Affordable Homes

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Monday 24th May 2021 Written Statements

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

On 1 April 2021 the Government published responses to two consultations: delivering First Homes and the new model for shared ownership. This statement sets out the Government’s plans for the delivery of First Homes and our new model for shared ownership through the planning system.

This statement issues substantial changes to planning policy which will come into effect on 28 June 2021.

The issues covered in this statement include:

The definition of a First Home

Eligibility criteria for First Homes

Setting developer contributions for First Homes

The remaining 75% of affordable housing secured through developer contributions

Plans, development management and transitional arrangements

Level of discount

Exception sites

Delivering shared ownership homes

Introduction

The Government are committed to supporting people to own their home and make home ownership a reality for households and families. Since spring 2010 almost 709,000 households have been helped by Government schemes, including Help to Buy and Right to Buy, and we are taking steps to increase the supply of new housing. The Government are undertaking the most ambitious reforms to our planning system since the second world war, making it easier to build homes where they are most needed, and the stamp duty holiday, applying to the first £500,000 of property sales, has given a much needed boost to the economy. Ensuring access to home ownership remains a key priority and challenge for this Government. However, rising prices, high deposits and difficulty accessing mortgage finance still mean that far too many people are denied the opportunity to own a home of their own. Polling shows that 87% of people would prefer to own their home given a free choice. Therefore, the Government are determined to ensure that there is an adequate supply and variety of options to help hard-working people on to the housing ladder across England.

First Homes

The Government first consulted on First Homes, the new scheme to provide homes for first-time buyers at a discount of a minimum of 30%, in February 2020. This consultation made proposals around both the design of First Homes and changes to the planning system to support their delivery.

We received nearly 800 responses to this first consultation. There was considerable support for our proposals for a minimum discount of 30% and strong support for proposals to develop a national standard model with discretion for local areas to set their own criteria. Many local authorities, housing developers and business organisations gave very helpful comments about how our proposed changes to planning policy could be introduced and we are very grateful for this. The Government published their consultation response on 6 August 2020, which is available online. On the same day, the Government published a consultation, “Changes to the current planning system”, which included proposals on the detail of changes to planning policy to deliver First Homes. We received nearly 2,400 responses to this second consultation. The Government published their response to the First Homes part of that consultation on 1 April 2021, and a copy of that response will be placed in the Library of the House. It is also available online at: Government response to the First Homes proposals in "Changes to the current planning system" - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

After careful consideration of all the responses to both these consultations, the Government are today setting out their plans for the delivery of First Homes, defining the product and changes to planning policy as set out below.

First Homes criteria

From 28 June 2021, a home meeting the criteria of a First Home will also be considered to meet the definition of “affordable housing” for planning purposes. The First Homes criteria mean:

A First Home must be discounted by a minimum of 30% against the market value; and,

after the discount has been applied, the first sale of the home must be at a price no higher than £250,000 (or £420,000 in Greater London).

Local authorities will be able to set a deeper minimum discount at either 40% or 50% and impose lower price caps, if they can demonstrate a need for this through evidence. However, the same level of discount as a percentage below market value must apply to the home each time it is sold in perpetuity, subject to certain specific exclusions, so that communities continue to benefit from the homes for years to come. The discount in perpetuity should be secured through a planning obligation. First Homes should, as a matter of course, comply with any other applicable planning policies and /or building regulations, for example those relating to space, accessibility, energy efficiency or carbon emissions. This includes avoiding the sale of homes as leasehold where this is not necessary.

In order to ensure that suitable mortgages are available for First Homes, local authorities should provide for a mortgage lender enforcing its security over a First Homes to be able to realise the full market value of the property, returning any surplus up to the value of the First Homes discount to the local authority.

First Homes eligibility criteria

First Homes must be prioritised for first-time buyers—as defined in paragraph 6 of schedule 6ZA of the Finance Act 2003 for the purposes of stamp duty relief for first-time buyers—and not be sold to any household with a combined annual income in excess of £80,000 or £90,000 in Greater London. Local authorities will be able to apply additional criteria at a local level. For example, they may wish to set a lower income cap, prioritise key workers who also meet the first time buyer definition and/or specify a particular local connection requirement based on work or current residency. Neighbourhood plans will also be able to apply these additional criteria at neighbourhood level. We do not intend to set out a national definition for key workers or local connections for the purposes of First Homes, but instead empower local authorities to take these decisions in the best interests of their areas and residents.

In recognition of the unique nature of their circumstances, members of the armed forces, the divorced or separated spouse or civil partner of a member of the armed forces, the spouse or civil partner of a deceased member of the armed forces—if their death was caused wholly or partly by their service—or veterans within five years of leaving the armed forces should be exempt from any local connection testing restrictions.

A person who can afford to purchase a First Home without a mortgage should not be eligible to purchase a First Home. As a deterrent against the use of First Homes for investment, all purchasers of First Homes must use a mortgage or home purchase plan, if required to comply with Islamic law, for at least 50% of the discounted purchase value.

If local authorities or neighbourhood planning groups choose to introduce their own eligibility restrictions, these will be time-limited to the first three months from the start date of marketing of the property. Upon expiry of the three-month period, any homes which have not been sold or reserved will revert to the national standard criteria set out above. This is to ensure that homes do not remain unsold if suitable buyers in the local area cannot be found.

To support developers and local authorities in using First Homes we are currently developing model section 106 obligations that can be used to secure First Homes at the planning stage. These will make it easier for developers to meet national requirements, for local authorities to consider imposing their own time-limited restrictions and will protect the interest of mortgage lenders by ensuring they can realise the full market value of the property in defined exceptional circumstances. These model obligations will also contain wording for a model title restriction, which will be recognised by HM Land Registry and will ensure the homes retain their discount in perpetuity.

We are clear that First Homes are intended to be used as a person’s sole or primary residence and should not be used for investment or commercial gain. However, we also recognise that there are occasions when it may be necessary for owners of First Homes to let out their property for short periods of time, especially in response to unexpected life events. Therefore, a First Homes owner can only rent out their home for a maximum period of two years, as long as the relevant local authority is notified. Recognising that certain circumstances require a unique response, local authorities should be willing to grant permissions to rent out for longer periods under the following circumstances: deployment elsewhere, for members of the armed forces; primary caring responsibilities for relative/friend; short job posting elsewhere; redundancy; domestic abuse; and relationship breakdown. This will not affect restrictions on letting a property prescribed by a mortgage lender and permission from them would likely also be required.

Changes to planning policy

In order to support the future development of First Homes, the Government are today also setting out changes to planning policy as set out above and below. These changes will come into effect from 28 June 2021.

Setting developer contributions for First Homes

A minimum of 25% of all affordable housing units secured through developer contributions should be First Homes. This is a national threshold which should be applied for England.

In accordance with paragraph 62 of the National Planning Policy Framework, affordable housing is expected to be delivered on-site unless off-site provision or an appropriate financial contribution in lieu can be robustly justified; and the agreed approach contributes to the objective of creating mixed and balanced communities.

Where cash contributions for affordable housing are secured instead of on-site units, a minimum of 25% of these contributions should be used to secure First Homes. Where a mixture of cash contributions towards affordable housing and on-site units are secured, 25% of the overall value of affordable housing contributions should be applied to First Homes.

Local authorities should already have affordable housing policies set out in their development plan, which will include the amounts of affordable housing to be sought, and the tenure mix of this housing. Paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework currently states that where up-to-date policies have set out the contributions expected from development, planning applications that comply with them should be assumed to be viable. Under the approach set out in this written ministerial statement, therefore, it is necessary to define the criteria for policy compliance, under which a development is assumed to be viable.

Under the new system, a policy compliant planning application should seek to capture the same amount of value as would be captured under the local authority’s up-to-date published policy. In addition to capturing the same amount of value towards affordable housing as the existing policy, where on-site affordable housing is required, a policy compliant application will have a minimum of 25% of affordable housing units on-site as First Homes.

The remaining 75% of affordable housing secured through developer contributions

The Government recognise the importance of social rent as part of the affordable housing tenure mix. A local authority should prioritise securing their policy requirements on social rent, once they have secured the 25% First Homes requirement. Where other affordable housing units can be secured, these tenure-types should be secured in the relative proportions set out in the development plan.

If an application aligns with a local authority’s up-to-date policy on cash contributions in lieu of onsite provision, then it will be a policy compliant application in that regard.

Local planning authorities should use the most appropriate method available to them to set out how these requirements impact on their current affordable housing tenure mix policies.

Exemptions from requirements to deliver affordable home ownership products

Paragraph 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework sets out that for major development involving the provision of housing, 10% of all homes on site should be affordable home ownership products, unless one of the exceptions applies. First Homes are an affordable home ownership product. Where specific developments are exempt from delivering affordable home ownership products under paragraph 64 of the framework, they shall also be exempt from the requirement to deliver First Homes.

Plans, development management and transitional arrangements

Local plans and neighbourhood plans should take into account the new First Homes requirements from 28 June 2021. Local authorities may therefore need to review the tenure mix for the remainder of the affordable housing that they are seeking to secure. However, we also recognise that there will be a number of local plans and neighbourhood plans that have been prepared based on the existing National Planning Policy Framework and that have reached more advanced stages of the plan-making process. We do not intend that the evidence base for these should be re-opened, thus delaying the plan-making process. The following transitional arrangements will therefore apply.

