Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Earl of Lytton

3rd reading
Thursday 21st September 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, as it is not customary for anyone on these Benches to speak on their behalf, I just add thanks on my own behalf, which I hope will be shared by colleagues, to the Minister, particularly for his appreciation of the contribution made from these Benches. Of course, I send my best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. Her courtesy throughout has been outstanding and her tenacity to be admired, and I add my best wishes for her restoration to good health as soon as possible. I add my thanks to the Bill team, even if we did not agree on quite a number of points, and to our clerks. I particularly thank the noble Earl’s colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for the way in which he responded to the question of building preservation notices, to the CLA, of which I am a member, and Historic Houses for their valuable input on that.

On the other matter of interest to me, namely building safety remediation, I am of course sorry that I could not persuade the Government or your Lordships to support a different way forward, but I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to people outside—they know who they are and I will not mention them by name, but they have dedicated their time free and without any benefit to themselves to assist me with their comments and their critique. I also thank the many other experts, and professional and trade bodies, who were willing to share their thoughts with me.

I particularly express thanks to Amanda Walker, a leaseholder, for her courage in coming forward with her story, and the hundreds of other leaseholders who wrote to me with theirs. I thank Jake Fisher for his online petition, which gained 50,000 signatures in 25 days. My focus throughout has been on them and getting fair treatment for affected leaseholders generally, even if my approach has not always been fully understood or appreciated. I do not intend to give up trying.

Finally, I am most grateful for the support across the House for the general principle sitting behind the fact that we all, I think, believe that leaseholders should not pay for construction defects for which they are blameless. There is clearly a lot more work to be done, but I am enormously grateful for the general acceptance across the House of that principle.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Earl for his very kind comments around the constructive work that we have all been doing together. I send our very best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, who has been a remarkable workhorse on the Bill. Her door has always been open to us for any discussion and I thank her very much for that. Alongside her, a number of people need to be given a Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill endurance award, because it really has felt a bit like that at times: we have been ploughing through this since January. So, I thank her and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, but also the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. People seem to have forgotten—we have been going on for so long—that she did an enormous amount of work in the early stages of the Bill, so we want to pass our thanks to her as well. We also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Swinburne, and all the visiting Ministers who have come in and talked to the different areas of their expertise.

We have done extremely constructive Cross-Bench work with the Government, noble Lords on the Government Benches, Cross-Benchers and our Liberal Democrat colleagues, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It is very good to have been able to work so constructively on the, unusually, many different issues in this Bill that we have had to discuss, tackle and understand. On that note, I also thank all the organisations and NGOs that have provided so much information, time and support to us in understanding some of the more complex areas. I have a whole book of all their different names, which would take too long to go through—if you took part, we are very grateful; thank you for making the Bill better than when it arrived here.

Many Back-Benchers worked incredibly hard on this and we should be very grateful to them. I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage, who has been the most tremendous support to me all the way through. I could not have done it without her help. I also thank our team; Ben Wood in our office has worked incredibly hard and tirelessly on this Bill, through recess and weekends. We have asked so much of him and he has always delivered everything. My final thank you is to the doorkeepers, who have sat through a few late nights with us on this and have always kept a smile.

There are quite a number of outstanding issues that we will come back to after the Recess, on which this House believes that the Bill could be improved. I hope that, ahead of ping-pong, when we revisit these issues, the Government will continue to work constructively with those of us in this House who believe they are important to improve the Bill. Our door is always open. We look forward to hearing from the Government on some of those issues.

Non-Domestic Rating Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Earl of Lytton

Report stage
Tuesday 19th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I want briefly to address some of the amendments in this group, so ably moved and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. I note that in his Amendment 4—and to some extent in the question of social advertising—he is referring to the purposes for which a hereditament is occupied. We already have this situation in the sense that if a charity occupies a shop for charitable purposes, it gets a degree of mandatory relief. Possibly the only difference is that the charity must have a Charity Commission registration number, and therefore its whole constitution, terms of engagement and memorandum and articles of association are clearly laid out.

The only thing I would say about Amendment 4 is that it is important to make sure that some sort of asymmetry does not come in as a result of using the purposes of occupation approach; otherwise, I can see that there might be accusations of unfair competition. I therefore see no reason to object to the billing authority’s discretion being exercised in its own favour, subject to there being a properly laid out policy that makes it clear to everybody what it is doing and is possibly subject to democratic processes.

