a blip? Is Hitler only an episode? Are these ideas going to disappear and the better side of humanity re-emerge?”

We owe it to her grandfather Wilhelm, and all the survivors of genocides, to do all we can to learn from their experiences.

Today, we remember not simply the liberation of the camps, but the triumph of freedom and the human spirit. We marvel at the strength, the resilience and the faith of those survivors and of Jewish people here in the UK and around the world. We must continue to tell their stories. We must use this day to continue the fight against hatred in all its forms. Then, perhaps, one day we will have a future without genocide.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It may or may not be known to the House—it is known to the Government—that permission has been given to appeal the planning approval for the memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens. I think we need to be careful about how we speak about it. I did not want to interrupt the exceptionally good speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on a very important subject.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which of course is not a point for the Chair, but which might well be important as a point of information for hon. Members participating in the debate. I suppose that, to some extent, planning appeals are sub judice and we must be careful about what we say here in the Chamber.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [Lords]

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 24th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Eddie Hughes]

I think it is too early for me to be able to predict exactly what will be in the Bill, and what its reach and remit might be, but I am sure I will be open to conversations with the hon. Member to discuss his thoughts on what could go into it.

It would be remiss of me to not mention that in fact only two weeks ago we launched a public consultation to seek views on proposals to allow more leaseholders in mixed-use buildings to take control and ownership of their building. That consultation will play an important role in shaping the next stage of our reforms to create a fairer leasehold system in England and Wales.

I thank the Competition and Markets Authority for the vital role it is playing in improving the sector for existing leaseholders. The CMA has already helped thousands of leaseholders to gain access to justice since opening its investigation, and I welcome its dedication in the ongoing fight against abuse in the sector. Let me repeat that the CMA’s action against industry players serves as a warning to others, and we expect those who continue to permit such poor practices to heed the example set by the investigation.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

To save the Minister time, may I, on his behalf and that of the whole House, thank the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, the campaigning charity, especially Sebastian O’Kelly and Martin Boyd, together with their compatriots in the campaigning groups without whom we would still be saying that there was a major problem that had not yet been recognised?

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank the Father of the House for saving me the trouble of having to offer those thanks.

I thank Welsh Ministers and their officials for their engagement on the relevant amendments, both here and in the other place. My thanks also go to the Local Government Association, National Trading Standards and the relevant tribunals, all of which have provided support with the progress of this legislation. I again thank all Members for their contributions. This legislation will make a real difference to thousands of future leaseholders across England and Wales, and I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) for his kind words. It has been right and proper and a pleasure to work in collaboration with him and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), as it was to work with Jim Fitzpatrick when he was co-chair of the all-party group on leasehold and commonhold reform.

It is 20 years since the House of Commons and the Government thought that we had brought some sense to the leasehold system. We failed and successive Governments did not pay attention to what had gone wrong, partly because the responsibility for the leasehold and commonhold sectors were split between Departments. The Ministry of Justice, as it was at some stages, did not have any resources and it did not collaborate with the Ministry of Housing, so effective action has been delayed.

The Minister has referred to the narrowness of the Bill. We have to accept that. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) raised the issue of park home residents, who have been treated even worse than some leaseholders. I hope that the Government will give some serious attention not just to the inflation rate that they are charged, but to some of the criminal and near-criminal and exploitative actions of many of the people who run those sites. It is completely appalling, and I direct investigative journalists to look at that matter.

On the question of leasehold itself, I welcome the progress made by the Bill. I am sorry that I got back in time to vote on new clause 1—I probably voted in the wrong way and I apologise for that. The sooner that we can deal with existing leaseholders and the cost to them of ground rents and of extending their leases the better. We must get to the stage where owning somebody else’s leasehold becomes a diminishing asset. The faster the freeholders sell the freehold to the leaseholders together and create, in effect, a commonhold the better. We are making progress. I am glad to have contributed in part, and I am glad that the Minister and his colleagues are taking the action that I wish had been taken many, many years ago.

[Justin Madders]

It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the Father of the House. As we have already mentioned this evening, we are now four years on from the promises that were made about reforming leasehold, and the Bill, as we have all accepted, is a step in the right direction. However, as we have all acknowledged as well, it is little comfort to those who are still trapped in homes that they cannot sell because of the onerous leases with which they have been left, and we must do something about that. I tried to get the Minister to give us a year when that might happen, but we could not get anything out of him. None the less, I can assure him and the House that we will keep pushing on the issue, because justice demands that it is resolved.

It is also worth commenting on the fact that one in three houses sold in the north-west in the past 10 years is leasehold. There has been much talk about levelling up. Who can doubt that a person’s home is the biggest investment they will make? So it is simply unacceptable for so many homes in my part of the world to have been built off the back of an exploitative and unjust business model. Surely, if levelling up is to mean anything, it should at the very least mean that people’s homes are owned on the same basis wherever they live in the country.

The ending of ground rents for new homes is a positive, but it will create a strange situation. There will be houses within a stone’s throw of one another that have a different form of ownership. That will just add more weight to the sense of injustice that existing leaseholders feel, which is why I am so keen for us to push on and deal with that issue.

As many Members have said, a lot more needs to be done. A whole range of issues have been mentioned tonight. We have, for example, barely touched on park homes. There are so many scandalous things going on there, and we really should be paying them more attention. For homeowners, we see the following: management fees, which are a rip-off; non-transparent service charges; the cost of enfranchisement; insurance scams; obscure penalty clauses; and other costs that appear everywhere we turn in a lease. They are all baked into the business models of those avaricious companies which, let us not forget, are still out there building houses.

I am a little concerned that the companies on which we rely to build the houses that we need are responsible for many of the injustices that we have discussed tonight. We need to keep a close eye on their practices in future. I still think that we need an inquiry into the whole industry. We have previously discussed some of the things that we touched on tonight, and the question of how close lawyers were to developers and whether they were acting in the best interests of their clients needs further examination. We need to look at the lenders and surveyors and what the developers were saying to people, often first-time buyers, who were misled about what they were buying. We need to make sure that the system is examined thoroughly so that there is no repeat of the scandal that we have seen over the past five years.

People who buy a home should have a right not to expect it to become an ongoing income stream for a third party. If we have that as our guiding principle we will not go far wrong, so let us crack on with legislating so that that can become a reality for everyone. As many Members have done, I want to acknowledge the fantastic work of the many campaigners who have been active in bringing this issue to the fore including, as we have heard, the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, Martin Boyd, Sebastian O’Kelly, the late Louie Burns, the National Leasehold Campaign, Catherine Williams, Katie Kendrick, Jo Darbyshire and many others, with the Father of the House being one of the biggest cheerleaders. There are many people who have contributed to bringing the issue to the attention of the House, but there is much more that we need to do. It feels at times as if progress is painfully slow, but that should not dim our determination finally to consign leasehold to the dustbin.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

We know about some of the abuses, because people who were working in firms that I would respectfully declare to be dodgy provided information anonymously. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in saying to Richard Davidoff, who might take defamation action against people who have blown the whistle on practices that we would condemn, that the courts should not be used to stop people blowing the whistle on practices that are questionable, if not completely wrong?

