Building Safety Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate on a Bill that is widely supported across the House. I remind noble Lords of my interests as a member of Kirklees Council and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

First, a question: why is it that regulation is seen by some as an unnecessary obstacle to business until a tragedy occurs? It has taken, as I think all noble Lords have said, the deaths of 72 people at Grenfell Tower nearly five years ago for building safety to be taken seriously once more. To respect the memory of the 72 and all those whose lives have been scarred forever by that dreadful fire, the Bill must provide the deep-seated reforms that are essential to prevent a repeat of Grenfell. Secondly, the Bill absolutely must ensure that existing leaseholders and tenants do not pay for any of the remediation work, such as replacing flammable cladding and rectifying construction failures such as the failure to include fire breaks.

Noble Lords from across the House have rightly welcomed the Bill, which will make sure that legislation and regulation reflect modern construction methods and materials. It is, as my noble friend Lord Stunell described, “a once in a lifetime opportunity to regulate what is currently a dysfunctional industry”. Unfortunately, the Government have failed to grab that opportunity fully and define new standards of housing construction and accountability for those standards for all new housing. As my noble friends Lord Foster and Lord Stunell pointed out, here was an opportunity to set new standards for energy insulation, expectations for zero-carbon homes and heightened fire safety features; and for a step-change improvement in regulation, inspection, and enforcement. However, the Government have chosen to focus on a narrow element of the housing construction industry: that of so-called higher-risk buildings. That is truly a missed opportunity.

On the proposals in the Bill, Dame Judith Hackitt’s 2018 report, Building a Safer Future—which I have read—proposed a systemic reform of building regulation, and the Bill is incorporating into legislation the safety system that she laid out. The framework, which creates a hierarchy of responsibilities, is a considerable improvement on the existing position. The new building safety regulator will be embedded within the Health and Safety Executive, which seems appropriate and positive. Duty-holders, responsible for different aspects of design and construction, will be accountable to the new regulator. What is not clear are the skills and expertise that are required, as my noble friend Lord Shipley said, and whether these already exist and need to be codified or whether there will be delays in implementation because new training programmes will be necessary.

Once a higher-risk building is occupied, a whole new, and costly, regime is proposed. Leaseholders already pay considerable sums for a managing agent or equivalent posts, which are not regulated—anyone can set up as a managing agent, with no experience of property management. The Bill proposes the role of “accountable person”. Does the Minister anticipate that managing agents will take on that role? As the accountable person will be responsible for appointing a building safety manager, can the Minister explain what qualifications this postholder will have, the anticipated additional cost to leaseholders and the accountability of this postholder to those required to pay for the work?

I was speaking to leaseholders only yesterday. One said to me that she already pays a service charge of £6,000 a year, and that it is estimated she will have to pay a further £2,000 on top of that for a building safety manager. There surely has to be a better way forward than piling costs on to leaseholders—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, who referred to that. Can the Minister explain whether these posts will be expected to report to the building safety regulator?

What powers will residents have in this new regime, either as tenants or leaseholders? I appreciate that there will be a new ability for tenants to refer complaints straight to the ombudsman, but what rights will leaseholders have to ensure that they are getting value for money from these new posts? Will all inspection reports be made available to all residents? Will they have a right to challenge overcharging for these new posts and for any repairs that are deemed necessary? There is the opportunity in this Bill to strengthen the rights of leaseholders, one for which I am sure we will be placing amendments in Committee because, unfortunately, it is an opportunity that is being missed at the moment.

My noble friends Lord Stunell and Lady Brinton rightly pointed to the disaster that is the existing building inspection system. At the heart of this particular problem was the decision, 20-plus years ago, to enable developers to appoint their own building inspectors, under contract to that company and therefore hardly independent. Perhaps some of the construction failings exposed post-Grenfell are a consequence. The part-privatisation of building control also denuded local government of building inspectors. That, combined with the very large cuts to local government funding, meant fewer inspectors and therefore a less tightly regulated system for construction. Light-touch regulation can have dreadful consequences in this sphere.

Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Harris, spoke about construction materials, and rightly so. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry is exposing some of the irregularities, or indeed worse, by manufacturers and suppliers. A single clause, Clause 128, attempts to remedy this. However, it would be helpful if the Minister could explain the system for testing new products. My noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville highlighted issues around fire doors in this regard.

I would like to know from the Minister what role the British Research Establishment and the British Board of Agrément will have in testing and recommending building products. They are not mentioned in the Bill. It will be good to hear the Minister’s response to that, and to the very interesting suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, of taking a wider view of safety. I look forward to discussing that proposal further. This falls in line with many noble Lords who have raised the issue of safe staircases—that would come into that general sphere. There is room, within the Bill, to make amendments to that effect.

Last of all these issues, but in no way least, is the failure so far of the Government to make practical and realistic responses to the cladding and remediation crisis. Just a few weeks ago, the Secretary of State made a bold announcement, in which he said that:

“Government must take their share of responsibility”,—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/22; col. 283]


that manufacturers have shown “insufficient contrition”, that those who profited will pay the price, and that leaseholders are “blameless”.

The aim is to extract £4 billion from the companies that developed the buildings in order to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from blocks between 11 and 18 metres. It is absolutely based on the polluter pays principle. I congratulate those leaseholders who have campaigned tirelessly for four years to get to the position we have today, where everyone across this House has confirmed they are in support of that principle. However, achieving that aim looks increasingly difficult. The noble Lord, Young of Cookham, emphasised how difficult it is going to be. I read in the media, only last week, I think, that developers are already consulting their legal advisers, which undoubtedly means they do not wish to pay and will find a means not to. What then? The Government appear rightly to have turned to materials companies to also contribute. Can the Minister tell the House the total sum that has so far been contributed by both developers and materials companies?

There is an urgent need to know, as invoices for remediation are with leaseholders now. The deadline for payment is this coming April, for many of them, and housing experts expect numerous defaults unless effective action is taken by the Government. Will the Minister let the House know when action will be taken to fulfil the promise made by the Government—which I applaud—that leaseholders will not have to pay a penny piece towards remediation? They need to know; we need to know.

As the Minister well knows, leaseholders face not just the costs of the removal of unsafe cladding—ACM cladding and other types that are flammable as well—but of construction failings, such as the lack of fire breaks. The Government have stated that leaseholders will not have to pay. We need to see essential steps taken to ensure they are not burdened with these totally unaffordable bills. Until we know, this will not do. Leaseholders have done everything right and nothing wrong; they are completely innocent victims in this building safety scandal.

This is a complex Bill with positive intent. Opportunities for more comprehensive reform have been missed and some elements will need to be amended to fulfil the aims that we all have to improve the Bill and, in the words of the Hackitt report, build a safer future. I look forward to working with the Minister and colleagues from across the House to make what is already a good Bill a much better one, and to make sure that leaseholders do not pay a penny towards remediation costs.

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 21st February 2022 Grand Committee

I feel passionately about this; I hope that comes across. I feel that I am constantly saying “We need to do this” in every debate on legislation where there is an opportunity, but it never actually happens. I hope that the Minister will listen to my plea with some sympathy.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise: I was not here at the beginning of Committee due to flooding on the track. There was no electricity on the lines so the north was cut off—my part of the north, anyway. I draw the Committee’s attention to my register of interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a member of Kirklees Council. I will speak particularly to Amendment 11, which I have co-signed with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.

It is clear that the role of building inspector is absolutely critical in ensuring that buildings comply with approved plans and are built in accordance with building regulations. It is also evident from tragic incidents and residents’ concerns that some buildings have been constructed in breach of building regulations —we have already heard that this afternoon—and that the constructors have managed to get away with it. This Bill is an opportunity to scrutinise these issues and agree a more effective inspection process.

The Bill proposes the new role of building safety regulator to be the ultimate voice for inspection and advice on building safety. The regulator will be part of the wider Health and Safety Executive; that seems right to me. The HSE is a respected body with wide expertise in safety matters. Building safety and inspection need simplicity for clarity, as well as relevant expertise, training and access to advice.

The regulation and inspection of building safety in the Bill fall into two distinct parts: construction and post construction. It is the construction part that we are dealing with now. On the construction element, the Bill provides for the building safety regulator to be to building inspector for buildings over 18 metres. I can understand that, because such buildings are more complex and the safety risks are greater, but there has never been an explanation as to why it is 18 metres. I look forward to the Minister explaining why, apart from historical reasons, 18 metres is the cut-off point.

Of course, the definition of high-risk buildings—or “higher risk”, as they are now described—includes, as I understand it, care homes and hospitals. Can the Minister let us know whether the building safety regulator will be responsible for those buildings as well? It is positive that there will be a register held by the BSR for registered building inspectors, although it is not clear what qualifications and experience will be required to be such an inspector.

I turn to buildings under 18 metres, which do not have quite the same inspection regime, as we have heard. This complicates matters; we need simplicity. The BSR remains the final adjudicator. However, where the Bill falls short is in the complicated regime that is created for buildings under 18 metres. The Hackitt report made absolutely clear the need for accountable persons at each and every stage of construction—the gateway process—yet those waters are muddied for buildings under 18 metres. I thought I heard the Minister intimate earlier this afternoon that the powers of the building safety regulator may be extended to include buildings below 18 metres; perhaps he can make that clear.

Accountability is absolutely critical and, if the Committee gets my point, it should be an accountability that can be recovered. Building inspectors come and go but the one certain place where documents can be stored is in a local authority, because it has legal requirements to keep documents for a great many years. Given the argument from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, it seems to me that keeping building control within a local authority as the adjudicator for all buildings under 18 metres would be right. It is a question of having not just a regulator in a far-off place dealing with these buildings but people on the ground who know and understand the issues, the builders, the challenges in each area and how those challenges can be overcome. Some of that will be lost if there is this complexity about inspection in buildings below 18 metres.

On Amendment 43 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, the schedule absolutely should include buildings in multiple occupancy, which clearly have different challenges for building safety. Quite often, they can be older buildings that have been divided up into flats. Unless there is oversight of what goes on, those buildings could easily create building safety concerns. We all know of old buildings where we live—well, I guess a lot of us do—and where we have concerns about those that have been divided up. You fear for the safety of folk in them because of the lack of fire doors and escape routes, so this amendment, too, gets my wholehearted support.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has proposed Amendment 127 on flood resilience. I can tell the Committee that, certainly where I live, there will be more attenuation tanks under the ground than houses above it. I kid not; they were 10 or 15 metres long and three or four metres deep in a recent planning application. These issues are really important because more construction is taking place, if not exactly on flood plains, because that is not permitted, but where the flood risk is at level 2 or 3. Almost the worst thing that can happen to buildings is for them to be flooded. Where I live, the sirens went this weekend and people had parts of their homes flooded. That was in previously built homes; let us make sure that, in future, flood resilience for homes is part of the regulations under the Bill. Otherwise, we are just building homes to flood. Where I live, as I say, there is certainly a lot of concern on new-build estates that that will be the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving me that get-out. He is absolutely right that this is a complicated matter. You often have an old office building from which you create a new residential dwelling. We will check whether that is included in the purview of this Bill, and I will write to the noble Lord on that matter.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Permitted development rights are not about just the conversion of offices into homes. Where I live, many old mill buildings have been converted. Some of them, particularly the one called Titanic Mills, are very large. There are additional risks in those buildings. Will the elements in this Bill apply to those conversions as well?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I will combine the letter for the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Essentially, they want an answer to this question: “If you take a non-residential building, whether it is an office block or a Yorkshire mill, and you create a residential dwelling, will that be in scope when it comes to a new build?” The start point does not matter—it is non-residential—so is it included? I will answer both noble Lords in writing and lay a copy in the Library.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, just before I speak to the two amendments in this group, I ask the Minister whether I might be copied into the answer about permitted development rights on the previous group. We had an interesting case in Watford three years ago, where a small industrial unit was converted under permitted development rights into 15 tiny flats, and not one of the upstairs flats had windows. At the time, the planning inspector, who overruled the borough council, commented that it was within the rules and that planning permission was not required. Even the size of the flats was outside of the scope: normally, the minimum should have been 39 square metres; the largest flat was 22 square metres and the smallest was 16 square metres. I would be grateful if I could see the Minister’s written response.

I support both Amendments 5 and 10 laid by my noble friend Lord Stunell and signed by my noble friend Lady Pinnock. Dame Judith Hackitt talked about the importance of absolute clarity on who is responsible for which element of safety and control. The mistake in recent years has been to allow a multitude of different arrangements that have enabled a culture where matters of safety are somebody else’s problem; hence Dame Judith Hackitt’s focus in her report on the golden thread.

My noble friend Lord Stunell has talked eloquently about the issues thrown up by self-certification. I will not repeat his points, other than to say that destroying compartmentation by remediation works much reduces all other safety features, if not makes them redundant. I echo his concerns about that, and I would welcome the Minister’s response in order to see whether that is covered by the new arrangements. If it is not, these amendments should be given serious consideration.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I will just say how important these amendments are. Although they are brief and innocuous on the surface, they are fundamental to building safety. In the Grenfell Tower inquiry, it became clear that the window replacement was not as satisfactory as one would hope and that the gaps between the window frames and structure of the building were filled with a flammable material. That is why the second amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Stunell is so important.

That is just one example. Electrical safety is also critical. Self-certification is all very well, but having oversight, as the Hackitt report points to, helps to create clarity and accountability and to ensure that there is proper documentation. I hope that the Minister will be able to put our minds at rest but, if not, it is certainly one of the areas that we will want to pursue at the next stage of this debate.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak very briefly to Amendments 5 and 10 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I thank the noble Lord for presenting his amendments in such an eloquent manner and just want to reiterate the case for clarity from government on these important amendments, which we on these Benches agree with.

These amendments are asking for the whole of the works to be considered under one building control authority. It is important to recognise the case that is made here, which is that, under the doctrine of self-certification, there is a big gap. By supporting these amendments, I hope that the Minister can address the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, provided a good example and emphasised the Hackitt report’s references to accountability and making things clearer.