I suppose that Amendment 16 should warm the cockles of my heart in terms of the accreditation of non-domestic rating advisers. Of course, I come from the background of being a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which is an accreditation body in its own right. Indeed, a large amount of the edifice of “check, challenge and appeal”, which was put in place by the Government to deal with the huge backlog of rating appeals many years ago, was to do with the fact that unqualified people were putting in blanket appeals and clogging up the system. The accusation was that many of these were totally unmeritorious and were simply wasting everyone’s time—so there is a case for doing it. There was a case for doing it instead of going through the malarkey of “check, challenge and appeal” in the first place, and all the powder and shot and grief occasioned thereby—but we are where we are and if it can help streamline the business so that people are bound by codes of conduct and can be called to account for their actions, all well and good.

I shall comment a bit on Amendment 18, which is also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. I sent him today—I apologise to him for not having sent it a lot earlier—the consultation that is going on regarding avoidance and evasion. In that is some business about who does rating work and rogue rating surveyors. I believe that the consultation finishes on 28 September. I hope there will be further discussion with the industry and stakeholders about how it is going to formulate—but the point made by the noble Lord is well made, and I am glad to see that something is in progress.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendments and for his clear introduction to them. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his contribution.

As we have heard, these amendments relate to rating agents, anti-avoidance, discretionary relief and viability rights, all of which are really important issues that we need to discuss. Amendment 4 would remove the ban that currently prevents relief being given to certain buildings. We know that the Local Government Association is very supportive of that amendment, because the current rules prevent councils from giving discretionary relief to their own hereditaments. As we have heard, both now and in Committee, this is particularly an issue with local authority markets. It became problematic particularly during Covid-19 because local authorities were unable to give those markets the business rates relief that other businesses were able to benefit from, which meant that many local authorities had to subsidise those rates in order for the markets to continue operating.

I am assuming that the ban is to prevent conflicts of interest; perhaps the Minister could confirm why it is in place. If that is the case, will the Minister consider whether there any added flexibility should brought into this prohibition so that, in times of particular need, councils can be flexible? If the Government are not going to accept the amendment, let us look at what else we could do to help.

Amendment 16 would start the process for accrediting ratings advisers. The reason I want to talk about this amendment in particular is that there seems to be an increasing number of reports of rogue agents claiming that they can help businesses. It seems to be a growing problem. There are concerns that the situation will be further exacerbated when the Government bring in annual returns and the duty to notify in their reforms, partly because that complicates the system.

Our concern is the impact of that on the smaller retail and hospitality businesses in market towns right across the country. They may not be seeing the reductions in their rates bills that they should be in the revaluation from 1 April, making them more vulnerable to approaches by rogue rating surveyors who promise that they will help them negotiate a new revaluation but do not deliver and disappear, leaving the businesses high and dry. That is our particular concern. So do the Government recognise that this is an increasing problem? If so, perhaps we should look at tackling it in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has proposed. We cannot allow this situation to continue and to get worse, because it will affect many small businesses that simply cannot afford it.

Amendment 17 exempts social infrastructure sites—such as bus shelters and telephone boxes—which have advertisements from paying business rates. I am not sure that the Minister will have this figure at his finger- tips, but it would be interesting to know how much is currently generated from this kind of advertising: what impact are we talking about?

Finally, Amendment 18 relates to anti-avoidance. I know that the Government have recently consulted on this, so it would be good to know exactly what action they are looking to take.

Non-Domestic Rating Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Earl of Lytton

Committee stage
Monday 3rd July 2023 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, who cannot be with us because he is arguing his case across the way in the Chamber, has added his name. I declare that I am a member of the Rating Surveyors’ Association, which, together with Luke Wilcox, barrister of Landmark Chambers, has been helping me formulate my views on these amendments.

The purpose of the two amendments in my name in this group, Amendments 2 and 6, is to extend the application of improvement relief, so, to some extent, they follow the lead of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. Without discussing it with him, I opted for extending the application to works carried out within a five-year period. The amendments follow up on the comments made at Second Reading.

The expected lifespan of the many types of improvement may extend to decades. If, as one supposes, the relief is intended to incentivise improvements—not just mandatory compliance works but those which add materially to utility, convenience and annual value—it needs to be an altogether bigger quantum; otherwise, as matters stand at the moment, we will be in a situation where, maybe 13 months after the work is carried out, the rateable value will increase by some 50% of the additional annual value of the works. This may not be so much for the purposes of adding value as of preserving value in the face of decline, so this dynamic needs to be whittled down.