Local plans and neighbourhood plans that have been submitted for examination[1] before 28 June 2021 are not required to reflect the First Homes policy requirements. Additionally, local plans and neighbourhood plans that have reached publication stage[2] by 28 June 2021 will also not be required to reflect the First Homes policy requirement as long as they are submitted for examination before 28 December 2021. However, reflecting our desire to introduce First Homes requirements at the earliest possible opportunity, planning inspectors should consider through the examination whether a requirement for an early update of the local plan might be appropriate.

Where local and neighbourhood plans are adopted under the aforementioned transitional arrangements, the First Homes requirements will also not need to be applied when considering planning applications in the plan area until such time as the requirements are introduced through a subsequent update.

Where local and neighbourhood plans do not benefit from the aforementioned transitional arrangements, the local planning authority should make clear how existing policies should be interpreted in the light of First Homes requirements using the most appropriate tool available to them.

We also recognise that many developers will have been preparing planning applications under different assumptions. Across all local authorities, the new requirement for 25% First Homes will not apply to sites with full or outline planning permissions already in place or determined or where a right to appeal against non-determination has arisen, before 28 December 2021, or 28 March 2022 if there has been significant pre-application engagement, although local authorities should allow developers to introduce First Homes to the tenure mix if they wish to do so. This transitional allowance will also apply to permissions and applications for entry-level exception sites.

The Government will continue to monitor the effectiveness of these transitional arrangements in the light of emerging economic circumstances.

Level of discount

The minimum discount for First Homes should be 30% from market value, which will be set by an independent registered valuer. The valuation should assume the home is sold as an open market dwelling without restrictions. Where evidence justifies it—in the local or neighbourhood plan, an emerging policy or, where appropriate, a supplementary planning document—the minimum discount in an area can be increased to 40% or 50%.

Where discounts of more than 30% are applied to First Homes, the requirement for a minimum of 25% of the affordable housing units secured through developer contributions to be First Homes will remain in place. The approach to delivering the remaining 75% of affordable housing is set out above.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

The Government have introduced new Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regulations which allow the developers of First Homes to obtain an exemption from the requirement to pay CIL, in line with other affordable housing products. These regulations came into force on 16 November 2020.

Exception sites

A key priority of this Government is to enable as many people as possible to enjoy the benefits of home ownership, and First Homes is a crucial way in which this will be achieved. In order to maximise the number of First Homes made available to those keen to get on the housing ladder, the Government are also seeking to deliver First Homes via exception sites. Exception sites are small sites brought forward outside of development plans in order to deliver affordable housing, and currently consist of rural exception sites and entry-level exception sites.

While the Government support the mechanism of allowing land to come forward outside of the development plan to deliver much-needed homes via exception sites, the entry-level exception site policy has not delivered affordable housing to the extent originally envisaged. Following the consultation, the Government are replacing this policy with a “First Homes exception sites” policy, in order to encourage First Homes-led developments on land that is not currently allocated for housing. Local authorities should support the development of these First Homes exception sites, suitable for first-time buyers, unless the need for such homes is already being met within the local authority’s area. Local connection criteria may be set where these can be supported by evidence of necessity and will not compromise site viability. First Homes exception sites should be on land which is not already allocated for housing and should:

a) comprise First Homes, as defined in this written ministerial statement.

b) be adjacent to existing settlements, proportionate in size to them, not compromise the protection given to areas or assets of particular importance in the National Planning Policy Framework[3], and comply with any local design policies and standards.

A small proportion of market homes may be allowed on the site at the local authority’s discretion, for example where essential to enable the delivery of First Homes without grant funding. Also, a small proportion of other affordable homes may be allowed on the sites where there is significant identified local need.

While the Government want to ensure that home ownership is available to as many people as possible, we recognise that certain rural areas face particular challenges in terms of affordability, and that rural exception sites can be very effective in addressing the lack of affordable housing in these areas. As such, the Government have decided that in designated rural areas[4], which includes some of the more constrained and expensive regions of the country such as national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, rural exception sites will remain as the sole exception site which can come forward. Elsewhere, First Homes exception sites and rural exception sites can both come forward.

Delivering shared ownership homes

This Government believe shared ownership has a vital role to play in supporting people from all backgrounds to become homeowners. By purchasing a share of a property, aspiring homeowners can overcome the income and deposit barriers that can stand in their way. This is why the Government are making shared ownership work better by introducing a new model for shared ownership which will be delivered through grant funding and through the planning system.

On 28 August 2019, we ran a discussion paper to consult on several proposed changes to the shared ownership model. In the Government response to the consultation, published in September 2020, we confirmed the outline of the new model of shared ownership and committed to set an expectation for shared ownership homes secured through the planning system to be based on the new model.

The new model for shared ownership: technical consultation, which ran from 19 November to 17 December 2020, set out further details of the new model of shared ownership, including the proposal that we will expect all shared ownership homes delivered through obligations under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to be based on the new model. We consulted on potential transitional arrangements.

We are today confirming that this expectation will come into effect from 28 June 2021. The principal changes to the shared ownership model are summarised as follows:

i) Minimum share to be purchased

The minimum share for initial shared ownership purchases will be lowered to 10% from the current 25%. The maximum share at initial purchase will remain unchanged at 75%.

ii) The purchase of further shares (“staircasing”)

New shared owners will be able to staircase in 1% increments for 15 years enabling shared owners to purchase up to 15% through this route. This option will be accompanied by reduced fees. It will still be possible to staircase in larger increments with the minimum additional share purchase reduced from 10% to 5%. Shared owners wishing to staircase in 5% increments or more will have to pay the range of fees as currently, such as a valuation fee, legal and mortgage costs as appropriate.

iii) Shared ownership resales

The new shared ownership model will end the provider’s resale nomination period at the four week point if they wish to pursue a sale on the open market.

iv) Responsibility for repairs and maintenance

The new shared ownership model introduces a new 10-year period during which the shared ownership leaseholder will receive support from their landlord with the cost of repairs and maintenance in new build homes. Only after 10 years will the shared owner take on full responsibility for any repairs and maintenance costs. This 10-year period is in addition to any repairs or maintenance covered by the new build warranty to cover any works required that the warranty does not cover.

v) Shared ownership lease term

All new leases must be issued with a minimum lease length term of 990 years. These longer leases will provide long term security for shared owners and save them from paying for multiple lease extensions.

We believe these reforms will make the scheme more consumer friendly, easier to access and fairer, leading to a better experience for a future generation of shared owners.

The Government response to the new model for shared ownership: technical consultation, which we published in April 2021, sets out further details on these changes. You can also consult the Homes England Capital Funding Guide 1. Help to Buy: Shared Ownership - Capital Funding Guide - Guidance - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk), or the GLA Capital Funding Guide for homes in London, for further guidance on how to implement Shared Ownership.

Later this month, Homes England will publish a model lease which can be used as a basis for leases under the new model of shared ownership.

We recognise that many developers will have been preparing planning applications under different assumptions. The new requirement for the new shared ownership model will not apply to sites with full or outline planning permissions already in place or determined or where a right to appeal against non-determination has arisen, before 28 December 2021, or 28 March 2022 if there has been significant pre-application engagement, although local authorities should allow developers to introduce the new shared ownership model if they wish to do so.

The local and neighbourhood plan transitional arrangements set out above for First Homes also apply to the new requirement for the new shared ownership model.

[1] Regulation 15 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 for Neighbourhood Plans, and Regulation 22 of Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 for Local Plans.

[2] Regulation 14 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 for Neighbourhood Plans, and Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 for Local Plans.

[3] i.e. the areas referred to in footnote 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework. First Homes exception sites should not be permitted in national parks (or within the Broads Authority), areas of outstanding natural beauty, land designated as green belt, or areas designated as rural under section 157 of the Housing Act 1985.

[4] As set out in annexe 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework

[HCWS50]

Affordable and Safe Housing for All

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

We have had a spirited debate. We have also had a sombre one when hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris). I am sure that the hearts of all in the House go out to that little boy, George Hinds, and his family and the community in Heysham for the terrible tragedy that they have suffered.

We also heard from 58 other Back-Bench Members of the House. I particularly congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) and for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) on their plug for the National Brownfield Institute, which I shall be visiting on Friday, as a physical manifestation of our commitment to brownfield first. The national planning policy framework says “brownfield first”; our fiscal stimulus, the £400 billion that we put into brownfield regeneration, financially demonstrates it; and we have instituted practical regulatory levers through our permitted development rights with controls changes to ensure that gentle densification using brownfield sites can most effectively occur.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) not so much on his speech, because it was as predictable as it was inaccurate, but on hanging on to his job on the Opposition Front Bench. We know that the deckchairs on Labour’s Titanic are much sought after, and we congratulate him on hanging on to his. He will make a magnificent and, I am sure, very loyal understudy to the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell).

At the heart of this Government’s pledge to unite and level up our country is an unwavering commitment not just to build back from the pandemic but to build back fairer, safer and better, and to build back more beautifully, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) both eloquently made clear. That commitment underpins our planning Bill as laid out in the Gracious Speech: a sensible transformation of our 73-year-old planning system helping us build those new homes and the vital infrastructure that communities need.

The simple truth is that our planning system has not been delivering the homes that we need for many years. It can take seven years to agree local housing plans and five years before a spade cuts the ground, and after all that time, and often after a great deal of local concern, nine in every 10 applications get approved anyway. It is also too slow, too complicated and too exclusive, and it needs to change. We will end the glacial pace of planning by mandating every council to have up-to-date local plans, as called for by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey). With local plans providing greater certainty, more local people will be better engaged to have a say about the design of their neighbourhoods—what is built, where it is built, what it looks like and what infrastructure is required to support it. We will replace our old, analogue planning system with new, map-based systems fit for the digital age, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore) asked.