I echo the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about who is responsible. This amendment would put the whole of the works under one regulatory authority, and situations in which remediation works could lead to other building safety effects would be addressed clearly. This would be better overall for home owners and for the safety of citizens. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, we come to the—I am sorry, it is the turn of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

The Minister is far too eager.

During the course of the debate on this group of amendments, it has struck me that the challenge of this Bill is that it is primarily in response to a terrible tragedy. That has meant that the scope of the Bill is quite narrow, in response to the terrible Grenfell fire—perhaps rightly so but then, from what we have heard, opportunities to improve building safety do not come round that often. So it is not surprising that noble Lords across the piece are trying to say, “Why don’t we include this?” An opportunity to do so will not come again for a long time.

The passionate argument made by my noble friend Lord Foster is a case in point. Climate change is the most serious challenge facing all of us. If we do not address the building regulations to deal with the challenges it poses, we are definitely missing an opportunity. I apologise for my cough; it must be all this sitting and standing on crowded trains. Excuse me; I am okay. There is an opportunity for the Government to think about including the issues of the particular challenges of climate change as they relate to buildings during the debates on the Bill, otherwise it is an opportunity lost.

On Amendments 6 and 149 in the name of my noble friend Lord Stunell, who has spoken on them and to which I have added my name, building safety is not just about construction; it is about the safety of people once they live in them. Having been a councillor for a long time, I have heard about a number of issues from private sector and housing association tenants. The dangers of stairways in particular often come up. That is the reason for Amendment 6 in my name and that of my noble friend. We need to consider those risks and how they are going to be addressed. If people are concerned about them, what are we going to do about it? There is no obvious way of doing that at the minute.

Any new system—such as the one we have now, which is quite complicated in parts—ought to be reviewed. There is a huge gulf between theoretical improvements to building safety and actual improvements. Does the new system work? I bet that parts of it will not; that is almost inevitable. So let us agree to Amendment 149. I know that the Minister is going to stand up and say, “All the others I have said no to, but this one is such a good idea that we will agree to it”.

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th February 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Best (CB)]

In the absence of others, I rise to speak to Amendments 94A, 94B and 97A, which seek to strengthen the hand of the new homes ombudsman. At Second Reading, I congratulated the Government on introducing this new dispute resolution service. I noted just how important it was for consumers to have an accessible and effective means of handling their numerous complaints against shoddy workmanship, building defects and appalling service in rectifying these problems, not least by the oligopoly of volume housebuilders.

My concern has been that the new homes ombudsman will not have sharp enough teeth to deal with these powerful players, and at Second Reading I posed a number of questions to the noble Lord the Minister accordingly. He was able to give me some reassurance on the independence of the new ombudsman from the industry. The housebuilders will be required to fund the ombudsman’s costs and will have a major say on the New Homes Quality Board, which will oversee the ombudsman service and agree the code of practice to be used, but the Minister assured me that the independence of the ombudsman will be preserved.

Subsequently, I have received a lengthy and extremely helpful briefing from the chair of the New Homes Quality Board, Natalie Elphicke MP. From that it is clear that considerable effort has gone into ensuring the genuine independence of the new arrangements from the influences of the housebuilding industry. I am grateful for those reassurances and for other details of the work that has been going on behind the scenes, which I hope will now receive the publicity it deserves.

Only Parliament in statute can endow the ombudsman with legal powers, and two of my amendments before the Committee today are intended to bolster the ombudsman’s jurisdiction to achieve better behaviour by the housebuilders. At present, the Bill makes provision for the ombudsman to make “make recommendations” about changes that developers and housebuilders should make to improve standards of conduct or standards of quality of work where,

“following the investigation of a complaint the ombudsman identifies widespread or regular unacceptable standards of conduct or standards of quality of work”.

This is good stuff, and making recommendations to this end is an admirable task for the ombudsman. However, making recommendations is not the same as placing requirements upon the builders to up their game. Amendments 94A and 94B add a power for the ombudsman to go further and place “improvement requirements” on the members of the scheme—that is on all the builders and developers selling homes, where widespread unacceptable standards of conduct or quality of work are found.

Amendment 97A seeks to strengthen the ombudsman’s hand in another way. At present, the remit of the ombudsman only covers any faults, defects, snagging problems and so on during the first two years after a new-build home is purchased. Certain defects that emerge after two years would be the subject of a claim under the 10-year warranty, which is a compulsory part of the sales process. The trouble with this cut-off of two years for the ombudsman is that the warranties thereafter do not cover all kinds of issues that may not be catastrophic defects but are, none the less, aggravating problems that can cause endless anxiety, annoyance and cost to the purchaser.

One example is that roofs are not covered when properties are converted into new homes. A more commonplace example might be a buyer trying to get a French window repaired or replaced who raises this with the builder within the first few months but does not take it to a formal complaint to the ombudsman until after the two-year time limit is up. Or the buyer has a plumbing problem that gets fixed but returns, gets worse and finally leads to an ombudsman complaint, only to discover that the issue is now too late to be considered.

Amendment 97A would enable the owner to take a complaint to the ombudsman up to six years after the property was first purchased, where the complaint cannot be dealt with under the warranty. It will not be possible to complain about the warranty to the Financial Ombudsman Service, which handles redress in relation to warranty providers, because these warranties do not cover snagging and minor defects. Most warranties are pretty tightly drawn and some are worse than others. There is a strong case for giving the ombudsman the power to insist upon all warranties satisfying proper quality standards.

But specifically in relation to the housebuilders, what the consumer needs is for their complaint about the multiplicity of things that the builder gets wrong to be handled by the new homes ombudsman without the buyer being told that they are out of time. The purchaser may simply have been giving the builder the benefit of the doubt, or the particular defect may not have emerged immediately, or the buyer was just not sure of their rights. Two years is simply not long enough. Six years matches the traditional time for liability in other circumstances, as in the Defective Premises Act. The Legal Ombudsman, for example, will investigate claims up to six years after a relevant incident is reported.

While not detracting from my congratulations to the Government on bringing forward the proposals that will create a much-needed new homes ombudsman service, I believe that these amendments—which would place requirements for better behaviour on all house- builders and support the consumer for six years, instead of two, after their purchase—would sharpen the ombudsman’s teeth and help ensure that the new arrangements can make a real difference to the performance and behaviour of this industry.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we were waiting for the government Minister to introduce his amendments, so that we can then respond.

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

Sorry, my Lords, I am just learning as we go, as they say. I really admire this House because, obviously, this is the day following the night when Ukraine, a sovereign state, was invaded by Russia, and yet the serious business of government continues, as we consider this group of amendments. I always distil groups of amendments into three words or fewer, and I can do this one in two: these are “technical amendments”—it is not that hard really.

Before introducing the government amendments, let me start by saying that I have listened to speeches from two of my favourite speakers—everyone should have favourites. I have known the noble Lord, Lord Best, for some time; let us say that I was in my prime when we first met—a young man, with a future ahead of me—and we went off for a retreat in Windsor Castle, where Richard—the noble Lord—and I thought about big thoughts. I have a lot of sympathy for what the noble Lord said, but I shall read out my speech. However, the bottom line is that he has raised important points about how we can strengthen the new homes ombudsman—indeed, we need to make sure that the complaints process works across all types of housing and all type of tenures.

I should say to the noble Lord that we are probably going to look at this in a different way, so if I come across in any way negative, it is not because I do not agree with him, but we need to find the right vehicle to do this, which is probably, as I said before, through improved warranties. It is an absolute shocker that the warranty system for housing, which is the single biggest expenditure for an individual, is so poor—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has brought up on a number of occasions—and I have met with the warranty providers. We need to ensure that we extend the period of coverage that is available when you buy your own home. The period is slightly longer for public or social housing, where it is 12 years, but it is 10 years for private housing—and that in itself is odd, as these are still homes, whether they are social homes or private homes. So I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his thinking.

My absolute favourite rhetorical speaker is my noble friend Lord Blencathra. To be honest, I always remember to declare my interests because he always starts off by declaring his interests, so I declare all my interests—residential and commercial property interests—as set out in the register. I follow my noble friend in doing that. Also, I love the passion with which he says that, actually, it is important that people who break the law are penalised. Effectively, he is saying that what they have done is a crime and they should pay a lot of money for it, and I completely agree with those sentiments. If I in any way seem to be resisting in my speech, he will know—he has been in government and understands these things—that I am with him in spirit.

I will now speak to my amendments, which are government Amendments 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 27 and 29. These technical amendments make changes to Clause 41 and Schedule 5, to create an information sharing gateway between the regulatory authorities of the building control profession in England and Wales. The information sharing gateway also extends to a person to whom the regulatory authority has delegated registration functions under new Section 58Y.

Some registered building control approvers and building inspectors will operate in both England and Wales. These amendments will ensure that, if the regulatory authority in one nation identifies that a cross-border registered building control approver or building inspector has breached professional conduct or operational standards rules, it can share this information with the regulatory authority of the other nation, if appropriate. The regulatory authority of the other nation may then wish to take investigatory action to discern whether similar breaches are taking place by the same registered building control approver or building inspector in their jurisdiction. These amendments will therefore ensure that regulatory bodies can share information with one another to effectively regulate the building control profession.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I am sorry; I will slow down. Amendment 23 is a drafting change to Clause 52 and should be read alongside Amendment 26, which amends the same section of the Building Act 1984. Amendment 26 is a tidying-up amendment and is consequential on the repeal of Section 16 of the Building Act 1984, provided for by paragraph 20 of Schedule 5.

Amendment 133, to Clause 135, relates to the requirement for a regular, independent review of the building and construction products regulatory system, which must cover the effectiveness of the building safety regulator. This minor amendment defines the regulator’s functions to be covered by this review, using the same definition of those functions as in Part 2 of the Bill.

I turn to government Amendments 21, 25, 30, 41, 42, 61, 138 and 146. They do three things. First, they extend the application of the Building Act and building regulations to work on Crown buildings and by Crown bodies. The Government believe that the ownership of a building should not determine whether the new building safety regime, or building regulations requirements, should apply. There should be a consistent approach in how building safety legislation operates across the whole life cycle of a building.

Parts 2 and 4 of the Building Safety Bill apply to the Crown by virtue of Clause 137. The arrangements during the design and construction stages are being implemented by way of changes to the Building Act and, in due course, through building regulations. To apply the requirements for gateways and the golden thread to Crown buildings, the Building Act and the building regulations will need to be applied to work on Crown buildings. This new clause does that.

There is an uncommenced provision in Section 44 of the Building Act which would allow the substantive requirements of building regulations to be applied to the Crown. The drafting of that section has limitations, however, so we consider it better to start afresh by repealing and replacing Section 44. There are also some necessary exclusions to reflect that the Crown cannot be subject to criminal sanctions.

Secondly, the amendments make provision about the application of the Building Act and building regulations to work on the Palace of Westminster and other buildings on the Parliamentary Estate. At Second Reading, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester asked in his valedictory speech that the building regulations should apply to the restoration of the Palace of Westminster. This change to the Building Act will ensure that happens.

Finally, this new clause provides that if, in future, a building on the Parliamentary Estate came within scope of Part 4 of the Bill, that part would apply, subject to equivalent exclusions to those which affect how the Building Act and building regulations are being applied to the Crown and Parliament. These new sections of the Building Act and the Bill therefore ensure a consistent approach to building safety for Crown and parliamentary buildings.

Finally, I turn to government Amendments 90, 91, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 142 and 143, which relate to the new homes ombudsman provisions and expand them to Northern Ireland. These provisions have already been expanded to Scotland and Wales, so this ensures that new-build home buyers will have improved protection when things go wrong, no matter where they live in the UK.

Amendments 97 and 98 enable the provisions to work practically in Northern Ireland as a consequence of extending the scope of the provisions. Amendments 90, 91, 100, 103, 104, 105 and 106, include consultation requirements so that the Secretary of State must consult the relevant department in Northern Ireland designated by the First Minister or Deputy First Minister acting jointly before exercising powers concerning the scheme, or consult the Executive Office in Northern Ireland when a department has not been designated. The Secretary of State must consult the Northern Ireland Executive before making arrangements for the scheme, before making regulations requiring membership of the scheme, and arranging for that requirement to be enforced, and before a developers’ code of practice is issued, revised or replaced, either by the UK Government or by a third-party scheme provider with the Secretary of State’s approval.

Amendment 99 confers a power on the relevant national authority in Northern Ireland to add to the meaning of the term “developer” in the new homes ombudsman provisions in relation to homes in Northern Ireland, through regulations as appropriate, and following consultation with the other relevant national authorities. Amendments 95 and 96 include provision so that any externally run new homes ombudsman scheme involves the provision of information to the department in Northern Ireland designated by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly.

I hope that your Lordships will be pleased that the government amendments in my name today will help to deliver the effective implementation of the new regulatory regime, as well as providing redress for homeowners across the union.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

After that rapid run-through of about 40 amendments in this group, I shall respond to all of them as follows.

The first three amendments are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and I have to say that I have a lot of sympathy with what he said. Too many times, when new homes are built in the ward where I live and which I represent—and I declare again my interest as a councillor in Kirklees—roads are not completed to adoptable standards, because that is a good way of saving money. You sell the homes and move on quickly, and it is then really hard for enforcement to be effective, especially when the fines imposed are paltry in relation to the costs of enforcement. So I have a lot of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has said, and I hope that the Government could look again at that element of the building safety regime.

The next amendments referred to are those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, Amendments 94A, 94B and 97A, about the new homes ombudsman. I agree completely with what the noble Lord, Lord Best, has said—and the Minister is nodding, so I assume that he does too, and will make changes at Report. That is excellent. It is especially about the issue in relation to Amendment 97A, about extending the time limit to six years. People buy a new home, starry-eyed, and move in—excited, obviously—then one or two snagging issues arise; they try to get them resolved, they fail to do so, time runs out, the two years has gone and they have nowhere to go. So it is an excellent move to extend that to six years.