We have issues with the definition of “relief” and whether it will count for anything at all in practice, and of “improvement”, of which other noble Lords may seek to define certain aspects more clearly—I agree with that. Unfortunately, the Government’s protestations about the sums they claim to have earmarked for this relief do not disguise the fact that the design of these things is often such that none of it is ever called on in practice. I will leave that bit of cynicism to one side, but if this relief is to mean anything beyond a fig leaf, it has to be large enough in quantum and long enough in duration to be commercially noticeable and relevant. Some types of improvement may take a considerable time to translate into a business benefit.

Although I understand, for instance, not including developers in the benefits of this measure, I maintain that the net effect of excluding any otherwise qualifying works carried out by landlords for the tenant, for which there may be a higher rent payable, is based mainly on groupthink rather than objective balance. That is the reason behind Amendments 2 and 6.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 5 in this group. Its purpose is to probe the expiration date for heat network relief. For example, why have the Government come up with 2030 in this respect? As I said at Second Reading, we very much welcome the introduction of heat network relief but, as I asked then, as the exemption of renewable energy plant machinery is permanent, why has a similar approach not been taken to heat networks?

Also, the heat network relief applies only to what are described as “occupied” heat networks, so it would be helpful to have some clarification of the definition of “occupied”. For example, if the networks apply as a mix of properties, some of which are traditionally occupied and others are unoccupied, is that still considered to be an occupied property, or does the whole property have to be occupied?

More broadly, the aims of this amendment are also to do with the fact that we believe that the reform of business rates as a whole should have the underlying principle and aim to encourage green improvements to business properties, if, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, talked about, the targets are around net zero and emissions. We feel that all the proposals should have as their aim—at their centre—ways of meeting those targets.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his introduction of this group of amendments. His amendments are very sensible, and I hope that the Minister will look at them carefully. I also take this opportunity to thank the Minister for her letter to all Peers following Second Reading, in which she gave quite detailed clarification of a number of issues, which I am sure we will discuss further today. I put on record that that was extremely helpful.

As for the other amendments in the group, clearly, improvement relief has been designed so that no business will face higher business rate bills for 12 months following qualifying improvements. We also heard from the Minister in her letter and at Second Reading that the Government consider 12 months sufficient for the benefits to flow through but, clearly, noble Lords who have spoken previously have reservations about this—in particular the noble Earl, Lord Lytton.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Earl of Lytton

Committee stage
Thursday 20th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 243 is in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage. Amendments 244 and 246 in this group are both also in her name. I shall briefly speak to them and make some comments on some of the other amendments in this group.

My noble friend’s Amendment 243 asks the Secretary of State to

“publish a report of a review of Local Heritage Lists and the results of the 2018 review of the non-statutory guidance on Assets of Community Value”.

Amendment 246 also refers to assets of community value—ACVs—asking for draft legislation to be published to reform the processes.

Amendment 244, which is on a slightly separate issue, is about decision-making on temporary stop notices. The amendment says that, when making a decision on the correct recipient of a temporary stop notice, the authority should have regard to the tenancy status of the occupier and their level of responsibility for any works on the property. It is pretty straightforward as to why we have laid this amendment, so I shall be brief. We believe it is really important to guard against a situation where the wrong person may be held accountable for works on a property for which they actually have no responsibility whatever. The Local Government Association was very clear that we should make this point during the debate on the Bill. We believe that other factors should be taken into account before any notice is issued, because we really need to make sure that the correct person—the person liable—is the person that has been identified. It would be very helpful if the Minister could provide some information on how the Government can ensure, in future, that this is what happens, so that we do not end up with people with no responsibility suddenly having a lot of problems with sorting out works on the property in which they are living but for which they do not have responsibility.

