My Lords, I speak in particular to the amendments in this group in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, who have made excellent contributions. I intend to be concise and brief, because the noble Baroness introduced them in an eloquent and comprehensive manner, which was followed up by subsequent speakers.
These amendments are much needed, and it is disappointing that these matters have not already been taken into account by the Government in the Bill. The new clause in Amendment 116 would require building owners and accountable persons, about whom I shall ask a question shortly, to verify the competencies of fire assessors before appointing them to conduct the fire safety assessments required by the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about the 1984 legislation and, prior to that, local authority employees. The cosy relationship between building constructors, developers and inspectors is really concerning. That needs to change.
These are serious concerns. Look at Grenfell, where numerous people lost their lives, and subsequent fires in high-rise and other buildings. The system is broken. Serious construction defects are there, and there have been failures in not detecting bad buildings. Building regulations have failed. That is criminal, as my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock pointed out on the previous group. We cannot have buildings signed off as safe when clearly they are not. Developers choosing building inspectors—a point the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned—cannot be a way forward. We have to all be singing from the same hymn sheet; that is what Amendment 116 talks about.
2.30 pm
The Hackitt review talks specifically about residents being ignored and the lack of consultation. You have to take the residents on a journey to make sure that they are part of the solution. The ultimate point I will focus on here is what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, talked about, which was also evidenced in the Hackitt review: a race to the bottom. The Minister previously talked about his broken tools. I am looking towards this Minister to ensure that she has all the tools possible to fix the broken system.
I will just add a few words on the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and Amendment 136 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. On training safety, as an educationalist and somebody who has taught at universities I say it is fundamental to ensure that we invest in people’s skills to save lives. That is the crux of these amendments: to stop the next Grenfell disaster, the next Richmond House fire or any fire across the country. Ultimately, we have to ensure qualifications for industry and that people undertaking statutory duties are up to scratch and up to a level where we all feel safe, whichever part of the spectrum we are on.
I finish by saying to the Minister that I know and understand that sympathy is there, but movement needs to be there. We need both; that is the crux of the matter. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, mentioned her concern. I do not think it is a concern if we have to put money into education to save people’s lives or to change a system that is broken and needs fixing. I know that when the Minister introduced the Bill he talked about making significant change, but that culture needs to change. On these Benches, we view these amendments as significant and fundamental to ensuring that we send out a message to everybody in the industry, to residents, to everybody involved in delivering fire safety assessments and to building
inspectors that we mean business. We mean saving people’s lives and high-quality buildings that everyone can enjoy.