In my capacity as a local councillor, I have had to try to help people, and I have to say that I have failed, because we did not have these powers in place at the time, to do with people for whom simple things like plumbing was not done adequately. Their kitchens were being flooded out, and nobody would take on the responsibility because their time had run out. So I totally endorse the views expressed, and the hope expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Best, that the timeframe for the new homes ombudsman should be six years.

I heard what the Minister said before he introduced his great long list of amendments: that the Government were considering extending the warranties for new homes from 10 years. The trouble with warranties, unless they are really tightly worded, is that developers can find a loophole. You end up with a new home owner on their own trying to get recompense from a powerful business—often a David and Goliath situation and, in this case, David often does not win. That is why I support the move of the noble Lord, Lord Best, to give the new homes ombudsman—him or her; would it not be good if it was a woman?—power to deal with defects in new homes.

That brings us to the many government amendments that the Minister introduced, which he called technical. I always worry when Ministers call amendments technical. It is like saying, “Don’t worry about these. We will rush them through, nobody will notice and you might regret what we have to say.” I am pleased that he was very clear that the building safety regime will apply equally—I hope this is what I heard—to all buildings, regardless of where they are in the UK, be they Crown buildings or, indeed, the Palace of Westminster. I would love to have a discussion about the impact that will have on the restoration project.

Extending the scope of the Bill to include the devolved Governments has been rather rushed over. I have here the Welsh Government’s legislative consent memorandum on the Bill, in which the Senedd says that its consent is required to Clause 126, to which the Government have an amendment, about remediation and redress. I seek from the Minister some explanation that the Government will not ride roughshod over the powers of the Senedd. We have devolved Governments in three parts of the UK, and we need to respect their powers and work with those Governments. I am sure they would work with the Government as long as they do not try to act quickly, not get their consent but try to rush over them. That is no way to work.

I have here a long paper, which I am sure the Minister has seen, which outlines exactly what the Senedd hopes the Government will do. I am sure his civil servants will be able to give him a form of words which will enable me to reassure those of my colleagues who are concerned about Welsh affairs that the Government do not intend to intrude on the powers of the Senedd. With those words, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I will just pick up on one or two things. Before I do so, hearing other people’s declarations of interests, particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, makes me realise that mine on Monday was perhaps a little light, although it is in the register. I am a co-owner of let residential and commercial property, but nothing of the nature of long-leasehold flats—they are all individual houses.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, raises an absolutely crucial point: the magistrates’ court is too small a threat. It does not have the technical knowledge, and I do not believe it has the capacity either, to deal with it. This threat will simply be laughed at. It really has to have much more meat than that, whether it is through the court process—which I am always a little reluctant about—or through what is proposed in the third group of amendments later on, and in particular my amendments, which obviously take a different tack on how to establish liability. I very much support what he said there.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

15A: Clause 41, page 41, line 29, at end insert—
“(4A) Conditions under subsection (4)(b) must specify standard qualifications and compulsory and regular training for registered building inspectors.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for standard qualifications and compulsory and regular training for registered building inspectors.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, in his response just now the Minister talked about raising the competence of the construction industry and improving the quality of the built environment. This set of amendments, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stunell, does precisely that. The focus is on improving consideration of the independence, qualifications and training of those with the critical responsibility of certifying that construction is in compliance with both building regulations and the approved plans. You would think that concentrating on this element of reform of a failed system would be given importance but, unfortunately, in the clauses we have in the Bill it has not been given the prominence it deserves, which has resulted in the amendments I am speaking to now.

Amendment 16 seeks to finally end the changes made by the Building Act 1984 and the approved inspectors regulations. This Act established approved inspectors. Prior to the 1984 Act, all building inspectors were local authority employees. Of course, there were failings with that system; I am not here to say that having all building inspectors under the aegis of the local authority was perfect—it was not. What was introduced—although with good intention, I am sure—has developed into what can be an unhealthily cosy relationship between constructor and inspector. It permits development companies to appoint their own approved inspector, who has to notify the local authority initially and then submit a certification to the local authority when the building works are completed.

The removal of dangerous cladding has in some cases exposed serious defects in construction. Of course, these were because constructors failed to comply with building regulations and the approved plans. Nevertheless, building inspectors had certified these buildings as compliant when they were not. This Bill is the opportunity to make detailed changes to ensure that this situation, in which buildings are signed off as compliant when they are not, does not happen again.

The dual system of building inspectors that currently exists is a key issue. There is a lack of accountability for the decisions made by inspectors. This lack of direct accountability is the very issue that runs through the Hackitt report. At the moment, even if the local authority receives reports of problems associated with a construction site, local authority building inspectors are forbidden by law from investigating and providing an independent check. The simple fact that developers contract their own building inspectors provides a culture in which precise and exact compliance can be ignored.

Change is essential if this Bill is to achieve what it states are the aims, which we are all here to support—better building safety. The Minister has often talked about the tools in his toolbox. I want him to tell me that he will use one of the tools he constantly refers to: recovering the certification documents for the buildings where there have been breaches of building regulations at the time of construction. If he does, we will find out which building inspectors, or the companies to which they belong, have signed off as compliant buildings which painfully obviously were not. Building inspection companies have a liability in this building safety crisis, and they need to be held accountable as well as all the other elements of the construction business we are referring to.

Then there needs to be a radical change to the accountability of building inspectors, both public and private. Private inspections can no longer expect to be free of public oversight, and it will be helpful to hear from the Minister how the accountability of the building inspection regime is expected to operate and how effective it will be.

So, I have covered the duality of the building inspection control system as it currently is and how I hope it will be improved. The other amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stunell seek to have on the face of the Bill agreed and standard qualifications with consequent and regular compulsory training to ensure that all inspectors have knowledge of new building materials and how these operate in connection with other construction elements. Again, this issue of the relationship of materials in construction and retaining the integrity of the building has been cruelly exposed by the Grenfell tragedy.

Finally, building safety absolutely depends on a highly skilled workforce. Over the years, various Governments have reduced resources to organisations that are able to train and improve the skills of the construction workforce. I will give just one example: further education colleges have had funding slashed and, consequently, courses closed down. This is a short- term approach, so my Amendment 136 will require the Government of the day to publish regular assessments of the current state of the construction industry workforce in order that the aims of the Building Safety Bill can be achieved. With those comments, I beg to move Amendment 15A.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely, so I invite her to speak now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, what I am saying is that a higher-risk building, or any building which has certain issues, will need a qualified fire risk assessment. What I am also saying is that those people cannot subcontract or have anybody working with them who is not competent as well. In the case of Kensington and Chelsea, and Grenfell, they would no longer be able to have somebody who is not competent and does not have the relevant qualifications to do that fire risk assessment. I have seen with my own eyes where that has been done in the past. Does that make sense? I shall make sure that the noble Lord gets it in writing, so that he is clear, and I shall put it in the Library.

That amendment will also include a definition of the competence that is required—which I think also answers the noble Lord—and we will issue guidance to support responsible persons in identifying a competent fire risk assessor. Significant work has been done by the industry-led Competence Steering Group, the working group for fire risk assessors. Industry continues to lead and develop the work in relation to competence for the sector and has developed a centralised list of professionals where a responsible person can identify a competent fire risk assessor to assist them in undertaking a risk assessment. There is also further work taking place by the sector to develop a fire risk assessor industry competence standard. Again, I think that is very important.

I move on to Amendment 119A. We have had a lot of interest shown in the training and qualification of fire risk assessors. The fire safety order requires that the responsible person must make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to which relevant persons are exposed for the purpose of identifying the general fire precautions they need to take. A responsible person can undertake that assessment themselves using guidance to help them do so if they have the requisite level of competence, and this is generally what happens in relation to buildings that are simple by design. When buildings are more complex—and I think that here we are probably getting to a better answer to the noble Lord’s question—responsible persons will often choose to appoint a fire risk assessor to undertake the assessment on their behalf. Fire risk assessors come from a range of professional backgrounds, and it is quite often the case that they themselves need to seek input from other professionals with specialist knowledge when undertaking a fire risk assessment on more complex buildings.

When a responsible person does appoint a fire risk assessor to complete the fire risk assessment, it is of course vital that they ensure that person has an appropriate level of competence. That is why we are introducing a requirement, through Clause 129 in the Bill, to the effect that the responsible person must not appoint a person to assist them in making or reviewing a fire risk assessment unless that person is competent. Clause 129 also includes a definition of the competence that is required, and we will issue guidance to support responsible persons in identifying competent fire risk assessors. We are also working closely with the professional bodies in the fire safety sector to consider capacity and capability issues in relation to fire risk assessors, and work is already being taken forward through the industry-led Competence Steering Group fire risk assessor sub-committee to develop a fire risk assessor competency standard.

I am clear that the initiatives I have set out represent the most effective approach to further professionalising the fire risk assessor sector at this time, and it is right that this work continues to be led by industry. I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for raising these important issues, but I must ask them at this point not to press their amendments.

Finally, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her final amendment in this group, Amendment 136. I am happy to reassure her that the Government believe that this amendment duplicates many of the existing provisions in the Bill. Clause 10 requires the building safety regulator to establish the industry competence committee and provide support as necessary. The committee’s activities could include overseeing and monitoring the industry’s development of competence frameworks and training, undertaking analysis to understand areas that need improvement and working with industry to drive gap-filling. We expect the committee to provide reports of its work to the regulator periodically.

As a precursor to the statutory committee, the Health and Safety Executive has already established an interim industry competence committee, which is developing its strategy and work plan for supporting the industry’s work, including looking to understand its current competence landscape. It is for the industry to lead the work to improve competence, identify skills and capacity gaps and provide appropriate training to upskill its members for the new regime, and it has already started this work. Training and certification of competent professionals is not a function of government or the regulator under the Bill. We and the Health and Safety Executive will continue to monitor the industry’s progress and provide support where necessary.

Clause 135 legislates for the appointment of an independent person to carry out a periodic review of the system of regulation for building safety and standards and the system of regulation for construction products. The review will act to ensure the functioning of the systems and provide recommendations for improvement. The review must consider the building safety regulator and the system of regulation established by Parts 2 and 4 of the Bill and the Building Act 1984. However, the independent reviewer is not limited and may review connected matters at any time. An independent reviewer must be appointed at least once every five years, although the Secretary of State can appoint a reviewer more regularly if necessary. By ensuring that the report must be published, the Government have created a system of public accountability in building safety.

When defining “independent”, we have struck a balance that excludes those with a clear conflict of interest without overreaching and excluding everyone with relevant experience. This clause will help to protect the integrity of the system and ensure that it continues to create a safe built environment in future. Further reporting requirements risk duplication, complexity and additional bureaucracy, and I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Once again, in conclusion, I thank noble Lords for this interesting debate. I hope I have given the reassurances that will allow them happily not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her very full response to the issues raised, particularly on Amendment 136 about workforce reporting. She has obviously had some support in going through all the clauses in the Bill to work out where the reviews and so on will take place. She spoke about competencies being reviewed regularly, and I will look again and read carefully what she said when it is reported in Hansard to see how that works. But on the face of it, it appears that this is covered in the Bill.

That brings me to the other issues that I raised. The first was about the building safety regulator overseeing the new roles of building control inspector and approved inspector. I understand that, but when I read the clauses, no details were given about what competencies and qualifications were required for those new roles. If we are determined to improve building safety, which we all are, some definition of what is expected of each inspector role should be in the Bill—not the detail; I totally accept that one would expect the building safety regulator to define those in detail. However, there should certainly be some indication of that, and it is not there. Hence, the amendments that I have tabled. Again, it may be that discussion with the Minister before the next stage could be of help in that regard.

I turn to the fire risk assessors. I remember the wonderful Fire Safety Bill. The issue of fire risk assessors came up at that stage and my noble friend Lord Stunell had amendments about them. He talked about a register, a lack of capacity, ill-defined qualifications and competencies, and we have not moved forward. That is the problem. We must move more quickly. The point is well made and I know that the noble Baroness has tried to explain and will put something in writing. We will look at it, but I must say that assessors and fire risk assessment is critical, particularly to some of these high-risk buildings.

Lastly, there is the issue of accountability, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. It is one of my themes that I come back to all the time. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who guards the guardians? Who overlooks all this to make sure that people are accountable? Unless we do that, we get into the mess that we are in now, where so diverse is the golden thread of accountability that nobody understands who is going to take control. I am not sure that I totally accept the noble Baroness’s views on this part of the Bill, but I certainly do on the next part in terms of overseeing safety within already-constructed buildings. There is a good point to be made about it being so diverse and unclear who will be responsible for what that nobody will be responsible for anything and we will be in the same mess that we are now.

I thank the Minister again for a detailed response, which has been helpful. I shall read it carefully as we cannot take in all the detail—well I cannot, anyway. Perhaps in discussion with the Minister, we may make some progress before Report. With those comments, I shall withdraw or not move the amendments in my name. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 15A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Does the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, want to speak next?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I am happy to do so. I was assuming that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, wanted to speak to the amendment which is in her name. I do not know what the protocol is on all that.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rests squarely

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I know we have a fuel crisis, but it is bracing in here; I should be used to it, coming from Yorkshire.

We have come a long, positive way since we debated these issues on the Fire Safety Bill. Moving from one or two voices across the House pushing the concerns of leaseholders to reaching a place where there is agreement that there must be a government-led solution to their trials is hugely welcome. I pay tribute to the cladding campaigners, who have never given up and have pushed us all into the position where we are debating this today.

I have a couple of process points first, before I comment on some of the issues raised. First, I agree with the plea from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that on Report we perhaps have a new part to the Bill that puts all these amendments relating to the remediation of defects in one place. That would be hugely helpful, now but definitely in future, as the industry has to respond to whatever is decided. It would create clarity.

The second point to make is that we have again had welcome but last-minute amendments from the Government without a written Explanatory Memorandum. It would be really good to have something we can all have a look at before Report. An impact assessment would help as well. In particular, a very brave amendment is proposed by the Government about blocking developers, even when they have planning consent, if they do not pay up. That is a really radical proposal, and I should welcome an explanation of how it might work and an impact assessment.