[Justin Madders]

As always, I find myself in agreement with the Father of the House. Whistleblowers should be able to speak up freely. With my other hat on, it is probably time that we had a review of whistleblowing legislation to make sure that people are adequately protected. We owe a debt to people who are prepared to speak up and put their head above the parapet, possibly at great personal expense. The scams have to be stopped, and people need to be supported.

On that note, we have made a little progress tonight, and I want to keep making progress. I am sure that the majority of the House will want leasehold finally to enter the history books, rather than being something that we deal with on a day-to-day basis.

Building Safety Bill

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 19th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which she has made in other debates in this place with regard to unscrupulous developers operating in her constituency. Changes to company law certainly warrant further consideration in that respect.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

May I add the problem that leaseholders do not have an interest in a brick of their building and that a claim would need to be made on their behalf by the freeholders to the landlord, who would require indemnity costs from the leaseholders who cannot pay?

May I, through the hon. Gentleman, suggest to the Government that between now and the House of Lords they consider taking a right to take the potential claims by the landlords on behalf of leaseholders into a public agency which can make a public claim against the developers, builders, architects, surveyors, building specification and building controllers, so that money can be brought back from those who were responsible, not the innocent leaseholders who are not?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the Father of the House for that intervention. That is a very good suggestion, which I hope the Minister will take on board and give some considered thought to.

Notwithstanding our concerns with regard to the limitations of the Defective Premises Act, we argued forcefully in Committee for the Bill to be revised so that the period for claims under the 1972 Act be extended from six to 30 years, rather than from six to the 15 years the Government proposed. In response, the Minister urged my hon. Friends to withdraw our amendment on the grounds that a 15-year limitation period was appropriate and indeed that any further retrospective extension beyond 15 years would increase the chances of the legislation being tested against the Human Rights Act and found wanting. Because that argument was never convincing, we are extremely pleased that the Government have reconsidered their position on this matter in the light of the case made by my hon. Friends in Committee, and have brought forward amendments 41 and 42, which provide for that 30-year limitation period, as well as changes to the initial period. We fully support both amendments.

We also believe that new clauses 11 and 12, proposed by the hon. Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), warrant support. If the Government genuinely believe that litigation has a significant part to play in helping to fix the building safety crisis, they need to give serious consideration to permitting a limited class of claims relating to pure economic loss, rather than just actual physical damage.

Clauses 129 to 134 concern the new homes ombudsman scheme, the creation of which we support, albeit, as the Minister will know, with some concerns about its operational independence and the composition of the new homes quality board. While we remain unconvinced that the new ombudsman and the new code will lead to a step change in developer behaviour and thus a marked increase in the quality of new homes, we see no issue with the scheme being expanded to cover Wales and Scotland, so we support the various Government amendments to that effect under consideration today.

Finally, I want to turn to amendments relating to the fundamental and contentious issue of leaseholder liability. I know I need not detain the House for any great length of time on why it is essential that greater legal protection for leaseholders be put on the face of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen McPartland]

I completely accept that point, and the hon. Member will know that we are all in the same position. Every single community is affected up and down the country; there are millions of leaseholders.

The new approach that the Government are taking mirrors a lot of what we want in our amendments on these issues. For example, a number of the amendments I am going to speak to refer to redress. We asked for a period of 25 years, and the Government have come forward with 30 years. We asked for the time in which someone can make a claim to be extended from 90 days to two years, and the Government have come forward with one year. That demonstrates the communication going on behind the scenes and what we are trying to do to deliver success for leaseholders. In some ways, it does not really matter what our opinions are in this place; what matters is what we deliver for those millions of leaseholders up and down the country, so that they do not face bankrupting bills and huge mental health issues.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Without the calm persistence of my hon. Friend and our hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) in this parliamentary year and the one before, we would not have got this far and, on behalf of 1 million leaseholders in all parts of England and Wales, may I say that we are grateful for their efforts? Will they please keep going?

[Stephen McPartland]

I am very grateful to the Father of the House, and I would like to thank the cladding groups up and down the country, such as End Our Cladding Scandal UK, the UK Cladding Action Group and the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership. I record my thanks to the Father of the House and all my colleagues on both sides of the House who have done everything they can to get us to a position where we are working together to secure something that is in the best interests of leaseholders. The way in which the tone has changed, as all of us who have been working on this Bill have seen, and the way in which we now feel we can give the Government room to try to improve the Bill, give us great hope.

A number of the amendments—new clauses 4 to 13 —are specific technical amendments to give the Government examples of how we could fix the problem. The Government have tabled 70 amendments, but of course they still have to come forward with the amendments that we want in the Lords, otherwise the Bill will come back to this House and we will be in the same position, so I think it is important that we continue our efforts.

One of the issues facing leaseholders was the real frustration that VAT is levied on some of the costs. We are asking for the VAT to be scrapped, because when the Treasury puts forward £5 billion, £1 billion of it will be going back to the Treasury automatically; the frustration is understandable. Another example we give is how a previous defects Act—the Defective Premises Act 1972—could be used, as it was for properties with prefabricated concrete. The legislation exists, and these leasehold properties could be incorporated in it. There are a variety of other amendments on technical points, and they are the means of giving the Government examples of how we can support leaseholders.

There is a huge opportunity with new clauses 4 to 13 for the Government to think a little further outside the box. For example, I have a property in my constituency, Vista Tower—one of the famous properties—where the remediation costs are £15 million for 73 flats. The leaseholders paid £200,000 for their flats, and their remediation costs are £212,000, so hon. Members can understand what we are doing and why we originally got involved in this debate. Those people are beyond bankrupt. The mortgage companies are losing money, and that was before the leaseholders got into paying over £300,000 for waking watch and all the other interim costs that have added to the bills.

The Government have come with us and are working in a place where we can try to fix the problem, but there is still a lot more to do. Collectively across the House, we have to find a way forward. For that particular property, with the announcement that the Secretary of State made, leaseholders’ costs went from £200,000 down to £60,000. If we can get commitments from Ministers to include internal developer-responsible fire safety defects such as missing firebreaks, where the developers illegally constructed the building, leaseholders’ costs will collapse again.

