Building Safety Bill

Earl of Lytton Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th February 2022 Grand Committee

[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 ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, as your Lordships will know, I have three amendments in my name in this group. I will speak first to Amendment 115 and then to Amendments 118 and 119, collectively now branded the “perpetrator pays” amendments. I was very pleased to hear the Minister’s prefatory comments, because he is absolutely right. The amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Blencathra, and mine come from fundamentally the same hymn sheet. I impress on the Minister: never mind the differences in approach, there are core, fundamental principles that lie behind them all and which, I would like to think, we hold in common. Those principles must be carried forward into the Bill. At the very least, the Minister must come back, not later than on Report, with a version that will hopefully attract some consensus.

I was very glad that we agreed on the earlier point that non-compliant construction is simply unlawful. It is just a real shame that this has been going on for 30 years. One of the problems is that building inspectors are not on site full-time but call to check at certain stages only, so nearly the entire process of receiving good, compliant construction is based on the trust placed in those who direct matters on the site, plan the work, procure materials and labour and oversee standards. I am so glad that my noble friend Lord Thurlow referred to clerks of works. I totally agree with him. The progressive decline in their use is part of a cost-cutting philosophy.

According to the fire chiefs’ council, whose representative was, I believe, giving formal evidence to a parliamentary committee in December, the failings are still ongoing, so the matter is urgent. It appears that many of the approved inspectors are in far too close association with those whose works they oversee.

The problem we have here is one of weak claimant and powerful defendant, and it is that fundamental imbalance that prevents things such as acting against defective workmanship that may amount to unlawful activity. That is why we have to do something to redress that.

My amendments were reworded with “the perpetrator pays” on the advice of the parliamentary clerks—I am very grateful to them for that, because it is a much snappier title than “polluter pays”. Amendment 115 inserts a new schedule, which outlines a remediation scheme. I use the word “outlines” advisedly, because my amendments do not seek to drill down into the administrative detail; that is a job of work for the department to take forward. The amendment tries to set certain principles.

Amendment 118 sets the principles of “the perpetrator pays”, and Amendment 119 is simply consequential. I am indebted to parliamentary counsel Daniel Greenberg for his unstinting efforts in drafting them. With respect to the Minister’s comment, I am indeed a chartered surveyor and no lawyer, but this has come not from my pen, as it were, but from that not only of Daniel Greenberg but of leading construction counsel. They have checked both the construction contractual arrangements and ECHR law and tried to proof the amendments against the risk of sequential legal action and, in particular, judicial review— all of which could effectively unseat the entire process and render anything that we might try to achieve of no effect simply because of the costs that would be faced by anybody trying to exercise it.

I also thank the huge number of leaseholders, who have been appallingly affected, for their patience and stoicism—but also those who have written to me, expressing their support for this group of amendments. I am especially glad that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, added his name to Amendment 118. I thank him for that, because this is not a partisan matter but a question of morality and justice, preventing contagion from irreparably damaging a market sector. That is the other piece of the equation at risk here. This is not anti-developer; my belief is that there are many conscientious developers, but a number of significant players have allowed standards to drop. It is those latter that I wish to single out and attach responsibility to, where it properly lies.

I say to all those responsible in that respect that, with all the plethora of information about cause and effect, the advice and case studies and their long experience and their own knowledge of the contracting world, what is it that they did not understand about all this? It really beggars belief that we have got to this stage. My purpose is to make the developer strictly liable for demonstrable failures to meet the regulatory standards at the time of works. I seek to deliver on the sentiments voiced across the House at Second Reading and expressed by Ministers in parliamentary proceedings and elsewhere that leaseholders should not pay the remediation costs arising from fundamental construction failings—and in connection to my amendment, that relates to fire safety. I am holding the Minister to that express promise.

Just to go into the amendments in a little more detail, noble Lords will of course note the salient characteristics set out in principle. I shall run through it as a summary. Leaseholders should not be responsible or liable for fire safety remediation costs, not even to the extent of Florrie’s law capping. It just is not appropriate. They have been led to believe that they would be relieved of paying for things for which they were wholly innocent—points consistently made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and points still ringing in our ears from the passage of the Fire Safety Bill onwards. Secondly, the taxpayer should not foot the bill, other than as an extremely limited last resort—and I mean extremely limited—and for interim funding to get a remediation scheme in place, as bridging finance. The fallback under my amendments is not the taxpayer but the industry that allowed these practices, and what amounts to a gross breach of trust, to take root. The burden should fall on those with involvement in these practices, directly or indirectly, and not attach to wholly innocent and diligent operators. That is a matter of straightforward fairness.