I have heard very clearly the views of many Members across the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt), for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) and for Bracknell (James Sunderland), to name but a few, about the importance of providing good and effective incentives to make sure that developers build out the permissions that they have. We will ensure through our reforms that such incentives are available and that they work.

I am also committed to neighbourhood plans, which my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) raised. We want to make sure that they are rolled out into areas that are less rural, and into areas that extend further north where we do not see enough of them, so that they can be effective levers for local people to plan additional homes in their neighbourhoods.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset and my hon. Friends the Members for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter) and for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) rightly mentioned, we will never solve the generational problem of demand outstripping supply without dramatically increasing the number of homes built each year. We made good progress before covid-19, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear: in the year to 2020, approximately 244,000 homes were built—the seventh consecutive year in which net supply increased. That is a fantastic foundation for us to build towards our ambitious target of delivering 300,000 homes a year.

That progress is underscored by the £12 billion that we are investing in affordable housing—the highest single funding commitment for more than a decade, which will deliver 180,000 new affordable homes, of which 32,000 will be for social rent. Approximately half of those properties will be available through our new shared ownership model, allowing people to buy additional shares in their home, because two thirds of people in social housing aspire to buy their own home. It is this Government who will help them to realise their ambition.

Building back fairer means creating a true property-owning democracy in which everyone has a stake in their own home, their community and their country. That is why the Chancellor implemented the stamp duty holiday and extended it earlier this year; why we have brought forward the new mortgage guarantee scheme, helping thousands of first-time buyers; and why last Thursday we reached a milestone in turning generation rent into generation buy when the 300,000th Help to Buy home was sold to Sam Legg from Asfordby, who is just 19 years old. He was able to buy his first home with his partner Megan—something that, in Sam’s words,

“would not have been possible without Help to Buy.”

This Government are proud to be backing Sam, Megan and millions of people like them, including my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook), in realising their dreams of home ownership. We did it through Help to Buy and we are doing it through the right to buy and through our first home scheme, which will help first-time buyers to purchase their new home in their local community with a discount of at least 30%, and in some places up to 50%.

That is levelling up in action, extending home ownership and the prosperity that it brings to as many people as possible in all parts of our country, because we are proud of our country; we like our people. We do not despise it and despise them, as the Labour party always seems to. We want to put up homes for people like Sam and Megan so that they have a future. The Labour party wants to pull down statues to heroes like Churchill because it is fixated on the past.

We must recognise that there are some people who have found it difficult to get on with their lives. Nearly four years have passed since the tragedy of the Grenfell fire, and we owe it to the victims, the bereaved and their families to ensure that this country has one of the most rigorous and robust safety regimes in the world. The Gracious Speech confirmed that we will soon introduce the building safety Bill, delivering the greatest improvements to building safety in a generation.

Crucially, the Bill will place clear legal duties on those who build and manage new homes. It will establish a building safety regulator with robust enforcement powers, which will oversee new building work to ensure that risks are properly managed. First and foremost, we will put residents at the centre of the new system by creating a statutory residents’ panel.

The Bill will also restore confidence to leaseholders. We have always made it clear that building owners and the industry should make buildings safe without passing on costs to leaseholders. Where they have not stepped up, we have stepped in, investing £5.1 billion to remediate unsafe cladding on high-rise buildings. We have also instituted a generous finance scheme to support remediation on lower-rise buildings. It is an absolute priority of the Government, and we will bring forward our proposals for this as soon as we possibly can.

Ours is an unashamedly ambitious agenda set out in the Gracious Speech. We will build back fairer and safer and better. We will confront the building safety issues that no Government have dared to tackle and we will create a robust world-class system. We will level up communities the length and the breadth of our country. We have the overwhelming support of the people across the country from Accrington to Asfordby, from Hastings to Hartlepool, with the people behind us and the future before us. Brick by brick, home by home, we will build back Britain better.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Fire Safety Bill

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

I beg to move,

That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4L.

As I have said on a number of occasions at this Dispatch Box, I want to express my sincere thanks once again to all right hon. and hon. Members for engaging in this important debate. I would like to repeat the message given by my noble Friend the building safety Minister in paying tribute to the fire and rescue services across our country, because in recent days we have seen large fires in Greater Manchester and Shropshire, and they have been dealt with in an exemplary and professional manner. This is a reminder of why we want to get this Bill on to the statute book—to help fire and rescue services do their job to ensure that buildings are properly and thoroughly assessed.

All of us in this House and in the other place agree in the strongest terms that residents have the right to be and to feel safe in their homes. This Government remain steadfast in our commitment to delivering the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 report’s recommendations. The Fire Safety Bill is an important first step in our legislative programme delivering these recommendations. I cannot stress enough, as I have reiterated on a number of occasions throughout the passage of this Bill, the vital importance of this legislation and the ramifications if it fails as a result of outstanding remediation amendments, and that is why I move that this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4L.

Without the Fire Safety Bill, legal ambiguity around the fire safety order will continue. Moreover, the updating of fire risk assessments to cover structure, external walls and flat entrance doors will be ignored by a number of negligent building owners, and fire and rescue services will lack the legal certainty to support enforcement decisions. That is a matter that I know will be in the minds of Members today, as it should also be in the minds of Members of the other place.

A number of Members across the House have said to me, “Well, why not simply redraft the Bill?” That might be easier to do with other legislation that already has careful cross-referencing to other Acts and already has detailed secondary legislation to revise regulations, but not so with this small but none the less important Bill. Redrafting it, even if the amendments were not defective, so that it carefully navigates the intricate web of contract law and does not fall foul of such Acts beloved of Members of this House, including many Opposition Members, such as the Human Rights Act 1998, will take considerable time, and we do not have that time.

Following our announcement in February, I am pleased to say that hundreds of thousands of leaseholders will be protected from the cost of replacing unsafe cladding on their homes as part of our five-point plan to end the cladding scandal once and for all, improve the saleability of properties and restore confidence in the housing market. The measures that we announced in February—including our work with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors to reduce the need for EWS1 forms; our work with developers to put more of their own money on the table, additional to our tax and levy plans; and our work with lenders to buy into our package of measures to ensure sensible and proportionate value is re-ascribed to homes valued at zero—will allow hundreds of thousands of homes to be sold, bought or remortgaged once again. That will provide certainty to residents and lenders, boost the housing market and reinstate the value of properties. All the amendments we have received, debated and already disposed of would simply reignite uncertainty in the market and risk lenders once again turning to leaseholders saying, “Computer says no: we can’t value your property”.

I find it somewhat ironic that Members are flagging these issues in the context of trying to impede the progress of the Bill, as having an up-to-date fire and risk assessment that considers the external wall system of a building should enable an insurer to take an informed and proportionate approach to risk that considers not only the material and construction of the building but the way in which it is managed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Christopher Pincher]

I will, of course, give way to the Father of the House, as I was unable to do so yesterday due to time constraints.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I am grateful to the Minister, and he knows I am trying to play the ball and not the person. The question is not the small amounts but the large amounts. It is estimated that the cost of remediation may go up to £15 billion. The Government are providing £5 billion, which leaves £10 billion that may fall on the shoulders of leaseholders. We are moving from a situation that might be ironic for some, to one that is irenic for more. The point of the amendment is that it needs to be met by Government, and it needs to be met in good time, or else many people will not be able to meet the demand to pay for the cost of remediation, and forfeiture will follow. That will happen in a shorter timescale than the one talked about by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox).

[Christopher Pincher]

I certainly accept my hon. Friend’s assurance that he is playing the issue, as he always does, and not the man. As he rightly says, we propose to spend £5.1 billion of public money on remediating the tallest buildings, as directed by the Hackitt report and its recommendations.

We have also said that as a result of our tax on the development industry, which the Chancellor will consult on imminently, we will raise a further £2 billion. We have also said that we will introduce a tall buildings levy. Developers themselves are placing more money on the table. Taylor Wimpey has now placed a further £125 million on the table for remediation, and Persimmon £75 million. The amounts are building up. We have also suggested a very advantageous financing scheme for those buildings below 18 metres that may require some remediation.

I think all Members would agree that the taxpayer should not be paying for every cost associated with the provisions of the Fire Safety Bill, but that is the risk, because the scope of the amendments that have been tabled is far too broad to provide a sensible solution. Lords amendment 4L is also unclear on who should take responsibility for remediation works until a statutory scheme is in place to pay the costs. That would result in all types of remediation being delayed—a really unsatisfactory outcome for leaseholders. Leaseholders also will not thank us for voting through an amendment that will generate lots of litigation that they may need to pay for.

The amendment would prevent the passing on of remediation costs, but it does not define what those costs are. That is a recipe for litigation and a recipe for delay. There is a lack of clarity on the definition of remedial work and what may be attributable to the provisions in this Bill, in other Acts or in none. How would Members suggest that we disaggregate the legislation under which works are carried out and the definition to differentiate between remediation, maintenance or improvement? It is a recipe for litigation and a recipe for delay.

In effect, it may not be possible to relieve leaseholders and tenants from all costs for remedial works attributable to the Bill without breaching subsidy control rules—a form of state aid. Further detailed consideration would be needed about that, too. Practically speaking, drafting legislation is, as many Members will know, a complex matter that cannot be dealt with in the timeframe proposed by the amendment, and to provide an arbitrary deadline is neither helpful nor practical.

