Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill (First sitting)

Sarah Coombes Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th November 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We have less than five minutes left, so I am afraid some colleagues will be disappointed.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

Q On the types of bad behaviour from responsible entities and on ownership, I have a constituent who was a leaseholder at a building in east London. That building was found to have cladding and dangerous issues that needed to be sorted. The building then burnt down and 80 residents were left traumatised, homeless and still paying mortgage payments for a building that no longer existed. The freeholder, Arinium, then went into administration. Perhaps you, Mark, or anyone on the panel can say a bit more about how the Bill will address the issues of ownership and the different types of poor behaviour and delays and so on that can compound these issues.

Lord Roe: Mark, Charlie and I dealt with this one, so I am going to volunteer Charlie, who is a bit of a victim really, while you think about it.

Charlie Pugsley: If it is the building in Dagenham, we have engaged consistently with residents since then. We are also working closely with London Fire Brigade. I have to be careful, even in Committee, not to talk about things that could prejudice a live investigation. One of the things we have heard loud and clear is about the knock-on impact of the case, where the entity has become dissolved and its estate is in effect taking money from the people who have already suffered the loss of their properties. That is one of the things that we are feeding back to the Department and other regulators. Both we and London Fire Brigade are still working on that. But we are both very much sighted on—this comes back to Lord Roe’s point that you need to approach enforcement with intelligence—in this case, what do we do if the only impact further impacts on residents?

Helen Fisher: May I add to that? Lord Roe made this point earlier. I think we all welcome the Bill. The behavioural point is an important one, and there are a couple of things on that. This is not just about remediation; it is about safety for residents and leaseholders while we get to their buildings, and there are thousands of buildings. We are starting to work with the social sector and the private sector to ensure that transparency is there. One of my goals is making sure that all residents and leaseholders understand when, and understand that they are going to be safe in the interim.

On the behaviour, it is not just about doing everything in your power to step through a design and remediation programme, which is undoubtedly incredibly complex. It is also about how you as a building owner are compliant with resident and leaseholder safety while you wait for key remediation works to go ahead. There is a lot more to do in that space.

[The Chair]

We have one minute for a question and answer. I call Peter Fortune.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon]

Q I want to follow on from Ms Blake’s question, which mirrors a concern of mine. In the event that regulators do not agree, who has the coercive power to make things happen? If I have understood you correctly, you think the Bill would be strengthened if it made it clear, in the event of a dispute resolution, who holds the ring.

Dan Daly: I think the partnership agreement I was talking about would set out very clearly, in certain circumstances, who was leading on what. At the moment, where that is not as clear as it could be, and where there is a reliance on separate entities coming up with these in quick order after the Bill is passed, that leads to the possibility of inconsistency in how they are done. Of course, they do not always come to those agreements quickly, because there will be different viewpoints, so I do not think it would be unhelpful to do that ahead of time.

[Sarah Coombes]

Q A lot of the Bill is about breaking the impasse and trying to get the works done that are so desperately needed for leaseholders. Where engagement has not been secured, what difference will it make to be able to impose a financial penalty? Do you have a view on whether that element of the Bill will allow things to move forward?

Penny Pender: I think that the Bill provides a few more tools in the toolbox, as some of our colleagues said earlier. I think the introduction of some of those financial penalties is really interesting and useful to see. The proof will be in the pudding, so it is certainly worth trying them in certain circumstances and seeing how it goes. We hope that they will be helpful. I know that some fire and rescue services have potential interest in those being expanded beyond just the Bill to the application of the whole fire safety order. I think this will be a really useful opportunity to see how it goes, and then to learn from that. Hopefully, it will make a difference.

[Peter Fortune]

Q Quite a few of us used to be on the London Assembly, and we used to question Lord Roe. One of the issues he used to bring up was the number of qualified personnel in the fire brigade who were leaving after the training to go and work in the private sector. I do not think he has quite turned from gamekeeper to poacher, but are you still finding that pressure? Will that be an issue as the Bill starts to take effect?

Spencer Sutcliff: That has been a fairly long-standing concern of ours. We have obviously prioritised that and done a lot of work in-house, and our competency levels—as we would determine them—have improved fairly significantly over the last few years. We certainly had a moment in time when we lost quite a high number of highly competent and experienced staff to the private sector, because we simply could not compete financially. We have been well supported by the London Mayor and our GLA colleagues to make arrangements to reduce that impact a little, and that has had some positive effects. Recently, over the last 24 months, we have thankfully had much less of that.