We have laid the amendments on the assets of community value because they are very important. We believe that communities should play a key role in both the preservation and the delivery of local assets that sit outside of local authority control. We know that the Localism Act 2011 contains important powers for local communities to be able to do just this, but the problem is that there are issues around how it works. Under current rules, buildings or pieces of land which are, or have been, used to

“further the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community and could do so in the future”

can be nominated to be classified as an ACV by community groups or councils. But if an ACV goes up for sale, a local group that can make a decision as to whether it wants to bid for this is given only six months to gauge whether it is able to bid for it—and it is only during that six-month period that the owner is unable to sell it. After that six-month grace period elapses, they can sell assets of community value to anybody they want to. A report compiled by the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee in Parliament suggested that the six-month grace period was too short and that it would sideline groups in more disadvantaged communities from being able to make bids. We believe that this needs to be changed.

The Labour Party has proposed extending the time frame to 12 months. We believe that local people from every community—not just those who are wealthy and have the resources to put their bids together very quickly—should have the opportunity to take control of, possibly, pubs, historic buildings or, perhaps, football clubs that come up for sale and would otherwise just fall into disrepair. We also believe that they should have first refusal on valuable assets when they come up for sale, including the right to buy them without competition. They should also have the right to force a sale of land or buildings that have been left to fall into a state of significant disrepair. If these processes were reformed to allow and encourage every community to take advantage of it, it would do so much more for the large number of communities that are currently threatened with losing community assets but do not have the ability to put together bids to take them under community control. I urge the Minister to look carefully at how this could be improved for the benefit of all communities.

I would like to make a few comments on Amendment 245, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about the results of the Historic England pilot on compensation rights. This comes under Clause 98 of the Bill, which seeks to remove compensation when a local authority has wrongly served a building preservation notice which, when it was served, prevented any additional work from progressing. We have been talking to the CLA about this, and it disagrees that this is the right way forward, as not only are there significant property rights implications but it also removes an important check on local authorities that wrongly serve building preservation notices. This can cause huge disruption and costs for the owners. We believe that compensation is key to the protection of individuals’ rights. Moreover, the many compensation provisions across the planning system are a vital part of its fairness. If mistakes happen and people suffer loss then, surely, they should be compensated. I shall not talk any further on this because I am sure that the noble Earl will go into great detail, but we appreciate his amendment. It is an important area that needs to be looked at.

My noble friend Lady Andrews has also put down some important amendments on the demolition of buildings, development rights, reduction of carbon emissions and the importance of local communities’ abilities to shape local places. Currently, most buildings can be demolished without planning permission if they are not listed and not in a conservation area. These permitted development rights for demolition have already been removed for buildings such as pubs and theatres, but there is no requirement for the buildings to be run down or beyond repair for this right to apply. We have had some very helpful briefings from the Victorian Society about its concerns on these issues, and we consider that my noble friend’s amendments are very important. I hope that the Minister can support them. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 245—a probing amendment—in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Devon. Unfortunately, my noble friend cannot be here today due to other pressing matters. I must first declare my ownership of two listed buildings and the occupation of a third. I have also acted professionally as a chartered surveyor who has surveyed many listed and unlisted buildings and structures where works were proposed. I am very grateful for the support and input of the CLA, of which I am a member, and of Historic Houses and the Listed Property Owners Club. I am particularly grateful for, as it were, an introduction by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. It was rather unexpected, because I did not think that it would necessarily be a matter that her party would relate to in those terms.

I acknowledge the importance to the nation of protecting its heritage. When the listing of buildings first came about in, I think, the 1950s, it carried with it an obligation to seek consent for works that affected the character of a listed building. It was not originally the case that effects on character meant that every alteration required consent. However, over the years, because the citations for listing and the descriptions of the matters of importance were, to put it bluntly, minimalist, that is how it has come to be operated. It has now almost become the norm for common periodic maintenance and repair to be caught by a demand for formal consent—things which, for any other unlisted building or structure, can be done without any formality.

Building Safety Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Earl of Lytton

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Aberdare. The matter of retentions comes right at the end of this series of Grand Committee sessions, but it is part of a culture. It is the race to the bottom, value engineering or cost-cutting. Construction contract architecture and the practices that have grown up with it are all part of the perverse incentives that have somehow been built up.

At one stage in my professional life, retentions of, say, 5% or 2.5% for limited periods, as the case may be, started as security for the proper completion of works as set out and to a required standard. However, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that this has now gained the appearance of an informal and unconsented bankrolling of construction costs at the expense mainly of subcontractors and their suppliers. This has to stop. It is like all such situations: retentions have a legitimate use but have been subject to serial abuse. If we could keep our eye on one and render the other improbable, that would be all very well, but if the bad practitioners do not get the message, some brutal measures may indeed be necessary and better regulation and protection of sums due may follow from that. I cannot help thinking that the small and medium-sized enterprises that have dwindled and atrophied as a component part of the construction industry are the chief sufferers. They are unable to take on the big beasts of construction.