The amendments are tightly focused on originating fire safety hazards in residential blocks—not any wider construction faults or building types. This is deliberate, because of the sudden, unplanned and catastrophic nature of building fires, especially when occupants are off-guard and possibly asleep, with the custody of minors and even with disabilities, and thus at their most vulnerable. It follows the thread set in place by Dame Judith Hackitt. Expanding beyond that focus would be unhelpful at this juncture.

The proposal covers residential buildings of all heights. As I observed at Second Reading, when a low-rise building in Worcester Park burned down in 2019, as was referred to last time, it could so easily have cost lives. Building height is not the sole determinant factor of high risk.

I intend to attach blame firmly to the perpetrator in a manner that is inescapable liability following the establishment of defect as fact. The perpetrators may be numerous, but the claim will be made against the developer or lead contractor on a joint and several basis, leaving them to pursue the wrongdoers in satellite litigation, if they choose, after making the payout or fixing the defect. These liabilities should not be a wider industry or societal collective responsibility; that is what bad people like to achieve—spreading their risk among the rest of us. I say no to that, and no to any amendment to this Bill that has that effect. I consider it also as a factor that leads to uncertainty and unconstrained risk response in insurance terms. In other words, it allows the contagion to spread where it should not.

The parties should be on even playing field, not one where there is trial by bank balance or a gravy train for litigators. A scheme has to be straightforward and transparent, not mired in complicated process, even less labyrinthine administrative hurdles. It should be operable by individuals or their agents on a per-building basis, and I was pleased that the Minister referred to the per-building approach. It should not discriminate between types of owners, for reasons we have already heard. It is indefensible that liability for defects should depend on the status of the injured party or the nature of their tenure, as if wrecking somebody’s pension pot or a social landlord’s finances is in some way acceptable, when for the homeowner it is not.

Landlords have moral obligations towards their tenants as well. There is that trickle-down effect of responsibility, so I say no, not even by reference to supposed wealth nor by dint of some anti-freeholder prejudice. You either subscribe to the rule of law for all or you deny credibility and confidence in government, and potentially an entire market sector, as well as evading the proper exercise of justice. I would make only one slight exception: my amendment would also protect housing associations which have purchased in good faith. The only situation where that might not pertain is where the housing association was itself the developer. However, I defer on any of that to my noble friend Lord Best, because I suspect that there are different structures within housing associations that deal with the development on the one hand and the housing association function as a quasi-charity on the other.

Just to make sure that everybody is focused on matters, the idea in these amendments is to propose a public register of determinations so that everybody knows what is going on. I hope that, going forward—this is critical—it should serve to eliminate the perverse incentives and poor culture in the race to the bottom on cost-cutting and safety, which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred to.

I think it will be found that the amendments are clear, written in plain English and perfectly understandable. As I say, they do not set in place detailed definitions or administrative schemes but seek to establish principles. I consider that they would greatly simplify what I and, I believe, other noble Lords and the Government are seeking to achieve. They would, I hope, minimise the administrative burden on government and the attendant risks of action on defects and their enforcement, but a clear statement of principles must come first.

I do not think I have ever received such a volume of correspondence on any matter in which I have been directly involved in this House as has happened here. This has come in personal emails from innumerable leaseholders and from residents’ groups, management groups, mortgage lenders, property consultants, professional bodies including the RICS and ARMA, and the British Property Federation. Even a former Australian state premier, Ted Baillieu, who now heads that state’s cladding taskforce, thinks this is a game-changer that it will look to as well. The eyes of many people in this country and elsewhere are on us.

In particular, I had an email yesterday from a Mr O’Connell, vice-chair of the Lancaster West Estate Residents’ Association—the estate that includes Grenfell Tower—in support of this. The Mayor of London has also indicated his support. I thank them all, and the social media have been absolutely buzzing. I hope the Minister will be able to repeat his previous support for the principle and that we can move on with this. I would like to make one or two comments on some of the other amendments in this group, if I may be given the time to do so.

