Due to the time limit imposed on speeches in this important debate I was unable to make all the points I wanted, below is my original text and here is a link to video of my speech in the Commons: https://www.liamfox.co.uk/news/dr-liam-fox-mp-speaks-house-commons-fire-safety-bill. I will continue to raise these points with Ministers.
The cladding issue is of great importance to many of my constituents, particularly in Portishead, and so I am grateful to be able to make a short contribution to this debate.
This is a complex and difficult issue which has to balance the fair and equitable treatment of individuals caught up in the many cladding traps with the interests of taxpayers at a difficult time in the public finances because of the pandemic.
I take at face value ministerial assurances that the Fire Safety Bill, because of the limited nature of its legal scope, would not be able to underpin the current amendment before us in regulation and that this would significantly delay the introduction of the Fire Safety Bill and the crucial measures it introduces. I also take seriously the Minister’s assertion that it would effectively create a blank cheque that taxpayers would be asked to sign. This will be particularly difficult to explain to those on lower incomes than the leaseholders involved in this dreadful situation. For these reasons, I will support the government in the vote today but that does not in any way diminish the need to deal with the wider and more complex issues facing my constituents.
I am aware that the government will publish more details of the financing scheme when further discussions with the Treasury are completed.
Therefore, we still have a further opportunity to set out the basic principles that will guide the implementation of these talks.
While, as I have said, it would be completely improper to effectively ask the taxpayer to sign a blank cheque, it had to be a basic principle that those who have to undertake expensive remediation as a result purely of changes to government regulations should have this expenditure underwritten. Since these changes will affect dwellings irrespective of their height, then such support should be available to all.
Where changes are required, not as a result of a change in government regulation but because of faulty workmanship or frank dishonesty in the declaration of materials used then any costs should fall directly on developers and insurers. Indeed, there may be occasions when criminal sanctions are required.
It is quite unacceptable for taxpayers to be asked to pay in these circumstances. There will, however, need to be exceptions to this hard and fast rule particularly where the developers in question have gone out of business and there is no place from which leaseholders can seek redress. In the circumstances it would again be acceptable to see taxpayers money helping those who have legitimate means of redress denied.
There are also a number of practical issues that we must see resolved. We need RICS guidance published as soon as possible in relation to EWS1 certification and we need to speed up the training of qualified staff able to conduct EWS1 assessments. Unnecessary stress and anxiety is being created of shortcomings in these areas.
We also need the building societies and banks to take a realistic and constructive attitude when it comes to the buying and selling of these properties, especially when a taxpayers safety net is being deployed to provide greater certainty. We also need the Association of British Insurers to provide realistic guidance to its members so that, on top of the financial worries that they already have, leaseholders are not subjected to the added anxiety about the failure to insure their properties.
As I have said previously in the House, we also need to ensure our factually accurate as I’m afraid I have seen too many examples already of soddy practice that adds both financial cost and unnecessary worry to the leaseholders concerned.
We all fully understand that the government is dealing with a complex set of issues which they inherited from their predecessors and are trying to deal with them in the current difficult financial climate.
But if we set out our clear principles on which any future programme be decided it will be much easier to explain and gain acceptable for any detailed implementation that will come in the future.