Building Safety Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

No.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Has the noble Lord been drinking?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I have not been drinking. I have had some Polos. In fact, I am not drinking anything at all.

I move on to the next campaign, which is electrical safety first. In fact, I am being bombarded with emails and letters. I promise noble Lords that I have had the briefing document from NAPIT—it followed up even today to check that I had it. That is also an incredible campaign.

I have to say that I particularly enjoyed the way the noble Lord, Lord Foster, introduced these amendments. His Amendments 122 and 123 have both been brought forward to ensure electrical safety in homes. I thank the noble Lord for raising this important matter and for his comments on the matter at Second Reading, but I am afraid that the Government cannot support these amendments.

We recognise the intention of these amendments, but we believe that they place a disproportionate burden on leaseholders in high-rise buildings. Under Amendment 122, high-rise leaseholders would be required to obtain and keep up to date an electrical installation condition report—an obligation we place on no other homeowner. Under Amendment 123, that obligation would also be placed on leaseholders who live in mixed-tenure high-rise buildings. “Mixed tenure” is defined as buildings where in addition to leaseholders there are also social housing or private rented tenancies. We believe that leaseholders living in their homes have a fundamental motivation to ensure that their home is safe and will take steps to ensure the safety of electrical installations. Therefore, we do not currently believe there is sufficient evidence to place further burdens on leaseholders in high-rise buildings.

I also assure the noble Lord that the intention of ensuring that residents take an active role in ensuring the safety of their building has already been met in the Bill. The Bill imposes a new active duty on residents not to create a significant risk of spread of fire or structural failure and empowers the accountable person to enforce these duties through the courts. These are systemic changes that are broader in scope than specific requirements for an electrical installation condition report; they will promote genuine collaboration between all parties in keeping their building safe.

The Government thank the noble Lord for raising this important point and will highlight in our guidance to accountable persons and residents the importance of considering electrical installations as part of their building safety decisions. With that assurance, I must ask him not to move his amendment.

On Amendment 124, I thank noble Lords for raising this important matter, but I am afraid that the Government will not be able to accept this amendment. However, I can assure them that their intention is being met by the Government. In the Social Housing White Paper we committed to consult on electrical safety requirements in the social sector, and expert stakeholders participated in a Government-led working group last year to inform the content of that consultation. The working group considered the mandating of electrical safety inspections in all 4 million social homes, not just those in high-rise residential buildings, as moved by this amendment. The group also considered how to keep social housing residents safe from harm caused by faulty appliances. We will consider whether the best way forward to protect social residents from harm is to mandate checks and bring parity with standards in the private rented sector, and it is important that we work through all the issues to reach the right decision. The consultation will be published shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

132A: After Clause 133, insert the following new Clause—
“Local authorities: impact of land contamination on building safety
Local authorities must assess, within their local areas, the risk posed by land contamination to building safety.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Noble Lords may have noticed that I am not my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, but I am here to move Amendment 132A and speak to Amendment 132B, both in her name. I am sure that the Minister is listening, because it is quite important that he agrees with me on this.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I am listening.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I am so sorry—I thank the noble Baroness.

These amendments create an obligation for local authorities to locate contaminated land in their areas and for the Government to review the management of contaminated land. This is the first parliamentary outing of what has been called Zane’s law. It is named for Zane Gbangbola, for whom the Truth About Zane campaign was also founded, which is still working. There is wide support for the campaign—from Sir Keir Starmer and Andy Burnham to the FBU, the CWU and the Conservative-controlled Spelthorne Borough Council—to get on the record the truth about the seven year-old’s death in Chertsey in 2014, when floods swept hideously toxic hydrogen cyanide into the family home from a nearby historical landfill site. That is not what the inquest verdict concluded in 2016, but the campaign continues to fight that inequality of arms and the illogic of that verdict.

Last year, Zane’s parents, Kye and Nicole, and their supporters took up an even broader issue: the question of why it was that they and the rest of the community had no knowledge of the danger of the historic landfill site near their home. I am old enough to remember Aberfan in 1966; it was a well-known site, but it was unstable. As most noble Lords probably know, 116 children and 28 adults were killed when the landslip came on to a school. What happened to Zane—and his father Kye, who was left paralysed by the hydrogen cyanide—could awfully easily happen to another family or a whole community.