Amendment 24, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Blencathra, is one that I would have contemplated tabling, because I felt it was so important for the debate. I am very glad that the two of them have tabled it. I understand that it was drafted by Professor Susan Bright and her husband. I have had the opportunity and the pleasure of meeting both of them virtually, at an online meeting. Professor Bright is an academic of absolutely unimpeachable principles and a stalwart campaigner for leaseholder justice, so nothing I say about this amendment or anything else should detract in any way from the high regard in which she is rightly held. I feel that both she and the noble Lords are very much on message about the necessity of freeholder redress. If there is a divergence, it is on methodology rather than on the principle, as I have said.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

I put this amendment forward originally to your Lordships’ wonderful team of parliamentary clerks, who did not like the term “polluter”. They felt that pollution as a term of art meant something different—if you like, involving a release or deposit of something, rather than sticking something together wrong. But they said that they would accept “perpetrator pays”, so I said, “Okay, all right, so be it.” But actually I think it is a better term, so I give them due credit for that. That is the origin of the phrase.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Perhaps someone should table some amendments to change the word “polluter” in the Bill to “perpetrator”, so we can all be in the same place.

Very briefly, I turn to the government amendments in this group. At earlier stages of the Bill, it was disappointing that what it contained fell significantly short of the action that was needed to protect leaseholders, so I put on the record how warmly we have welcomed the new amendments that the Government have proposed to address a lot of the urgent issues raised through debates on the Bill so far. However, there are a number of key questions that I shall put to the Minister for clarification today on the amendments that we have debated. I shall not go into detail, because we have heard an awful lot of discussion around them today—so I shall be brief.

How strongly committed are the Government to using their proposed enforcement mechanisms to ensure that industry plays its part and pays the funds that it has been asked to? How will the Government continue to play their part and pay the funds needed to end the crisis while ensuring that funding for affordable housing supply is protected, regardless of the contribution of funds from industry? How can leaseholders who have already paid remediation costs recover those costs retrospectively? I do not think that that has been properly dealt with so far. How will the Government ensure that new funding responsibilities for social landlords will not undermine their role in providing housing supply? That references back to my amendment.

I am sure that we will revisit some of those questions later in debates on this Bill. I ask a brief question about the new clauses in Amendments 74 and 75, which give the Secretary of State power to make regulations that

“prohibit a person of a prescribed description from carrying out development of land in England”,

and/or imposing a building control prohibition in relation to persons of a prescribed description. Those powers would be for any purpose connected with building safety or building standards. I should like clarification, because it is unhelpful that a

“person of a prescribed description”

is not defined in the amendments, which simply state that it means “prescribed by the regulations” under the clause. This is what I am slightly confused about; does it apply to persons who have been found to be in breach of building safety, or is it the means by which government would prohibit those who do not contribute to the extra £4 billion fund? Some clarification on that point would be really helpful.

I hope that the Minister has listened very carefully to the important points that have been made by noble Lords in this debate, and I end by saying to him, in the spirit of what has been going on earlier, acta non verba.

Building Safety Bill

Earl of Lytton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 21st February 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 4. In doing so, I thank the noble Lords who have put their names to the amendment. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who is in his place but who I know cannot stay for the whole debate, and to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who I believe is probably somewhere on the M1. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, who will bring his great experience and insight to bear when he speaks.

As the awful tragedy of Grenfell revealed to us, and as those working in the industry already knew, the construction industry is in a very poor state on a number of different fronts, from quality and basic standards of all kinds to the supply of housing and the prevailing culture. Whether we worked in the industry or not, we were all deeply shocked by the Grenfell tragedy, and it is this that is the origin of the Bill. I recognise, therefore, that priority must be given to the immediate issues arising from Grenfell and that the Bill cannot address everything that needs to be done to tackle the problems in the construction industry. But it cannot ignore them either.

The Long Title says that the Bill makes

“provision about the safety of people in or about buildings and the standard of buildings”.

The Bill indeed picks up some of this, addressing the golden thread and cultural change, for example. Other noble Lords have addressed this in other amendments, including my noble friend Lord Lytton in his amendments on what is now called the perpetrator pays principle, on which I hope to speak later in Committee.

I originally wanted to press for a set of broad-based standards in construction, brought together around the aim of promoting health, safety and well-being. However, given the imperative of addressing the issues directly related to Grenfell—I am sure the Minister will appreciate this—I and the other signatories have gone for a deliberately simple amendment that makes only a start in that direction. Indeed, I hope that the Minister and the Government will welcome this amendment and see it as a contribution to their wider goals of levelling up and driving cultural change in the sector—something that I hope the Government will build on in levelling-up legislation and elsewhere.

