The Building Safety Bill was never intended to solve the problem of fixing existing building safety issues. Unsurprisingly, it provides no real answers.
The big question is why - four years on - has the government not looked for a proper legislative solution to this crisis?
The big question is why - four years on - has the government not looked for a proper legislative solution to this crisis?
To those who are newer to the story, the BSB implements Dame Judith Hackitt's review of construction practices. This is all about building new buildings and maintaining them - not getting cladding, timber balconies and dodgy fire breaks off existing towers.
Instead, this bill ultimately retains the status quo for remediation. Requiring building owners to explore other options is a gesture. For most people, extending the right to sue is as well (sue who? for what?)
What the building safety crisis has needed since it first emerged in 2017 is national leadership: a means of sensibly assessing which buildings need work, what work they need and who is going to pay for it. We have none of these frameworks, the bill provides none.
The government response has been to try and use the existing system (building owners arrange repairs and bill leaseholders) and then plug the gaping holes in this response with whatever the Treasury will spare
But it's essentially a laissez-faire approach which has all the wrong incentives. Government advice notes have driven lenders, insurers and building owners to insist on zero risk, at the leaseholder's expense. The result is grid-lock and ruined lives.
What the country needs is a big piece of legislation which engages with this, and tries to plot a way through it which if not perfect is at least fairer and more workable.
The Building Safety Bill is a bit of an Emperor's New Clothes moment, because they have to finally admit they are not going to do that. The status quo is here to stay.
Why has there been such reticence? Some of it comes down to money, but quite a lot is politics.
Why has there been such reticence? Some of it comes down to money, but quite a lot is politics.
The government and its advisors do not like the idea of a 'big government' response that interferes with private property rights. They have always tried to make the problem one for 'building owners' and instructed them to book private consultants.
I plug this 'behind the scenes' piece quite a lot, but at one of the early meetings a state-led response was shot down by someone saying 'we don't live in a Marxist country'. I think that roughly sums up the attitude insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insigh…
The thing is, this is petty because the scale of the problem and how bad the existing structures are at dealing with it means central government is the only body with the scale and power to even partially solve it - and that's been obvious to everyone since summer 2017
What (I think) needs to happen is that this bill needs to be defeated and the government needs to be sent off to come up with something that engages with the problem. Backbenchers simply rattling them enough to get another £2bn out of the Treasury will not cut it.
What may add to the chance of this happening is that this bill is currently set to hit Parliament at the same time as the Grenfell Tower Inquiry makes some likely very startling revelations about the state's failures to stop this crisis happening.
All that in the news alongside a bill which essentially says 'leaseholders should pay to fix it' will be a tough sell, even with a big majority. It's still a very long shot though.
The central point is - we need a new solution to the crisis, this ain't it.
The central point is - we need a new solution to the crisis, this ain't it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
