Building Safety Defects

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Lord Watts

Monday 7th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, it is very clear that we must differentiate the need to protect leaseholders from finding the funds to pay for these buildings. That is why my right honourable friend in the other place has sought to raise, voluntarily in the first instance, some £4 billion for medium-rise cladding. But we need to look at how we protect the leaseholder and get the polluter to pay. For the detail, as I say, noble Lords will have to wait until Valentine’s Day.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, have the Government learned their lesson about being so dependent on the industry when they are making building regulations? Is there not a need now to increase the public ability to set these regulations and not depend on the industry itself?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, that is a very good point, in the sense that we need to have a proper relationship with industry. We need to recognise that, in order to build homes—frankly, we do need great developers and good construction companies to do that—but we need to ensure that the regulatory system works. One of the reasons for Grenfell was the total failure in the regulatory system, from Whitehall right through to local authorities. Again, that is why we need the Building Safety Bill.

UK Community Renewal Fund

Debate between Lord Greenhalgh and Lord Watts

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister saying that there is nothing that the Government and this fund can do to help councils and areas such as Knowsley to level up?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

Of course I am not saying that. I am saying that there is a methodology and approach and that they are transparent. We have funded those bids according to that methodology. There is nothing controversial about that; there is nothing to see here.