Turning to the specifics of the amendment, it clarifies the meaning of “safety” to include health and well-being. It makes clear that the building safety regulator should consider human health and well-being in discharging its building functions. In practice, this means that the regulator, being part of the Health and Safety Executive, needs to consider health and well-being as part of safety when it exercises building functions under Clauses 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill and its functions under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Building Act 1984.

Even without our experience of Covid, there was growing evidence that showed that people’s homes and neighbourhoods have a direct impact on their physical and mental health. Cold, damp, overcrowded and cramped conditions, pollution and inaccessibility for older and disabled people all directly impact on mental and physical health and well-being and constrain opportunity. The quality of our homes and neighbourhoods is one of the foundations of our life and our life chances. The experience of Covid has simply dramatically reinforced all these points.

This is about opportunity for people, life chances and social justice. It is about enabling the people of this country to thrive. The way we organise and design our built environment matters to people and to a series of the Government’s policy initiatives, not least those dealing with health inequality, net zero and levelling up. These conditions also matter in considering our resilience as a country in the face of resurgent and indeed future pandemics. The problem is that the way we regulate homes now fails to secure the minimum standards vital to people’s well-being. This, as the Government’s levelling-up agenda recognises, is a major issue in securing social justice. People on the lowest incomes often suffer the poorest and most insecure housing conditions and live in neighbourhoods with the worst pollution.

This amendment is important because safety is currently undefined in the Bill, so it is simply not clear whether what I would call these common-sense aspects of safety relating to people’s health and well-being should be considered by the building regulator. This lack of clarity is unhelpful because the safety of people is generally defined as an absence of health risks or harms. I note that health and well-being have definitions in UK legislation, so their insertion into law would not be novel. It is also important to note that these issues are not covered by planning or other existing regulations; put simply, planning legislation has no legal obligations of any kind that relate to the health and well-being of people.

I will make one final point on cultural change before I sum up my argument. There is a problem with all regulation when it is written too tightly that people deliver on the specific and do not address the bigger issues—hitting the target but missing the point, if you like. I am sure there are people associated with Grenfell who are arguing that they followed the letter of the law while of course missing the far bigger point. We must not miss this opportunity to take a holistic view on safety. Do we want a future where we have regulated appropriately for fire but, to take just one example that the Committee will address, let people fall down unsafe steps, even though we know what can be done to prevent it? I believe it is necessary to make it clear that this wider definition will inform the decisions of the regulator. I believe that knowing that attention has to be paid to wider concerns of health and safety will also help drive cultural change in the sector as a whole. What I am proposing is about not more regulation but better regulation. Indeed, I believe that, in the longer term, going further and requiring developers to build homes that promote health, safety and well-being will help bring together some of the contradictory elements of the planning and building regulations. That, however, is for another time.

In conclusion, I well understand that the Government cannot make the level of change to the construction industry that is necessary within a single Bill or set of regulations, and I commend them for what is in the Bill. This is why I said at the beginning that we have deliberately added only this simple amendment. This definition allows for the consideration of people’s basic and common-sense needs such as freedom from pollution and damp; safety; access to green space and natural light; accessibility, including safe stairs; heat requirements; and security.

While the amendment is limited to clarifying the scope of the responsibility of the building regulator, it enables the beginning of a new approach to regulation in which human health and well-being are core to the delivery of building safety. I very much hope that the Minister will see this as a contribution to the Government’s goal of making appropriate provisions in the Bill about the safety of people in or about buildings and the standard of buildings.

I have heard it said that we are building the slums of the future. Here the Government have an historic opportunity—very sadly created by this dreadful tragedy—to reverse that trend and help create homes, buildings and neighbourhoods that we can be proud of. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment as an important step on that journey.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, as this is the first time that I have spoken at this stage of the Bill, I declare my interests as a chartered surveyor and member of various property-based organisations. I am also a patron of the Chartered Association of Building Engineers.

