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

Sarah Gibson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th November 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Florence Eshalomi]

Q From your experience, looking at how this Bill is laid out and the work that you have been doing, what does persistent non-compliance look like?

Lord Roe: I am conscious of time, but it comes in all shapes and forms. It could be reluctance to devote the money required to an expensive specialist contracting model to get the work done, so you can hold things up at contract. It could be putting forward really poor, under-resourced design proposals. There are multiple different ways you can hold this process up. To be fair, lots of things make operating in this landscape complicated and hard. Perhaps I will come back to that as a principal answer: this is a good tool. It will not solve remediation, but that is not what it is intended for. A lot of stuff on the delivery side has to be improved, whether it is inside the regulator or the other agencies or out in industry. That will probably give us the greatest gain, but this is a very useful tool where people are not complying.

With the greatest respect, I hope the witnesses this afternoon bring up-to-date evidence. We have gone from a 30% approval rate and a median determination time on approvals into the gateway 2 system of over a year, which was completely unacceptable. Charlie and I were charged with trying to shift that. We publish data transparently every single month. We are now at a 92% rolling approval rate. We got the median determination time down to something in the region of 20 weeks, and we will reduce it further. I personally am not experiencing huge levels of non-compliance, to be fair to the industry. They have worked hard to improve the standard of applications and move things on, but this is a very difficult space to operate in—and where there are bad actors, this will be a good tool.

[Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)]

Q Mr Norris, will local authorities be able to carry out effective enforcement among the competing priorities and statutory duties, given that you are being given more powers and that we have just agreed that there is no hierarchy of control?

Mark Norris: Like the building safety regulator, the LGA welcomes the Bill. It is another tool in the toolbox. As MHCLG’s statistics already show, local authorities are out there doing enforcement now and have been for a number of years. Some 940 buildings are being inspected by councils under the Housing Act to take enforcement actions against some of the bad actors that Lord Roe referred to, supported by the Joint Inspection Team, which the Department funds the LGA to support. They have completed over 200 inspections so far.

The issue for us, which Lord Roe touched on, is capacity and resources to do that. Environmental health officers are in short supply—there is not a ready tree on which they grow to recruit them from. In terms of being able to do additional work, we already know that environmental health officers have a range of additional responsibilities. Recent legislation, including the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 and the social housing Act from 2023, includes a range of additional duties on local housing authorities within the housing space. Resourcing capacity in environmental health will be needed going forward to support councils in being able to do that work. We are fully up for the task, but need the resources and capacity to do that alongside everything else we are being asked to do, as you pointed out.

[Sarah Gibson]

Q Will the Bill make a material difference to the leaseholders in the buildings or will the lack of resource in the ability to enforce on the ground be such a big block that they will not notice a material improvement?

Mark Norris: I think they will notice a material improvement from this legislation. The experience of the Joint Inspection Team is that you might know what is wrong with the building and what needs to be fixed, but progressing things through first-tier tribunals to get the ruling that that is what the building owner or responsible entity needs to do takes time. Giving us something that places a duty on responsible entities to fix the building—that says very categorically, “This is what you have to do”—will help to speed that process up. But you are right: councils will need resources and capacity in addition to that to help them make the most of the legislation and the tools available in it.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

Q My question is to Lord Roe and Mr Pugsley. As in other parts of the country, residents of affected buildings in Southampton—we have dozens in the city centre—have waited years with waking watches while developers and management companies wrangle over responsibility. When they finally get a submission into the BSR, in some cases they have waited up to 40 weeks. You mentioned some of the statistics on improvement, but is there anything in the Bill that will materially assist or hinder you in more swiftly turning around those remediation approvals?

Lord Roe: Those are two different things. I would not want to confuse necessary operational improvement with legislation to deal with bad actors. What you are talking about there is our responsibility to appropriately take a decision on what is sometimes a very complex situation, with thousands of pages to each application, while also operating in the context of a national lack of suitably skilled people to do facade engineering—also a particular point of risk. All I can do is point to the evidence, which shows that there was an unacceptable situation a year and a half ago when we came in: if you were one of those residents and had an application submitted into our system, you could wait up to a year or more. That was not okay and I have apologised for it repeatedly in other Committees.

We were charged to turn that around. I would argue—I have got to say this in defence of the team responsible—that we have done that, because we are now at 92% approval and with 20-week determination times. That will come down further, although maybe not by a lot—this is not about poor bureaucracy or a lack of emails or care anymore; it is about the engineering complexity of getting a building safe that has been built really badly.

The message to your constituents is first that we are super-available. Charlie and I get hundreds of emails into the inbox every week from people who often have rightful challenge—or sometimes do not. They will get a reply and response and, where necessary, we will unpick individual cases from the top of the BSR hierarchy down.

The point is that we can evidence the operational improvement. It is real and it is there in the figures. It is also there in the experience of both industry and many residents. We meet with all the campaigning groups almost weekly to gather intelligence, try and pick off poor actors and recognise where we are doing wrong and where there needs to be improvement in the system. I know, though, that is not going to be a comfort to people who are still trapped inside those blocks and who are under tremendous pressure. All I can tell them—I am sure many of them will be watching—is that we will be doing everything in our power to improve our system and force recalcitrant actors to do better. However, it is a complex problem that has been three decades-plus in the making.