The final process question is that we have had before us today three key proposals to try to tackle the question of who pays for the 30 years of fire safety defects and building safety defects. The series of amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, tackle the same issue. There surely has to be a better way of trying to find a common, workable solution that we could agree to than debating it in a formal way. If we are all agreed that this is the direction of travel, let us work together to try to find it rather than have a formal debate. I leave it to others who know processes much better than I do to decide how that might be.

I want to make a few comments on what has been proposed. The noble Lord, Lord Young, reminded us that in January the Secretary of State finally made a dramatic change to the debate we have been having and said that leaseholders should not pay. I want to keep to that, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, was intent on doing. He pointed out that there are gaps in what is being proposed. As I have consistently said, the leaseholders are the wholly innocent victims of this debacle. On this side, we will back proposals that can guarantee that leaseholders do not have to contribute a penny piece to fire safety and building safety defect remediation.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for their valiant attempts to seek a means of achieving the justice we are all looking for by providing alternative approaches. The very fact that the amendments have had to be tabled indicates that the Government’s attempt—though it is a huge step forward; I acknowledge that—does not succeed in achieving the aim that I espouse, which is that leaseholders pay nothing. That is going be my new phrase: leaseholders pay nothing. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, pointed out the gaps in the Government’s amendments, and we ought to listen very carefully to that because, as I say, we are all trying to get to the right place here.

The key question is: how do we extract the money from the people who have caused the problem? Unfortunately, we have no indication from the Government whether the levy system and the penalties for failing to pay will, first, raise sufficient funding to pay for it all. Secondly, we have no indication whether it will be watertight. We know that developers are already seeking legal advice as to how these levies and responsibilities can be circumvented, and material manufacturers are going down the same route, as will contractors and subcontractors. Litigation will ensue and the risk is that the work fails to be undertaken because no money is raised. That is unfortunately where this might lead if we are not careful.

I cannot remember if it was the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, or the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who said that time is of the essence for these folk. Some of them have already got cladding off and sheeting up in this awful weather, and the building replacement work has stopped because the funding and who will pay is not clear. Leaseholders have already suffered five years of their lives being on hold and their property having no value while those who caused the problems could well be left to fight it out in the courts. I thought the amendment in the name of noble Lord, Lord Young, dealt quite well with that. Maybe that is something the Government can pick up.

I accept that this is a very complicated issue to resolve, which is why, with my zero technical expertise, I have not tried to resolve it through detailed amendments to this Bill. I am full of admiration for those who have spent time trying to find a way to make perpetrators pay. In the end, I fear that the Government may have to step in, fund the remediation so that we get something done and then use their might to extract the funding from those who caused the problem. I look forward to what the Minister is going to say in response to these critical amendments. I want to hear from him on how the Government will ensure that remediation work will be completed within a tight timescale, whatever that is. “Shortly” is a key word that the Government use, and I always worry about it. “In due course” is another.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

That is worse.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Yes. “Drectly” is what they say in Cornwall, which means “This year, next year, some time never”. I should like a bit of clarity. Timing is key. I should like to hear what the Minister is going to do about trying to get it done. How will we stop the developers and all those who we are going to try to get the money from through a levy wriggling out of their obligations? That is one of my fears in all this. Then there is the rate of the levy. Can we be given assurances that the rate will be of a sufficient level to pay for the remediation? That is key. I know that the Minister cannot give us a figure, but a broad brush assurance that the levy is going to do it would be good.

Retrospective compensation for those leaseholders who have already paid out should be considered. Some folk have gone bankrupt because of this. That is because it took time to get everyone together to deal with the problem. I know that retrospective compensation is hard to do, but we are putting back the clock 30 years in looking at these defects. If we can do that, we can look at retrospective compensation.

Leaseholders should pay nothing—that is where I am. We on this side support an amendment that gets there. As I say, I am full of admiration for people who, with their expertise, have tried to bring the Government to the place where they need to be. If the Minister is going to say yes to all these things, we will all leave happy.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a very good debate. I have enjoyed listening to virtually every speech, including that of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I am not going to pick out any speech that I did not like, but the contributions were very good. I am reminded of when I met someone who worked for Senator Cory Booker when he was mayor of Newark, which is a deprived part of the United States. Apparently, at a Democratic National Convention he came out with a phrase that sticks with me. He said:

“If you want to go fast, go alone, but if you want to go far, go together.”


When it comes to making sure that we get the polluter to pay, this Government are not proud about picking the best ideas that people have put forward today and putting them into the toolbox to ensure that we do precisely that.

I think of my noble friends Lord Young and Lord Blencathra, to whom I will add the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, as the three wise men. I was Faith Minister, so that description is appropriate. I have to say that the prize for the wisest of the wise goes to my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who seems to have that intellectual agility to change his position based on circumstance. He is someone who was a distinguished chair of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee one week, and the next week says, “Well, that was last week and this is this week. Come on Secretary of State—think about these ‘just in case’ powers”. We will think about them, but I thank him for providing us with that breadth of thinking.

I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Blencathra for suggesting that we look at reordering the Bill or setting objectives, as the Fisheries Act does. He also gave some advice; I will read out a note about why there needs to be a maximum for the levy. These are all great tips. To the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I say that we will look at whether we can produce a written Explanatory Memorandum and of course we need to do impact assessments. These are all jobs of work and we will see how quickly we can get those things done. This is all in the spirit of wanting to be helpful and to have a better Bill, so I take all those points on board.

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 28th February 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I support the noble Lord in his Amendment 45. He has described the issue very well—and given his huge contribution to the House, I shall look up his maiden speech.

I worry that unless we can find a way out for leaseholders who are also owners, no leaseholder in their right mind would contribute to the management of a building jointly owned by leaseholders. This has been a direction of travel in recent years, which I support. I believe it to be particularly valuable for smaller housing developments, of which we need more. As my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said in Committee on 24 February, successive Governments have encouraged leaseholders to buy their freeholds. Indeed, he himself played an important part in that process. As I understand it, the leaseholders who have enfranchised and bought their freeholds are excluded from support under the Bill. That seems very unfair.

I know from direct experience in my own family that it is already very difficult to secure volunteers to run leaseholder-owned buildings, given the onerous duties involved and the time requirement. The Bill, with its additional duties and tensions, will, I fear, make it impossible. Here we have yet another perverse effect. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Best, that a solution must be found by Report, either by accepting his amendment or, if need be, in some other way. This is an unintended consequence that nobody wants.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this is such an eminently sensible amendment, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that I think that the Minister will struggle to counter the arguments that have been made. What we are asking in this amendment is to avoid a situation involving resident management groups, or leaseholder-controlled companies, where the stringent expectations required to fulfil the duties under the Bill are put on the volunteers.

I already have concerns about the accountable person and how that role will fit in with those of the managing agent and building safety manager. We are beginning to create a fairly bureaucratic approach to safeguarding leaseholders and tenants, which has the risk of not fulfilling the simplicity and clarity that the Hackitt report required of new building safety measures.

I just think that the arguments cannot be countered. I look forward to what the Minister has to say, but this is such an eminently sensible proposal that I hope that the Government will find ways of bringing forward their own amendment on Report to fulfil the aims of this amendment.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to Amendment 45, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and well supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I reiterate that this amendment is about looking at leaseholder-owned or leaseholder-controlled companies appointing an external professional to discharge the functions of the accountable person or principal accountable person. The amendment also talks about costs and maybe looking at service charges.

I want to ask this of the Minister. On these Benches we have a big concern about the actual level of service charges at the moment. These charges are already quite high and they are passed on to leaseholders and tenants. Have the Government looked at the aspect of service-charge pricing and whether leaseholders will be able to bear the cost of having this expertise, as detailed in the amendment? We absolutely recognise the importance of the amendment and we are supportive of it. We are equally concerned about using service charges in order to fund these kinds of important, necessary steps. The impact on leaseholders and tenants is a big concern.

On what was discussed previously in Committee, I will add something in relation to professional expertise and skills, and having the opportunity to pass on these responsibilities to somebody who can take care of this important role, focusing on the function of the accountable person or principal accountable person. I will not talk about this at length, but it calls for a debate about the current situation and whether the Government are fulfilling the needs of leaseholders and tenants. I will finish by saying that there is a big concern about service charges overall, about pricing and about how this will have an impact subsequently on leaseholders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

I support the very interesting comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—most interestingly, it is immensely refreshing to listen to an amendment that is driven not only by cost savings for leaseholders but by common sense. In many cases, the sub-contracting of services on multi-let buildings is appointed through external managing agents, who apply a levy; they will charge, let us say, 10% on the fee for the work being done. In the £60,000 example, another £6,000 goes on to the tenants’ bills at the end of the year.

I simply support this proposal. It will be a difficult one for the Minister, but common sense is short in the Bill because of the layers of bureaucracy. This will save money for tenants.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for raising this issue about the necessity for a building safety manager in every block—this is of course in relation only to higher-risk buildings. However, residents in higher-risk blocks will have a managing agent, to whom they pay a fee—a service charge—who appoints an accountable person, for whom there will be an additional cost, and possibly a principal accountable person, if that is necessary. On top of that, each block will have to have a building safety manager. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, pointed out, adding on those roles considerably adds to the costs for each of the leaseholders; their service charge will rise considerably as a consequence.

I too have had discussions with some of the cladding campaign groups about the potential £60,000 role and the costs which will pass inevitably to them. They are very anxious that their lease will suddenly become unaffordable due to the piling on of costs from these roles.

The further issue in my mind is, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, that there is a duplication of roles. Equally, when there is a confusion about roles—each block might have three people who potentially have conflicting roles—building safety risks will fall between the three. I can find nothing in the Bill that says how each will be accountable. In the end, we come back to this: quis custodiet ipsos custodes—to whom are they accountable?

The Explanatory Notes gives us this as an example:

“The Building Safety Manager may be carrying out day to day functions, as set out in the agreement with the Principal Accountable Person, to assist the Accountable Persons in discharging their statutory obligations. However, the Building Safety Manager could choose to resign of its own volition, and conversely the Principal Accountable Person may find that the service provided by the Building Safety Manager is below standard and choose to dismiss that person. In both circumstances the Principal Accountable Person would need to replace the Building Safety Manager as soon as reasonably practicable.”


I hope everybody understood that. That is my argument: it becomes confused.

One of the issues with building safety and fire safety is that it needs clarity and simplicity. This is not clear and simple. I believe I raised at Second Reading the issue of too many rules causing confusion. When nobody really knows who will do what, it is always a recipe for a potential disaster.

Those are the two points: costs and duplication leading to confusion. The question is this: to whom are they finally accountable—the accountable person or the managing agent? It is not very clear.

The other point is about the competencies—a horrible word—of potential building safety managers. I could not find anywhere in any of the clauses which set out what those should be. The Bill talks about standards but it does not say what they will be. What should be expected of these folk?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I start by going back to where the Bill came from, the tragedy of Grenfell Tower. The point of the Bill is to ensure the safety of residents, particularly, in this case, in high-risk buildings, and the building safety manager is the day-to-day eyes and ears. I do not know whether people realise, but I did two or three years’ work after the tragedy in Kensington and Chelsea. Before I did that, I spent a lot of time in high-rise buildings, not in London but elsewhere in the country, and it was quite interesting, on a day-to-day basis, when I went round with fire brigades and dealt with issues such as safety doors. People took them off and put B&Q doors on. Those things cannot be done every five years, or every year; they need somebody going in and out of that building, checking up.

There will be stairwells with stuff stuck in them that is stopping people going up and down. There will be holes between the sealed containment of flat against flat. All those sorts of things need somebody who is not at arm’s-length but is working day to day. Yes, they will need new competences, but those competences are out there, I would argue, within the community already, and we will have to work on those competences. As for cost, obviously, that depends on the building. Some of these managers will be able to do multiple buildings if it is felt, by their accountable person, that they will be able to do a good job on that. One building is not the same size or requires the same amount of work as another building.

I shall now go through the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and I thank noble Lords for their contributions. The crux of Clause 80 is the duty to appoint a building safety manager. The creation of the building safety manager role was recommended made by Dame Judith Hackitt in the independent review to ensure, I say again, that the day-to-day management of buildings is undertaken by suitably competent people. That is what she said and that is what we are delivering in the Bill. Clause 80 establishes the role and creates a duty for principal accountable persons to appoint a building safety manager and provide them with support and assistance to manage building safety risks, except where they have the capability to meet the duties without needing such support. So there will be times when principal accountable persons have the time and the competences to do it without appointing somebody else. The skills, knowledge and experience offered by building safety managers will help drive up safety standards and, we believe, deliver positive outcomes for residents.

While the building safety manager will hold responsibility for certain tasks, to be agreed in their contract, accountability for meeting the duties set out by the Bill cannot be transferred by accountable persons to the building safety manager or anybody else. I think that answers the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about who is ultimately responsible. Whether the building safety manager is an organisation or an individual, they must possess the necessary competence to deliver the role. If an organisation is appointed, it must have a nominated individual named and in place to oversee delivery, providing reassurance to residents that their safety is being maintained. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, brought up the competence issue. Work is ongoing with the British Standards Institute to establish a competency framework for the role, which will be supported by further guidance.

Moving on, Clause 81 deals with the appointment of the building safety manager where there is more than one accountable person for the building. Despite the often complex ownership structures of many high-rise residential buildings, we are committed to delivering a system that ensures a whole-building approach. This was a central tenet of the findings and recommendations of the independent review.

Where there are multiple accountable persons, the principal accountable person will be responsible for appointing the building safety manager. The building safety manager should play a key role in delivering a whole-building approach, drawing on the duty placed on all accountable persons to co-ordinate and co-operate with each other.

Before the appointment is made, the principal accountable person must consult on the proposed terms and costs with their fellow accountable persons. We expect agreements to be reached so that the scope of the building safety manager’s functions and the method of delivery of the whole-building approach are agreed by all. If an agreement cannot be reached, we are providing a process for resolution through applications to the First-tier Tribunal. This approach protects the rights of accountable persons and holds them to account for ensuring residents’ safety.

