Leaseholder Remediation (Building Safety) Bill [HL]

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the terrible Grenfell tragedy exposed serious, deliberate and dangerous building practices that put, and still put, lives at risk. The estimate from the Commons’ Public Accounts Committee is that 3 million people may be affected. There are between 5,900 and 7,400 buildings over 11 metres with unsafe cladding, and the National Audit Office estimates that between 9,000 and 12,000 buildings of 11 metres—or five stories—or more have fire safety defects. Of those with unsafe cladding, the latest government figures show that over 2,200 buildings of 11 metres or more have not even started remediation.

The impact on leaseholders is profound. Inside Housing reported that one in five contemplated suicide when faced with the enormity of the safety scandal. Insurance premiums soared, with some leaseholders paying up to £2,000 for a flat, and the average being 56% higher than those without defects. Service charges and waking watch costs add to the significant financial burden on leaseholders.

Leaseholders are paying a very high price when they have done absolutely nothing wrong. The bricks, mortar and dangerous cladding are not theirs. Others are profiting, or have done, from this scandal: construction companies, contractors and material suppliers. My Private Member’s Bill seeks final and swift justice for the thousands of leaseholders whose lives have been for ever harmed by the scandal of deliberate wrongdoing by others.

The principles underlying the Bill are these. First, leaseholders will not be liable for any costs incurred by remediation of building safety defects. Secondly, leaseholders must not have costs included in their service charges, and any who have already fallen foul of this dubious practice can apply to the First-tier Tribunal for repayment. Thirdly, all leaseholders will be covered by the provisions in the Bill, whatever the height of their building. The Government have always argued that buildings below 11 metres are a much lower risk and so are not covered by the Building Safety Act. However, one leaseholder in a low-rise block has a bill of over £65,000 for remediation. Under the provisions of this Bill, the 1.3 million leaseholders in low-rise flats will also, rightly, be protected. Fourthly, all systemic defects, as well as unsafe planning, are covered by the Bill, and are listed in Clause 3. Those four principles form the bedrock of the Bill.

The second part of the Bill defines liability and, for the first time, includes the manufacturers or suppliers of materials that contributed to a systemic defect. The manufacturers of the highly flammable cladding that contributed to the Grenfell Tower fire have so far escaped liability. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry report spells out their culpability, and the police have yet to bring prosecutions. This Bill rights that wrong. The Government have focused their efforts on the removal of unsafe cladding. The failure also to concentrate on other safety defects, such as the lack of fire stopping or compartmentation, has resulted in buildings being deemed safe once cladding has been removed, when they are not.

Part 3 of the Bill deals with getting the work done by setting a clear, legal timeframe for work to be completed. Thousands of leaseholders are living in dangerous buildings nearly 10 years on from the Grenfell fire. This will not do. People deserve much better than the procrastination that has been permitted. The Government’s remediation acceleration plan demonstrates an understanding of the need but is inadequate in its failure to enforce timely action. The Bill radically changes that approach by expecting a remediation plan within 28 days of the Building Safety Regulator confirming that systemic defects exist.

Further, the Government are required to publish a new and more demanding remediation acceleration plan, including target dates for the completion of work. Clause 17 details the timeframe for completion of remediation. Once a plan has been issued, there are 24 months to get the work done and, where defects are identified as being urgent, six months. There are penalties too in the Bill for non-compliant developers, as they will be banned from involvement in any residential building work and from applying for such.

So far, manufacturers of, for example, the ACM cladding that largely contributed to the deaths of 72 people, have avoided financial penalties for their failures, some of which were deliberate. Under Clause 12, those responsible for remediation will be able to recoup costs from manufacturers where the product failed to meet the relevant British standard or European harmonised standard. Such action is long overdue. To protect residents from future building disasters, any new development over 11 metres or five storeys has to hold a developer’s licence from the Building Safety Regulator.

Part 5 of the Bill enhances the rights of leaseholders to vital information about the building and any defects. A protected leaseholder under the Bill will also have new rights to claim against the responsible person for any loss as a result of a systemic defect. An award from the First-tier Tribunal can include damages due to identified losses and any remediation costs already paid by the leaseholder. For too long, leaseholders have been battling for justice without direct support from an identified person. The Bill creates a leaseholder remediation ombudsman to do just that.

The Bill puts the rights of leaseholders first and foremost. For the first time, all buildings, of whatever height, are included. The Bill lays the responsibility and the costs of remediation where they belong: on developers, contractors, and material manufacturers. Leaseholders have new legally enforceable rights and dedicated support where needed. Leaseholders will be fully protected from all remediation costs, with a legal route for recouping those already charged.

I have many to thank for their knowledge and expertise in forming this comprehensive measure: the Property Institute, End Our Cladding Scandal and, in particular, Adam Ball and Mark Fisher.

The Bill demands that justice for leaseholders is at the heart of putting right the scandalous and disastrous behaviour of those responsible. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken in this debate and for the wide—in fact, unanimous—support, certainly in principle if not in practice, from all those who have contributed. In what I have said and in the Bill I have deliberately not pointed the finger of responsibility or blame at any particular Government. That is not what this is about. This is about seeking justice for leaseholders. It is a difficult and complicated issue but in the end, what this House and the Government need to do, with support from across the House, is to finally address the issues in favour of the leaseholders.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, very much for the expertise that he has again shared, including what the then Opposition—now the Government—said at the time about the importance of finally nailing this issue.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for raising an issue that I feel very strongly about: that the manufacturers have so far evaded responsibility. If that does not come through the courts, it has to come through Parliament, and we look forward to seeing whether criminal prosecutions are brought.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that I like being radical. The challenge she made was that if we do this to the building sector, it will not have the capacity to build the new homes that we need. By the way, Devonshire, which she quoted, described the Bill as “powerful”, and that will do. My challenge back is this: take the car industry. Whenever there is a systemic problem—brakes or something—it calls its cars in, deals with it and faces the consequences, which sometimes means billions of pounds, and it does it quickly. When it comes to people’s homes, 10 years on we are still seeking to protect the building industry and others.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her praise, although I do not think I deserve it, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for pointing out some of the legal issues that are now coming. I am just sorry that the Government and the Opposition have been a bit lukewarm in saying, “Yeah, we agree, but we don’t agree”.

All I want is for this issue to be finally dealt with properly in favour of leaseholders. That is what I want, and I shall continue to raise it in this House.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.