There is a real point behind this. If the memorandum that the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, referred to became a universal code of practice in the sense that you really had to justify yourself before stepping out of line, that would at least be a start. There is a lot we can do with what we know and the existing situation in terms of decent treatment, honest measures and taking care of the whole supply line we are dealing with. What the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said about investment, training and that sort of thing is absolutely on point, and I certainly support the thrust of this amendment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has raised a very important issue and certainly has our support. Something has to be done to resolve this, and others who have spoken have swung in strongly behind the noble Lord. I am sure the Minister has listened and is taking note.

We have heard that retention is the customary practice of withholding monies to cover defects and incomplete work, but it is also being used for so much more than that, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, explained. Depending on the size of the project, it can be insignificant or very significant. Large construction projects can be worth £1 billion; huge sums of money can be affected. As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, reform of the problems this can cause is long overdue.

Retention is often a cause for complaint and quarrel. Subcontractors often find it difficult and can see it as a tool to be bashed with by the paying party, who can hold back payment whether there is good reason to do so or not. I guess that I ought to declare a past interest in that I used to work for a small business that was contracted into large infrastructure projects, so I am very aware of the kind of impact that retention of monies can have. We worked with a lot of other small businesses within large projects. If payment is held back through retention, often for many months, small businesses have a serious cashflow problem, often meaning they cannot pay their staff. This is about not just training but the basic running of the business. They can then become dependent on constant, rolling bank loans, which is not the way a small business wants to run.

All that could be solved if this was sorted out. We see signs everywhere about considerate contractors, but contractors are not always considerate to their subcontractors. We need to sort this out. As we have heard, it can be such a source of pain and concern when the party holding the monies goes bankrupt. Other noble Lords have mentioned Carillion, which is probably the largest example of that happening.

I will not say any more, because we are nearly there, and we are nearly at another vote, I think. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, very ably introduced his amendment, so I think the Minister will have heard his message loud and clear. The last thing for me to say during this Committee is that today in particular, and throughout, the Minister has been given an opportunity to slay a number of dragons, not just this one, so I look forward to his response.

Building Safety Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Earl of Lytton

Committee stage
Thursday 24th February 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Then I will speak to my amendment, as I stood up first. As noble Lords have said, this has been a really important group of amendments to debate. I will speak first to my Amendment 35 and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for their support.

Clause 57 gives the Secretary of State powers to impose a new building safety levy in England that will contribute towards the Government’s costs for remediating historical building safety defects. This will apply to developers making an application to the building safety regulator for building control approval, which of course is the new gateway 2 process that we have debated throughout discussion on the Bill. The problem we have, which is why I tabled this amendment, is that it will also be imposed on councils—the social landlords. Councils of course already face additional financial pressures, due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

We should not forget that the key role of local government is to serve communities—the Minister will completely understand this—and provide essential services. They are not the same as developers, so the purpose of this amendment is to make social housing providers exempt from the additional financial burden of the Government's proposed levy, to prevent council and social housing tenants subsiding the failures of private developers and paying the cost of remediating both council housing and private housing. We are concerned about what may be the unintended consequences of the Bill as it stands, because if the levy is imposed on local authorities, it will increase the cost of building or refurbishing social housing, or increase rents, as the right reverend Prelate said. Yet the benefits to funds will not be available to the tenants, who would otherwise have benefited from lower rents or better housing.

The money to fund remediation must come from somewhere. Inevitably, it will be at the expense of another critical service, either in housing or through increased rents. To ask for that does not seem the right way forward. Does the Minister recognise the potential impact of the levy on social housing supply? Again, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans talked about our desperate shortage of housing in this area. We do not want anything that will negatively impact that. It is important that we do not pit the objective of providing for those in housing need against the objective of making buildings safe, when both must be delivered.

I turn to the other amendments in this group, looking first at the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, which he introduced clearly and comprehensively. To us, they seem eminently sensible and practical, and the right way forward. As he said, Amendment 130 proposes that the Government establish a comprehensive prospective levy scheme on all developers, the money from which would go towards remediating the defective buildings. As I understand it, his Amendment 24 is consequential on the establishment in Amendment 130 of the building safety indemnity scheme. That means that the removal of building work that contravenes fire safety regulations could be carried out, if his Amendment 130 were accepted.