I keep asking the Minister every time he looks at me, speaks to me or walks past me whether he will commit to protecting leaseholders in law with his amendments in the Lords. Obviously we all want that, and it is what leaseholders want, because we want to be in a position legally where we can say to a management company or freeholder, “You can’t charge them for this, and you can’t tell them”—as the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) has referred to—“that they’ve got 28 days to make this payment.” That is ridiculous, and it is not fair. The Government are working with us and listening to us, but there is a lot more work to do. I would like to continue working with the Government to ensure that we get out there and protect leaseholders.

Madam Deputy Speaker is now staring at me, so I shall bring my remarks to a swift conclusion. I would like to thank everybody who supported us throughout the campaign. We are not there yet, but we are very close to getting there and supporting millions of constituents up and down the country. I will not be pressing my amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mike Penning]

I do not think there is a conflict, but I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As an ex-fireman, although my concerns and thoughts are with the victims of the Grenfell fire and their families and loved ones, I say that we must put on the record our thanks to the emergency services, and particularly the firefighters, who have to live with what they saw—most of them will never have seen such an incident in their life. They went in one direction while, quite understandably, the public went in the other.

I do not disagree with anything I have heard in the House today. My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), and I are as one. If this is not sorted in the other House, as promised, we in this House will sort it. That is not a threat but a promise. The Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, as we heard, have been brilliant in changing direction. They realised the risk that no thought at all had been given to leaseholders.

I declare an interest because my daughter has a leasehold property. When she bought it, why would she have dreamed that this situation would occur and she would face such penalties?

When I intervened on the Minister, I said I would mention a way out. Those hon. Members who have been here long enough will remember that I took the Mesothelioma Act 2014 through this House. The Act compensated people whose lives, through no fault of their own, had been devastated by asbestos. We could not fine the insurers, the companies, the directors or the shareholders, so they had suffered and they had not got compensation. This Bill is an opportunity to resolve the problem for leaseholders where we cannot impose fines.

There is no reason why leaseholders should drag themselves through the courts. We are trying to sort the matter out in this House. We should put a levy on the insurers. Without any doubt, the insurers got the premium from these companies, because otherwise they would not have been allowed to build the properties, so liability insurance was in place. The fact that we cannot find the developers—some have gone offshore in parts of my constituency—is irrelevant now. If we can find them, fine, but if not, we will levy the insurers.

We do not need to reinvent the wheel. We have already done it with the mesothelioma Bill. Originally, we gave the victims 80% of the compensation that they would have got through the courts. Eventually, we gave them 100%. This House was unanimous in its support of the Bill as it went through its stages. It was probably one of the easiest Bills that I have taken through the House—apart from having to pronounce mesothelioma, which, to this day, still troubles me, as Members may have notice.

This is an option that I have mentioned to the Minister before. I have said that his civil servants can come and talk to me, or to anybody at the Department for Work and Pensions who took that legislation through. I am more than happy for that to happen. Sadly, though, no one has talked to me about this—I am gently looking towards the civil servants in the Box, which I am not meant to do. This is a great opportunity to right a wrong that we can see coming down the line here.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Were claims to go through the courts, they would be aimed at the developers, the builders, the architects, the surveyors, the component suppliers, the building controllers and the building regulations specifiers, all of whom were insured or operating under Government. We need to get them altogether around the table and say, “What will be the total liability?” We would save the lawyers’ costs and get the money in very fast. Leaseholders will be protected. Their homes will be safe and they will be saleable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

To use the words of a former Prime Minister, I agree with Matthew. I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) for his contribution to Third Reading, and thank the Minister, who over the months has moved progressively—if I may use that expression in relation to a Conservative—to do many of the things that, frankly, ought to have been done within months of Grenfell, if not before.

I have two major regrets. One is that the reaction to Grenfell was to make it party political, even though most of the 12,000 buildings affected were not built by Tory councils and have problems just as great as those at Grenfell. The second, which is a different point, is that when the sad crash in the tunnel in Paris, in which three people died and one survived, occurred, the media, instead of saying on the first day that the survivor had been wearing a seatbelt and the three who died had not and that the driver was twice over the legal limit, allowed that point to be lost behind the paparazzi story. If the truth had come out straight away, the number of deaths in Europe over the next year would have been halved.

In terms of fire safety and building safety, in my view it was wrong to say that 18 metres was the cut-off point. It may have been arbitrary that that was the highest level the fire could get to, but analysis of the risk to people in homes is that most deaths are at lower heights, not higher ones. We have also learned lessons on dealing with fires that will not be forgotten.

The Bill goes a long way to meeting some of the needs that were reasonably obvious at the beginning. The underlying problem is that Dame Judith Hackitt was not, I think, properly briefed on the law on residential leasehold, and that caused the mis-steps that are now beginning to be put right. I hope that as a result of the Secretary of State’s consultations with people such as Philip Rainey and other barristers and solicitors who are expert in this field, we will be able to modify the simple polluter pays principle into a practical measure.

We need to stop homes being lethal. We need to stop legalities getting in the way of justice and effective action. We want to take away the financial burden and nightmare from residential leaseholders. We want to make sure that social landlords are not left with the costs that, frankly, should not be theirs. We have a lot more progress to make. It is a matter of faith in the Government that, together with the amendments made today—I congratulate the parliamentary draftsmen and the officials in the Department on the progress they have made so far—we can hope to see further progress and better amendments and supplementary ones tabled in the House of Lords, which can come back here and be both successful and acceptable.

I have two further points for the Minister. Outside this Bill, we look forward to the Law Commission reforms being put to Parliament in an effective way. Last, on the question of forfeiture, which has come up occasionally in today’s debates, I want there to be no question that a leaseholder’s equity should be forfeited just because their home is sold to pay some debt. We must change the law to say that any remaining equity goes back to the leaseholder and is not put in the hands of the landlord. William the Conqueror was king over 950 years ago. His feudal memory should not be continued in our housing system. It is time to enact in practice provisions that the House of Commons passed in law—ineffectively—in 2002. Let us have justice for residential leaseholders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen McPartland]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Third Reading. I am hopeful this evening and, like many Members from all parties, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), to the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), and to colleagues across the House who have worked so hard to get us where we are today.

This is a huge Bill that tries to deal with some of the after-effects of the tragic events at Grenfell Tower. I have been to meet residents at New Providence Wharf, who have also had a very difficult time. Some of the issues they have had are heartbreaking and it is incredibly difficult to speak to them and hear what they have been through. We talk about fire safety in this place, but meeting people who were involved in fires and who were trapped in properties really brings it home.

I understand why the Government want to bring the Bill forward as quickly as they can. They have tabled 70 amendments and I understand their desire to work with Members across party lines to get to a much better place in respect of the bits we want. Although it is a very large Bill, a lot of us in the Chamber are focused on a small part of it: the provisions on leaseholders and leaseholder protections. That is the bit on which my colleagues and I mainly focus. It is important for me and for leaseholders up and down the country that they are not held responsible for historic fire safety defects and construction defects.