The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, is absolutely right to say that, while the preservation of human life must be front and centre, by the same token buildings must be designed to retain their fundamental integrity for specified periods of time, at the very least—as set out, half an hour for this, one hour for that and so on. Noble Lords know this only too well. There are of course many reasons why this is necessary. The total destruction of a building was so graphically illustrated by the fire in Worcester Park, the downstream effects of which were described by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, in its destruction of livelihoods, life chances and, in particular, people’s confidence in their homes—I think this is the point the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, was getting at in his amendment. It casts a shadow across families and down the generations. Anybody who understands the concepts of trauma theories knows that; I am no expert, but I know that it happens. Beyond the utter undesirability, the cost, the insurance risk, the potential risk to firefighters and the general spread of contagion, there are compelling reasons why buildings must retain their integrity: structural, compartmentalisation, spread of flame and so on.

The building regulations, going back to 1965—which were the set of regulations in force when I was at the College of Estate Management studying what has become my lifelong trade and calling—include mandatory standards. There is a secondary aspect in parallel with those, which is the advisory approved documents and guidance. It is really important to understand that there were two different streams running in parallel.

One of the industry failings that has occurred—accompanied, I must say, by a failure of regulatory oversight—is on the part of those who were entrusted to make sure that buildings were constructed in accordance with the mandatory requirements and the best practice set out in the advice. The failing has been to assume that everything you needed to know was contained in this advisory guidance that went in parallel with the regulations. That is wrong. I can do no better than refer to, as I understood them, the opening remarks of counsel for the Government in the final stage of Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s inquiry, when he made precisely this point.

If you follow slavishly the approved documents under part B of the building regulations, which is principally to do with fire, you will lead yourself astray, because it says “should”, “could”, “might” and all those sorts of things. You are dealing with advisory documents concerned with how you may be able to do it this way, or you may be able to do it that way. In other words, the regulations produce the mandatory test first and foremost, but all these other advisory documents then provide suggestions on how you might achieve it.

I strongly support Amendments 1 and 4 because this is about people and the security of their homes. It is about inclusion, decent design and, ultimately, outcome-based policies. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, kindly gave me a quick trailer on the “perpetrator pays” amendments, of which more anon. However, I finish by again following the noble Lord, Lord Foster, in saying to the Minister—who I know has really driven this policy forward; I give him great credit for producing this Bill—that I will do everything I can to assist him in making wise choices and accepting appropriate amendments when they are moved.

Building Safety Bill

Earl of Lytton Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, all these wonderful speeches are a hard act to follow. I declare that I am a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, a valuer and a patron of the Chartered Association of Building Engineers, so this is familiar territory. I very much welcome the Bill and the opportunity that it presents to discuss the issues. I thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction, his engagement, his openness and above all his vigour. However, I believe the Bill needs improvement in scope and function.

First, a bit of advice. The Minister’s letter of 20 January suggests that the department will investigate the governance of RICS. With respect, that ship has sailed. Following a report by Alison Levitt QC, the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, was asked by RICS last December to look into its governance and purposes—so, as ever, we should wait for that report.

The Government should be wary of criticising insurers, managers and valuers for overreaction to safety risks. Proportionality is based on good information and consistent technical advice, so the withdrawal of the consolidated advice note and its replacement with PAS9980 does not necessarily put the genie back in the bottle. Perceptions of risk pervade the property sector. Valuers reflect but cannot uninvent market sentiment. RICS sets standards for consistent analysis and reporting but cannot override the market, which is why, with full support from valuers and the wider industry, it retains the application of EWS1, including low-rise buildings with cladding, and has published a detailed justification.

Noble Lords may recall that a low-rise modern block of flats in Worcester Park was completely destroyed by fire in September 2019—unrelated to cladding, I understand, and, thankfully, nobody was injured. While human life is of first importance, instances of total loss of buildings influence insurance risk. Cladding apart, as we have heard, compartmentalisation, fire stopping and so on are issues regardless of building height, so it is self-evident that low rise does not of itself negate the risk to buildings and occupants, which is why the scope of the problems has grown.

The Bill will create the role of “accountable person”. Dame Judith Hackitt’s recommendation that there be a single individual is logical in administrative terms, but people are now nervous about taking on that responsibility. Residents’ management companies are often populated by volunteers, few with knowledge of building construction and maintenance. Collective freehold ownership and commonhold do not resolve this issue, so management professionals are extremely concerned about this.

My next point is about accreditation, particularly of those who have reason to design, specify, supervise or carry out works to residential properties, most especially those forming part of larger buildings. That certainly needs to be tightened. As HSE is now to have oversight of responsible persons, it should be working with all professions and accreditation bodies to ensure consistent standards without excessive cost.