The issue goes back to 1974, when the Control of Pollution Act first took control over waste disposal. However, before that came into effect, many dumps were quietly closed and, since then, have been pretty well forgotten, as campaigner Paul Mobbs explains in a disturbing video, which I do not have here with me. EU regulations on waste and pollution required the tightening of those controls under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Section 143 brought in an obligation on local authorities to investigate their areas and draw up

“public registers of land which may be contaminated”.

Section 61 gave local waste authorities powers to inspect closed landfills and clean them up if necessary. However, lots of new housing developments, in particular, are on old landfill sites. Under pressure, the Government held three consultations on contaminated landfill registers from 1991 to 1993, eventually deciding that the aforementioned Section 143 would not be enacted and all plans for public registers of contaminated sites would be dropped. The explanation given was cost and the desire not to place new regulatory burdens on the private sector.

Limited powers were brought in in 1995, although they did not come into force until 2000, which meant that when developers found contamination problems, public authorities often had to pay. But it got worse. In 2012, as part of the Cameron Government’s “bonfire of red tape”, to reduce the statutory burdens, the right of enforcement authorities to use the law was further reduced—the emphasis being on “voluntary” clean-up, with no real power to check it had been done. This is clearly a problem for existing buildings, but also for buildings being constructed right now. It is evident that there is a great risk at potential locations of new homes right around the country, from Carlisle to Cambridge, and Dudley to Newbury.

There is also the issue of the climate emergency and the new extremes of weather, particularly floods, but also heatwaves, that cause events such as that which tragically claimed young Zane’s life. To identify the size and scale of the problem, in every local authority in the land, there has to be a starting point to fixing it and preventing future risk to life. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling her amendments, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I welcome her raising the important issue of contaminated land in this Committee. As always, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made some very powerful points—as did the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Pinnock—on the need for speeding up the process of decontamination. I believe the ambition to bring a version of Zane’s law on to the statute book is well intentioned but I consider that the policy intent behind these proposals is already met by existing legislation and statutory guidance.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is right that Section 143 was repealed, but it was replaced by Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which provides a framework for identifying contaminated land in England and allocating responsibility for its remediation. It provides a legal definition of contaminated land and lays out the responsibilities of local authorities and the Environment Agency for dealing with it. These responsibilities include a requirement for local authorities to inspect their area to identify actively land that may be contaminated, to investigate and remedy contaminated land and to maintain a public register of information relating to contaminated land. This includes contamination from non-operational historic landfill sites and is regulated by local authorities. Further, Part C of the building regulations requires reasonable precautions to be taken by developers to avoid any risk to health and safety caused by contaminants in the ground where they are carrying out building work.

Lastly, assessment of contaminated land risk currently focuses on the impact of contaminated land on human health and the environment. Shifting focus on to buildings and building safety may dilute the aims of the existing framework. Given that this existing framework is already embedded into legislation and guidance, the proposed amendments regarding contaminated land would create unnecessary duplication and could cause confusion for local authorities. Therefore, while I appreciate the concerns of the noble Baroness, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her response, and I will of course check the Environmental Protection Act, exactly what it does and what protection it gives. I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Pinnock, for their support.

I care very much about this, even though this amendment is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, because it seems that the poor always suffer. This is one of those things where, if you live on an old industrial site or whatever, you are likely to have a much lower form of housing and much less protection in any case. If we are talking about levelling up, this would be a very good thing to do.

By the way, I want all your Lordships in this debate to know that this is a much friendlier debate than the one next door. It was a real relief to come in here out of there; there will of course be another vote soon.

I understand that this is not the moment to push this amendment, but it will probably come back on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment 132A withdrawn.