There is a common theme uniting these points. The amendments will not work. They will not help leaseholders. They are not detailed enough for a complex and intricate problem of this nature. We have seen the key elements of this amendment time and again, and this House has voted them down time and again. Yet time and again, peers and the Opposition—unintentionally, I trust—seem set on reinjecting uncertainty into the market, which cannot help leaseholders. I respectfully ask the House to reject this amendment, so that we return a further clear and consistent message to the other place.

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

The Minister has made a lengthy speech on this occasion, perhaps trying to ensure that others have less time to speak. I am glad that he took an intervention from the Father of the House on this occasion—he did not do so yesterday—but unfortunately he did not answer the main point, and therefore we must conclude that the Government are content for the £10 billion of additional cost to be shouldered by leaseholders.

We find ourselves in an extraordinary position. We voted on this only yesterday, and in that debate every single speaker—the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem contributors—pleaded with the Government to support leaseholders. No one spoke in the Government’s favour, and the Government’s majority was halved in the vote. At what point does the Minister question the sense of his approach? At what point does he turn around and think, “Well, all these people who have spoken are sensible and well meaning; perhaps they have a point”? At what point does he consider that he might actually agree with us?

I suspect that the Minister has had those thoughts, and I suspect that he even agrees with us. He knows that the Bank of England is worried about a crash caused directly by the crisis. He knows that hundreds of thousands of people are suffering. But he also knows that his Chancellor and his Prime Minister do not care enough to act. They have other priorities—to their property and development donors. Fourteen separate companies and individuals with links to construction companies using potentially lethal aluminium composite material cladding on buildings have donated nearly £4 million to the Conservatives since 2006. The Prime Minister must have his new curtains, so they turn away from the screams for help from the people hit with extraordinary bills of £40,000, £50,000, £60,000, and the Minister has to bunker down, hold his nose and hold the line. I almost feel sorry for him.

Let me touch briefly on the arguments put forward by the Minister yesterday and today for not accepting these amendments. The argument that they would further delay the implementation of the Grenfell recommendations does not wash and is frankly insulting to the Grenfell survivors. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) read out Grenfell United’s condemnation of the use and abuse of the tragedy to put the blame on leaseholders. It said that the Government’s excuse that amendments to protect leaseholders would delay Grenfell recommendations is “deeply upsetting”, “wrong”,

“and shows they’d rather protect the corporates responsible from paying for the mess they created.”

That argument against delaying the Bill was put to us time and again when we were trying to make amendments to implement the Grenfell inquiry recommendations. On Report, the Minister for Security, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), said that accepting our amendment to implement the Grenfell inquiry phase 1 recommendations would “create uncertainty”. The Minister for Crime and Policing, the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), later said:

“It is not helpful, I have to say, for the House to keep returning to this issue.”—[Official Report, 24 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 950.]

He added that it causes “confusion”. However, after continually voting against our amendments, the Government eventually gave in and made the concession in the other place. It was possible then, even after months of their saying it was not, and it is possible now.

The Housing Minister has the audacity to imply that the supposed delays from new amendments would mean that people were less safe, as if people are not already unsafe living in buildings riddled with fire safety issues. Has he forgotten that hundreds of thousands of people up and down the country are already stuck in unsafe buildings? I say to him again today: if the Government have not managed to work out how to pursue the money from those responsible, why do they not do what is right and stop leaseholders footing the bill now? Labour’s amendment would buy the Government time. It would protect leaseholders while the Government came up with a longer-term plan.

As Lord Kennedy of Southwark said yesterday in the other place, it is unusual to be here again so soon, but this is an unprecedented crisis and the Government should be taking unprecedented measures to sort it out. The Government know that hundreds of thousands of people are being forced to pay to fix fire safety issues that were not their fault. The Government should pay and then go after the building companies and developers who are responsible. Most MPs agree: 95% of all MPs, and 92% of Tory MPs, said that the developers who built the flats should pay to make them safe.

The tragedy is that we know that, at some point, the Government are going to have to act to fix this problem. We know that they cannot leave leaseholders to foot a £10 billion bill. Yet yesterday, many Conservative Members voted against an amendment that would have protected leaseholders. What will they do today? Will they keep voting against their conscience, against their opinions, against the will of their constituents, or will they do the right thing and vote to protect leaseholders?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Again, I have allowed considerable leeway, but the hon. Gentleman has had his time. I do not understand: when people are speaking from home, can they not see the time limit? I think that might well be the case, so perhaps someone will send a message back. Here in the Chamber we can see the time limit and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I allowed him to exceed it.

I had put on a tight time limit because I had anticipated some vigorous debate and interventions; there has not been a single intervention, which leaves plenty of time for the Minister to respond to the debate.

[Christopher Pincher]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that opportunity. I am sorry that I have, unfortunately, interposed on the time that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) might otherwise have supposed to be his own; he was making a careful and passionate speech, as have the other nine right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken from the Back Benches today. I am grateful for their insight and considered contributions. I remind them and both Houses that the Government understand the aims that underpin the objectives that have been sent to us over the last several weeks by the House of Lords.

Fire Safety Bill

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

I beg to move,

That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4J.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to consider amendments (g) to (l) in lieu of Lords amendment 4J.

[Christopher Pincher]

I want first of all to thank all hon. Members for joining in this crucial debate, because all of us in this House agree that residents deserve to be safe, and to feel safe, in their homes. I want to reiterate in the strongest terms the importance of the Bill as a step along the way to delivering that objective, and the risk that we would create if we were to continue to allow these remediation amendments, however well-intentioned, to delay legislation.

The Bill was introduced over a year ago. We are almost at the point of getting it on the statute book, and it is vital that we remind ourselves of the fundamental purpose of what we are seeking to achieve—to provide much-needed legal clarification of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and direct the update of the fire risk assessments to ensure that they apply to structure, external walls and flat entrance doors. I will give way briefly to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), but I want as many hon. Members to speak as possible.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Ministers have repeatedly said that leaseholders should not bear the costs of the fire cladding scandal. Why is he insisting today that they should?

[Christopher Pincher]

The right hon. Gentleman knows of the very significant amount of public money that we have set aside to remediate those buildings that are the most at risk of fire, where serious injury might take place, and the financial provisions that we have set aside also to help other leaseholders. If we do not resolve the Bill this week, fire assessments will not cover those critical elements of which I spoke, and they may continue to be ignored by less responsible building owners. Moreover, the fire and rescue services will be without the legal certainty that they need to take enforcement action. Ultimately, that will compromise the safety of many people living in multi-occupied residential buildings. Without the clarification provided by the Bill, it will mean delaying implementation, possibly by a year, of a number of measures that will deliver the Grenfell inquiry recommendations.

As I said, I want as many Members as possible to have the opportunity to speak, so I will say no more for the moment until I wind up the debate, save for reiterating two points. First, these remaining amendments, although laudable in their intentions, would be unworkable and an inappropriate means to resolve a problem as highly complex as this. Secondly, the Government share the concerns of leaseholders on remediation costs, and have responded, as the House knows, with unprecedented levels of financial support to the tune of over £5 billion, with further funds from the developer tax, which the Treasury will begin to consult upon imminently, as well as the tall buildings levy. Developers themselves have begun to announce more significant remediation funds.

It is in everyone’s interests to ensure that we do not put at risk the progress that has been made by failing to get the Bill on the statute book by the end of this Session.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the shadow Minister, may I reiterate that this is a very short debate with a long list of speakers, which is why I have put a three-minute limit on Back Benchers? Obviously, if colleagues can be shorter than that, we might actually get everybody in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend has raised that point many times, and he is standing up for his constituents in a way that I am afraid that this Government will not.

What do the Government care about? We are left with one possible answer. Do the Government care only about the donors who keep their Prime Minister in fancy furniture, so that he can spend £60,000 on curtains in No. 10, while nurses and key workers out there face £60,000 bills for cladding with no wealthy Tory donors to bail them out? Do the Government really care only about big property developers, such as European Land and Property, which developed a block of flats in Paddington that used the same aluminium composite material cladding as was on the Grenfell Tower, and which has donated £2.5 million to the Conservative party since the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017? Do the Government really care only about Britain’s biggest builders, who have built up vast profits during the pandemic, such as Persimmon—

[Christopher Pincher]

Peter Mandelson. Tony Blair.

[Sarah Jones]

The Minister is shouting names at me from a sedentary position, but he is not answering the question. I do not want to be right. I do not want that to be what the Government care about. I honestly always believe the best in people and applaud my colleagues from across the House who have stood up for their constituents time and again on this, but even they are asking why else the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are ignoring a financial and human crisis on such a growing and worrying scale.

Let us vote today to start putting this right and prove me wrong. It is not just Opposition Members who support amendments to protect leaseholders. A recent poll from YouGov commissioned by the National Housing Federation found that three quarters of MPs, including two thirds of Conservative MPs, say that the Government should pay the costs of all building safety work up front and then claim it back later from those who are responsible. I have not heard a single argument that bears any scrutiny as to why it is okay to let leaseholders foot a bill for tens of thousands of pounds, or to sit by as homeowners face bankruptcy or decades of lingering debt.

We welcome the latest amendment from the Bishop of St Albans, which would put into law a guarantee that building owners cannot pass on the costs of any remedial work to leaseholders in the time before the Government introduce their promised legislation. I am also very interested in the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), which propose that the Government should follow the polluter pays principle.

