Dear Brother / Sister
Building Safety Bill update
On 14 September, the general secretary was called on behalf of the FBU to give evidence to parliament regarding the Building Safety Bill.
The Bill, promised following the Grenfell Tower fire in June 2017, seeks to tighten the regulatory regime around construction, to ensure the safety of new buildings is considered from planning stages to occupation. It will ensure that there is an easily identifiable ‘accountable person’ in each building responsible for safety, and will create a ‘building safety regulator’ to act as the building control authority for higher-risk buildings, overseeing building performance once constructed too.
Drafted in July 2020, the Housing, Communities and Local Government select committee opened a consultation inviting comments on the draft form, to which the FBU made a submission. The Bill was then presented to the House of Commons in July 2021, and a Bill committee has now been created to scrutinise the bill line-by-line. Part of the process is to hear the from key stakeholders, so on Tuesday 14 September Matt Wrack appeared in front of this committee on behalf of the FBU, along with representatives from HSE, the National House Building Council (NHBC), ABI and BRE Global. MPs took the opportunity to thank FBU members “for all that they do”.
The general secretary spoke about a range of matters affected by this Bill, drawing particular attention to the culture of complacency in the construction sector which has led to tragedies like Grenfell, to a lack of competence in building control, and to cuts to the fire and rescue service which have led to fewer fire safety inspections.
Asked if the bill will improve the building safety regime in this country, he responded:
“…it’s a welcome turn in decades of deregulation... As a union representing frontline firefighters, but also members of ours who work in fire safety specialist teams, we have often felt like a voice crying in the wilderness on many of these issues, for decades. We have objected to the growth of commercial interests in setting standards in the testing regime, the approach to enforcement that’s often been led by ministers of different parties regrettably, so we welcome a turning point in the bill and I think it will help to clarify roles and responsibilities.”
Matt Wrack gave a succinct overview of how we arrived where we are today:
“There is problem with culture. The endless mantra… has been that fire is a declining risk and therefore we can afford to reduce our emphasis on fire safety. That was a theme we heard for more than a decade… That has allowed corners to be cut… look at fire safety inspecting teams, we’ve lost over two decades, 40% of them.”
He highlighted the issue of resources repeatedly, both within the HSE, local authority building control teams, and in fire. The bill has been published alongside an impact assessment, but the FBU has concerns that it seriously underestimates the cost of the challenge ahead:
“We would question how those figures have been drawn up and whether they are adequate”.
Asked by Rachel Hopkins MP for comments on how fire and rescue services and the newly established building safety regulator will interact, he said:
“…an obvious point for the fire and rescue service is: what is meant by the obligation to cooperate with the regulator? And fire and rescue services have been subject to unprecedented reductions in staffing levels over the past decade. That will raise questions about resources in their ability to cooperate with the requests of the regulator.
“The final point I would make is that within the proposals is that if a fire and rescue service could not for resource implications provide that assistance the regulator could go to another fire and rescue service, or failing that go to the private sector. We would object to the role of private sector providers within that. If we’ve got a problem with resources in the appropriate public service, then those resources should be provided.”
Also, the Bill defines higher-risk buildings as those over 18m, which has been queried by several stakeholders including RIBA and the NFCC, because lower buildings can carry a risk due to other factors.
The general secretary put this on the record too:
“We find the differential regime based on height to be illogical… height in itself can be a bit arbitrary and in our view the wrong height measure has been chosen currently.”
The committee, comprised of 17 cross-party MPs, will continue to analyse the bill, and report to the Commons on 26 October. It then proceeds to third reading, and on into the House of Lords.
Yours in Unity,
Tam McFarlane
National Officer