Building Safety Defects

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I do not want to pre-empt 14 February, but it is very clear that, from Florrie’s law, which sought to protect leaseholders from high-cost building safety and remedial works, there will be a principle which protects leaseholders. I thank my noble friend for raising this issue.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

But there is still nothing in law, is there? The Government are talking large and saying, “From round the House, there’ll be lots of good ideas and householders can take these companies to court”. But why does the Government not set the law? Instead of expecting us to do their work, why not do the work themselves and make the rules?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am used to the interventions from the noble Baroness. I had four years of it in City Hall and it is nice to join this great place and continue where we left off in 2016. However, I believe there is a process, which is getting Royal Assent. It is very clear that the passage of the Building Safety Bill is critical to ensure that we have those protections for leaseholders and that the polluter pays.

Leaseholders: Costs

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

All major landlords, including social landlords, will have to do that as a matter of course. We are providing funds that will protect leaseholders where the balance sheet does not enable them to do so, and I have given those figures already. However, we ask for a sense of proportion from registered providers—I have reached out to the noble Baroness’s chief executive—not to inflate the bill just because the taxpayer sums are there, but to keep costs down. We need to ensure that together we remediate, mitigate where that is preferable to remediation, keep tenants safe and use the affordable homes programme to build more homes.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

It is not just the remedial work, it is also the fact that insurance premiums have gone up, leaseholders cannot sell their property and they sometimes have to have a waking watch, which is a 24/7 dedicated project to protect from future fires. The Minister said that the polluter pays, but that is not how I see it. The Government are using taxpayer money to finance this. Why are the Government not insisting that builders pay? Is it more corruption: these builders and developers are government friends, so they should not have to pay?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I think that is an unfortunate line. Developers have caused this, and there are the insulation manufacturers and product manufacturers in the frame—for instance, for fire doors that do not act as fire doors. We have announced both a tax and a levy, and the new Secretary of State has further plans to ensure that the polluter will pay.

Building Safety Defects: Costs

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, we are working very closely with the sector. I point out that there was a £400,000 fund specifically for providers in the social sector to remove aluminium composite material, the most serious form of unsafe cladding. In addition, where social landlords are thinking of passing costs on to leaseholders, there is an opportunity for them to apply to the building safety fund, which many of them have indeed done.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Could the Minister answer my question in very simple language, because I just do not understand this? The leaseholders did not design the building, do not own it and did not apply the faulty cladding to it. So why are they paying anything at all towards replacing it?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

It is quite clear that the building owner and freeholder have responsibility for keeping the building safe. Whether the costs are passed on to leaseholders is a matter for the individual lease, but we are doing all we can to step in to help recoup the money that should rightly be paid by the developers and have also put forward taxpayer funding to the tune of over £5 billion at this point.

Leasehold: Building and Fire Safety

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, the Government support the principle that—in the same way you might go to a doctor and get an opinion, then seek a second opinion—we get the opportunity to have a second opinion on these matters, particularly where there are eye-watering costs. We do not want to see eye-watering costs levied when other mitigations provide a much more cost-effective solution.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is not only the developers that might be at fault. The manufacturers of the cladding and insulation also knew they had problems with materials but carried on marketing them anyway. Are the Government going to let them get away with murder?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

We recognise that many people are responsible and that the standard of construction products has not been at the level we expect. That is why we have brought in a construction products regulator, situated in the Office for Product Safety and Standards, to oversee that within BEIS. Obviously, we are looking at how best to ensure that this does not happen in future and that those responsible make a contribution.

Mortgages: EWS1 Form

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I declare an interest as a former councillor in Southwark. The Minister is using lots of words such as “challenging this”, “working with so and so” and “taking a number of measures”, but have the Government actually made a simple statement, saying to the mortgage or finance companies that this is not necessary before giving money to people who want to move house?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, we have been working very hard to ensure that there is clear guidance about when such a form is necessary. In certain instances, there is deemed to be sufficient life-safety risk that an EWS1 form is required. The issue at hand is to ensure that lenders take a proportionate approach, and that is best achieved through dialogue.

Flood Plains: Housing Development

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, my friend from the other side of the Chamber. I support what she and the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Kirkhope, said. Quite honestly, it is ridiculous that anybody builds on flood plains. I could understand it if we were skilled at building on stilts, an idea alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and skilled at accessing places on water, but building the sort of houses we build on flood plains is madness.