My main point, however, is about financing the remediation of dangerous cladding and other fundamental defects in construction. I welcome the Government’s announcement to protect leaseholders from remediation costs. However, the details and scope are as yet unclear. Without a range of mechanisms for raising the necessary funds quickly, leaseholders may well continue to live in unsellable, risky and high-cost buildings.

The Government demand that industry steps up to the mark and voluntarily pays for its mistakes, but I remain concerned about reliance on that. Whatever welcome pledges of support are made, the Government need to ensure that they are bankable at an early date, so that any necessary fallback measures can be enacted in the Bill.

It is obvious that remediation of unsafe buildings must proceed with redoubled urgency, and unaffected buildings need to be signed off rapidly, so scaling up the inspection capacity is vital. Innocent leaseholders of all types—I make no exclusions—must be protected from the costs of remedying critical construction defects. They have purchased in good faith on the basis of fitness for purpose, and I do not exclude social landlords.

We need to concentrate minds. Responsibility for serious defects in original construction or refurbishment rests squarely with those who designed, specified, constructed or supervised the works, or who made false claims for construction products. Those responsible should not be allowed to collectivise their liability through an overall levy and thus avoid individual blame, or the culture will simply persist. The taxpayer should not fund this, other than to ensure a legislative framework, robust administration and the early generation of remediation funds, and to provide a fallback where all else fails. Funds already allocated should be for bridging and safety-net purposes and not deplete other areas of departmental funding. Protracted legal proceedings and justice according to bank balance must be avoided. This should be overseen by an independent national entity, although the joint inspection team may have a role in assessing buildings and collecting evidence.

These are the principles behind what is known as the polluter pays amendment, which has been gathering momentum for some months. I pay tribute to the Minister for his engagement with this and to those whose persistence has developed the concept to an advanced stage. I hope the Government will adopt it. Polluter pays would create strict liability where it is found that buildings did not meet relevant standards at the time work was carried out. That liability would cover interim safety measures and insurance premium increases. Once defect and involvement are known, liabilities towards owners would be established on a joint and several basis, so blame would not need to be apportioned. It would provide a relatively simple appeals system via the First-tier Tribunal to prevent leaseholders facing an unequal contest with large corporations. These liabilities need to be taken on the chin: no tax breaks, side deals, concessions or sweeteners—just the same transparent rules for everybody.

Successive Governments may have failed to regulate adequately after the Building Act 1984, but that Act did not remove anything from the principles of the building regulations, the British Standards Institution, codes of practice and other documents. Since 1965 the requirements have been clear, but elements of the construction industry have simply evaded obligations and everyone knows it.

We cannot allow the responsibility of the neglectful few to burden society at large or damage the wider industry reputation, or we will never deal with the perverse incentives to cut corners long term. The human toll is acute and practical imperatives need high standards of corporate ethics, shouldering of responsibility to rebuild sectoral confidence and, above all, speed. This need has never been greater. I look forward to working with the Government to seize the opportunity for real and lasting change under the Bill for the relief of freeholders, for national credibility in construction and in the interests of justice.

Building Safety

Earl of Lytton Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

Not today. But we are well aware of the practice, which goes beyond just whether they are domiciled, of using special purpose vehicles. We are looking at how we deal that issue, where the developer is known, creates an entity over there, away from the rest of the business, does the development in isolation using the funding, and then wraps it up at the end of the development. We are looking at all these issues, through law and tax. Whatever levers the Secretary of State has, he is looking to deploy them to make sure that the polluter, in the broadest sense, will pay.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the Minister on his untiring work here. The Statement made in another place yesterday is certainly extremely welcome. As a practising chartered surveyor and valuer, I am particularly determined to ensure that the regime where the purveyors of shoddy buildings have not been properly held to account must stop, but I understand the immense complexity, raised by other noble Lords, to do with insurance and other matters downstream from the immediate problem.

My first and last concern is the point made, in particular, by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock: namely, that innocent people have devoted their life savings and invested their homemaking, their very being and their work/life balances in properties which have been found to be not constructed to safe standards. This is an appalling social and mercantile evil—let us make no bones about it.