Let me remind the House where we have come from. When we started our campaign about 18 months ago, the Government’s original offer was around £20 million to deal with these issues. After the statement from the Secretary of State last week, we are now on course to have more than £9 billion of Government support, with probably another £100 million for waking watch, alarms and a variety of other issues. The Government have moved forward massively.

I do not always support the Government but, in fairness to them, on this issue we have asked and they have negotiated. There is a new tone and a new willingness to work both across party lines and within the governing party to resolve this issue for leaseholders, so we have hope. Tonight, millions of leaseholders up and down the country, many with huge mental health issues and facing massive financial ruin, have hope. That hope encourages us to believe that we may finally come to a position where we can resolve things for those millions of leaseholders.

We are in the position we are in because, although a lot of people will not realise this, the Prime Minister has intervened directly on a number of occasions to get us to a state in which we can support each other, negotiate and get more than £9 billion-worth of support for leaseholders, which is an amazing achievement. I am delighted with the work we have done behind the scenes to get us to where we are. Because of that hope and the constructive way in which the Government have worked with us behind the scenes, we want to give them the room to work with us a bit further and to table amendments in the House of Lords to protect leaseholders in law. That is what we want—that is our first request.

The second request that I continue to make is that amendments are made to protect leaseholders in respect of internal fire safety defects and not just external ones. At Vista Tower in my constituency, which has more than £15 million-worth of remediation costs, the fire breaks are missing. They would have been in the plans and signed off by the developers and the building regulatory regime, but they are missing. We have to think about how we can support constituents like that.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Will my hon. Friend allow me to add to what he is saying? The insurance companies are claiming premiums that are 10 or 20 times higher than before because there are additional fire risks. All this work should lead to reduced fire risks. Will he support me in asking the Government to get together with the technical sides of the insurance companies and the Competition and Markets Authority to get those insurance premiums back down to what they were before so that leaseholders may pay £300 a year to insure a building they do not own rather than £3,000 a year?

[Stephen McPartland]

I completely support the Father of the House, as he knows, in all matters.

It is important that the Government have accepted the principles of everything that we have asked for throughout this 18-month campaign. I am very grateful for that. With all the technical details, that campaign has demonstrated how complicated this issue is and the many millions of people and tens of thousands of buildings it affects in many different ways. In fairness to the Minister and the Government, it is very difficult to put all that into a Bill, so they do need time. As long as they are prepared to work with us, we are prepared to give them that time so as to support leaseholders and ensure that they do not have to pay for these historical fire safety defects.

I have one final request for the Minister on behalf of those constituents of mine in Vista Tower who have been affected by the building being no doubt shoddily built and not to the plans of the time. Will the Government be prepared to provide support so that those leaseholders can take action against the original developers, or will the Government take the action on their behalf, because a lot of these leaseholders have been going through this for a number of years and no longer have the mental resilience or ability to take these fights on and take legal actions for the next five or 10 years in the courts? Will the Minister provide further support to those leaseholders? Will he agree to continue to meet and work with me so that we can ensure that leaseholders are not held responsible and they are the innocent parties throughout this crisis?

Building Safety

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Monday 10th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I will co-operate, Mr Speaker, and may I say, through you, to the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), that the tributes to her husband Jack Dromey for his work on people’s interests at work and at home will be long remembered, together with that of David Amess, who for 20 years worked on the all-party group on fire safety and rescue with Ronnie King and others?

I believe that this is another step forward that is greatly welcomed and greatly needed, but I think the extension of the liability to 30 years is wrong for those who knew that what they were doing was wrong: 30 years may be fine for those who did it by mistake, but for those who knew what they were doing, there should be unlimited liability both in time and in money.

I hope that the Secretary of State will have a roundtable. If he wants to take over the all-party group roundtable for a summit on this, he can pick up some of the other issues that no doubt he has been working on, but which, to keep his statement reasonable, he may not have covered today.

One problem is the insurance premiums paid by leaseholders for a property they do not own, which may have gone up from an illustrative £300 a year to £3,000 a year. I believe that the Association of British Insurers should be told that the Competition and Markets Authority will look to see whether there is price gouging, in simple terms, and, that if there is some kind of catastrophic reinsurance needed, the Government should help them to make communal arrangements to deal with that, because insurance premiums should come down to the £300 they were before.

The last point of very many I would like to make is that the Treasury will expect to get the benefit of the levy and tax towards the £5 billion already announced, and the contributions that will come in from developers will relieve burdens on residential leaseholders, but the Government should also get the VAT on money that is spent, which is 20% of the total cost. If the total cost comes down from £15 billion to, say, £12 billion, my right hon. Friend can calculate and discuss with the Treasury how much extra the Treasury is getting. The Treasury should not be making a profit out of all this catastrophe.

[Michael Gove]

I thank the Father of the House for his questions. He is quite right that Sir David Amess, before his sad death, was one of the most prescient and most effective campaigners for improved building safety. His memory is very much in my mind.

The Father of the House makes a point about the need to potentially look at unlimited liability for those who consciously and deliberately operated in a reckless fashion. I will consider that and I am sure it will be considered during the passage of the Bill. On his point that we should work with others, particularly the broad leasehold community who have done so much to identify the way forward, we absolutely intend to do that. The point he makes about insurance premiums is absolutely right. That is why my noble Friend Lord Greenhalgh will be talking to Baroness Morgan of Cotes and others in the Association of British Insurers to ensure that more insurers, like Aviva, do the right thing. I very much note his point about VAT and Treasury contributions. In the ongoing conversations we have with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I will reflect on the very important point that he made.

Building Safety Bill

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 21st July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

As I understand it—I stand to be corrected if I have the wrong information—the 900 figure that the hon. Lady cites was a misinterpretation of the figures that were released earlier. None the less, the actual number is significant, albeit fewer than 900. We want to see waking watches used only in cases where they are absolutely necessary. The recent statement from the National Fire Chiefs Council has suggested that they are being used too often and that they can be reduced significantly. If she has constituents in that situation, as I am sure she does, in the first instance I would recommend that they make use of the waking watch relief fund to install a fire alarm, which can cut the costs very considerably.

This Bill takes an unusual step of retrospectively extending the period during which compensation for defective premises can be claimed—it more than doubles the current period, from six to 15 years. This significant step forward was requested and campaigned for by groups impacted by the cladding issue. We are going further, expanding the scope of the work for which compensation can be claimed also to include future major renovation work to buildings. These measures will not help everyone, but they do provide a step change in redress for raising issues. I hope that, in time, builders will extend their warranties to cover this period and provide the maximum amount of confidence to house purchasers.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

While my right hon. Friend is considering this point about the extension, will he please consider the point made by Robert Ayling, at Grosvenor Waterside, that the Building Act 1984 provision should be extended to six years after the plaintiff is aware of the defect? I am not asking for an instant answer, but such a measure would help to deal with the current situation very well.