We all know that flooding is becoming increasingly severe and is expected to get worse and worse as climate change worsens. The Climate Change Committee warned just last week that the climate is changing,

“as studies into extreme weather events show that human-induced climate change has increased the likelihood of some observed UK precipitation extreme events linked to significant flooding impacts.”

That basically means there will be more flash floods as rain hits us harder and faster than we are used to, so we are likely to see more flooding. The Environment Agency has estimated that the number of houses built on flood-risk areas will double to 1 million homes in the next 50 years, and I think that will be a gross underestimation unless the Government change something quickly.

One argument the Secretary of State for Housing, Robert Jenrick, put forward for building all these new homes was that it would help young people on to the housing ladder. I do not know how many young people can afford a house in the south-east of England, but I suspect not very many. Of course, developers do not care. They get the money for the houses regardless; they just want to build as many homes as they possibly can as quickly and as cheaply as they can.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, talked about starter homes, community land trusts and affordable homes. These are options we must look into and be more serious about. For some reason, although the Government talk about them and set up ways to have them, they never seem to happen. We cannot solve Britain’s housing crisis—it is not just in Yorkshire but is a national crisis—by building shoddy homes in dangerous places, which is what this is. We need high-quality, safe, energy-efficient homes situated in ecologically sound places. That means that they stay dry. If the Government live up to their stated environmental ambitions or have the slightest bit of common sense, the way forward is obvious: we simply do not build on flood plains.

This should not even be a debate. I hope the Minister will state the obvious today— that will not happen—but I fear we will get some woolly answer about consultations and things happening in due course. It is a national problem that we cannot fix once these houses are built, because they will not be safe, dry or good to live in and, as several noble Lords have already said, it will be impossible to insure them. Once again, the Government are building for failure, and I do not understand why any Government would do that.

Private Landlords: Tenants with Pets

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, we are happy to look at any ideas that encourage wider pet ownership, and I will certainly take that back to the department to consider.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The Minister keeps talking about encouraging flat owners to do the right thing and allow pets, but he did not answer the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler: what are you actually doing to encourage this?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, we have set out a model tenancy agreement that encourages wider pet ownership. It also ensures that the landlord must give a clear reason why they will not accept a pet. This agreement strikes a balance between making it easier for responsible tenants to keep pets and ensuring that landlords are not forced to accept them.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 14th June 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]]

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, on her clear exposition of her very sensible amendments. It is obvious to everybody that rogue landlords have an easy ride in this country. It is far too easy for such unscrupulous landlords to get away with far too much, and that extends to freeholders abusing leaseholders with exploitative ground rents. In shorthold tenancies, a lot of wrongdoing occurs unintentionally by uninformed or incompetent landlords, but that is not the case in freeholder-leaseholder relationships, where the freeholder is usually a big corporate entity that is professionally managed and legally advised. For that reason, any breach of this Bill is likely to be wilful, intentionally exploitative and involve large sums of money.

It is obvious, then, that the penalties currently contained in the Bill are paltry and unsuitable to deter or to punish the criminal behaviour. As a proportion of these massive landowners’ revenues and profits, a minimum penalty of £500 is irrelevant. I would much rather see financial sanctions on companies being similar to those under the data protection laws, which specify penalties as a percentage of a company’s global turnover. That is how you get companies to sit up and pay attention. At the very least, these penalties should be much higher than they are in the Bill. I am sure that the Government know that, so I have no idea why they chose this figure of £500, which is absolutely ludicrous.

[Lord Stunell (LD) [V]]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Grender has clearly set out, the current provisions in the Bill to enforce compliance by those who are determined to do wrong will not work, and that view has been strongly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. The three reasons for that are quite clear: the penalties themselves are trivial; the enforcement system will be ineffective; and rogue landlords will prosper.

