Building Safety Levy (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Blake of Leeds

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, the remediation of residential buildings with unsafe cladding in England is a priority for this Government. Nine years on from the Grenfell tragedy, there is no justification for any building to remain unsafe. Helping residents to feel safe in their homes and move on from this issue is crucial work.

The Government are committing £5.2 billion of taxpayers’ money to the cost of remediation and the building safety levy is an essential part of the remediation funding package, which will protect leaseholders from costs and ensure that taxpayers are not further burdened. We estimate that the levy needs to raise £3.4 billion, likely over a 10-year period. The revenue target may be adjusted in accordance with the number of buildings requiring remediation and the costs of works.

The levy regulations were made in November 2025 and will come into force on 1 October 2026. The draft amending regulations before the Committee today clarify how the levy will work and are intended to come into force on 1 October. The levy will be charged on certain building control applications for new residential floor space in England. It is important to note that developers have known about the levy since February 2021 and its rates since March 2025, providing a significant lead-in period to plan for and incorporate these costs into their projects. It will start being charged on new applications from 1 October 2026.

The 2025 regulations allow for development on previously developed land, often referred to as brownfield land, to benefit from a 50% discount levy rate. This recognises the higher costs of building on this type of land and therefore protects the viability of development on these brownfield sites. My officials received feedback that the definition of previously developed land was not clear. In particular, stakeholders noted that it was not clear whether car parks and other areas of hard standing that would appear previously developed would actually qualify for the discount. Our intention has always been to support development of sites having these kinds of features, so these regulations amend the definition to make it clear where areas of hard standing can qualify. This will better reflect the original policy intention and, hopefully, make it easier for local authorities and developers to understand which sites qualify for the discount, reducing costly and time-consuming disputes. These regulations and the updated guidance provide more information about how this change works.

We also have a small number of minor technical amendments and corrections included in the instrument, including setting clearer time periods for spot checks, clarifying levy information requirements, amending how levy update notices are constituted and clarifying processes for revised levy determinations, refunds, reviews and appeals. We will keep the rates and processes under review and we will report at least every three years. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, first, I wish to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, to her new role. I look forward to working with her; I am sure that we will agree on some occasions, maybe more than most. Let me say right from the beginning that we Liberal Democrats accept the technical changes in this SI, because in effect that is what they are. The amendments are sensible, practical and entirely necessary to prevent any chaos following the levy’s coming into force in October.

The positive changes to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, has referred are important to remove the loophole of previously developed land. Developers are very good at finding loopholes, so that is important. The spot check and having a strict notification period are also important, as well as separating purpose-built student accommodation from being classed alongside residential. That is positive and we support it.

The Government have set a target of raising £3.4 billion, which is good. However, they are planning to raise this over 10 years. In the first year, the levy raises zero. In the second year, it raises—these are estimates I found from, I think, the Office for Budget Responsibility—just £55 million. By the fifth year, so in 2030-31, it will raise £395 million a year, so over the first five years it will raise just £1 billion of the £3.4 billion that it is estimated to raise. I guess there will be reasons for that, but it is unlikely to raise significant sums in the first couple of years.

Once you have in mind that that is how the funding is going to be and that it will be five years before anything significant comes into the coffers to support remediation, you say to yourself that the Grenfell Tower tragedy was nearly 10 years ago and the Government are still having to find ways of raising sufficient funds to pay for remediation on top of the £5.1 billion, I think, that they have put aside. About 50 major developers have signed up to a scheme to fund it. The Minister has just said that there is no justification for buildings to remain unsafe, but 46% of buildings have not even had work started on them.

Although the levy is important, and I accept the positive changes that are being made, the lack of urgency in all this is worrying, especially if you live as a leaseholder in one of those blighted apartments. I say “blighted” because, if you are a leaseholder waiting for flammable cladding to be removed or safety defects to be remedied, you are stuck in that flat because you cannot sell or remortgage. You are stuck. That is 10 long years, more so when this levy is coming to light.