[Robert Jenrick]

I will give that further thought and revert to my hon. Friend on it.

It was clear after the fire at Grenfell Tower that action was required to address safety concerns with respect to existing buildings, and my predecessors rightly took a safety-first approach, as I have also tried to do. We have provided expert advice and accelerated inspections of all high-rise buildings, and that work continues, with substantial progress having been made by the National Fire Chiefs Council on the building risk review, which is likely to be concluded by the end of the year. We have provided £5 billion in grant funding to carry out vital remediation work targeted at the buildings we know to be at the greatest risk from fire spread—those over 18 metres—and we have banned the use of combustible materials on the external walls of high-rise residential buildings, providing industry with a clear standard for the construction of new builds.

Some 474 buildings have been identified as having Grenfell-type ACM—aluminium composite material—cladding. We are now well on the way to remediating all of those buildings. Over 95% of the buildings identified at the beginning of last year have either completed or started remediation work; 70% of those have now been fully remediated, and that is rising every week. That means that around 16,000 homes have been fully remediated of unsafe ACM cladding, an increase of around 4,000 since the end of last year. Despite many building owners failing to provide adequate basic information, almost 700 buildings with other types of unsafe cladding are proceeding with a full application to the building safety fund. We have already allocated £540 million, which means that owners of 60,000 homes within high-rise blocks can be reassured that their remediation will be fully funded.

We currently forecast that over 1,000 buildings with non-ACM unsafe cladding will receive support of the same form through the building safety fund, providing a guide to the cohort of high-rise buildings where remediation is actually required. That is being progressed by a dedicated team in my Department and our two delivery partners, Homes England and the Greater London Authority. The Government have played their part: the unprecedented £5.1 billion we are providing gives assurance to leaseholders in eligible buildings that unsafe cladding on their blocks will be replaced at no cost to them.

I know that there will be strong feelings across the House about industry needing to fix and pay its fair share for problems that is has helped to cause. I recognise that some house builders have stepped up, too, thus far committing over £500 million for remediation since my statement in February. But some have not stepped up, or at least not in the way I expect them to. Ballymore, for example, has yet to commit to fully funding the remediation of its buildings.

The industry needs to go further. That is why we are introducing a new levy on high-rise residential buildings. We have published today a consultation document on the levy and I welcome views from all interested parties on its design. The levy will sit alongside a tax being developed by the Chancellor to raise at least £2 billion to contribute to the costs of historical remediation. This Bill also introduces the building safety charge to provide residents with clarity and certainty on the costs of building works, and we have listened and ensured that that charge only includes the cost of management of building safety in their building.

As I said at the outset, in bringing forward this new building safety regime we need to take a sensible, proportionate approach driven by expert advice. The Bill ensures that the building safety regulator will regulate in line with best practice principles, be proportionate and transparent, and ensure that the interests of leaseholders are protected. In 2020, only 9% of fires were in flats of four storeys or more. In 2019-20, only 7% of fires spread beyond the room of origin in such buildings. And, while every death is of course tragic, thankfully only 10 people died in 2020 as a result of a dwelling fire in flats of four storeys or more. We strongly believe that our proportionate approach is in line with these facts, ensuring that remediation works are undertaken only where absolutely required, and leaseholders should not be landed with bills for unnecessary work.

Unfortunately, that is not the position today and we need a significant reset. Too many people living in lower and medium-rise buildings have told us of feeling trapped in their properties, held back from selling their homes because of excessive caution in the lending, surveying, insurance and fire risk assessment markets. Understandably, this has caused residents to worry over safety and has led to unnecessary costs. I want to be clear that the vast majority of residents in all homes in this country, including blocks of flats, should not feel unsafe. Driven by these concerns, earlier this year I asked a small group of experts on fire safety to consider the evidence and advise me on the steps that should be taken to ensure a proportionate, risk-based approach to fire safety in blocks of flats. I thank them for their time and their expert advice, which I will publish later today.

The key finding of the experts’ advice is clear: we cannot and should not presume systemic risk of fire in blocks of flats. I quoted some of the statistics earlier, but let me repeat them. Dwelling fires are at the lowest point that they have been since we started to collect comparable statistics in 1981, despite the fact that in 2020 people spent significantly greater amounts of time in their homes as a result of covid restrictions. On that basis, the expert advice includes five significant recommendations to correct the disproportionate reaction that we have seen in some parts of the market. First, EWS1 forms should not be a requirement on buildings of less than 18 metres.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what I consider to be properly a point of order. The Secretary of State has most courteously explained to the House that the statement that is now forthcoming is market sensitive. I have had a chance to glance at it and I understand that it is indeed market sensitive, so I can understand, and I think the whole House will now understand, why the Secretary of State issued it at the point that he did.

I have to say to the House that there seems to have been some delay in the Vote Office and in the workings of the House, and for that, on behalf of the House authorities, I apologise to Members and to the Secretary of State. I thank the Opposition Whips for giving me a copy, since nobody else did—

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am still finishing my response to the point of order, Sir Peter.

I think there are some points in the statement that the Secretary of State will wish to clarify. I am not putting a time constraint on him, as I normally would, for finishing his Second Reading speech, because in addition to that speech it would be appropriate for him to take two or three questions on his written statement.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The written statement has the number HCWS228; an online search brings up one with a similar number from January 2015. Could the House authorities see whether they can get the statement online so that those Members who are participating virtually also have the chance to read it?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order and I reiterate it. I wonder whether the House authorities have done that—I do not know but I ask them to do so immediately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and welcome.

Paragraph 19 of the National Audit Office report says:

“The Department has acknowledged that only in a minority of cases would it be financially justifiable for building owners to bring legal action to recover money.”

But the building owners will only make a claim if they are indemnified by the residential leaseholders, who do not have the money, so it is not going to happen, and the sums that the Department has reclaimed are very low. What is clearly obvious is that they will not get money from leaseholders. That follows on from the report of a working party set up two weeks after the Grenfell fire by Ted Baillieu, the former Premier of Victoria in Australia, and an architect. It reported within two years. He gave a presentation to the all-party fire safety group and the all-party leasehold and commonhold reform group. As they will not get money from leaseholders, they have to find the problems, fix the problems, fund the problems and then see how to get the money back. We know that the Ministry of Housing has got just over £5 billion from the Treasury. It expects to get perhaps £2 billion back in tax and £2 billion back in levy. If £15 billion is spent, there will be £3 billion back in VAT. So the Treasury seems to make money out of this, and who is left with the £10 billion of funding? The residential leaseholders, who cannot afford it.