First, the penalties themselves are trivial. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, has made the point perhaps better than I can, but in many cases £500 will be less than the current annual leaseholder charge. Indeed, with escalation clauses in place, over the lifetime of the lease £500 might be seen as very small change indeed. The case for making these penalties bite is overwhelming, simply because the unscrupulous who carry on as though the law has not changed will readily write off these penalties as essentially meaningless. I shall not engage in a bidding war with the noble Lord as to how high we should go, but each of us in our different ways would make the point that £500 is nowhere near enough to be effective as a deterrent.

It is not just nowhere near enough to be effective as a deterrent; it is not anywhere near enough to pay for a sound enforcement policy. The enforcement system will be ineffective. It is supposed to be paid for by the pitifully small fines, which will be paid not by all those who offend but all those who are successfully prosecuted—only those fines will contribute to the funding of the trading standards department. It will therefore be the case that the trading standards department exercises passive power only, exercised, if at all, only when a big fuss is made about a particular case, perhaps by a local councillor or an MP.

It is extremely doubtful that any responsible financial officer of a local authority, when building a budget for the next year, would authorise the recruitment of staff to enforce legislation on the basis that it would be funded by £500 for each case that is won. Of course, it would need recruitment of staff because, as my noble friend Lady Grender pointed out, there has been a 50% reduction in staff in trading standards over the past decade and a loss of skills to go along with that. This new burden, to be dealt with effectively, would have to have additional resources. I am sure that the Minister is not content simply to put in place a deliberate paper tiger of enforcement—unless that does in fact suit the Government’s purpose: something that looks okay in the Bill but about which their landlord friends can be told, “Don’t worry, just keep your head down and carry on.”

That brings me to Amendment 16, to which I have added my name. We have to stop rogue landlords prospering. Of course, they already do prosper, and that is what the Bill is all about: stopping abuses or restricting behaviour which, though lawful, ought not to be. Those with a great deal of power in a contractual relationship, the landlords, are imposing oppressive terms on those with very little power, the leaseholders. And those who impose the most care the least. Rogue landlords will weigh up the risks and rewards and reach a commercial judgment. They can easily afford to treat the penalty system as a small marginal cost as it stands; they know it will not even cost them £500 per breach but only £500 per breach which leads to a successful prosecution—that is quite a different thing.

That successful prosecution will be rare without Amendments 14 and 15, which seek to generate the money for there to be a team of people who can enforce it. That is where the importance of Amendment 16 lies, in introducing an effective banning order regime. Only with a clear process for banning repeat offenders, driving them out of the market, can the stakes be raised sufficiently high to deter rogue landlords and, in the most egregious cases, drive them out of business.

I want to hear the Minister say to your Lordships that he genuinely wants this Bill to deliver an effective regime of penalties and punishments that will safeguard the good intentions of this legislation against the small minority of unscrupulous landlords who seek to bypass it and who continue to exploit leaseholders regardless. One way the Minister can do that is by accepting these three amendments. The Bill as drafted certainly does not give us those assurances. If he does not accept the amendments, he surely has a duty to your Lordships, and to leaseholders themselves, to explain what alternative mechanisms he proposes to put in their place instead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 19, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Lennie, and Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.

Like other noble Lords, I pay tribute to the 72 people who lost their lives in the Grenfell tragedy some four years ago. There have been many lessons from that tragedy for housing management purposes, and I hope that the Government and housing organisations learn much from them.

As it currently stands, this legislation will undoubtedly have a potential long-term financial impact for existing long-term leaseholders, as they will be excluded from it. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, who said that, while the legislation is welcome—I definitely welcome it, and the Northern Ireland devolved authorities introduced similar legislation—it barely scratches the surface. There is no doubt that existing leaseholders will have to pay onerous ground rents with no sense of freehold. Amendment 18, which the noble Lord did not move, referred specifically to the need to remove ground rent for all leaseholders.

This legislation is quite limited and the Government have promised other legislation. When will that be brought forward? Can the Minister give us a revised timeframe with exact dates therein? The delay in bringing forward this limited legislation and the need for other aspects in relation to enfranchisement were raised at Second Reading and again today. I welcome the Bill’s proposals, but I feel that enacting the amendments would ensure that the Government could bring forward legislation at a later stage and provide the important financial assessment on the holders of long leases that is urgently required.