I have some questions for the Minister. Considering that only £1 billion will be raised in the first five years, who will then fund any of the schemes that would be funded under this levy? How will they be funded? Presumably, nobody is going to say, “You can’t get on and do it because we haven’t got the money coming into the coffers just yet”. Is there any way that the Government could find to accelerate the scheme so that more funding comes in in the first five years? That would give leaseholders some hope. My next question is also about leaseholders. Despite the Government’s best efforts, which I support, some of them are still finding that freeholders and management companies are putting some of the costs on to service charges. How can the Government get the message out to leaseholders that that is not right and that they can go to First-tier Tribunals to challenge it?

I have said all along in this terrible situation that the one group of people who are completely innocent is the leaseholders. They do not even own the bricks and mortar; they lease the space in between the bricks and mortar. They should not be paying anything. Anything that the Government can do to protect them further would be welcome. Having said that, I support what is in the statutory instrument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their very kind and welcoming comments. It is interesting to reflect on how long we have been working together. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and I go back, I think, to the last century.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Yes, probably.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

It is a great privilege to be in this position, and I very much look forward to working with both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. I stress “with” rather than “against”, because I think we come from a strong, shared commitment to all things local government—in particular, serving the people in our communities that we have variously represented. There are some tough times ahead, but I will do my best to address the concerns raised today. Dialogue will be ongoing, of course, particularly given the different legislation that is proposed; that will give us a real opportunity to go into much greater detail than we can probably do today.

Let me respond to the concerns from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about the money, which is, of course, a crucial issue. To reiterate, the Government are committed to remediating buildings as quickly as possible. I have to say that the launch of the levy, which will come in in October, will not affect the pace of remediation. The Treasury has agreed that the necessary expenditure can be made in advance of receipts from the building safety levy rather than slowing remediation to match the profile of the levy receipts. Of course, the Government will report on levy receipts and remediation expenditure in the annual trust statement. I hope that gives the reassurance that the noble Baroness has been looking for.

The remediation of unsafe cladding Bill will deliver on the manifesto commitments to address the pace of the remediation work. Most importantly, it will ensure that those responsible for the building safety crisis pay towards fixing the problem they have caused. We all know that there is further work to do on this. I am grateful for the collaboration that we have had so far from some developers, but I also recognise that there are other avenues to pursue, as encouraged by those developers. We have to make sure that we take on the most reluctant landlords; in particular, we must make sure that they take action and that, if they do not, they face severe sanctions.

I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. This is interesting because I first started working on this when I was in Opposition, going back to 2022, and some of the comments that were brought up today have been a feature throughout. I reassure the noble Lord that we have worked closely with stakeholders and industry to minimise the impact on housing supply. The building industry as a whole is balancing the need to raise the revenue required to make homes safe, and those responsible show a clear recognition that this is an important dynamic on which we need to keep moving to achieve our manifesto commitments. As the noble Lord said, they are ambitious, but there is the will to do it, and the Secretary of State is committed to working on all fronts to move this forward.

The NPPF definition is specifically designed to inform planning policy, whereas the levy regulations set out criteria for developments and local authorities to apply on a site-by-site basis to ascertain qualification for a tax discount. We need to make sure that we do not merge these facts together. The 75% is designed to approximate the NPPF definition for tax purposes. All these matters have been looked at and that will continue to be the case as we move forward. We have a strong ambition around affordable housing running alongside our ambition around remediation. I hope both noble Lords will welcome the importance that we are giving this issue to help take us forward.

To recap, the building safety levy is essential to fund the remediation of historic building safety issues, particularly without further burdening residents and leaseholders. The amending regulations laid before the Committee are designed to support this work and make the levy work more efficiently and in accordance with our initial intention to support the redevelopment of existing sites. They are intended to correct drafting and to improve the clarity and consistency of process for developers and local authorities, rather than to alter the underlying policy design of the levy.