It is quite clear that the Government have to do two things: first, as I said to the Secretary of State during his speech, extend the Building Act 1984 so that people can make a claim within six years of knowing that there is a problem; and secondly, make sure that the insurance industry knows that it is ultimately liable for what the architects, designers, component suppliers, builders, regulators and building control groups have done and must get most of the money back by agreement. There is no point in having individual leaseholders, or groups of them, taking legal action; it will not work. I say to the Secretary of State: in this case, please listen to those who know and try to make sure that no examination takes place without leaseholders being part of the committee. They could have told the Secretary of State four years ago that his approach was not working.

We are grateful for some progress, but we need much more.

Fire Safety Bill

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

Lords amendment 4L lacks clarity, just like the others. Just like the others, it prohibits all kinds of remediation costs from being passed on to leaseholders, which means that were there to be even minor costs as a result of wear and tear, or even where leaseholders themselves are responsible for the damage, they would not be expected to pay. I do not believe, and I do not believe this House believes, that that is a proportionate response.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Christopher Pincher]

I will, of course, give way to the Father of the House, as I was unable to do so yesterday due to time constraints.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I am grateful to the Minister, and he knows I am trying to play the ball and not the person. The question is not the small amounts but the large amounts. It is estimated that the cost of remediation may go up to £15 billion. The Government are providing £5 billion, which leaves £10 billion that may fall on the shoulders of leaseholders. We are moving from a situation that might be ironic for some, to one that is irenic for more. The point of the amendment is that it needs to be met by Government, and it needs to be met in good time, or else many people will not be able to meet the demand to pay for the cost of remediation, and forfeiture will follow. That will happen in a shorter timescale than the one talked about by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox).

[Christopher Pincher]

I certainly accept my hon. Friend’s assurance that he is playing the issue, as he always does, and not the man. As he rightly says, we propose to spend £5.1 billion of public money on remediating the tallest buildings, as directed by the Hackitt report and its recommendations.

We have also said that as a result of our tax on the development industry, which the Chancellor will consult on imminently, we will raise a further £2 billion. We have also said that we will introduce a tall buildings levy. Developers themselves are placing more money on the table. Taylor Wimpey has now placed a further £125 million on the table for remediation, and Persimmon £75 million. The amounts are building up. We have also suggested a very advantageous financing scheme for those buildings below 18 metres that may require some remediation.

I think all Members would agree that the taxpayer should not be paying for every cost associated with the provisions of the Fire Safety Bill, but that is the risk, because the scope of the amendments that have been tabled is far too broad to provide a sensible solution. Lords amendment 4L is also unclear on who should take responsibility for remediation works until a statutory scheme is in place to pay the costs. That would result in all types of remediation being delayed—a really unsatisfactory outcome for leaseholders. Leaseholders also will not thank us for voting through an amendment that will generate lots of litigation that they may need to pay for.

The amendment would prevent the passing on of remediation costs, but it does not define what those costs are. That is a recipe for litigation and a recipe for delay. There is a lack of clarity on the definition of remedial work and what may be attributable to the provisions in this Bill, in other Acts or in none. How would Members suggest that we disaggregate the legislation under which works are carried out and the definition to differentiate between remediation, maintenance or improvement? It is a recipe for litigation and a recipe for delay.

In effect, it may not be possible to relieve leaseholders and tenants from all costs for remedial works attributable to the Bill without breaching subsidy control rules—a form of state aid. Further detailed consideration would be needed about that, too. Practically speaking, drafting legislation is, as many Members will know, a complex matter that cannot be dealt with in the timeframe proposed by the amendment, and to provide an arbitrary deadline is neither helpful nor practical.

There is a common theme uniting these points. The amendments will not work. They will not help leaseholders. They are not detailed enough for a complex and intricate problem of this nature. We have seen the key elements of this amendment time and again, and this House has voted them down time and again. Yet time and again, peers and the Opposition—unintentionally, I trust—seem set on reinjecting uncertainty into the market, which cannot help leaseholders. I respectfully ask the House to reject this amendment, so that we return a further clear and consistent message to the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it be within the Standing Orders of this House for the Government, if they chose to, to propose a carry-over motion, so that the Bill would not be lost as this Session comes to an end and the Government could then improve the amendment, which keeps coming back, quite rightly, from the House of Lords?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As ever, his experience shows in the idea that has occurred to him. I do not know whether that idea has occurred to the Government. I do not know whether, if it has occurred to the Government, they have decided to pursue it or not. Actually, I do know that: if the idea has occurred to the Government, they have decided not to pursue it. Therefore, it is not a matter for me to decide what ought to happen, nor a matter for the Chair. It is up to the Government to decide how they take this matter past this rather difficult and unusual point, where the other place has sent a Bill back on several occasions. I expect that, like me, the hon. Gentleman eagerly anticipates the outcome of this Division and then we shall see what will happen next.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4L.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. If he were seeking to further the exchanges that took place during Scottish questions, his point would not, strictly speaking, be a point of order for the Chair, but I appreciate that he is asking a serious question about a serious matter. I can point him in the direction of the Public Accounts Committee, which is concerned with the regularity of spending; the Scottish Affairs Committee, which deals with non-devolved Scottish matters; and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which is concerned with the operation of the devolution settlement. In pursuing the question that he raised, he might wish to take the matter up with the Chairman of one or other—or, indeed, all—of those three Select Committees.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, I am grateful for your clarification of the situation on the Fire Safety Bill, which is what I suspected it might be. It is obvious that the House of Commons has the opportunity of a carry-over motion only when dealing with business that is in front of it, and the other place has procedures that are similar but not exactly the same. There seems to be no precedent for what happens to a Bill that has been in both Houses, and that may be something that could properly be considered by the Speakers or the Procedure Committees of each House. In this particular case, as a carry-over motion is not possible, were the House of Lords to go on sending back helpful amendments and this Bill were to fail, if it were re-presented with the problem of the future burdens for leaseholders solved, it could pass both Houses within a day.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The Father of the House raises a most interesting point. He is right in saying that if the Bill were now to fail, a similar Bill with similar purposes could be brought forward by the Government in the next Session of Parliament. As to whether it could pass quickly through both Houses, or either House, is, as ever, a matter for Members of this House and, indeed, of the other place. If Members choose to make very short contributions and allow a Bill to pass through quickly, and if the Government choose to put all stages of a Bill in one day before this House and, indeed, the other place, the House of Commons as a whole and the Government could make those decisions, and it is not for me to anticipate what might happen. I thank the Father of the House for his second interesting point of order.

I am obliged to suspend the House for three minutes to allow arrangements to be made for the next item of business.

Fire Safety Bill

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions today. The House will know that we have a duty to implement clear and effective legislation to support fire and building safety reform. We have an obligation in this place to make good law. While I entirely accept that the motivations of all those who have contributed today are not to damage the Fire Safety Bill, I have to tell them that the practical consequence of passing the Lords amendments would be to do that, because they are ineffective and defective. Let me explain why, before moving on to some of the other points that Members have made.