Yet again, the Government have decided to lay a motion to disagree with the Lords amendment. This is a betrayal of the promise that Ministers have made over 17 times that leaseholders will not be left to foot the bill. The Minister’s argument that it would delay further works does not work. If the Government have not managed to work out how to pursue the money from those responsible, why do they not do what is right and stop leaseholders footing the bill?

The Bishop of St Albans’s amendment would buy the Government some time. It would protect leaseholders while the Government come up with a longer-term plan. We ask the Minister again, if he does not think that the proposed amendments are right as they are, why not amend them? Why, when it is directly in their gift, will the Government not pay to fix these problems and then go after the building companies and developers that are responsible? Leaseholders deserve justice now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I apologise to those who did not get in, but I do need to bring the Minister in.

[Christopher Pincher]

I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions today. The House will know that we have a duty to implement clear and effective legislation to support fire and building safety reform. We have an obligation in this place to make good law. While I entirely accept that the motivations of all those who have contributed today are not to damage the Fire Safety Bill, I have to tell them that the practical consequence of passing the Lords amendments would be to do that, because they are ineffective and defective. Let me explain why, before moving on to some of the other points that Members have made.

The amendments would prevent any type of remediation costs being passed on to leaseholders, even if the cost was very minor or if the leaseholder was responsible for damage, and that is not a proportionate response. There is no framework in the Lord Bishop of St Albans’ amendment to distinguish between different works. I think all Members would agree that the taxpayer should not be paying for minor costs, such as replacing a smoke alarm, and that if the leaseholder is responsible for breaking a smoke alarm, in all likelihood they should fix it. The amendment is also unclear on who should take responsibility for remediation works until a statutory funding scheme is in place to pay or direct the costs, and that would result in remediation being delayed, even in the case of minor defects, if routes of cost recovery are unclear.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Christopher Pincher]

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will not give way, because I have to conclude my remarks. Perhaps if I have a bit of time at the end, I will.

These orphan liabilities would leave leaseholders continuing to live in unsafe properties with no further clarity as to who will pay. It is important to ensure that taxpayers’ money is protected as much as possible and that remediation is not delayed unnecessarily in extended litigation such as we might find ourselves in. It is not the solution that leaseholders need or the one that the taxpayer deserves.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Monday 19th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

What steps he is taking to support leaseholders living in buildings under 18 metres in height with (a) dangerous cladding and (b) other fire safety defects.

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

Buildings below 18 metres in height will not carry the same inherent risk as a building above 18 metres. However, some will need remediation. To give residents in lower-rise buildings peace of mind, we are establishing a generous scheme to ensure that, where required, cladding can be remediated on buildings between 11 metres and 18 metres. Leaseholders will be asked to pay no more than £50 a month, protecting them against these unaffordable costs. We will work at pace to develop the details of the scheme and communicate them to the House as quickly as possible.

[Janet Daby [V]]

No one needs reminding that we are nearly at the four-year anniversary of the Grenfell disaster, yet many of my constituents remain trapped in dangerous homes and, because of this Government’s arbitrary decision to only help those in buildings above 18 metres, they feel hopeless and invisible. Does the Secretary of State agree that no leaseholder should have to pay for fire safety problems that are simply not their fault, and that people should not be required to pay even £50 or less a month, regardless of whether their building is 7 metres, 18 metres or even lower?

[Christopher Pincher]

The hon. Lady is right; great progress has been made over the last four years to ensure that the remediation of high-rise properties is undertaken, because that is where we have been guided by official advice. I can tell the House that remediation has either been completed or is under way in 95% of aluminium composite material-clad buildings. We are clear that buildings below 18 metres also need help, which is why we have tabled this generous package of support where otherwise there would be no support. It is also clear that developers and building owners are stepping up to the plate and remediating the buildings for which they are responsible, and are providing funds so to do.

[Rushanara Ali [V]]

Many leaseholders have spent their third lockdown stuck in buildings with serious safety defects and are unsure when the works will be completed. The Minister talks about providing a generous scheme for blocks of 18 metres or less. Can he explain to the House how generous that programme is, how much is being committed and when our constituents can expect the works to be completed—both for blocks under 18 metres and blocks over 18 metres that require remedial works—so that people do not have to continue to live in potential death traps?

[Christopher Pincher]

With respect to buildings over 18 metres, the hon. Lady will know that we set aside funds of £1 billion using the building safety fund in order to deal with properties with non-ACM dangerous cladding material. Some 106 buildings have already begun that work and we estimate that a further 338 will begin the work by September, which was the date that we set for work using BSF funds to be undertaken. With respect to buildings below 18 metres, we want to ensure that we are prioritising affordability and accelerating remediation where it is required. It is a complex set of challenges, but we are determined to meet them and to get this right, which is why we will bring forward further information as soon as we are able to do so.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Can the Minister explain why three quarters of cladding systems on new medium-rise buildings have used combustible insulation materials despite a proposed Government ban on them? That is 51 out of 66 residential blocks of 11 to 18 metres in height built in 2019 and 2020 that are now liable for the imposition of unwanted Government loans. There is the nightmare of EWS1 forms, inflated insurance premium costs, service charges and much, much more. At what stage are the ministerial team going to get a grip of this chaos?

[Christopher Pincher]

The hon. Gentleman knows full well the work that the Government have undertaken to ensure that we address this complicated issue, which involves buildings, building owners, warranty providers, insurers and leaseholders themselves. We have brought forward a very generous set of schemes. More than £5.1 billion of public money has already been allocated to remediate taller high-rise buildings. We have proposed a generous scheme to support people living in leasehold properties between 11 and 18 metres. We will announce further details of that scheme shortly so that the people living in them can have peace of mind that they have a way out too.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

What progress his Department has made on the design of the UK shared prosperity fund.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

In 2018 and 2019 we saw the highest and the second-highest number of first-time buyers since 2007. With the effect of covid, 2020 saw a 14% decrease from the 2019 total. The Government are now redoubling their efforts to assist first-time buyers. That is why today we launched the mortgage guarantee scheme offering a 95% loan-to-value mortgage, developing first homes and enabling first-time buyers to purchase new-build homes locally with at least a 30% discount—a determined effort to support buyers.

[Ms Buck [V]]

For many first-time buyers, especially in cities, the options are mainly new-build and leasehold properties, but many of them are walking into a new nightmare of costs. Inside Housing is today reporting on purchasers buying properties as safe only to discover almost immediately that the ratings are changing, leaving them with huge bills for waking watch, and unsaleable properties. Does the Minister know how many first-time buyers are affected by this, and why is the only truly blameless party, the purchaser, the one who is still left carrying the can and the risk?

[Christopher Pincher]

There are a suite of options for first-time buyers. They can purchase a home using the Help to Buy scheme. They can take advantage of our shared ownership scheme, whereby, under the new proposals, failings and defects will be fixed by the developer for the first 10 years. As I said, the mortgage guarantee scheme that we announced today allows first-time buyers and others to purchase homes with as little as 5% deposit.

We are determined to ensure that first-time buyers are able to achieve their dream and get on to the property ladder. That is a world away from the campaign that the hon. Lady chairs—the campaign of Sadiq Khan, who promised to build 116,000 homes in London but has thus far managed to deliver only 28,000. I wonder whether that is why the housing pledge, which was at the top of his campaign in 2016, is now second from bottom in 2021. I think that that says a lot about Labour and its priority for housing.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

That was quite staggering. I do not know whether the Minister was listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck). He avoided answering her, and he previously avoided answering my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), so I will give him another go. Will the Minister please tell us what on earth the justification is for allowing new buildings to be built with dangerous cladding and other fire safety defects? What will he do to ensure that the number of first-time buyers moving into homes with dangerous cladding is zero?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me a second go. I point out that she has no policies of her own. We are quite prepared to let her borrow some of ours, because we have a lot of them. We are determined to make sure, through the building safety regime that we will introduce, that we have a world-class building safety programme. We have consulted on the challenge of combustible products, which is a very complicated one, and we will make our announcements on those in due course. But make no mistake, Mr Speaker: we are determined to support buyers, we are determined to get more people on to the property ladder and we are determined to build better-quality homes—things that the Labour party talks about, we are doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

What recent estimate he has made of the number of additional council and housing association homes required to meet demand for social housing.

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

Planning policy is clear: it is for local authorities to identify the size, type and tenure of the housing needed for different groups in the community, including those who require affordable housing. We are committed to increasing the supply of affordable housing and are investing over £12 billion in the affordable housing programme over the next five years, the largest investment in affordable housing in over a decade.

[Justin Madders]

Many of my constituents cannot afford to buy a house of their own and are finding that private sector landlords are using various devices to block access to that market as well, such as through guarantees and bond requirements, so council housing or social housing is the only option, but demand is outstripping supply, and, according to the Chartered Institute of Housing, outside London only a third of all the social housing needed will actually be built in the next five years. So what does the Minister say to my constituents who find themselves with no housing options at all at the moment?

[Christopher Pincher]

Over the last 10 years around 150,000 new homes for social rent have been built. We have made it easier for local authorities to build their own council homes by changing the rules around the housing revenue account and by making it easier for them to get cheap loans through the Public Works Loan Board. Our new affordable homes programme, investing £12 billion-plus in new homes over the next five years, will double the number of socially rentable homes built to 32,000. I rather hope the hon. Gentleman’s local authority will take advantage of the reforms that we have undertaken and the powers we have given local authorities, because in 2019-20, before the covid emergency, it built no social houses at all.

