Agenda item

Matthew Armer (Head of Building Safety Reform, Home Office) to attend.

The Chair invited Charles Loft, Senior Adviser, and Matthew Armer, Head of Building Safety Reform at the Home Office, to introduce the report.

Charles outlined the main provisions in the Bill, which had been published on 5 July 2021, and then highlighted some of the LGA’s initial general concerns. These included:

·         The Bill did not resolve the issue of costs to leaseholders of remediation work

·         Links with planning reform, in particular, concerns around building safety in buildings converted under permitted development rights

·         The proposals on product safety lacked detail and there were concerns about whether they would actually work in practice

·         Limited removal of private sector competition in building control

The report also addressed aspects of the Committee’s discussion at its last meeting about the fire at New Providence Wharf that had been covered by the LGA’s ongoing building safety work.

Matthew introduced himself to the Committee and explained his current role, namely leading on the Home Office input into the MHCLG sponsored Building Safety Bill. The main task at present was working to recruit the approximately 200 new fire protection staff that the Home Office estimate would be required to support the work of the new Building Safety Regulator (BSR). Given the 4-5 years of training required to become a fire engineer, it would not be possible to get all 200 in place by the time the new regime was scheduled to begin in April 2023. A high-level plan had been developed with the NFCC to recruit and train staff, largely through in-house upskilling and backfilling. Money had been secured through the Protection Uplift Grant to deliver new duties under the Fire Safety Order but a further bid for funding had been submitted to the Treasury.

Members comments and questions:

·         Members agreed that the shortage of qualified fire protection staff was a real concern and could be exacerbated by loss to the private sector where pay was generally higher.

·         Concern was expressed about the balance of FRA responsibility for the fire service and the duty to cooperate with HSE. Charles agreed that there needed to be greater detail and clarity on where the BSR made demands on FRAs that might be at odds with their IRMPs.

·         Members agreed with the LGA position that height was not necessarily the best determinant of risk but queried why it was suggested that only care homes under 18 metres should come into scope, rather than other at-risk settings? Too many new buildings were still being built with serious flaws. Matthew said that whilst height was the only risk indicator in the Bill at present, amendments could be made to the Bill as it passed through Parliament. The Bill itself also allowed for expansion in scope.

·         Concern was expressed about buildings converted into residential under Permitted Development Rights being able to bypass the new system, thus compromising building safety. Charles said that the LGA had raised this on a number of occasions with MHCLG and the Minister. His response, when this point was raised at the LGA conference building safety session, was that these buildings would come under the ‘in occupation’ element of the new regime. Charles said that a new regulation had been introduced about adding storeys to a building over 18 metres but this didn’t include buildings of under 18 metres that would be brought over 18 metres by the addition of new floors.

·         What would the implications be for local authorities that had buildings which failed the 5 yearly review contained in the Bill?

·         It was considered important that the provision of professional advice and inspections remained locally within the FRS.

·         Was there a role for the LGA in quantifying wider skills shortages in the building safety sector? What was the route for young people to enter these professions and could more be done to promote it as a rewarding career?

·         How was the figure of 200 new fire protection staff derived and how would it work for individual FRAs who might need to backfill for staff taken on under the new regime.

The Chair invited Mark Hardingham, NFCC Chair, to comment on some of the points raised by members.

·         The figure of 200 was an estimate from an NFCC Protection Unit report on the new burdens business case. This may need to be adjusted as the new system bedded in.

·         It was proving difficult for FRSs to compete with the private sector over fire protection staff as the high demand and shortages were driving up wages. Investment would also be needed to retain newly qualified fire engineers, including making their terms and conditions of employment more attractive. On the plus side, new university apprenticeships had been signed off and the Protection Uplift funding should enable FRSs to recruit. Funding for this work would form a key part of the Spending Review submission.

·         Lots of work was taking place on a competency framework and 3^rd party accreditation as recommended in the Hackitt Review.

The Chair then invited Matthew to make any further comments:

·         Recruiting and retaining staff would be a big challenge and any ideas and input would be welcomed.

·         There was also currently a shortage of training providers that was exacerbating the situation and would need to be addressed.

·         The Government was still working closely with the Health & Safety Executive on the details of how the new regime would work on the ground. The Impact Assessment published alongside the Bill gave further information.

·         One of the key challenges for the Home Office was around securing long-term sustainable funding for the sector.

Decision:

·         FSMC noted the proposed LGA work on the Bill and the wider building safety work in relation to the issues arising from the Committee’s discussion about the fire at New Providence Wharf.