The amendments would prevent any type of remediation costs being passed on to leaseholders, even if the cost was very minor or if the leaseholder was responsible for damage, and that is not a proportionate response. There is no framework in the Lord Bishop of St Albans’ amendment to distinguish between different works. I think all Members would agree that the taxpayer should not be paying for minor costs, such as replacing a smoke alarm, and that if the leaseholder is responsible for breaking a smoke alarm, in all likelihood they should fix it. The amendment is also unclear on who should take responsibility for remediation works until a statutory funding scheme is in place to pay or direct the costs, and that would result in remediation being delayed, even in the case of minor defects, if routes of cost recovery are unclear.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Christopher Pincher]

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will not give way, because I have to conclude my remarks. Perhaps if I have a bit of time at the end, I will.

These orphan liabilities would leave leaseholders continuing to live in unsafe properties with no further clarity as to who will pay. It is important to ensure that taxpayers’ money is protected as much as possible and that remediation is not delayed unnecessarily in extended litigation such as we might find ourselves in. It is not the solution that leaseholders need or the one that the taxpayer deserves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It will be observed that the Government’s majority without the Scots Nats was halved in the last vote.

I would not ask for guidance from the Chair in the Commons about procedure in the Lords, but were the Lords to send back another amendment different from the one we have been considering, but trying to take up the points raised in this Chamber, am I right in saying that the Government could table their own amendment tomorrow, which would absorb the points made in this House, so that leaseholders are not penalised in the way they would be if the Bill went through as it is at the moment?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Father of the House for that point of order. Obviously it will be a matter for the Lords and the business managers to say how it will proceed from here.

Post Office Court of Appeal Judgment

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Lady makes some important points about the length of time and the egregious nature of the situation that the former postmasters have had to suffer. She talks about the time it takes to get justice, and that is one of the core reasons why we set up the inquiry under Sir Wyn Williams. The average length of a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 is nearly three and a half years, which is a long time. We want to get answers now for the postmasters so that we are able to answer questions about who knew what, who did what and at what point, and learn lessons.

The hon. Lady asked about the Government’s role in this. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is working well with Sir Wyn Williams, and we are participating fully in the inquiry, as are the Post Office and Fujitsu. Sir Wyn Williams clearly feels that he is getting the support, answers and participation that he needs from the relevant organisations. If that changes, clearly we can review that.

The hon. Lady talks about Fujitsu. As well as the inquiry, there are ongoing investigations with the police into wider aspects of the case. She talks about Paula Vennells. People will talk about Paula Vennells’ positions and awards—there is an independent forfeiture committee to consider awards—but I am particularly pleased that, having stepped back from her other roles, she has committed to participate fully in this inquiry. It is to be welcomed that the former chief executive of the Post Office is doing that.

Finally, the hon. Lady talks about the Prime Minister not being on speed dial, or however she described it, for the group of litigants and the other postmasters. I can confirm that the Prime Minister is incredibly interested in and exercised about the situation, as we all are. He wants to make sure we work with the sub-postmasters to get them the justice they want and compensation for the prosecutions, through discussion and dialogue and by working with them and the Post Office in the first instance.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Knowing who did what will matter, but it is clear why it happened. In 1999, the Government withdrew from the contract and it became one of the worst private finance initiatives ever.

To know what happened, people should pay attention to the investigative journalists and what Lord Arbuthnot said. Computerworld in 2015, Computer Weekly in 2009 and Private Eye in 2015 laid out what the problems were. Second Sight, in its report, showed 12,000 communications failures a year between the terminals and the centre. There was a suggestion that some of the machines’ recordings of tax disc income, cash machines and other things were not coming through. I want to know whether Ministers and senior people in business, whether suppliers or customers, will pay attention not to glossy reviews saying how good things are, but to investigative journalists who say how bad things might be for the innocent. Until those innocent people, who were forced to plead guilty when they were not, are reimbursed the money they had not taken, we cannot sit quietly here in this House.

[Paul Scully]

I thank the Father of the House for his comments. There is no sense that this inquiry is glossy in any sense. Sir Wyn will get the technical support that he needs to understand exactly the points that my hon. Friend makes, including the testimony in the court cases. In the call for evidence, there is an opportunity to listen to the magazines that he referred to, including Computer Weekly, and other journalists who have covered this.

Carbon Monoxide: Safety, Testing and Awareness

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephanie Peacock]

I completely agree. I hope that the Minister has heard that important point. I know that there was a Government consultation on this issue, which closed in January, but no follow-up or findings have yet been announced.

I commend the all-party parliamentary carbon monoxide group, which has worked for many years on this issue. In November 2017, it published a report on carbon monoxide alarms. After a thorough analysis, it made three recommendations. First, it recommended that the Government should update the existing Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015 so that landlords are legally obliged to provide CO alarms in rooms of private rented properties that contain any fuel-burning appliance, not just solid fuel appliances. The second recommendation was that landlords should be given adequate notice of and provided with clear guidance on future changes to the regulations. The third recommendation was that in subsequent reviews and amendments of building regulations, the Government should widen the requirement to fit CO alarms to all properties, including public and social rented sector properties and owner-occupied properties.

Those asks are well within the power of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to fix. This is a safety issue and the Minister can direct Ofgem to make it mandatory for the gas emergency service to test appliances for CO and ensure that, by law, all residences are fitted with a CO alarm. Those are reasonable and simple asks, so will the Minister outline the Government’s position on them?

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

This is the best speech on carbon monoxide, its dangers and the practical ways of reducing those risks that I have heard. May I suggest to the Minister that he invite Stephanie Trotter, who has been doing this work for 25 years, and representatives of the all-party group to a meeting with him, advised by the HSE, along with the National Residential Landlords Association? If the good landlords are doing what they should, the bad ones need to be encouraged. The regulations do not require registered gas engineers to test every time they have the opportunity to do so. That should be a basic requirement. It is like testing tyres during an MOT.

[Stephanie Peacock]

The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point and I hope that the Minister will respond accordingly.

The legislation is not tough enough, and

“we need to send out the message that we will not settle for anything less than the highest standards, which are needed to protect the most vulnerable people in our society.”—[Official Report, 23 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 212.]

They are not my words, but those of the former Member for Houghton and Washington, East in a debate in this place on the same subject 22 years ago. It is not acceptable that, two decades later, we are still waiting for meaningful action. I hope that today the Government have finally listened and will act.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) on securing today’s important debate on carbon monoxide and on the way she has spoken about this hugely important issue. The safety of the public is clearly a key priority for any Government, and the prevention of carbon monoxide poisoning features in the work of a number of different Government Departments and agencies. It is a multifaceted issue, which the Government recognise needs a coherent, joined-up approach, so I am pleased to be able to discuss this issue today.

