Building Safety Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Debate between Rachel Hopkins and Ruth Cadbury(2 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ruth Cadbury
It is a pleasure to serve under you again, Mr Dowd. I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale has said about the number of dwellings that will fall outside the 15-year catch. Obviously, we welcome its being extended from six to 15 years, but a case from my constituency illustrates why 30 years would be more appropriate.
I have had the honour and pleasure to represent Brentford for over 30 years, and a lot of new homes have been developed during that time. My office is keeping tabs on construction issues with blocks of flats, including those in Brentford ward. I can tell which blocks have required no casework during all my years of representation—it is those that were built more than 30 years ago under a regime of good quality construction and in a culture of safety. Those constructed after that were built at a time when standards were starting to fall. The culture of competition and the privatisation of building control meant that there was price competition and a reduction in inspections. There was the demise of the role of the clerk of works, corners were cut, and there was a skills shortage in the construction industry. Taken together, as we have said many times, that created this crisis. My casework shows that well over 25 separate estates in my constituency that were built in the last 20 years—since around 2000—have issues with cladding, lack of compartmentalisation, and shoddy workmanship.
I also picked up casework on damp and safety as a councillor. I will give two examples Even before Grenfell, leaseholders at Holland Gardens, which was built by Barratt, had forced Barratt to replace all the window fixings because they had not been done properly. It was subsequently found that the building had flammable cladding, so scaffolding was put up again. I have already mentioned the Paragon, which was built in about 2003. We do not know what its future is, but it is empty because it is too dangerous to occupy. I absolutely endorse the amendment’s aim of extending the timescale from 15 to 30 years. There is so much evidence. I can see it on my own patch, but we all have evidence.
Rachel Hopkins
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship again, Mr Dowd. I want to add my voice in support of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale and of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth. I have similarly seen many developments go up in my home town of Luton, where I live. I am speaking for the leaseholders of Point Red, who have been in touch with me. Point Red was redeveloped in the mid-2000s, and it is touch and go whether the leaseholders would have any recourse under the current 15-year rule, so it is absolutely right that I stand up and support this amendment.
The metaphor of David and Goliath comes to mind. If the Government are committed to supporting leaseholders who, through no fault of their own, have found themselves in very difficult situations with regard to their homes, the period of time that we are talking about should be longer. That could have a life-changing effect on people working in our communities—we are talking about social workers and teachers—who may be made bankrupt, and who may therefore lose their professional accreditation and no longer be able to work. As one small step among many that we are trying to take, the Government’s acceptance of this amendment would be life-affirming for so many of our leaseholders. I urge the Government to consider it carefully and adopt the 30-year period.
Building Safety Bill (Tenth sitting)
Debate between Rachel Hopkins and Ruth Cadbury(2 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Hopkins
It is appropriate that I mention my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I welcome the opportunity to move this amendment. The Minister will recognise my deep interest in housing and in ensuring that everyone can live in a good-quality, secure, safe home that they can afford to live in. The amendment would place in the Bill, rather than in regulations, an exemption for social housing from the levy introduced by the clause.
The levy is designed to meet building safety expenditure. That expenditure is not the ongoing cost of the new building safety regime, which is met through the building safety charge; it is designed to cover the cost of Government support for the remediation of unsafe cladding. That support is provided to leaseholders in buildings with unsafe cladding systems, either through the Building Safety Fund or through a system of low-cost loans for buildings under 18 metres, the details of which are yet to be announced.
For the most part, that support is not available to social landlords, other than to alleviate costs that they may otherwise have to pass on to leaseholders. With the exception of buildings with aluminium composite material cladding, social landlords have been denied access to those funds. For councils, remediation costs therefore fall on the housing revenue account and must be recouped either through rent increases or by diverting funds away from improvements to council housing or the provision of new council housing.
In contrast to many private developers and freeholders, social and council housing providers were the quickest to react post Grenfell. Analysis has shown that housing associations have paid six times more than developers to remediate dangerous cladding. According to G15, the group of London’s largest housing associations, overall, associations have set aside nearly £3 billion for historical remediation costs, far more than the half a billion pounds that the private sector has provided.
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend is making really powerful points. I have a number of blocks in my constituency managed by housing associations, but they were generally built by volume house builders, and the housing associations are having to deal with the costs that she mentions. Ultimately, as she says, those costs are falling on leaseholders, many of whom are shared owners and people on fixed incomes, and on the future social tenants of the housing association, because the costs impact the association’s capital programme. Does she agree that that means a slowdown in what is already a very slow social housing new build programme, and concerns about other repairs and capital works to existing social rent homes in the portfolios of the housing associations?
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.”
Building Safety Bill (Second sitting)
Debate between Rachel Hopkins and Ruth Cadbury(2 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Q
Kate Henderson: We welcome the emphasis from Government on ensuring the costs associated with building safety through the building safety charge are proportionate and kept as low as possible for residents. We are very committed to that. At this stage, it is quite hard to know what those costs are going to be without knowing the specific competencies of the building safety manager, the skills base and what that will cost.
On your question about protections for leaseholders, I must first say that as housing associations, we want to see all our residents sustain their homes, so we will do everything we can to support them with remediation costs—in pursuing funding from Government, pursuing developers or pursuing warranties. We will absolutely do that. On the building safety charge, the Bill suggests that it is separate from a service charge, and that you pay it within 28 days. Having looked at that, we think it places more vulnerabilities on leaseholders. With a service charge, there is case law, so you can hold your landlord to account, and that is an important point to address. If the building safety charge was transparently and openly included within the service charge, the leaseholder would have a right to redress through case law under service charges.
The other point here is that, if the building safety charge is within the service charge, it can be paid not within 28 days, but on a monthly basis. It would be estimated for the year ahead and then divided up by 12 months, as with service charges. You would then get to the point in the year when you compared budget with actuals and readjusted, and if that cost were to go up and your leaseholders were unable to pay it, you would work out an affordable repayment plan. Our recommendation is that there should not be 28 days. The charge should be included as a provision within the service charge, but in an open, accountable and transparent way, so that the leaseholder has not only a right to redress, but a more manageable payment plan.
Ruth Cadbury
Q
Victoria Moffett: To be honest with you, that is an arrangement that we have not considered at all. Rather than answering on the hoof, we might have to go back and give that some thought. We can certainly do that and write to the Committee.
Councillor Renard: We will also provide a written answer to that. It is a really good question, and we will give it some thought and respond to the Committee.