Oxfordshire Housing and Growth Deal

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Written Statements

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

In March 2017 the Government committed to the Oxfordshire housing and growth deal (the deal), to support ambitious plans to deliver 100,000 homes by 2031. The deal committed to an Oxfordshire-wide joint statutory spatial plan to be adopted by 2021, and to be supported by £215 million of funding to help deliver more affordable housing and infrastructure improvements to support sustainable development across the county.

As part of the deal, to support this strategic approach to supporting housing delivery through joint working, Oxfordshire was granted flexibility from the national planning policy framework policy on maintaining a five-year housing land supply. Since 2018, Oxfordshire has had to provide proof of a three-year land supply for planning purposes. This has worked to support the delivery of the local plans for the area and ensure that the local authorities could focus their efforts on their joint spatial strategy.

This flexibility was laid out by the Secretary of State at the time the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) in a written ministerial statement on 12 September 2018—https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2018-09-12/hcws955.

Since 2018, Oxfordshire has not finalised and adopted its joint statutory spatial plan. Therefore, in the best interests of housing delivery in the region, my Department has extended the time afforded to Oxfordshire for the delivery of this plan to 2023. This extension, however, will not be subject to the original land supply flexibilities. From today, Oxfordshire will need to maintain a five-year housing land supply in accordance with the national planning policy framework.

This statement is a material consideration in planning decisions and applies to those local planning authorities in Oxfordshire with whom the Government agreed the Oxfordshire housing and growth deal, namely Cherwell District Council, Oxford City Council, South Oxfordshire District Council, Vale of White Horse District Council and West Oxfordshire District Council. This statement applies from today.

[HCWS897]

Fire Safety Bill

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 4B, 4C, 4D and 4E.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for engaging in this very important debate, both now and throughout the passage of the Bill. I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), for Ipswich (Tom Hunt), for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) and for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), and Members across the House, for the keen interest they have shown in this matter. I will keep my opening remarks short, as I know that many Members are keen to contribute, and I shall wind up later on.

The Government remain steadfast in their commitment to delivering the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 report’s recommendations. This Bill is an important first step in delivering those recommendations. The Government have always been clear that all residents should be safe and feel safe in their homes. That is why we will be providing an additional £3.5 billion to fund the removal and replacement of unsafe cladding on residential buildings.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Christopher Pincher]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later on; let me conclude my initial remarks.

This will be targeted on the highest-risk buildings—that is, those buildings over 18 metres tall that have unsafe cladding. The scale of this investment should not be underestimated, with over £5 billion of taxpayers’ money, and more when the developer levy and the developer tax are taken into account. We have an ambitious timescale to ensure that remediation of unsafe cladding is completed at pace. We are also now seeing tangible progress from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors revising its guidance on EWS1 forms, lenders committing to adhering to RICS guidance, and more developers now allocating significant funds for remediation.

As parliamentarians, we have a duty to implement a clear framework and transparent legislation to support fire and building safety reform. I am afraid to say that, despite the best intentions of these Lords amendments—I absolutely accept the sincerity with which they have been posited—they are unworkable and impractical. They would make the legislation less clear, and they do not reflect the complexity involved in apportioning liability for remedial defects. I have had extensive conversations about the effects that the amendments might have with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood, who has pressed me hard on this, as have others. These amendments would also require extensive redrafting of primary legislation, resulting in delays to the commencement of the Fire Safety Bill and to our overall programme. They could also have unintended and possibly perverse consequences for those that the amendments are intended to support, and we would still be no further forward in resolving these issues.

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) when I return to speak later, but let me say in concluding my opening remarks that we cannot accept these Lords amendments and we encourage the House to vote against them and for the Government amendments.

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

I am pleased that so many Members have put in to speak today. I will keep my remarks fairly brief, but I want to make three points. First, thank goodness I am not standing at this Dispatch Box again and pleading with the Government to agree at the very least a timetable to implement the vital fire safety measures from the first phase of the Grenfell inquiry. I am pleased that the Government have agreed in the other place to Labour’s suggestion of a timetable. Before the second anniversary of the Grenfell phase one recommendations, the Government have committed to regulations to implement them, and that will be by October this year. They said that this would delay the Bill, that it would be too complicated and that it would be too hard to do, but they have now agreed to a version of it. It is not quite what we wanted, but it is something close.

I have lost count of the number of times we have voted on the Grenfell recommendations and the number of times we have been pushed back, and it is quite extraordinary that the Government have taken so long to get us here. Labour’s previous amendment, which the Government have now agreed on a timetable to deliver, would do four things: the owners of buildings that contain two or more sets of domestic premises would share information with their local fire and rescue service about the design and make-up of the external walls; they would complete regular inspections of fire entrance doors; they would complete regular inspections of lifts; and they would share evacuation and fire safety instructions with residents and the fire service. These measures are straightforward and are supported by key stakeholders.

In the Minister’s letter that sets out details of the Government’s concession, he wrote that the Government would lay regulations to make responsible persons produce and regularly review evacuation plans for their building. The Grenfell recommendation, and our amendment, said more than that. They said that that information should also be shared with local fire and rescue services and residents. I would like the Minister to clarify in his closing remarks who these evacuation plans will be shared with and how this will be enforced, but I am grateful to him for seeing sense and heeding our calls to do the right thing, because it has been ages.

I come to the second point that I want to make. It has been nearly four years since 72 people so tragically lost their lives in the Grenfell Tower fire. In those four years, Grenfell United, the families, the survivors and the entire community have fought tirelessly for change. It is thanks to their hard work and dedication that the Government have finally agreed to implement the recommendations by October 2021. I pay tribute to them and their ongoing fight for justice. I pay tribute to our firefighters who keep us safe every day. We know that cuts to their service have hit hard—response times are inevitably affected, and morale is affected—and now they have a pay freeze, which is no way to thank them for going above and beyond during the covid pandemic.

I come to my third and final point. Leaseholders should not have to fund the cost of fire safety remediation works when they are not to blame and they are the least able to pay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I have great respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and his expertise in this policy area. I accept that the amendment is not at all perfect, but it is the only thing that is currently available to keep the issue in play, which is why, unfortunately, I cannot support the Government tonight. I had hoped we would have a solution by now.

The simple point is that whoever is at fault—there may be a number of them as this has happened over a period of time—the people who are not at fault are the leaseholders who bought in good faith. They relied on surveys and regulations that appeared to suggest that their properties were in order and had no reason to think otherwise. It therefore cannot be right that they are out of pocket, regardless of the height of the building. I quite understand that there may be perfectly good reasons for using 18 metres as a threshold of risk for prioritising work, but it has no relevance to responsibility, moral or otherwise, so it is an arbitrary cut-off point.

I had hoped that Ministers would have taken the opportunity between the previous debate and this one to come up with a further scheme. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister, who I know is trying to do the right thing and has put a great deal of money into the matter, to continue to think again and work urgently on this matter because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) said, time is pressing. The only people who do not have the cash flow are the leaseholders. By all means go after those at fault, be they builders, developers or contractors, but in the meantime we cannot leave leaseholders, who have done nothing wrong, facing bankruptcy because they are effectively in negative equity and are having to fork out for a significant amount of costs, as are my constituents at Northpoint in Bromley.

This is destroying people’s lives. None of us wants to do that and I know that the Government do not want to do that. To find a solution, we have to cover the costs for those people who are not in a position to fund these costs over the length of time between this Bill imposing a liability on them and the Building Safety Bill coming along perhaps 18 months—12 months at best—down the track. It is covering that gap that needs to be done. That gap has to be covered in a way that treats and protects all leaseholders equitably regardless of the height of the building. I hope that the Government will use the opportunity of this going back to the other House to think again and urgently to crystallise a solution that we can all join around. The intentions are the same across the House, but we must have something that does not leave leaseholders—those who are not at fault—exposed. It is not a question of caveat emptor. They relied on professional advice and assurances. They are not the ones at fault. Be it loan or grant, either way they should not be picking up the tab for something that was not, ultimately, their responsibility.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this debate. Members have spoken passionately and sincerely on behalf of their constituents. I think that everybody, from all parts of the House, wants to see the cladding scandal ended once and for all, and ended quickly, which is what the Government are about.

[Stephen Doughty]

rose—

[Christopher Pincher]

As I did not give way to the hon. Gentleman earlier, I suppose that it is only right for me to give way to him now.

[Stephen Doughty]

The Minister is being very generous. He kindly agreed the other day to speak to his ministerial colleagues about getting a sit-down meeting with Julie James, the Welsh Minister for Housing and Local Government, to resolve some of these unanswered issues. She did write on 10 February to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. She has yet to receive a reply. Can we please get that meeting arranged and please get some answers to her very reasonable questions on behalf of leaseholders in Wales?

[Christopher Pincher]

Not only did the hon. Gentleman speak to me in the Chamber, but, even more importantly, he spoke to me in the Tea Room. I shall certainly ensure that he gets a response as swiftly as possible.