Charlie Pugsley: One thing in the Bill is a duty to bring forward the assessment; that is something that we found in our remediation enforcement unit and have chased up. We work closely with Homes England and other partners. If that duty helps drive that forward, one part of the bigger puzzle will have been progressed and can help. But as Lord Roe says, there is no silver bullet; this is about a collective endeavour.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Asser]

Yes. I am sorry; I should have done that beforehand. My partner works for the London Fire Brigade in fire safety issues.

[Sarah Gibson]

Q I want to ask about the suitability of PAS 9980. One of our previous speakers, Ms Fisher, mentioned that PAS 9980 has relativity in it and includes the word “tolerable”. I am extremely concerned, and I want your views—sorry, I have slightly led you. I wonder whether you feel that PAS 9980 is the correct statutory methodology for the Bill, and whether you feel that leaseholders might be left unsafe, or feeling unsafe, and paying higher insurance premiums because of the word “tolerable”, which does not have a very definite definition and is such a relative term, as Ms Fisher mentioned. What alternatives might there be for a better definition of what “resolved” looks like?

Penny Pender: That is a really good question. It depends on what you want to be achieved through the Bill. From the point of view of controlling the risk of fire spread on external walls—that fire safety point of view—we are satisfied that the PAS does what it needs to do. Obviously, it does not deal with how the building should have been constructed to begin with or those wider issues, so if that is something that people are looking for it to resolve, they will remain frustrated. Even though we are happy that it would deal with those critical life-safety issues, you are right to highlight that some of the wider issues, such as insurance, would not be addressed through that means.

Spencer Sutcliff: We think that PAS 9980 is an appropriate assessment, and we would not want, necessarily, to bring in further methodologies that could confuse the arrangement or provide further inconsistencies. It goes back to the root cause, which the previous panel touched on a number of times: the competency of the assessor. When you are using an assessment that always has an element of subjectivity, you are entirely reliant on the competence of the assessor, and we have seen various examples of different assessors coming to different conclusions using that assessment. There is some ongoing concern.

We really welcome and would like to see more of the auditing arrangements for Homes England. Certainly in the initial stages, I would like to see Homes England audit those premises that have been deemed “tolerable” and not just look at the ones that are effectively failing the assessment, because there needs to be confidence that those assessments are done in a consistent manner. We are back, a little bit, to the root cause around who is doing the assessments in the first place.

Penny Pender: If I might build on that, as Spencer says, no matter what methodology you select, if the people using that methodology do not have the right competencies to begin with, you will come across those issues. For the time being, we need that methodology. It is what we have available to us, so changing it at this point might not be helpful. I am aware that the PAS has been updated recently to make it clear that you have to have regard to and think about the wider risks in the building, so it should ultimately lead to those risks being identified. It is just a challenge for people, when they do identify them, how to address them.

Spencer Sutcliff: There is extensive work ongoing around the regulation of those assessors, and we have standards in place. We do not yet have formal regulation of who is permitted to carry out those assessments; that is a work in progress, and we really encourage that the pace of that work is maintained and that it is brought in as soon as possible.

[Fleur Anderson]

Q My question is to the deputy commissioner about the Bill’s co-operation framework. I am the MP for Putney, and I have a lot of high-rise buildings, which are at a lot of different stages: some have been remediated, some are ongoing, some have not yet started, and the London Fire Brigade is involved in several of them. One case, which I think is the sharp point of this and a test case for the Bill, is a Barratt Redrow development. Having been decanted for three years, people will be going back next week on the basis of assessments done by Barratt Redrow, but the residents do not have any more trust in the developer because of what has happened. They want an independent assessment to assure them that they can go back, but they are being told that they have to go back or the locks will be changed. It is quite serious.

Do you think that the Bill’s co-operation framework will help? The LFB, the borough council, the local management committee and the developer are all involved in conversations, but who can the residents go to for that independent assessment to be assured that the building is safe? Is there anything more that can be done in the Bill to help in that situation?

Spencer Sutcliff: I think the Bill provides a sufficient framework for the work to be done to clarify the exact position around the responsibilities of each of the enforcing entities. It is not unusual at all for the London Fire Brigade to have protocols and memorandums of understanding with different enforcing authorities. For example, we have a long-standing MOU in London with the local authority around houses in multiple occupation, because we both have enforcement powers under the fire safety order and the Housing Act. It is right and proper that we distinguish the type of building, the type of occupancy and who is the lead enforcing authority. To act at the same time is not good practice; it creates inconsistency and would not be correct.

I think the framework proposed in the Bill is sufficient. We have already drafted an enforcement protocol with the Bill in mind, so the timescale proposed in the Bill to set out that framework is suitable and can be met.

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi]

Q In the Bill, we are placing a clear legal duty around the responsibility for remediating those buildings, which I hope you will welcome. In essence, there will be stronger penalties and consequences for those who fail to do that. From your work, what difference do you think will be made by the ability to levy civil fines, so that your residents do not have to go through a long-winded court process? What will that do for residents across Greater Manchester?