Clause 82 ensures that building safety managers hold their position through the contractual arrangements agreed with the principal accountable person. If either party wishes to end the contract, they may do so by giving notice to the other party in writing. When the contract ends, a new building safety manager must be appointed by the principal accountable person as soon as is reasonably possible. If a building is not being managed appropriately and is placed into special measures, which is the last resort for taking control of buildings with significant failings, the building safety manager’s contract will end.

I mentioned earlier that there is an exception to the principal accountable person’s duty to appoint a building safety manager. Dame Judith’s review was right to point out that many building owners already operate and successfully manage their buildings through competent in-house teams. Where the principal accountable person’s existing management arrangements deliver safe outcomes for residents and this can be demonstrated to the building safety regulator, their mode of delivery will not need to change. The competency requirements for qualifying for this exception are of course the same as those expected of any other building safety manager.

This approach is likely to be favoured by organisations such as housing associations or local authorities, which potentially have many buildings that fall under the scope of the new regime. Residents of these buildings will rightly expect to be able to identify individuals who play an important role in maintaining their safety, and the clause requires the identification of the individual responsible for overseeing delivery. This person will not be expected to carry out every task alone, but they will be required to provide oversight such that a holistic and systemic approach to managing safety is achieved.

The exception to the duty to appoint a building safety manager also applies where there are two or more accountable persons for the building. The competency requirements remain consistent. As in the case where they would appoint a building safety manager, the principal accountable person must, as I said, consult their fellow accountable persons and seek to reach agreement on the proposed arrangements. We expect the consultation process to follow the same route as already explained for appointing a building safety manager where there are two or more accountable persons.

Safety has to be our main priority and the building safety manager plays an important role in delivering this. The Government will reflect further on all the points raised today. However, at this point we maintain that Clauses 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister for responding. I wonder whether she could explain something. I am still confused about what appear to be the conflicting roles of the accountable person and the building safety manager. I am looking at page 106 of the Explanatory Notes, where the accountable person is defined. It states:

“The Independent Review”—


the Hackitt report—

“identified that there should be a clear dutyholder during occupation who will have statutory obligations”—

this is the definition of “accountable person”—

“to maintain the fire and structural safety of the building.”

So we already have somebody who is being appointed to have those responsibilities. That is why I cannot see why there has to be a further role to undertake those duties. The duties are very important, but why should there be two people?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is a great expert on landlord/tenant matters. I agree with him that changes to the leasehold system are not for this Bill; indeed, I do not think that my noble friend Lord Young was suggesting that they should be in it. We have quite enough to do in this Bill. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his description of the new clauses and his willingness to listen, as I think that the new clauses may need some more work.

Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, I am passionate about consultation, as my record elsewhere shows. Obviously, I am very concerned about bad practice. However, we cannot have a system where an unco-operative resident or two could prevent appropriate safety arrangements being agreed—that is a concern of mine—or encourage the use of too many expensive lawyers, with the cost ending up with the leaseholder.

We also need to think about the enforced requirements for a residents association, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Young in one of the amendments. It may be worth considering in high-risk cases, but it could complicate matters needlessly in some areas.

I shall speak to my Amendment 147 in this group. It would delay the commencement—that is, the coming into force—of the new provisions on the remediation of certain defects and building liability orders until an impact assessment has been published. Noble Lords will know of my passion for impact assessments; I thank my noble friend the Minister for the original assessment on the Bill. I emphasise, with my experience as a civil servant, a business executive and a Minister, that this is not simply a bureaucratic exercise. The discipline of drafting forces the executive authorities to reflect more deeply on the consequences, including the second, third and even fourth-order effects. It encourages good administration and identifies perverse effects and problems. All this matters more—not less—when the measures are ones of great complexity, especially if they are being rushed through.

I have reflected on this further in the light of our important debate on Amendment 24 in Committee last Thursday, 24 February. I have reread it carefully in Hansard, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for mentioning that an impact assessment, as well as an Explanatory Memorandum, before Report would be helpful to our debate. As she said,

“blocking developers, even when they have planning consent … is a really radical proposal”,—[Official Report, 24/2/22; col. GC 184.]

and we need to know how it might work and have an impact assessment. We need to understand all those who would or could be affected, including cladding suppliers and manufacturers, architects and surveyors—and, indeed, the planning and building control authorities, which may need to change their practices.

I was struck by the complexity of what is proposed, and the certainty that there will be hidden and unnoticed effects. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, in an excellent speech, was right to point out that any levy paid would inevitably be passed on to consumers and tenants in large part. He was also right to remind us of the chronic shortage of supply of homes in the UK. Indeed, in our report Meeting Housing Demand, the Built Environment Committee found a shortage of homes of all tenures, including social housing. We need to ensure that that does not go backwards, and that the whole building industry, already short of skills and resources, is not needlessly diverted—while, of course, doing the right thing on safety. A decent home is so important to all and we now need to cater for yet more arrivals as a result of the desperate situation in Ukraine.

I was therefore disappointed by the approach of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who until recently chaired—very well, if I may say so—the Delegated Powers Committee. I believe it is irresponsible to give yet wider powers for bringing in and punishing, or penalising—effectively fining—new groups, when we have not thought through how they might be involved during our scrutiny of the Bill. I am afraid I have the same hesitation about engagement with residents, which is the subject of today’s group of amendments, which include a widening of powers. I regret to say that I think those amendments go too far.

More importantly, all this discussion has reinforced my view of the need for my amendment. I hope the Government will consider it carefully, as it might go some way to assuaging the fears that there may be about the proposals before us, and any decision by the House to widen their application. Wide powers are being taken in the Bill, which will set a precedent for the future. I would like to support the Government in finding a way through, but I would also like to understand the impact.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this group covers three big issues—residents’ engagement strategy, access to properties, and the third part, relating to government amendments, some of which have not been moved today, on construction products and liabilities. My noble friend Lord Stunell will wind up this debate, using his expert knowledge of many of these issues, so I shall restrict my comments to the amendments about residents’ engagement, access and a little bit about construction products.

I completely agree that there has to be a residents’ engagement strategy. One of the learning points from the terrible Grenfell Tower fire was that residents wanted a voice and tried to make their voice heard, but it was not listened to. Their voice may have been heard, but it was certainly not listened to—and it was certainly not acted on.

As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has pointed out, there is a big part of the Hackitt report which references the importance of the residents’ voice, and of listening to and acting on what they say. They are the folk who live there. They are the people who daily see what goes on. Their voice must be heard so, whatever else we do, I hope that we will strengthen those clauses about resident engagement. Picking up on the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, we need residents’ associations to do that. We cannot force them to exist, but we can put the onus on the freeholder or the accountable person to ensure that there is some method for the residents’ voice to be heard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, with some trepidation after that, I rise to speak to my Amendment 94ZA, as advertised by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. I welcome the Government’s clear commitment that no leaseholder in a medium or high-rise building will have to pay to remove dangerous cladding, so I therefore support the significant legislative changes being introduced in this Bill. I am also pleased to see that legislation is coming forward to identify the beneficial owners of freehold and leasehold properties, because without that I am not sure how this Bill would work in its entirety. We need to know who owns property in the UK.

However, there is a small group of leaseholders who have fallen through the Government’s net of protections. They are leaseholders who have already paid for the removal of ACM Grenfell-type cladding from their buildings through an exceptional service charge imposed by their landlords, but whose landlords have unilaterally decided not to pursue available government remediation funding because they have no incentive to do so, given that the leaseholders have already borne all the costs. No encouragement by or pressure from their leaseholders or the Government has resulted in any change in their position, particularly in one specific case of which the Minister is aware.

This was not the intent of the well-meaning government cladding remediation scheme, as it assumed that landlords would behave appropriately. The scheme required applications to be made by landlords. Leaseholders had no right to do so directly, nor could they force landlords to seek funding. As a result, these leaseholders remain without reimbursement for the considerable sums that, in some instances, they have expended on removing dangerous cladding to live safely.

This behaviour has been described in the other place as outrageous; my noble friend the Minister described it as unacceptable in his Written Answer to me on 26 January. However, the Government’s proposed legislation does not expressly address this inequitable situation. My O-level Latin was even worse than that of most Members of the Committee, so to provide some balance I will quote from my coat of arms the Hebrew “Im low achshav aymarthie”, which, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who is not in his place, would explain, means “If not now, when?”

Paragraph 8 of new Schedule 9 prohibits a service charge being payable under a qualifying lease in respect of cladding remediation if the tenant was resident at the qualifying time, as we have heard. This does not help resident tenants who have already paid up by way of service charge before the Bill becomes law. My proposed amendment extends paragraph 8 of Schedule 9 to include situations where resident tenants have paid for cladding remediation at any time during the five years before the commencement of the Bill. This will leave the landlord with the choice of applying for available qualifying remediation funding or having to reimburse relevant resident tenants out of their own funds.

I appreciate that this will be relevant in only a small number of situations but that is not a reason not to have legislation. There is a glaring hole in the legislation, and we have the opportunity here to correct it. I can see that some might argue that this is retrospective, but it is not because the amendment covers only situations where the lessees have paid and the freeholders will not act as they should. It is up to the Minister, inspired by the call to arms, to widen this amendment—on Report if not here—to cover future situations where lessees pay for recladding as they are fed up with waiting for landlords, knowing that, if this amendment passes, the freeholders will be forced to apply for reimbursement.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 93 and 94. I thank the Minister for explaining the many amendments relating to the costs of remediating cladding and other fire safety and building defects, including who will pay and how.

However, my amendments are to his Amendment 92 and are about my favourite issue, which is that leaseholders should not pay a penny. It is not their fault. The Government and everybody else accept that, and therefore, they should not pay anything. The easiest way of ensuring this is to amend the government amendment to change the maximum amount—that is, the cap—to £15,000 or £10,000, be it in London or outside London, to a peppercorn; in other words, to zero, zilch, nothing. This would achieve the aim I started with two years ago.

There are reasons for this. The Minister may not want to do it, but I certainly do. He said, “Of course”, so I assume he will now accept my amendment. However, if it helps the Minister, I am willing to exclude paragraphs 6(4) and 6(5) of the new schedule proposed by Amendment 92. They relate to properties with a value of £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 or more.

I appreciate that the Minister and others in the Government have laboured long and hard to reach a more just outcome for leaseholders. However, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, the letter we received said that the Secretary of State had stated on behalf of the Government that leaseholders must not be required to pay anything. That is what my amendment would achieve. The building failures were not theirs. As we have all agreed, those who made the failures, who put up flammable cladding and failed to put in firebreaks, are the ones who have to pay.

In his introduction to his amendments, the Minister said that cap will be offset by costs already being paid for waking watch, fire alarms and other such things, which will reduce the final liability. In that case, why on earth are we pursuing it? Let us say that the amount liable is £7,000. If it is paid over a period of five years, that is less than £1,500 a year. What bureaucracy will be set up to collect that? The cost of collecting it will almost certainly outweigh the benefits. So there is a practical reason as well as a reason of justice, and I guess that the Minister will therefore accept my amendment. We will have a whole new bureaucracy for nothing very much. It is not a practical proposal at all, and it is not a just one.

The amendment is straightforward, but there are one or two things I want to ask the Minister to explain and to give some very straightforward answers to some very easy questions. Some things are not clear from all this. There are good intentions in all these clauses to try to solve who pays for remediation, but what happens if nobody pays up? Who takes on the liability? Secondly, if they all go to litigation—which is my guess about what is going to happen, and we heard earlier that there are already moves in that direction—that could take a long time. So what happens then when buildings are not safe? Who will pay for the removal of the cladding and putting right the fire safety defects? Are we expecting leaseholders, shareholders and tenants to remain in those unsafe buildings for all that period of time? So who will pay, and what about the timing? If we do not get the cash, what happens and, with that timing, what happens—peppercorn rents excepted? My noble friend Lord Stunell will wind up for us on these Benches.

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Grand Committee

People need to know that the air where they live, or spend their day working, is safe. The cost of a carbon monoxide alarm ranges upwards from about £14, with a battery life of seven years, so it costs £2 a year for a carbon monoxide alarm to keep people safe. The cost is minimal, or negligible, but the cost associated with a life lost to carbon monoxide poisoning can run into hundreds of thousands of pounds when one looks at the problems for bereaved children in particular, when they have ongoing needs over the years ahead. On the economic argument alone, I suggest to the Government that a simple amendment requiring carbon monoxide alarms to be installed by whoever owns and runs the building would be more than cost effective.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, it was the safety failure of cladding on Grenfell Tower that resulted in 72 people tragically losing their lives. Subsequent investigations showed that construction products that failed flammability tests were used. Obviously, the safety of the construction products used is critical if we are to achieve a much improved building safety standard.

The safety of construction products in the Bill is dealt with only in Schedule 11. Ten pages of detail set out the regulatory regime around product safety. Amendment 112 in my name would add a new clause to the Bill to ensure that product safety is an integral and important part of the legislation.

The purpose of Schedule 11 is to enable the Secretary of State to make relevant regulations to control the safety of construction products. The key word used throughout is that the Government or the Secretary of State “may” by regulations do something. I suggest that the key word should be “must”. For example, Schedule 11 states that products “may” be prohibited if they are not safe. Can the Minister clarify the reasoning for not using prescriptive language?

On standards and technical assessments of products, the wording used is that construction products regulations “may” make provision for standards and technical assessments. Given the learning from the tragedy at Grenfell, I would expect product standards to meet safety standards clearly established by regulation. The schedule establishes the notion of creating a list of “safety-critical products” covered by safety-critical standards which “may”, or presumably may not, be detailed in a timely way. The regulations also make provision for enforcement—or, at least, they “may” make provision—of the safety and standards regime.

The Hackitt report, my favourite document on all this, has a whole chapter on construction product safety and some very clear recommendations, one of which states:

“A clearer, more transparent and more effective specification and testing regime of construction products must”—


I emphasise “must”—

“be developed. This should include products as they are put together as part of a system.”