To introduce fairness and equity into the property market, the new clause introduced by Amendment 19 should be accepted by the Government to ensure that an assessment takes place of the financial impact for tenants in long leases of dwellings that examines lease forfeiture, transfer fees, redress schemes and enfranchisement. The Law Commission report made recommendations in respect of enfranchisement following promises by Theresa May’s Government in 2017 to tackle unfair and unreasonable abuses of leasehold, particularly the sale of new leasehold houses and onerous ground rents. With the legislation applying only to new leases, why are the Government allowing developers to exploit home owners through exorbitant ground rents? Why the piecemeal approach to this legislation? Why did the Government not bring forward more comprehensive legislation?

I believe the Government should accept Amendment 19. If enacted, it would enable the Government to have an assessment of the current housing situation to indicate whether further legislation to ameliorate the situation is required. I fully agree with Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which tries to help those facing fire remediation work. Again, I think of the whole area of Grenfell.

There is also a view in some quarters, particularly in the management of the property sector, that the government impact assessment accompanying this Bill demonstrates the negative impact of this legislation on the housing market: increasing house prices and creating more barriers to entry for consumers trying to get on to the property ladder. It has been suggested that, without proper and careful consideration of the detail and, in particular, the effects of these changes on apartment buildings, this legislation could have far-reaching implications across a range of issues, including building management, accountability and, crucially, the safety of apartment buildings. This is on top of the immediate impacts on the price of flats and the ability of prospective owners to buy new builds, which have been revealed in the impact assessment. Would it be possible for the Minister to comment on these observations in relation to the management of the property sector? Do the Government have any solutions in mind?

I look forward to the Minister’s answers to all these questions. I support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Lennie and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I regret to say that I found the Minister’s rejection of the previous group of amendments extremely thin. I have always been puzzled why, when we have so many experts in your Lordships’ House—I do not include myself in that number—the Government would not listen to common sense and accept amendments that would have an impact and massively improve the legislation. I very much hope that we will bring these amendments back on Report and win a majority of the House round, so that the Government have to listen and improve the legislation, which is extremely thin.

When I was on the London Assembly, I was chair of the housing committee at one time. Just a few years before Grenfell we had a very similar incident in the area I lived in. Because it was so close to me, I was able to visit the block and see the problems. The housing committee wrote a short report and, although very short, the things we found wrong with the building—Lakanal, down in Camberwell—were almost exactly the same things that went wrong at Grenfell. We could have learned from Lakanal; we could learn from Grenfell and the awful death toll experienced there. We have to say that we cannot let people get away with making the same mistakes again and again.

It is welcome that the Bill bans exploitative ground rents in new leases, but it offers absolutely nothing to the thousands of leaseholders already trapped in exploitative ground rent arrangements. I think in particular of the dreadful time that the thousands of residents in hundreds of flammable apartment blocks are currently experiencing. Again, I do not live in such a block and do not have a vested interest. There is sheer chaos and uncertainty, particularly in blocks recently deemed safe but which have since been re-categorised as dangerous and needing expensive remedial work. Many of these blocks now need waking watches to patrol 24 hours a day—a little bit like in your Lordships’ House—and ensure that the building is evacuated in the event of fire. Fire systems that were previously deemed state of the art are now considered woefully inadequate and have to be totally replaced, so that every single apartment unit is individually alarmed.

Rogue Landlords Register

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, the majority of private rented sector landlords provide decent and well-maintained homes; in fact, the proportion of non-decent homes has declined dramatically from 41% in 2009 to 23% in 2019. We have committed to exploring the merits of introducing a national landlord register and we will engage with a range of stakeholders across the sector to understand the benefits of different options for introducing one.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

That was a complacent answer from the Minister because this has been going on for a long time, and a national register would be an excellent thing. After hearing this debate, how much urgency will the Minister put into speeding up the introduction of that register?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

There is no complacency; I am merely outlining that we are considering the introduction of the register as part of our commitment to introduce a White Paper in the autumn. That will contain a number of measures designed to redress the balance between landlord and tenant.