What came through in both the noble Lord’s introduction and how other noble Lords introduced their amendments is the fundamental principle that it is right that the person who is responsible for breaches and poor building work should be made to put it right. This is a simple, basic principle that I think we all agree with. It should not be that difficult for the Government to accept it; to me, the Bill already accepts it. Why not work with noble Lords who have put forward such important amendments today, take them forward and give us much more robust statutory protection for leaseholders, extending it to all work, as the noble Lord said, that contravenes regulations? We would strongly support any amendment that makes buildings safer and protects tenants properly.

I was also struck that the noble Lord, Lord Young, referenced freeholders. They have not been talked about enough in debate on the Bill, so I thought it was very important that that reference was made and that they are not forgotten.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has a number of amendments looking to make protections more robust. We strongly support his zeal in what he is trying to achieve. His objectives are really important; as he said, they are not exactly perfect in every way, but we are not about perfection here. This is about putting forward the issues that need to be considered to improve the Bill. He has done that very clearly. His aim to pull the “perpetrator pays” and protections for leaseholders together is important, because it makes the objectives and the direction we need to go in really clear.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, was right when he said that his amendment and those from the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Young, come from the same point of principle—an important principle that we support. He is right that this is quite simply a matter of justice. As the amendment says,

“responsibility for serious defects in the original construction or refurbishment”

rests squarely

“with those who designed, specified, constructed, or supervised the works or made false claims”—

and that is not the leaseholders. It is important that leaseholders feel that their position on this is fully understood and that we are moving forward in this way.

The principle that the perpetrator pays is also really important, but I should like to ask the Minister something, because I am getting a bit confused. What is the difference between a perpetrator and a polluter paying? It has got a bit confusing to have these two phrases.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

I put this amendment forward originally to your Lordships’ wonderful team of parliamentary clerks, who did not like the term “polluter”. They felt that pollution as a term of art meant something different—if you like, involving a release or deposit of something, rather than sticking something together wrong. But they said that they would accept “perpetrator pays”, so I said, “Okay, all right, so be it.” But actually I think it is a better term, so I give them due credit for that. That is the origin of the phrase.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Perhaps someone should table some amendments to change the word “polluter” in the Bill to “perpetrator”, so we can all be in the same place.

Very briefly, I turn to the government amendments in this group. At earlier stages of the Bill, it was disappointing that what it contained fell significantly short of the action that was needed to protect leaseholders, so I put on the record how warmly we have welcomed the new amendments that the Government have proposed to address a lot of the urgent issues raised through debates on the Bill so far. However, there are a number of key questions that I shall put to the Minister for clarification today on the amendments that we have debated. I shall not go into detail, because we have heard an awful lot of discussion around them today—so I shall be brief.

How strongly committed are the Government to using their proposed enforcement mechanisms to ensure that industry plays its part and pays the funds that it has been asked to? How will the Government continue to play their part and pay the funds needed to end the crisis while ensuring that funding for affordable housing supply is protected, regardless of the contribution of funds from industry? How can leaseholders who have already paid remediation costs recover those costs retrospectively? I do not think that that has been properly dealt with so far. How will the Government ensure that new funding responsibilities for social landlords will not undermine their role in providing housing supply? That references back to my amendment.

I am sure that we will revisit some of those questions later in debates on this Bill. I ask a brief question about the new clauses in Amendments 74 and 75, which give the Secretary of State power to make regulations that

“prohibit a person of a prescribed description from carrying out development of land in England”,

and/or imposing a building control prohibition in relation to persons of a prescribed description. Those powers would be for any purpose connected with building safety or building standards. I should like clarification, because it is unhelpful that a

“person of a prescribed description”

is not defined in the amendments, which simply state that it means “prescribed by the regulations” under the clause. This is what I am slightly confused about; does it apply to persons who have been found to be in breach of building safety, or is it the means by which government would prohibit those who do not contribute to the extra £4 billion fund? Some clarification on that point would be really helpful.

I hope that the Minister has listened very carefully to the important points that have been made by noble Lords in this debate, and I end by saying to him, in the spirit of what has been going on earlier, acta non verba.