That is one of the issues that I raised at Second Reading and on other amendments in Committee. It is important that a product is not only proven to be safe but proven to be safe in conjunction with other materials. That was part of the failure exposed by the Grenfell fire.

Dame Judith Hackitt states clearly in her report that that is essential. Her report recommends:

“Manufacturers must retest products that are critical to the safety of”


higher-risk buildings. The report also seeks to ban assessments in lieu of tests—that is, the desktop studies that were part of the failure at Grenfell—and allow them only in

“a very limited number of cases”.

The Government have set out to reflect in the Building Safety Bill all the recommendations in Dame Judith Hackitt’s report. Unfortunately, Schedule 11 does not do that. It certainly does not do it with the clarity of language or insistence on actions contained in that report.

Amendment 112 is an attempt to draw the attention of the Committee to the fundamental importance of ensuring the safety of, and safe use of, construction products. The amendment seeks to address the want of timeliness in the schedule by insisting on the early publication of regulations on testing and certification. Proposed new subsection (2) seeks to provide for all the recommendations in the Hackitt report to be included in the Bill. I hope that, in her response, the Minister will accept the importance of tightening the proposed regulations on construction products and, given that nearly five years have passed since the Grenfell fire, will accept that no further time should be lost in making buildings safe by ensuring that construction products are safe.

I just want to comment on the other amendments in this group. I give my full support to Amendment 111 in the name of my noble friend Lord Foster, who has made the case for the vital importance of the safety of electrical appliances and for continuing to check them. Too many fires—high-risk fires—have occurred because some electrical appliances are not safe or do not continue to be safe.

I also fully support Amendment 117 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I give the example of my own council—Kirklees Council—which provided free carbon monoxide monitors for every household. This followed the tragic death of a young child whose family was living in a terraced house where carbon monoxide leaked through from the adjacent house, which was not being properly maintained, if I may put it like that. Really sadly, the child died. As a consequence, the council—with the full support of everybody—produced free carbon monoxide monitors for every household. They are life-saving, and we will obviously fully support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness. With those comments, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to all the amendments in this group in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Finlay of Llandaff.

I turn first to Amendment 112 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. She presented the case very clearly and eloquently; the headline from her contribution was that the amendment seeks to satisfy the Grenfell review and the Hackitt review. Testing and certification are important for product safety. Ultimately, they will save lives and ensure safer homes.

Amendment 117 is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who made a very clear and economical argument on safety and why this amendment should be welcomed by the Government and all of us—was it £2 for the developers and owners of buildings to ensure the safety of their residents? The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned the very sad example of the young child in her constituency. We can save people’s lives by welcoming and adopting this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I am afraid I pushed my officials to give me a specific time. They have agreed that we may write with more details to give the noble Lord an indication of when this might be forthcoming.

On Amendment 112, I thank the noble Baroness for raising the important matter of the testing and certification of construction products. The Government are committed to reforming the regulatory framework for construction products and it is important that our approach to reform considers the system in the round and is based on engagement with stakeholders who make, distribute and use construction products.

We therefore do not believe that it is right to set a deadline of six months to introduce new measures, as this will constrain public debate. We intend to introduce a requirement for products to be corrected, withdrawn or recalled where they are not safe. This will deliver a greater practical benefit than publishing information about known safety concerns.

We recognise the importance of accurate, reliable performance information to support appropriate product choices. However, a product’s testing record is unlikely to provide useful information for this purpose. Instead, we will create a statutory list of “safety critical” products, where their failure would risk causing death or serious injury and require manufacturers to draw up a declaration of performance for these products. Dame Judith Hackitt’s review recommended that industry should develop a consistent labelling and traceability system for construction products. We agree that industry is best placed to develop an approach that will be effective in practice.

I could sense the frustration of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, with the language used in the Bill, specifically in Schedule 11. I am afraid that the “may versus must” argument recurs in many bits of legislation that I have taken through, and particularly here, when Dame Judith used “must” in her report. However, the whole reason we put “may” rather than “must” in legislation is that this approach is designed to allow the Secretary of State to review existing regulations, consult as needed and bring forward new regulations where needed. We clearly intend to use these powers and published draft regulations in October 2021. I recognise that that probably will not wholly satisfy the noble Baroness but it is as far as I may go.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Did the Minister say October 2021?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

Yes. We clearly intend to use these powers and we already published draft regulations in October 2021.

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

They are draft.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Are we allowed to see the draft regulations? It would be really useful.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

They are published.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

We will circulate them to the whole Committee.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

That is really helpful. I thank the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I will probably disappoint the noble Baroness a little, but I hope that I can also give a bit of explanation. I say that with particular feeling because she chairs the Built Environment Committee, on which I have the privilege to serve.

I understand the irritation that has been generated in some quarters by the EWS1 scheme. I ask the Committee to bear in mind that this was prepared as something of an emergency measure to deal with the logjam of unmortgageable, and therefore unsellable, properties. It was set up at the instigation of government and occurred following discussion with insurers, lenders and valuation professionals. It is a creature of common creation and not the RICS alone, although the RICS put it out. That is quite important.

The unfortunate thing is that, as it was the only form of certification around, it has been latched on to in certain quarters as providing some reassurance for things that it was never intended to achieve. In other words, it was seen as something with a wider fitness for purpose than was ever intended, and that is part of the problem.

When one produces something of this sort, it is produced in collaboration with others, but there will always be people across the spectrum; the insurance world is such that certain sectors of it will top-slice the risk. There will always be some that—a bit like some of what I might call the more adventurous motor insurers—will insure only certain clearly de-risked parts of the market in risk generally. I do not know whether that is a problem here.

This EWS1 was just reviewed in December. The RICS—again in consultation, and again, I believe, with support and collaboration from government but certainly with all the relevant bodies—decided that even though its application in terms of the problems that it created was reduced to a very small proportion, it should be kept because that was the view of valuers, mortgage lenders and insurers. The RICS as a professional body cannot ignore what these people are saying or the commercial pressures that are set before it in dealing with that. The RICS also published its justification in December, which is available on the web. I am all for de-risking things so that assessments of all sorts do not grow horns and a tail. However, I am not sure that having the Government take control and ownership of this particular matter would necessarily reassure lenders or professionals or, for that matter, benefit the market sentiment.

In its evidence to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, the RICS acting chief executive made it clear that there is already a process in hand to train up a cohort of fire risk assessors pursuant to the Bill’s objectives. EWS1 itself is probably destined to wither on the vine in a relatively short period of time. I therefore hope that I have given some sort of helpful explanation of why I am not sure that it is a good thing for the Government to take on this thing, even if they felt that they were willing to get their fingers involved in that particular pie, and why it is probably best that the matter continues on the critical path it is now and we see the outcome of this cohort of newly trained people. I am sure that other professional bodies will need to do training as well; we must try to make sure that it is rolled out as speedily as possible so that, hopefully, the problems will be put behind us.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for raising an important issue. There is confusion and concern around these EWS1 forms and assessments. There is confusion—which I will come on to, following on from what the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, just said—and there is certainly concern from leaseholders. Either they wait for ever for these external wall structural assessments, or those who do them err on the side of caution because of the way that they were brought in as an emergency measure following the awful Grenfell fire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for introducing these two amendments. When I read them, I thought, “You know, this isn’t possible. You cannot build on contaminated land.” Certainly, from all the planning committees on which I have sat over the years, I know that it is not possible. I live in an area where there is quite a lot of land contaminated by dyes from the woollen industry, which have cyanide in them. My experience of development on contaminated land, which is a bit different from the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has raised, is that such sites are raised by planning authorities as part of the National Planning Policy Framework, they have to be identified as part of strategic local plans, and the Environment Agency and the Environment Act all contribute towards ensuring that contaminated land is cleared—decontaminated, if you like—before it is developed.

That is a bit different from some of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, which were about building adjacent to such land. Again, I am surprised that the environment legislation which controls old landfill sites has enabled that to happen. It may be a failure of legislation, but I will wait to hear what the Minister has to say.

The only thing I would say is that the Government are very keen for development of brownfield sites, and there is a desperate need for those sites to be cleared and decontaminated before they can be redeveloped. Everybody wants the Government to continue providing grants to developers to do so. I have experience from my town, where a site has been left empty for at least 15 years. It has been allocated for housing, but no grants have been provided to decontaminate it from an old chemical works that was on the site. So former green-belt land has been developed first, because we are waiting for grants for decontamination of derelict sites.

My one plea to the Minister is to take that back to the department and to say that, if it is to be brownfield sites first, such sites nearly always have significant contamination. Sometimes it is asbestos in older buildings. Certainly, in the Midlands and the north where there have been industrial complexes, there can be quite serious chemical contamination, and decontamination is necessary before anybody can get near them. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall be brief, because there will probably be another vote soon in the House. We are very happy to support the two amendments tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her comprehensive introduction.

We know that local authorities, as we heard, are responsible for determining whether their land is contaminated. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about the grants that her authority has been waiting for to clean up land. It is really important that these grants are dealt with quickly, because it can be incredibly expensive to clean up contamination. If we are to use brownfield sites, local authorities need to be able to do so in a way that is cost effective for them. That was an important point.

We are also aware that availability of land is one of the biggest barriers to building at the moment. The government targets for housebuilding mean that, in particularly populated areas such as the south-east, any additional homes are more likely to be built on previously developed brownfield land. No one would want to build on contaminated land by choice, but “brownfield” does not necessarily mean that land is contaminated. We need to be clear about this.

However, there is a need to ensure that houses constructed on sites affected by contamination are built to the appropriate standards, including those next to an area of contamination. We need to know where the contaminated land is so that we can do these checks properly. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, things such as flooding can bring contamination across a very wide area, with, as we have heard, sadly catastrophic consequences. As she said, on the surface of it, Zane’s law seems pretty simple and straightforward to implement. If we can identify the size and scale in every part of the country where contamination is, that would be a very logical starting point to prevent future risk to life and support local authorities in tackling the whole issue of contamination so that we understand it better as we move forward with more development and housing. I hope the Minister will listen to this, because it seems to me that Zane’s law ought to be supported.

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Tuesday 29th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, again, I thank those who have participated in this interesting debate.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

Oh, I thought we had finished.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

No, we stopped before the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and I had had a chance to speak. That is what comes of stopping mid-flight, but here we go—if anybody can remember what we were doing an hour ago. Before I go on, I remind the House of my relevant interests, as a member of Kirklees Council and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

First, I speak to Amendment 15, which is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and to which I put my name. I raised a number of concerns at Second Reading and in Committee about the consequences of the part-privatisation of building control inspectors some 20-odd years ago, whereby developers can and do appoint their own building control inspectors. As noble Lords will know who have been here throughout all these stages, I have referred before to my favourite: “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” Who will call these folk to account? At the moment, nobody does, and the result is what we are trying to deal with today.

If we had a band of building control inspectors who were like terriers in pursuit of bad practice and cutting corners, we would not be here today trying to put things right. So this is absolutely key to what we are doing—and, of course, I support the creation of the building safety regulator, and all the other parts of the Bill that the Government have introduced, but I recognise that it affects only buildings of 18 metres and above. Dame Judith Hackitt brought to our attention in her report her grave concern about developers who can choose their own inspector. Two things need to be dealt with: they should no longer be able to do so, and we should not create a two-tier inspection system. This amendment tries to put those two things right, and I am sure that the Government will accept it. It is, dare I say it, common sense. Why would you have such a stringent regulatory system for 18 metres and above, which I totally support, and then say, “Oh well, for the others it’ll be okay.” It will not be okay, and it has not been, so let us put it right.

The amendment proposes that local authority building inspectors take on that role. I support that idea not because they are local authority, but because they are based in an area and are therefore attached to the council and know who the builders are in that area. They know the particular problems of building in the Pennines, for example, where there is not much ground before you hit solid stone, or of building in London clay, where the problems are different. If we have building control inspectors who recognise the different problems across the country, we are more likely to get regulations that are adhered to. This is an important amendment, and I hope that the Government will treat it in that light.

My noble friend has already introduced Amendment 264, which is also in my name. It is also fundamental to building safety, because unless you have a workforce imbued with the knowledge and experience of building in a safe way, we will have the current corrosive construction industry culture that we and the Minister have spoken about. This is one way, one route, one of the tools in the toolbox—another phrase he loves—to try and put that right. Both those amendments are key. I think the Minister will say: “Yeah, that was really good. Why did we not think of it?” But I am an optimist.

--- Later in debate ---

It is necessary for me to invite the Minister to explain why the Bill provides for the innocent to bear the responsibilities properly attributable to the developer and the construction sector, and more particularly, why putting that onus back onto the industry is unjust, unacceptable or wrong in policy terms.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, there are 70 amendments in this group, but, on a positive note, they are all seeking to protect leaseholders. We have been very fortunate in having such a clear exposition of the issues which remain from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who has demonstrated that there is still a gap in what the Government have set out. Who pays when there is literally no one left to pay? This relates to the orphan buildings, as the noble Lord has described them. That must be resolved. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has just shared his expertise on the matter. I admit that I have not quite understood every part of what he said, except that I know that it is based on knowledge and experience. I am very grateful to him for sharing it with the rest of the House and trying to find solutions to the problems which remain.

I have my name on four amendments. I will speak particularly to two of these which are, in a rather more straightforward way, seeking to achieve the same ends. Amendment 200, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stunell, presents another way by which leaseholders will be protected from any payment which results from the approach which the Government are taking—and which we will discuss in group 7—regarding who pays and how much leaseholders should be expected to pay. It also helps to solve the problem outlined particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, about what happens to these orphan buildings when the waterfall runs out of people to fall on. I have suggested in Amendment 200 that we establish a leaseholder protection fund. I do so because, as noble Lords across the House know, there is an absolute determination on the part of all noble Lords who have spoken so far that, whatever else happens, the leaseholders will not, and should not, be the ones who pick up the bill for the errors of others—errors which are sometimes deliberate.