To further reassure the noble Lord, consultation with local authorities has been intense. We have made sure that the extra duties funding is in place, helping them to come forward. I am very pleased with the response so far from local authorities, as it is critical that we have that relationship with them so that they can fulfil their responsibilities in this space. As well as the government contribution to funding, we all accept that the development industry must contribute to our work to make buildings safe for those who live in them.

To repeat, the Government are committed to building 1.5 million homes this Parliament to meet the country’s long-term housing needs and unlock growth. This must work in parallel with our commitment to remedying the building safety features of the past. I repeat that we expect developers to make a full contribution to the overall costs of making buildings safe, reflecting the wider benefit they derive from a well-functioning market and the substantial funding and support the Government have already provided and continue to provide for the housing market. With those comments, I commend the instrument to the Committee.

Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Blake of Leeds

Report stage
Wednesday 1st December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as set out in the register, as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a member of Kirklees Council. I am speaking on Amendment 1 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Fox, and on Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake.

I and my colleagues support the principle of the proposals—as I have said at every occasion—in relation to the non-domestic rates element of the Bill. Businesses have faced challenging circumstances due to Covid, and these challenges remain. Understandably, businesses have reviewed their position, and some have decided to use the VOA check, challenge, appeal process to seek a reduction in their business rates. The VOA publishes quarterly statistics of the numbers of businesses using the process to appeal their rates. The statistics do indeed show a spike in both the check and challenge elements of the process. For example, there were around 80,000 checks requested in the March to June quarter of 2020 —this spike compares with an average of around 10,000. However, 70,000 of these checks were quickly resolved. There were around 22,000 challenges in the next quarter, but fewer than half seem to have been resolved. There is clearly a significant increase in the volume of claims being received by the VOA. However, the value of these claims, including the value of successful claims, is not revealed.

Throughout the course of the Bill, I have been concerned to establish the evidence base for its proposals, including, importantly, the total value of successful and potentially successful claims which would result in a loss of business rates income. A loss in business rates income has a direct and adverse impact on local government finances, which have already been squeezed dry. Responding in Committee to similar concerns that I raised, the Minister was unable to give a categoric assurance that there would be no loss of income for local government. The Minister stated then that

“central government will meet 75% of the costs of irrecoverable losses in business rates income for 2020-21.”—[Official Report, 10/11/21; col. GC 522.]

Can the Minister confirm that local government will not be paying for any losses in business rates due to Covid?

Further, it is widely accepted that the existing system of business rates is ineffective and woefully inadequate in ensuring that retail businesses that use online ordering are paying at the same rate as those on traditional high streets that the Government often profess to want to support but lamentably fail to.

Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, seeks a review of the impact of the changes and of whether business rates are fit for purpose. Any government review with recommendations to try to fix this broken system is welcome, and we support the sentiments in this amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interests, particularly as a vice-president of the LGA. I will speak to Amendment 2, in my name, and to Amendment 1, as introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.

As we begin Report, I remind the House that we are broadly supportive of the Bill and recognise that action needs to be taken swiftly. The measure in the Bill to rule out Covid-19-related material change of circumstances business rates appeals—that is quite a mouthful—coupled with the announcement of £1.5 billion in funding to provide additional targeted support to those businesses that have not already received rates relief, provides some certainty for local government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

In this group we also have Amendments 7 and 8, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.

I move this amendment to seek confirmation

“that the Secretary of State publishes advice to local authorities on the implementation of this Act.”

Clearly, there has been some movement on this issue; there was widespread concern about this Act in Committee. From my experience, this message has been repeated not only in this area but throughout the whole pandemic. Given that local authorities were tasked with many responsibilities in helping businesses with the financial packages from government, which were welcome, it is important that whoever is in government has the full respect for local government that it needs and deserves. Timely, appropriate and full information is of paramount importance.

I am sure that I do not need to remind the House that local authorities face a dire situation, particularly regarding their finances. Many of them are about to publish their budget, which they will have to deliver in the early months of next year. The timing of this Bill brings into focus why local authorities are asking for clarity, and the sense of urgency that is being expressed.