Kate Green: This is a helpful provision; it potentially gives regulators a timelier and more proportionate enforcement option, but we would not want that to arrive at a situation where commercial developers, who often have very deep pockets, considered that a financial penalty was an acceptable cost of delay and that they could afford to hold back, address other priorities that they might have and just pay the price of that. We really do see those penalties as a backstop to other effective enforcement action.

We would also draw attention to the need for the capacity to use that civil route to secure compliance. There will need to be investigation, evidence gathering, decision making and dealing with appeals, and all that will require sustainable long-term funding in to the system. A civil route is certainly welcome. However, our other concern is about buildings subject to the developer contract, where using a contractual route rather than a statutory basis to ensure compliance puts more hurdles, if you like, in the way of residents seeking to have their buildings remediated.

[Sarah Gibson]

Q Thank you, Ms Green, for your comments so far. I want to go back to something that Helen Fisher mentioned earlier. She raised concerns about PAS 9980 and the amount of relativity. Do you feel that, even if remediation is achieved, some of our leaseholders may be left feeling unsafe or paying higher insurance premiums through their external wall risk being assessed as “tolerable”, given the indefinability of that word?

Kate Green: Yes. Unfortunately, I did not hear Ms Fisher’s evidence this morning, but I do share those concerns. There will be an audit process, but that will be a dip sample, in a way; there will not be capacity for Homes England to audit every fire risk assessment that is undertaken. We will need to know that we have a robust audit process and that Homes England has the resources to carry that out.

We also need to be clear that where fire risks are deemed tolerable, there is an appropriate response from the insurance industry, which recognises that they must have full regard to that audit process based on the PAS 9980 framework that you referred to, and that, if fire risks are deemed tolerable, residents should not be penalised by higher insurance premiums, because effectively the insurance now has that assurance that the building can be insured cost-effectively.

[Sarah Gibson]

Q Will that not be an issue where our current control or regulation of fire assessors varies? Previous witnesses have mentioned that different fire assessors come to different conclusions. The insurance industry will therefore not have confidence that the assessment made is robust, on the grounds that the word “tolerable” is not easy to measure.

Kate Green: I share that concern. The Government will need to ensure that the fire risk assessments and the decisions of fire risk assessors are robust and consistent. Otherwise, there are avenues open for people to game the system or to obtain an assessment that is more favourable to their own interests.

There is a risk there, and I hope that in the course of the passage of the Bill the Government will think about how they can ensure that that fire risk assessment PAS 9980 framework is fully robust and can give full assurance to residents.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

Q As a northern MP, I think it is important that we understand the role of mayoral strategic authorities and what part they will play in speeding up the pace of the cladding remediation with the new duties under the Bill. Do you feel that they will help to speed up the process that we currently find ourselves in?

Kate Green: I think that the mayoral combined authority has had and can continue to have a role in helping to speed up the process. In Greater Manchester, shortly after the appalling fire in Grenfell Tower in 2017, the then mayor established a high-rise taskforce, chaired by Paul Dennett, the Salford city council mayor. Paul now chairs a high-rise oversight group where we are able to convene local authorities and the Greater Manchester fire and rescue service. Homes England attends, as do the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, housing providers, developers and residents. They can all be convened around one remediation programme.

Of course you will know, as members of the Committee, that we and other mayoral combined authorities published our local remediation acceleration plans in recent months. Those plans are the articulation of the whole-system approach that I think mayors and mayoral combined authorities can help to put in place. We have been able to use our plan to do a number of things, including, obviously, to understand more clearly what buildings are affected in Greater Manchester and what the nature of the risk is in each of those buildings. We have been able to be close to and very fully engaged with our residents, and to ensure that a residents-first focus sits at the heart of the work that we are doing in Greater Manchester and the work that we want to see nationally.

We have been able to bring the social housing partners to the table, which has been exceptionally useful in considering how we get social properties remediated and how we can work with our social housing providers in Greater Manchester to do that as swiftly and as effectively as possible. We can escalate matters when they become stalled. We have also been able to lobby Government; I think it has been helpful that Greater Manchester has been able to present a concerted voice to successive Governments for funding and for action—now resulting in this legislation.

There is a lot more that we hope to do with our local remediation acceleration plan in the coming months and years, and at the heart of that will be resident engagement. Our residents continue to live with a very significant impact on their mental health and their financial position, and in many cases with continuing uncertainty about when their buildings will be fully remediated. I see the work that we are able to do as a mayoral combined authority, maintaining the spotlight on the lived experience of our residents and reflecting that back both into the action that we can take and into the action that we ask national Government to take, as being crucial.

The final thing I will say, given that I have the very specific role of oversight of the fire and rescue service, is that in Greater Manchester we have been able to prioritise having the right capacity in the Greater Manchester fire and rescue service to support the regulatory regime—the inspection and enforcement programmes that are required. That work, and the oversight of the implementation of all the recommendations that came out of the two Grenfell Tower inquiry reports, is being taken forward. We can oversee all that through a series of governance structures that are led by our chief fire officer. One of the things that mayoral combined authorities are in a very useful position to do is to draw all those different players in a geography together.