Amendment 200 takes a slice of the building safety fund which the developers are providing, and it establishes a fund for leaseholders who are left carrying the can, either through the orphan building situation—as described by the two previous speakers—or if the cap which we will discuss in group 7 remains. In both cases, it achieves the same end: there is a fund to which leaseholders can apply for funding to offset the bills they are presented with for work for which they have no responsibility and should never be asked to pay. This is the aim of Amendment 200, and I hope that one of the other amendments deals with this because, as far as I am concerned, this is a backstop. I assume that one of the other amendments will get the majority support of your Lordships’ House, and I will therefore not press this particular amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I particularly like her slogan, “Get the work done.” Somehow it reminds me of a similar slogan we heard rather successfully a couple of years ago: Get Brexit done. I am glad that the Liberal Democrats are picking up some Conservative slogans.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I think it is the reverse.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I support Amendment 233, so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham in his usual erudite way; he had the detail but was still succinct. Because he set it out so well, I can be commendably brief, for a change.

I start from the position of my right honourable friend Michael Gove, and I totally support what he has said and done. I usually support what he says and does, except when he was Conservative Chief Whip and was a bit cuddly, caring and too kind. But apart from that, I liked it when he said that

“leaseholders are shouldering a desperately unfair burden. They are blameless, and it is morally wrong that they should be the ones asked to pay the price. I am clear about who should pay the price for remedying failures. It should be the industries that profited, as they caused the "problem, and those who have continued to profit, as they make it worse.”—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/22; col. 284.]

You cannot say better than that. So I am rather sympathetic to any amendments, including the one moved by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, trying to make sure that developers or perpetrators pay every penny. It should not be leaseholders and, ideally, it should not be the taxpayer.

However, this amendment creates a remediator of last resort and allows the Secretary of State to step in and undertake the works. In either case, it would allow the Secretary of State or the local authority to pursue the responsible developer with debt claims to recover the money laid out on remedial works. As my noble friend so ably said, that ensures that there is a failsafe mechanism in the law. The Government’s legislative proposals do not tell us what will happen if remedial works are simply not started or cannot be completed as a result of the effect of the caps imposed in the Bill and the restrictions on buy-to-let landlords.

The duty in this amendment would fill the gap. The Government’s proposals would require some sort of remediator of last resort. Because they are imposing caps on what can be collected toward non-cladding costs, the Government are creating a gap in funding, which will have to be plugged somehow. Ultimately, someone is going to have to pay; otherwise, as my noble friend said, buildings will never be fixed. This amendment allows building work to be started and buildings to be fixed, with the taxpayer providing a form of bridging finance—but they must get that money back from the building safety fund; this is not carte blanche to make the taxpayer pay for these things.

As I said, I am sympathetic to the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I just worry that if we adopted these four or five new clauses, we might be tearing the guts out of the Bill and would have to rewrite a lot of it. But I think his heart is in the right place in where he is aiming to go. I understand that my noble friend might be worried about the legal position under the ECHR. This is another area where the noble Earl’s amendments might technically fall foul of the ECHR. Some of us have seen legal advice circulated from Daniel Greenberg, who is well known to everyone in this House. He says:

“On the basis of this analysis, l am satisfied that the draft clauses are compatible with the Convention rights and that Ministers will be able to comply with Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (Acts of public authorities: duty not to act incompatibly with ECHR) when they come to perform the functions conferred by the draft clauses”—


referring to draft Clauses 234 to 237.

I am not capable of suggesting whether Daniel Greenberg QC is correct or not, but I would love to hear what the Minister has to say about that. If the amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, are not right, it would be helpful to hear from my noble friend how far they can go towards what the noble Earl is trying to achieve. If he is going to reject them, I would love to hear how far he can push to get as close as possible to the noble Earl’s position. With those words, I am content to support my noble friend’s Amendment 233, and I would love to hear explanations on the noble Earl’s amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I was a little slow in rising to introduce the government amendments. I was, perhaps, a little punch drunk after the length of the debate today.

It is only right, and I am sure we all agree, that building owners and landlords should share in the cost of fixing dangerous buildings. We have carefully engineered this Bill to ensure that those responsible, and otherwise those with the broadest shoulders, will be the first who are required to pay. Where there is no party that clearly should pay in full, and only in this scenario, our approach spreads the costs fairly and equitably and, above all, ensures that the most vulnerable leaseholders are protected. These measures are a robust and unprecedented legislative intervention, reversing the existing legal presumption that leaseholders must bear the costs of historical building safety defects.

The Government have listened to the comments raised by noble Lords, and we have tabled amendments which go even further in protecting leaseholders. Before I set out the detail of these further protections, I would like to be clear that the protections we are putting in place are extensive and, as noble Lords will be well aware, that these must remain in balance with the demands placed on landlords and building owners in ensuring that building safety defects are fixed and paid for where no wrongdoing on their part has taken place. There is an element of fairness here that we need to deliver. The Bill changes the private contract between the landlord and the leaseholder by stating that leaseholders will not pay any costs except in certain circumstances. Government can do this if it is in the general interest to do so, provided there is a fair balance between all the parties. Therefore, we need to make sure that the Bill is both proportionate and fair to all parties.

As I have said, leaseholders need to be protected, and we have brought in the most wide-ranging and expansive set of protections ever seen, allowing the courts to look through to associated companies to find both who is responsible and who has funds to remediate properties as there is no point in having money while properties remain unsafe. However, we are also aware that not all landlords were involved with the developer or have deep pockets, and we need to make sure that we consider the issue of building safety from all sides. We have therefore legislated on the side of the landlords by providing numerous robust routes for recovery of funds from those truly responsible: developers and the manufacturers of defective construction products.

To be clear, and bearing in mind my noble friends’ proposed amendments, let me put their minds at rest. The Bill makes it very clear that leaseholders will not pay anything in the majority of cases. These are where the landlord is the developer or is linked to the developer, where the landlord is wealthy and, finally, where the leaseholder’s property is valued at less than £325,000 inside London and £175,000 outside.

Where these absolute protections do not apply, the leaseholder’s contributions will be heavily capped. On leaseholder contribution caps, it is important to bear in mind that these caps are a maximum that leaseholders can be charged, not a target, and that, as above, they apply only where the landlord is not linked to the developer and cannot afford to pay in full. In addition, costs paid out in the past five years, including for interim costs such as waking watches, will count against the caps. Overall, we consider that in most cases leaseholders will not have to pay the full capped amount and many will pay nothing at all. Nevertheless, the Government agree it is critical that those leaseholders who are least likely to be able to afford to contribute towards historical remediation costs receive the greatest protection. That is why we have tabled amendments to provide that any qualifying lease with a value below £175,000, or £325,000 in Greater London, will be protected from all costs relating to non-cladding defects and interim measures. This is in addition to the protections for cladding remediation costs, which apply to all qualifying leases, and to all leases in buildings owned by or connected to developers.

Amendment 164 sets out that the value of a qualifying lease at the qualifying time is to be determined by the most recent sale price on the open market, prior to 14 February this year, uprated in accordance with the UK House Price Index published by the Office for National Statistics. Uprating values for this purpose will be set out in legislation.

Amendments 118 and 119 expand the definition of “enfranchised buildings” to ensure that all types of enfranchised buildings are covered.

We have listened very carefully to concerns about leaseholder affordability in the small number of cases where leaseholders are paying up to the caps. That is why we have tabled Amendment 166, to double the repayment period from five to 10 years. For leaseholders whose property is not below the threshold and whose building owner or landlord is not liable for the full remediation costs, Amendment 166 will mean that with regard to the capped costs the monthly repayments will be halved.

We have also listened carefully to those who were worried about buy-to-let investors who may be holding leasehold properties instead of a pension. As a result, we have amended Clause 121 to provide that people owning up to three UK properties qualify for the protections. As before, the principal home will always qualify, irrespective of how many additional properties are owned.

As well as going further to protect leaseholders, we have tabled a number of amendments which add key detail to the measures. We are clear that developers must fix the buildings they developed. That is why we have tabled Amendments 141 to 143 to Schedule 9, which clearly state that, where the landlord is or is linked to the developer, they will not be able to pass costs on to any leaseholder. This includes non-qualifying leaseholders such as commercial leaseholders and those with more than three UK properties. We have also tabled Amendment 145, which extends the definition of a developer to include persons who were in a joint venture with the developer. If you commissioned the work, you will also count as the developer.

We have also tabled Amendment 152, which will amend Schedule 9 to provide that where the landlord meets the contribution condition—defined as having a total net worth of more than £2 million per in-scope building as of 14 February 2022—they will not be able to pass any costs on to qualifying leaseholders. The calculation for net worth will be set out in regulations and will take into account parent and associated companies. This will ensure that those who have used complex corporate structures, such as special purpose vehicles, cannot evade liability where they can afford to meet the costs of remediation.

We are also amending Clauses 120 and 122 on the definitions for relevant buildings, landlords and works. These amendments will extend provisions to include work undertaken to remedy a defect and will clarify that buildings that are leaseholder-owned are out of scope because, in such buildings, the leaseholders are effectively the freeholders as well. With Amendment 121, we set out how the height of an in-scope building and its number of storeys will be calculated.

Amendments to Clauses 122 and 136 cover further definitions, including clarifying that associated partnerships are included, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, raised in Committee. Amendment 169 to Schedule 9 inserts a new definition of cladding remediation, which now means the removal or replacement of any part of a cladding system that forms the outer wall of an external wall system and is unsafe.

Amendments 170 and 171 provide that the landlord cannot pass on costs to a qualifying leaseholder relating to professional services, in addition to legal costs. Amendment 177 provides that certain leases are taken to be qualifying leases without the tenant providing a certificate, unless steps are taken. It also provides that landlords are taken to have met the contribution condition unless they provide a certificate proving otherwise. This means that the legal burden will be on the landlord to prove that they are entitled to pass on capped remediation costs.

The amendments also make minor technical and consequential amendments to clauses to ensure the provisions work as intended, remove extraneous powers and commence the provisions two months after Royal Assent.

It is right that leaseholders be protected from extortionate costs of remediating historical building safety defects, in a manner that balances the demands placed on landlords and building owners, where no wrongdoing on their part has taken place. I ask your Lordships to welcome and support this significant and important set of amendments, which go further to protect leaseholders and provide that fair balance.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this is probably the most important group of amendments we are considering today, because it is absolutely at the heart of the building safety scandal that started nearly five years ago with the loss of 72 people in the Grenfell fire. I always think it is worth remembering that: 72 people died and the lives of many families were changed for ever, and that happened because of systemic and long-term failures in the construction industry.

It is also worth remembering that leaseholders since that time have found themselves under the enormous pressure of anxiety when they receive invoices, maybe for £100,000 or more. Some of them have not been able to cope with that level of anxiety, thinking that nothing would change, and have chosen bankruptcy as a consequence and therefore lost everything they had saved and worked for. For some whom I have heard about, sadly, this pressure may have contributed to something even worse: in the face of the bills and a long dark tunnel with no solution, they ended their lives. That is the backdrop. That is the tragic impact this has had on individuals across the country, and which has brought us to this place. This set of amendments is at the heart of those concerns.

I first raised my worries about leaseholders being liable for all the costs of cladding, removal and remediation of all the fire safety defects when the Fire Safety Bill was first debated in 2020. Unfortunately, I did not succeed in amending it at that stage, but what has happened since has been remarkable—the number of people on all sides of the House who have taken up the cudgels to argue the case, rightly, for justice for leaseholders. I give enormous credit to the cladding campaigners from all groups and different cities around the country who have got together and done the investigation, found the facts and put the case to the Government, who, to their credit, have listened and made the changes we have seen today. I think there are over 200 government amendments to the Bill today.

The question of justice for leaseholders is still at the heart of the Bill, and I contend that the Government still have not gone far enough in fulfilling what the Secretary of State and the Minister have said: that they should not pay a penny. They have done everything right and nothing wrong. They should not pay anything towards this remediation, because the flammable cladding, sometimes knowingly, was put on buildings, as was exposed in the Grenfell inquiry. Shoddy construction, sometimes deliberate, to cut corners and save costs, has also been exposed during the Grenfell inquiry.

I want to speak to Amendment 156 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stunell, but also to Amendment 155 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and to Amendments 158 and 159 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Blencathra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, to which I have added my name. They focus on trying to solve the problem of justice for leaseholders, who should not pay a penny.

Unfortunately, the Minister has said today that “the majority” will not pay. Well, if the majority will not pay, the minority will—and the minority should not, because none of this is of their making. My Amendment 156 seeks to establish that what the leaseholder should pay is a peppercorn—a grand, historical way of saying zero, zilch. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for his support for Amendment 155 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, which uses the word “zero”. I use “peppercorn”, but they get to the same place, and he has acknowledged the justice of this case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to speak after hearing from two such knowledgeable noble Lords. I am tempted to say: let us cut to the chase and go straight to the vote on Amendment 115 and get it over with.

In the meantime, I would like to speak on Amendment 115, which I strongly support, and Amendment 123. I would like to comment on Amendments 155, 156 and 157, and to my Amendments 158, 159 and 163. Before doing that, although I will not speak to them, I was privileged to support Amendment 117 on enfranchising leaseholders, Amendment 124, moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, on pensioners, and Amendment 153, moved by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham.

On Amendment 115, concerned with buildings under 11 metres, I strongly support what is proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I hope he presses it to a vote unless my noble friend is willing to accept it. I have heard my noble friend the Minister say repeatedly—and he is largely right—that a building of under 11 metres may be less dangerous than a building of 20 or 30 storeys. I accept that even I could get out of a building of three storeys a bit faster than I could get out of one of 13 or 30 storeys. The risk is lower, but there is still a risk—that is one of the main points: there is still a risk. When we saw Richmond House burn down in nine or 10 minutes, it was horrifying. I hope that, if I was in there and woke up in time, I would have got out, but there might be some disabled people who could not have done so.