While the trend for carbon monoxide poisoning is downwards, we clearly cannot be complacent, for the reasons that we have heard, whether it is the death of Katie, the death of Gary Maher or the life-changing paralysis of Sheree Maher. There was a campaign that was followed by Gary and Sheree’s mother Molly for many years. We need to make sure that we are very much on top of this issue. Twenty deaths a year by accidental carbon monoxide poisoning is 20 too many. These are human beings. We must remember them and we must act for them.

The Government and their agencies continue to take action to raise awareness about the risks. Every death caused by carbon monoxide poisoning is a tragedy, and those who survive severe carbon monoxide poisoning can feel the effects for many years, as we have heard. I formally thank the all-party parliamentary group on carbon monoxide for its tireless promotion of gas safety and its ongoing endeavours to increase awareness with Government, businesses and individuals. While carbon monoxide itself may be invisible, the importance of the issue must remain distinctly visible.

This debate gives us an opportunity to consider the importance of the topic and the levers to drive change, and it gives me an opportunity to highlight the latest steps that the Government are taking before I come back to awareness and education. It provides an opportunity to raise awareness with the public about the action they can take to protect themselves, but it also provides an important nudge and reminder to each of us here as individuals to ensure that we are taking the appropriate actions in our own homes to protect those who we love from this silent killer.

I want to take a few moments to talk about the protections already in place and what the Government are doing to protect the public. Reflecting the cross-cutting nature of the issue, the Government have in place a cross-Whitehall group under the chairmanship of the Health and Safety Executive. That group brings together the teams, agencies and Departments that have an interest in carbon monoxide and, more importantly, that have those levers to drive up safety and awareness in relation to the relevant sources of carbon monoxide—the appliances themselves, their installation and maintenance—and that have obligations to householders and tenants.

By coincidence, the group’s most recent meeting was earlier today, during which the group discussed issues, including recent Government activity to address accidental carbon monoxide poisoning and engagement with industry to drive up safety from the design stage of appliances onwards. The group provides regular updates on activity across Government to address the risks of carbon monoxide. It publishes an annual report that is available on the HSE website.

I must also mention the important work of the all-party parliamentary carbon monoxide group, to which we have had a few references. This group provides vital discussion and promotes ways of tackling carbon monoxide poisoning in the UK. Its membership has recently increased, showing the importance that my hon. Friends and Members from all parts of the House place on this important issue.

Turning to the protections already in place, there is robust legislation in effect to ensure that gas appliances placed on the market and placed in homes are safe. The essential safety requirements for gas appliances and fittings are governed in Great Britain by regulation 2016/426, which relates to appliances burning gaseous fuels, and in Northern Ireland by regulation EU 2016/426. The law requires that these products are designed and built so as to operate safely and present no danger, including in relation to carbon monoxide. They must be accompanied by instructions for use and servicing that are intended for the user and bear appropriate warning notices. The instructions for use and servicing intended for the user must contain all the information required for safe use and must in particular draw the user’s attention to any restrictions on use.

Enforcement authorities have a range of powers to take swift and robust action where a safety issue is identified with a product. In 2018, the Government took action to provide enforcement powers to the Office for Product Safety and Standards, as well as existing enforcement authorities, to maximise the opportunity to take action where necessary, but safe design is only one element in ensuring that the risks from carbon monoxide are minimised. Boilers, cookers, heating systems and appliances should be installed and regularly serviced, as we have heard, by a reputable registered engineer. Anyone carrying out work on the installations and appliances in a home must be registered with the relevant association, such as the gas safe register for gas appliances, the heating equipment testing and approval scheme for solid fuel appliances, or with the Oil Firing Technical Association for oil appliances. Where the appliance requires a flue or chimney, those should be swept regularly by a qualified sweep. These actions can provide reassurance and minimise the risk of carbon monoxide in our homes, but due to the odourless, colourless nature of carbon monoxide, fitting a detector provides an effective warning that the poisonous gas may be present.

Building regulations in England require the provision of carbon monoxide alarms when solid fuel appliances are installed. When alarms are required, they should comply with the relevant British standard and be powered to operate for the working life of the alarm. The housing regulations require carbon monoxide alarms when homes that have a solid fuel appliance are privately rented. As we have heard, the Government have recently consulted on proposals to extend the building and housing regulations to require the provision of carbon monoxide alarms to oil and gas heating installations and to social housing. My colleagues at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will be publishing their report and response in due course.

There will and can be a risk of exposure to carbon monoxide in environments away from the home, where gas appliances or solid fuel appliances can be found—for example, in caravans, boats and mobile homes—so it is important that owners, whether the places are for their own use or are hired out, take appropriate action to minimise the risk of carbon monoxide to those staying in them. I reiterate that carbon monoxide alarms are a useful additional precaution, but they are not a substitute for proper installation, maintenance and the safety checks of combustion appliances.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The House will be grateful for the positive way in which the Minister is responding, although dates for when that Ministry will respond would be better. Can we remind the House that less than one part in 50 of carbon monoxide in the air can be fatal, and that alarms are not alternatives to maintenance and detection, but additional?

[Paul Scully]

Indeed, and the Father of the House is, in his usual wise way, right to highlight the fact that not only is this a silent killer, but that it does not take much to have a drastic effect. Clearly, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will have heard his request to chivvy along that response and his request to meet, and I will make sure that the conversations that we can usefully have with Members of the House, and there are many, come through to the right Ministry so that they can have the best effect. I will reflect on that and return to it.

Raising awareness about the dangers of carbon monoxide and the actions to be taken to minimise the risk is absolutely key and that is why this debate is so important. The Government’s message is also very clear. We say to householders: use a properly trained, competent and gas safe-registered engineer to undertake work in your home and have all fuel appliances serviced on a regular basis. It is also good sense to have a carbon monoxide alarm fitted in your home as an additional precautionary measure. We say to landlords: ensure that you know the legal and moral obligations on you towards the safety of your tenants from the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning. The hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) was absolutely right when she talked about the fact that we need to make sure that we are calling out disreputable landlords on that and that tenants need to clearly know their rights in this as well. And we say to those tenants: ensure that your landlord has undertaken the necessary steps to protect you from carbon monoxide.

The Government regularly review their messaging and information to ensure that it is clear and up to date. For example, there is a need to be vigilant in looking out for the signs of carbon monoxide poisoning at the moment during the coronavirus pandemic, as we have heard, because the symptoms of chronic CO poisoning may be confused with some of the signs commonly associated with flu-like illnesses such as covid-19. These include headaches, sickness, tiredness and shortage of breath. Similarly, one of the solutions for carbon monoxide poisoning, as the hon. Member for Barnsley East said, is fresh air, which is also shared with the covid-19 response.