We know that, since 2010, under the policy of austerity, Conservative Governments have variously come together to cut £15 billion from central government funding to local authorities. According to the Local Government Association, councils in England will face a funding gap of more than £5 billion by 2024 just to maintain services at their current levels. That is why we must ensure that they get the best advice from government on the implementation of this Bill. If we could have real clarification from the Minister on what advice they will receive and when, we would be grateful.

On the £1.5 billion in the funding announcement, I remember my noble friend Lord Hunt saying in Committee that there is a problem in that the guidance to local authorities on the distribution of money is still awaited. Many businesses do not know whether they will qualify for funding given that, as I understand it, the criteria have not yet been published. My noble friend was particularly concerned that whole areas have been missed out in the proceedings.

In Committee, the Minister stated:

“The funding will be available as soon as local authorities have established their own local release schemes; the Government will support them to do this as quickly as possible, including through new burdens funding.”—[Official Report, 10/11/21; col. GC 522.]


I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on how that work is going, and give a clear explanation of how the rationale running throughout this is being used to inform how decisions are made and how fairness and transparency will be assured. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 7 and 8 in my name pursue an issue I raised both at Second Reading and in Committee regarding the complete mystery surrounding the £1.5 billion of taxpayers’ money that the Government propose to use as recompense for businesses in removing their rights to appeal their business rates.

This is all very unsatisfactory. The Bill is in its final stages and we do not know, first, the value of the real and estimated claims being made by businesses via material changes of circumstances based on the impact of Covid. The Minister may well claim that there is no information regarding the value of estimated claims, yet that is precisely what the Bill seeks to do. Secondly, we do not know at all whether £1.5 billion will in any way be sufficient to adequately and fairly compensate business for the removal of lawful claims made to the VOA.

Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill

Debate between Baroness Pinnock and Baroness Blake of Leeds

Wednesday 10th November 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my relevant interests as set out in the register, as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a member of Kirklees Council.

My noble friend Lady Garden is not able to be here today, due to another commitment over the way, but she asked me to speak briefly on her behalf. My noble friend is especially concerned about the impact on English language schools. It is a significant issue that these and other businesses may not even qualify for the relief or the grants set out by the Government during the pandemic. The criteria for the qualification of grant funding are desperately needed—the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has just expanded to that effect. This is a concern that I intend to raise when I speak on the second group in more detail, with its amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Fox.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, have made a compelling case for the Government to move—to quote their favourite phrase—“with pace” to respond to the significant concerns raised. The failure of the Government to act swiftly since the announcement of this potential grant funding in May, and then its confirmation a couple of weeks ago, is putting businesses in jeopardy through no fault of their own. I do not think any Member across the House would do other than condemn that situation. These businesses need to be able to apply for the grants, and for rate relief, to enable their businesses to stay afloat. That is the bottom line for all.

I support what has been said regarding Clause 1 standing part, although I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that we want the Bill to succeed and are using this opportunity to raise these serious points. Those are the words that my noble friend Lady Garden would have said.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for drawing attention to the inadequacies of the situation that we are in. Until February this year, I was leader of Leeds City Council and we had the difficult job of working with businesses, when the complexity of the welcome resource that was available was challenging, to decide who was worthy of getting the relief and who was not. The comments made today just highlight the difficulties that local authorities are still having to face. I speak now as a vice-president of the LGA and am mindful of its input to this debate.

I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for focusing on one specific sector and area, because that helps us to understand just what particular sectors are going through. We know that language schools are not the only area having problems but the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to the loss of expertise, knowledge and experience. All those things add up to what we hope will be viable businesses as we emerge from this. In line with the comments they made, and continued by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, we are faced with a situation across business and local authorities where there is now a lack of confidence, and concern at the lack of consistency and certainty. I hope that the Minister will be able to put our minds at rest on this.

We have had a good discussion regarding our concerns about how the figure of £1.5 billion was achieved. My concern here is that while we talk in terms of billions, we actually need to drill it down to the cost for businesses. I think what we are looking for collectively in the answers is a recognition of the urgency and the detail, and to hear when and how this is to be brought forward.