In the time that I have, let me speak to the effectiveness of this amendment. As parliamentarians, no matter what the issue is before us, we have a duty, as I said earlier, to implement a clear framework and transparent legislation to support fire and building safety reform. Despite the best intentions of those who have tabled this amendment, I have to say that it is unworkable and impractical. There are three specific points that I should raise. First, the amendment does not take into account remedial works that arise outside of the fire risk assessment process—for example, costs identified as a result of a safety incident or building works taking place. In such cases, this will not prevent costs being passed on, so it does not deliver what Members want it to do. Furthermore, if these amendments were to be added to the Bill and become law without the necessary redrafting of the legislation, the Government, and thereby the taxpayer, would in all likelihood fall liable to protracted action by building owners in the courts. Building owners could use litigation to claim for costs that they feel are entitled to be pursued from leaseholders. While that litigation is ongoing, there could be further delays to construction work carried out on urgent remediation. It could be a waste of time and a waste of taxpayers’ money. Redrafting the Bill is not something that can be done at the stroke of a pen. It requires parliamentary counsel and parliamentary draftsmen to work at it to ensure that any changes are sound and that any secondary legislation is also prepared, so that the Government, and thereby the taxpayer, can avoid legal challenge. We would not be able to get it done in this Session.

Furthermore, the amendments do not reflect the complexity involved in apportioning liability for remedial defects. The Government have announced how they will distribute costs, including from developers and industry, through our upcoming levy and tax. A decision through this amendment to pass all these costs to the building owner would be overly simplistic and it could be counter-productive. It would be self-defeating if landlords, faced with remediation costs, simply walked away. Many could do that. They could activate an insolvency procedure and just walk away. That is not about protecting freeholders, but about protecting leaseholders. It is about their position, because if leaseholders are left behind as the owners walk away, they would be in the same position as they are now, with no certainty on how works would be paid for or when they will be done. There is a real risk that this amendment could make the problem worse for leaseholders. We would be left in a situation where there would be delays to the commencement of the Fire Safety Bill, delays to our wider building safety programme, greater uncertainty for leaseholders and, quite possibly, unintended and deleterious consequences for them. We would not be any further forward in resolving the issue.

Public Landmarks Review

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

May I begin by congratulating both my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) on securing this debate and the other Members who have spoken on their excellent, sincere and considered contributions? I always listen with great care and attention to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and, as far as I am able, I always do what I can to achieve his objects. No one, either, would ever question my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for being anything other than punchy and patriotic in the pursuit of his constituents’ interests.

The starting point, and the end point, for this Government is that it is our duty to protect our nation’s history, traditions and heritage. We believe that our history shapes us, that we are poorer if we seek to deny that history, and that the right approach to statues and other public landmarks, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) attested, however contentious they may be to some, is to retain and, if it is appropriate, to explain them to enable better public understanding and respect.

Many Members, today and in previous debates in the House, have spoken proudly of the tradition that we have in this country of commemorating individuals with statues to acknowledge their contributions to society, whether at local or national level. Those erected by local communities can be a lasting and shared source of local pride. Frank Whittle, the inventor of the jet engine, is commemorated in Coventry, where he is from, and in Lutterworth, Rugby and a number of other places around our country. Edith Cavell’s memorial near Trafalgar Square was erected by public subscription, as was the statue in my own town, Tamworth, to Sir Robert Peel, a man who repealed the corn laws, emancipated the Catholics, founded the police—a force for liberal good in our country, even though last year there was a flurry on social media to pull him down.

My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington spoke about his concerns at the action of the Mayor of London in setting up his commission for diversity in the public realm, with the purported intention of increasing the representation of London’s great and diverse communities in its built environment, but the real aim of which seems to be to airbrush the past and demolish public monuments to our history. Certainly, its composition is concerning—as my hon. Friend suggested, one member has already been forced to resign—and although I have written to the Mayor about its true cost and its true intentions, he has yet to reply to me, so I share my hon. Friend’s concerns.

[Marco Longhi]

Does the Minister therefore agree that the £1.1 million that the Mayor purportedly intends to spend on his commission for statues should be spent on better supporting Londoners at this very difficult time, and that the Leader of the Opposition should direct the Mayor to do exactly that?

[Christopher Pincher]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who of course has a statue to the Earl of Dudley looking over his town in the west midlands. The Leader of the Opposition should take his Mayor in hand, but I am afraid that I must borrow from Euripides, who famously said that those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. If Euripides were with us today, he would probably say that those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make members and leaders of the Labour party, because the leader of the Labour party has gone mad. He has been captured. He is a POW—a prisoner of woke. I trust that he will be released so that he can direct his friend the Mayor of London to pay greater attention to Londoners, because it will be for them, ultimately, to judge whether that £1.1 million of public expenditure is spent on statue destruction, or whether the Mayor might better spend his time and the public’s money trying to put up more homes for Londoners rather than pull down their statues in public parks.

I suspect that the Mayor’s real interest is to distract us and draw our attention away from his lamentable failure to build a better future for Londoners. To borrow from Churchill—by the way, his statues are going nowhere—Sadiq Khan is a very modest Mayor with much to be modest about. Let me be quite clear: his lopsided commission has no mandate to advocate for the removal of existing statues. The Government’s policy is that historic statues should be retained and explained rather than removed, and any such proposed removal of an historic statue should rightly be, and will be, subject to planning permission or listed building consent.

[Sir John Hayes]

And, I hope, to acclaim. In congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) on securing the debate, may I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to support the idea that I advanced of more plaques and statues, particularly for winners of the VC and GC, who, by the way, are drawn from all ethnicities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

I am always prepared to recognise the honour done for us by those great men who won the Victoria Cross, from wherever they hailed, and I certainly hope that more plaques to their memory are forthcoming.

By doing the things that we are proposing to do, we will give the whole community—not simply the self-loathing, Britain-hating perpetual revolutionaries who seem to have captured the commanding heights of the Labour party, but the whole community—the opportunity to engage and to give their views. Additionally, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has the power to call in planning applications, and he has set out his intention to exercise that power if appropriate.

It is clear from the contributions in this debate and in the wider public discourse that, with the passing of time and changing values in society, there will be examples of those who have had statues erected to them whose own story—and perhaps their family’s—is complex. Many statues and other historical objects were created by generations with different perspectives on right and wrong from our own. Some of what they believed to be virtues, we now believe to be vices. But it is better—far better—to remember that history, reflect that not everyone in the past was perfect, and retain that history and its monuments, so that we can all better understand it, not destroy it as the Marxist, wokeist ideologues would insist on.

We have a proud and rich history. Britain led the way in the abolition of slavery; we were foremost in abolishing it. The Royal Navy was one of the seminal forces sweeping it from the seas. So when we hear of those who argue that some public memorials are an abomination and that statues of people who profited from the transatlantic slave trade should be taken down, this Government’s clear view is that doing so is quite misguided. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington asked, where does that misguided logic end? Are we to take down the statue of Julius Caesar from Tower Hill, for we can be pretty sure that he brought slaves with him in 54 BC and doubtless carried away a few enslaved ancient Britons when he left? Do we want the Elgin marbles taken down and hidden away because they appear to deny the existence of slavery in ancient Greece? That is where that logic leads, but where does it end?

Our view of retaining and, where right, explaining is shared by Historic England, the Government’s advisory body on the historic environment. If we remove difficult and contentious parts of our heritage, we risk harming our own understanding of our collective past; yet that is where some of these book burners of the internet age are set on going. Ours is a great country with a proud and illustrious heritage of democracy, freedom and rule of law, and that is why we do not gloss over any failures in our past, nor seek to destroy the historic heritage that can help us understand those failures.

I am pleased to update the House on the changes that the Government are bringing forward to ensure the protection of our heritage. The planning system plays a crucial part in conserving and enhancing our heritage. I am pleased to tell the House that under the changes coming into effect in the spring, any proposals to remove an unlisted public landmark will require an application for planning permission, giving communities the right to be consulted. We are also introducing notification requirements to ensure that the Secretary of State is made aware of any contentious applications and has the opportunity to exercise his call-in powers if he considers that appropriate

History, by its nature, can be contentious. But rest assured: the Government will act to ensure that our national heritage is protected from those who would seek to remove or deface it. The Spanish philosopher, Jorge Santayana, wrote in his “The Life of Reason”—and Churchill often quoted him—

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”.

For the sake of our remembered history, so that we do not repeat it—and, please, for the sanity of the Labour party—let us agree to remember and explain our past, not seek to destroy it.

Question put and agreed to.

Residential Property: Evictions

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Thursday 11th March 2021 Written Statements

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

I wish to update the House on the measures taken to support renters following the Prime Minister’s announcement of the roadmap for national restrictions in England.

To support renters as we move towards the lifting of most restrictions in June, the Government announced yesterday that we will extend the ban on bailiff enforcement of evictions and the requirement for landlords to provide six months’ notice when seeking possession of residential property. These measures will be extended to 31 May, to continue to protect public health and minimise the effect on essential public services. Exemptions will continue to apply to both of these measures in the most serious circumstances.

Ensuring that renters remain protected until the end of May, while national restrictions remain in place, will align with the Government’s broader strategy for protecting public health and will continue to help reduce pressure on essential public services as we start to move out of lockdown.

The ban on bailiff enforcement

Legislation will be brought forward shortly to continue to prevent bailiffs from attending residential premises to enforce a writ or warrant of possession except in the most egregious circumstances.

I am grateful to landlords for their continued forbearance during this unprecedented time. It will remain important for landlords to be able to advance cases in the most serious circumstances, and therefore exemptions will remain for:

cases where the court is satisfied that the claim is against trespassers who are persons unknown;

cases where the court is satisfied that the order for possession was made wholly or partly on the grounds of antisocial behaviour, nuisance or false statements, domestic abuse in social tenancies or substantial rent arrears at least equivalent to six months’ rent; or

where the property is unoccupied and the court is satisfied that the order for possession was made wholly or partly on the grounds of death of the tenant.