There is also an issue of principle. If someone has built a building, whether it is 1 metre high or 11 metres high, and used flammable materials or the wrong materials, they should be made to fix it, no matter how wealthy they are—if it is Abramovich or anyone else. If the building has flawed materials, it should be repaired, irrespective of the height. I appreciate that my noble friend has gone a long way on this and that he has been very kind in telling us at countless meetings that there is a lower risk in those buildings, but there is still a risk. Of course, he also said that the numbers were very small: in that case, if the numbers are very small, it is a small problem to fix.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Let us do it.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Let us do it—that is a slogan for the next election for the noble Baroness. If the numbers are small, it is a small thing to fix.

Moving on to Amendment 123, again I support my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham in changing the definition of “qualifying lease” so that buy-to-let landlords with an interest in up to five properties, including their main home, benefit from the leaseholder cost protections in Schedule 9. As my noble friend said, this is important because there are many buildings where there are a lot of little flats owned by buy-to-let landlords. If those landlords cannot pay their share of the bill, it will mean that not all the money is available to do the work for the whole building. Similar issues may arise when landlords own flats in multiple different affected buildings that have received help from the building safety fund.

I appreciate that many of those landlords hold their buy-to-let properties as part of or, in some cases, all their pension provision. We have all had many emails from people in the past few days setting out some rather sad examples. I know my noble friend has increased the protection from two by-to-lets to four, but I do not think that goes far enough and we suggest that the overall figure should be five, but even then it omits many small landlords. I know it is not good law to quote hard cases, but I have an example of just one of dozens one has received in the past few weeks.

This person says, “I am 57 and have worked as an electrical contractor most of my life. I now have nine small rental apartments in Salford, valued at £80,000 to £100,000 each, a total of approximately £800,000 before they were valued at £0 since the cladding crisis. These properties were purchased in 2007-08 with years of savings and dropped 40% in value due to the financial crash of 2009 caused by the banks, which were bailed out, so my properties are still in negative equity. My nine apartments in the same building are all subject to safety issues, and my total service charges for 2022 are approximately £250,000 for the external wall system only, and this quote is from last year. The managing agents are in the process of getting updated quotes, which will be much higher. This does not include firebreaks, compartmentalisation, fire doors, et cetera, so my total costs are likely to be over £300,000 on property valued at £800,000. Having nine rental apartments seems to deem me to be a large-scale landlord not worthy of protecting from these costs, whereas someone with one or two rental properties in London worth a similar value to my nine little flats will be protected under the latest proposals.” He concludes, “The developer of the building has not replied to any letters from our managing agent or us leaseholders and has been trying to close the company for months, which we have objected to. The company has not traded for six years and there are zero funds in the accounts.”

That is a good example of why these amendments are necessary. It is not just the numbers, as the right reverend Prelate said, it has to be the overall value, and that is why I support my noble friend Lord Young’s amendment on having a percentage figure. If we cannot have zero or peppercorn, then 1% seems a fairer way of going about it.

On my Amendments 158, 159 and 163, the Government’s proposals require leaseholders in properties worth more than £175,000 and up to £1 million outside London to pay £10,000 towards non-cladding remedial works if money cannot be found from developers or landlords. In London leaseholders in properties worth more than £325,000 and up to £1 million may have to pay up to £15,000. Again, that is if money cannot be found from developers or landlords. Higher caps of £50,000 and £100,000 apply inside and outside London for properties worth more than £1 million or £2 million. The Government say that these caps are necessary, again because of legal advice which we have just heard rebutted and on which I shall comment in a moment. The claim is that in order to impose measures on developers and landlords it is necessary for leaseholders to contribute in some cases or we fall foul of the ECHR.

Amendment 158 in my name, also supported by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Pinnock, simply says

“leave out ‘£15,000’ and insert ‘£7,500’”,

halving the figure. For buildings in London, the amendment halves the contribution of leaseholders to non-cladding costs. Similarly, Amendment 159, for buildings outside London, reduces it from £10,000 to £5,000, halving the contribution of leaseholders on non-cladding costs; again, supported by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Pinnock. Finally, Amendment 163, again supported by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, says,

“leave out ‘£50,000’ and insert ‘£15,000’”.

That applies to the properties inside and outside London worth between £1 million and £2 million. The amendment would reduce the leaseholder contribution to non-cladding costs from £50,000 to £15,000.

All told, as we come to the end of this debate, the Government have been given four options by the various amendments. There is the zero option, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock; the peppercorn option, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock; the 1% option proposed by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham; or they can lower the cap, as in the amendments that I have just described. We have done all those amendments on lowering the cap in the hope that we could get around the Government’s view that the ECHR would put a block on this and that they would have to say that the Bill, or Act, was not compliant with the ECHR. But we have just heard from two eminent and learned noble Lords and an ex-Supreme Court judge that none of these amendments would be in breach of the ECHR. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, pointed out, even if we do not accept of these amendments and stick with the government ones, there will be some freeholders, landlords and developers who will still go to the ECHR and complain about anything to slow it down. So sticking with the Government’s level does not get us out of litigation in the European court.

I look forward to what my noble friend has to say on this. The legal arguments produced by the noble and learned Lords are very telling. I commend my amendments to the House, and also commend those from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

221: Clause 130, page 134, line 13, at end insert—
“(3A) Within the period of five years beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, the Secretary of State must by regulations prohibit any developer who has not completed all previously identified works in relation the remediation of fire safety risks from carrying out development of land in England.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to prevent developers who have not completed previously identified fire safety work within 5 years from carrying out any further development.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to move Amendment 221 formally and divide the House on it. We have already decided that leaseholders will not pay towards the cost of remediation, and now we have the chance to decide that it is done in a timely way. That is just as important, so I beg leave to seek the opinion of the House.

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 4th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, as one who has been involved in housing policy for over 50 years, I pay tribute to my noble friend for his time, care and effort, and his listening qualities, which have not always been a feature of those on either Front Bench. I offer sincere thanks to my noble friend.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the cladding and building safety campaigners who have been resolute and unremitting, since the Grenfell fire tragedy, in pursuing justice for leaseholders and tenants. Without them, this Bill would not be in the shape it is today. It has been transformed but not transformed enough, as we have heard from others. Across the House, people have worked together to make it a better Bill. I thank them for the way we have worked together to make improvements, but it is not yet enough.

I, too, urge the Government to accept the amendments that we accepted on Report. I, for one, am not giving way. I hope that the Government, at the other end, will say that the argument has been made for a nil cost to all leaseholders. That is where I shall firmly stand to the bitter end. Leaseholders are the innocent victims; they must not pay a penny.

I pass on my thanks to the Minister for being so free with his time, discussing the various amendments, and to the officials from various parts of the Government for explaining the detailed changes that had been proposed. Particularly, I thank Sarah Pughe in the Liberal Democrat Whips’ Office, and my noble friend Lord Stunell. Without their expertise, knowledge and experience, we would not have been able to do the job that, between us, we have done. I look forward to the Bill coming back, having been accepted by the Commons.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I beg the indulgence of noble Lords: as my noble friend Lord Young and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, asked pretty much the same question, I thought I would respond to that very briefly. They wanted to know what happens to orphan buildings, where there is no polluter to pay. I do not feel that this works in this setting, but I have this wonderful diagram that makes it pretty clear to me what happens. This is the so-called “non-cladding costs waterfall”, which I am going to try to have put on the Government’s website. Let us be very clear: we need to look at this in terms of cladding and non-cladding.

There is, of course, the £5.1 billion building safety fund for the remediation of cladding in high-rise residential buildings, which is open to orphan buildings. My department is seeking a further £4 billion voluntary contribution. In the first instance, it is a voluntary contribution from the developers for the remediation of unsafe cladding in medium-rise buildings, which is also open to orphan buildings. Then, we have this wonderful government waterfall for non-cladding costs: the developers must pay. In instances where the developer is not available to pay, the landlord must pay. The landlord or freeholders who pass the government test, which is a net worth of £2 million per building, become legally liable for all the costs. The landlords must comply with the law, as set out by Parliament. Freeholders or landlords must pursue those responsible, as well as any applicable grant schemes, before they can pass costs on.

Finally, as it says on this wonderful chart, which even I can read with my poor eyesight, costs are shared equitably between freeholders, lessees and leaseholders, subject to robust leaseholder protections detailed in the Bill—and sent back to the other place with some other parameters that perhaps the Government might not have wanted at this stage.

I want to make a final point about landlords. Sadly, some landlords are polluters. A number of large freeholders have appeared on the Government’s “name and shame” list for not remediating their buildings. Some freeholders or landlords have gone so far as to force leaseholders to take loans to remediate their buildings. As I said, we all agree that, in those instances, the polluter must pay.

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 26th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and to hear that he intends to keep a close eye on this, because that will clearly be needed well into the future.

I rise to offer Green support for Motions D1 and H1 and to make a single point about how I see these fitting together. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and others said that the leaseholders are the absolutely innocent parties here—but, more than that, it is important to say that they are the injured parties. They have been injured over years and years of stress and worry, both financial and about their physical safety, given where they are forced to live. Think about going to bed every night fearful about what is going to happen. They are the victims of the policies of successive Governments who have allowed the building industry to act as a cash cow rather than a provider of secure, affordable, decent homes.

There are still a lot of steps down the road, but if we pass Motions D1 and H1 we give those leaseholders and owners the clarity and certainty that they will be looked after, whether or not their building is under 11 metres, and that they will not be hit with a bill that they still cannot afford to pay, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said.

I was tempted to say that your Lordships’ House should put one last heave behind the Building Safety Bill, but then I thought that was a slightly unfortunate metaphor in the context we are talking about. I will pick up what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said: the campaigners have done so much work and have fought so long and hard on this. Let us buttress that and put in the final supports they need to get the Bill we should have.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, it is good to recognise that the Bill has indeed been transformed during its passage through Parliament, but the major transformation point was initiated by the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, when he said that

“leaseholders are shouldering a desperately unfair burden. They are blameless, and it is morally wrong that they should be the ones asked to pay the price.”—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/22; col. 283.]

I agree, as many others across the House will. Unfortunately, however, the Bill currently does expect some leaseholders to pay. My colleagues and I are asking the Government today to think again.

The Government argue that Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights ensures a balance of rights between property owners and leaseholders, which in their view means that leaseholders have to pay towards the costs. That is the basis of the Government’s argument for the cap of £10,000 and £15,000. However, that view was comprehensively challenged by my noble friend Lord Marks, whose argument was endorsed fully by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, on Report. Senior legal minds in this House agree that it is possible within the ECHR for innocent leaseholders to pay nothing.

This legitimately opens up the opportunity, which must be grasped, for the Government to accept that leaseholders must not pay a penny whatever the height of the building, hence Motion D1 in my name to include buildings under 11 metres so that leaseholders in those buildings do not pay. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, rightly reminded us, a building under 11 metres has been destroyed by fire in under 11 minutes. We really need to think again about those buildings under 11 metres. However, I thank the Minister for the assurances he has given to those leaseholders in buildings under 11 metres at the Dispatch Box today and for urging them to get directly in contact with him if they get any invoices for remediation works. I am sure I will be holding him to account on that one, as will the leaseholders, and I am sure they will get in touch with us across the House to make sure that they do not pay. They must not.

What I do know is that the Government need to think again about the leaseholder cap. My Motion H2 reduces the cap back to zero, where it should be. I remind the House of the commitment by Secretary of State Michael Gove that leaseholders should not be paying the cost incurred as the result of the sometimes deliberate actions of others. The Minister himself has acknowledged tonight that some leaseholders will still pay, when we agreed in January at the very start of this great transformation that they are blameless and it is morally wrong that they should have to be the ones to pay the price. We have looked after many leaseholders but not all.

Obduracy in the face of moral right is a failure of political leadership. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches will support the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, in her Motion H1 to achieve a degree of improvement to the lot of leaseholders, who have shouldered the burden of anxiety and fear for too long and whose campaigning efforts have achieved so much.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I must thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I am not sure; maybe we are close to that point where we can say, “One more heave”. I want quickly to turn to Amendment 94 and Motion D1, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to the Government’s Motion D, where she disagrees with the Government. I explained in my opening speech the reasoning behind our Amendment 94A and I do not propose to repeat my arguments. I simply remind noble Lords that the approach the Government have proposed is sensible. Setting the threshold at 11 metres will help restore proportionality to the system, as also argued by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the Government have committed to consult on how best leaseholders in collectively enfranchised and commonhold buildings can be protected. On timescales, in response to my noble friend, I think we said “soon”. I shall strengthen that and say “as soon as possible”. That is a big concession.

I turn to Motion H1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, as an amendment to the Government’s Motion H. It would replace a zero cap in a previous amendment with £250 for leaseholder contributions, while Motion H2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, disagrees with the Government’s caps.

Motion H1 would make changes to the leaseholder contribution caps in Schedule 8 and reduce them to £250, up from the zero cap in her previous amendment. Motion H2 disagrees with the Government’s Motion and would return the caps to zero. As I said in my opening speech, the Government have been clear that setting the leaseholder contribution caps to zero or to a nominal level, such as £250 or £25 a year for 10 years, would not be a proportionate approach. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to protecting leaseholders. Indeed, it is hard to overstate how far-reaching our proposed protections are. They represent a hugely significant and robust improvement on the existing position for leaseholders.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Baroness Pinnock]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 184A and 184B and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 184C and 184D”

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this is a shattering defeat for those doughty and determined campaigners who have made the case for justice for all leaseholders. I say to them that we on these Benches are on their side. They have right on their side. Unfortunately, the headline from the Government that it was morally wrong for any leaseholder to pay for the wrongs of others in the building safety scandal was a headline only, and a cynical attempt to win over more than half of the campaigners so that the rest get left to pay the bills that will come their way. I am sure that many of them will feel betrayed by the Government acting in that way.

As was pointed out earlier, it was easy to say that no one should pay. If not many are going to pay, why not encompass them all? No one should pay. We on these and the Labour Benches, with the support of Cross-Benchers and others, have tried to force a change—a rethink. Unfortunately, that has been lost tonight, but it will not be the last we hear of this. I will continue to fight, but for now I shall not move the Motion.

Motion H2 not moved.