These measures only apply to England and they are expected to end on 31 May 2021, as we transition out of emergency measures, subject to public health advice and progress of the national road map.

Longer notice periods

A landlord seeking to recover possession of residential property must give notice to the tenant before they start court proceedings. We know that many tenants will leave accommodation at the end of their notice period, before the case reaches court. The Government laid yesterday a statutory instrument to extend measures in the Coronavirus Act 2020 that require landlords to provide tenants with six months’ notice, except in the most serious circumstances. The statutory instrument applies to England only.

This means that most renters served notice during April and May will be able to stay in their homes until October and November, giving them time to find support or alternative accommodation.

Shorter notice periods will continue to apply for egregious cases, recognising the continuing effect these circumstances have on landlords and the broader community. These cases include antisocial behaviour (including rioting), false statement, in certain cases of domestic abuse in the social sector, rent arrears over six months, where the tenant has passed away or where the tenant does not have the right to rent under immigration law. This approach provides balance for both landlords and tenants during the ongoing risk of covid-19, by continuing to provide tenants with enhanced protections while allowing landlords access to justice quicker where proportionate.

The Government will consider the best approach to tapering down notice periods from 1 June, taking into account public health requirements, progress with the road map and the longer-term transition into our broader programme of reform.

Guidance and wider support measures

We will update our covid-19 renting guidance for landlords, tenants and local authorities to ensure it reflects the latest information. We will also update our guidance to support landlords and tenants in the social and private rented sectors navigate the possessions process.

The Chancellor has also confirmed that financial support will remain in place, continuing to support renters in paying their living costs. This will include the support for businesses to pay staff salaries through the coronavirus job retention scheme and the boost to universal credit, both of which have been extended until September 2021.

[HCWS843]

Residential Leaseholders and Interim Fire Safety Costs

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Wednesday 10th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) and all other Members who have spoken on behalf of their constituents and contributed so passionately and eloquently to this debate on a matter that we all care deeply about. The consequences of the Grenfell fire were catastrophic for the people and the community involved, and have been complex and wide ranging for many people across our country as a result. That is why—then, since and now—we are taking clear and decisive action to provide an unprecedented sum of money, more than £5 billion of taxpayers’ funds, for building safety to protect those most at risk.

In the short time that I have I will speak to the issue of cladding remediation and also to the title of the debate, interim fire safety costs. I will answer as many hon. Members’ questions as I can. If I do not complete that task in the allotted time, I am happy to follow up and write to Members subsequently.

The biggest cost facing leaseholders affected by building safety is cladding remediation. It is unacceptable for leaseholders to face those unaffordable costs. That is why we committed £1.6 billion of taxpayers’ money to accelerate the removal and replacement of unsafe cladding on the highest risk buildings—those over 18 metres in height—after the Grenfell tragedy. That was driven by the remediation of the most dangerous form of cladding, as the House will know—aluminium composite material cladding. I am pleased to say that as a result of that disbursement, 95% of those high-rise buildings with ACM have either begun or completed remediation work. It is also fair to say that the private sector has stepped up to the plate with respect to ACM, as something like 50% of the privately held buildings with ACM cladding have had the ACM removed as a result of the buildings’ owners, the developers or the warranty holders acting to replace the cladding.

However, we have not stopped there. We recognise that there are other forms of dangerous cladding on high-rise buildings and we have acted to remediate those through the building safety fund. Something like 500 registered buildings with other types of unsafe cladding are now proceeding with a full application to that fund, but we have not stopped there, either. We have allocated £3.5 billion to remediate all buildings above 18 metres that have unsafe cladding, an investment that totals over £5.1 billion. I suspect that when all of the taxpayer funds are added up, significantly more money will be spent by the taxpayer to remediate this problem.

I would also like to explain why 18 metres is the threshold trigger. It is because it is right that we prioritise those buildings that represent the greatest risk to residents in the event of a fire. Home Office analysis shows that buildings between 18 and 30 metres in height are four times more likely to suffer a fire with fatalities or serious casualties than any other apartment building. Building standards become more restrictive over 18 metres; the presumption on firefighting tactics changes over 18 metres. It is a well-established boundary used by the National Fire Chiefs Council in its operational guidance, it is used by the Building Research Establishment, and it is used in the independent expert guidance that we have received.

Why cladding? It is because we know that it acts as a fire accelerant and that is of greatest risk in high-rise blocks. That is a fact noted in the independent report by Dame Judith Hackitt and the independent advisory panel, to which Dame Judith spoke in a newspaper article, again just a few weeks ago. That is why we focus on cladding and why we focus on buildings over 18 metres in height.

A number of right hon. and hon. Members asked questions during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) asked for some clarification on what is covered by the remediation package that we have tabled. I can tell him that the remediation package includes works that are integral to the safe remediation and removal of cladding on buildings that are at risk, so it includes such things as fire cavity barriers. They, too, are included in the package, if they need to be remediated as part of the safe removal of the unsafe cladding.

The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) asked whether I would clarify that no leaseholder will be required to fund additional works as a condition of receiving Government funding for cladding remediation. I was pleased to answer a similar question that he had tabled in written form and I am pleased to confirm here in the Chamber that, as I said then, no leaseholder will be required to fund additional works as a condition of receiving Government funding for cladding remediation. I hope that that answer helps the right hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) asked whether we are engaged with the devolved Assemblies in Scotland and Wales. Yes we are, and we will continue to discuss the Building Safety Bill with them; I think we meet them on a monthly basis to do so.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) asked about leaseholders who are also freeholders, and whether they would be able to benefit from the waking watch fund. The answer is yes.

As a result of the package that we have pulled together—as a result of the £5.1 billion in public money that we are spending, the tax and levy that we will impose on the developers, and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ announcing a few days ago, in addition to its announcement last November, that the scope of the EWS1 form is going to be significantly reduced so that in total nearly 1 million households will now no longer have to face an EWS1 form and are effectively de-scoped from the risks that they had previously thought they might face—we are trying, I think successfully, to persuade the risk industry and the lending sector that they need to get risk, lending and valuation back into proper proportion. They must put aside the “computer says no” approach, properly assess the risk of buildings and their fire hazard, and properly ascribe value to them again, so that people living in those properties can get on with their lives. We are confident that as a result of that package the risk and lending industry will do that, and that we can begin to move on—and the people in those homes can begin to move on.

We have also discussed interim measures in the debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Vauxhall for addressing the point so eloquently. As I said, public safety is our first priority. We want to target funding where it is needed most, removing and replacing unsafe cladding to make the homes and the people who live in them safer more quickly. We have followed the National Fire Chiefs Council’s guidance to support the installation of waking watch or a common fire alarm where we need to ensure there are proper measures in place to guard against tragedy in the event of fire. However, we are also clear that those measures are a short-term strategy. They are a vital first step in ensuring that a building remains safe, but not an alternative—there is no alternative—to remediation. That is the reason we have spent so much time and are disbursing so much money to ensure that the problem is properly resolved.

As we have heard, too many waking watches have been in place for far too long. Leaseholders are being left to pick up often exorbitant bills. Data has shown that the most cost-effective means of protecting residents’ safety is through a fire alarm system. That, again, is evidence-based, and guidance is published by the National Fire Chiefs Council. That is why we are providing £30 million for the costs of installing an alarm system in high-rise buildings—again following the guidance of Dame Judith Hackitt and others—which have waking watch systems, where the costs are being passed on to residents; because those buildings have the highest risk and those residents face the highest costs. The fund opened on 31 January in all areas except for private sector buildings in Greater London. The deadline for applications is 14 March and the objective is to install those alarms as quickly as possible.

In contradiction to what the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) said, we are moving quickly to disburse those funds: £22 million has already been delivered to local or regional authorities, because they are best placed to know the buildings that most need local support. In London, subject to a mayoral decision, the Greater London Authority will administer the fund in Greater London, and the fund will open to private sector buildings in London on 18 March. We felt it was wrong to delay the implementation of the fund and wait for London, which of course has the largest number of high-rise and at-risk buildings. We did not think that other areas should have to wait. In Birmingham and the west midlands, for example, Mayor Andy Street has been quick on the case, and other authorities have done the same, so I encourage the GLA and the Mayor of London to take advantage of the funds and disburse them as quickly as possible, to ensure that the people of London who are facing exorbitant waking watch costs can take advantage of this opportunity.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall also talked about the number of eligible buildings in London. We are taking sensible, clear advice, and the National Fire Chiefs Council has identified 400 buildings across the country that are at risk of fire and in need of support for waking watch remediation, 216 of which are in London. That is why we are confident that the £30 million we have allocated will be sufficient to deal with the challenge of waking watch in those high-rise buildings where the costs are being passed on to the leaseholder.

There is a shared desire across the House to ensure that residents are safe in their homes, and that leaseholders are protected from unaffordable costs. That is why we introduced the scheme and the generous financial package to support leaseholders in buildings less than 18 metres. I suspect that the announcements made by RICS in the past several months will also support them, and that the lending industry and risk industry, getting itself back into proper proportion, will also support them.

These debates are vital as we work together to protect leaseholders, so I thank the hon. Lady again for raising the issue and for speaking so passionately and eloquently in support of her constituents. I thank all other right hon. and hon. Members for doing the same. This is a crucial issue for us. We will continue to address it and we will bring forward the building safety Bill as soon as possible.