I request that the Minister confirm that this cannot and must not be turned into a tax solution. The reasons for that will be self-evident. It would be both unfair and an unbelievably blunt instrument. It will almost certainly require hypothecation, and would merely serve to collectivise what should be an individually assessed liability; the Minister mentioned that it will be property by property.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I fear that there will not be a great queue at the Minister’s door with open cheque books, and I suspect it will be necessary to move to plan B, because it is not just the cladding but an awful lot of other defects—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Will the noble Earl ask his question, please? There are other people waiting.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that the only remaining viable route that is coherent across the piece is, in effect, the polluter pays amendment, the draft of which had the scrutiny of top legal minds, such as Daniel Greenberg QC? Furthermore, does he agree that this is the only means whereby the perverse habits of what is known in the trade as value engineering will become something of the past, and in future that the inculcation of consistently good construction methods will be the lasting legacy of Grenfell?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

The noble Earl is right that this is a crisis of epic proportions that has affected hundreds of thousands of leaseholders and has been caused over many decades. I have probably visibly aged while holding this brief, because some of the stories from leaseholders are simply harrowing. That is one reason why I am delighted that the House collectively feels that we are making a big step in the right direction.

I also agree that we should challenge some of the practices that have led to this, such as value engineering, which is essentially a way of cutting corners and trying to inflate profits, often by compromising the integrity of the building. These practices simply must stop. Making the polluter pay and doing so at the individual building level is the way to ensure that the quality of the buildings in future will be far better than what we have seen in the past 30 years in this country.

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

Earl of Lytton Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 8th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Fox, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for the constructive meetings that helpfully resolved the issues in the part of the Bill dealing with directors’ disqualifications and insolvency. I thank the Minister for the time he devoted to discussions on the Bill and the private meetings we held to try to resolve various issues, some of which remain; nevertheless, we are happy that the Bill has to pass to deal with the issues in front of us. I am still concerned about its retrospective nature, an issue that we did not fully resolve, inevitably. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, has said, the reforming of business rates is still a major concern. But with that in mind I wish to thank everybody who was involved, particularly Sarah Pughe, from the Lib Dems’ legislative team, for her help and advice. I am grateful for the way the Bill was discussed and debated so that we were, in the end, able to support it. With that, I thank the Minister for his help.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I will make a contribution from, as it were, the technical Benches on the matter of non-domestic rating. I thank the Minister—this will probably be the only time I can thank him publicly—for writing to me about matters he raised when we were at a previous stage of the Bill, in connection with the package of measures the Government have put in place to try to alleviate the problems facing businesses. I do not know whether the right term is “sidestep”, but I suspect he did not quite get the point I was making. Where a major manufacturer carries out works to meet an environmental target—for decarbonisation, for example—and in doing so wrecks something tantamount to a building or structure, or an item covered by the plant and machinery order, a proportion of its value automatically gets built in as an addition to the rateable value. That has been described to me as the double whammy of having to pay for the improvement to meet a government-imposed target, and additional rates. I was trying to focus on specific instances involving a building or structure, or the plant and machinery order, but I leave that to one side because that was to some extent an overture to what the Bill is about. I mention it only because the Minister was making the point about the assistance the Government have provided.

As for the Bill itself, I obviously regret a business rating measure of such a binary nature preventing the effects of coronavirus being properly reflected in rental values as a material change of circumstances for the purposes of making appeals against the assessments. Although the government package of reliefs and other support for the business sector is extremely welcome, it none the less pales into insignificance compared with what businesses could have expected, had a material change of circumstances applied. I will leave that there.

The Government say that the material change of circumstances was never intended to apply to things like pandemics. Well, probably not, but there has never been a time like this when HM Treasury and HMRC have been quite so keen to protect their income streams come what may, regardless of the precise effects on businesses. I hope this Bill does not have the consequences I fear it might, but I remain concerned that the whole process of business rates is beginning to drive responses, which should always be a warning sign with any taxation measure going forward. That said, I thank the Minister and the Bill team, and other noble Lords who have spoken up for the business rate payer. I wish this Bill a safe passage, and I hope it will not fulfil my worst prognostications.

Leaseholders: Safety Remediation Costs

Earl of Lytton Excerpts

Thursday 4th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, has secured this debate. His party, with cross-party support, has spear- headed the cause of those caught up as blameless home owners in the wake of fire safety measures following the Grenfell tragedy. Like him, I am a member of your Lordships’ Built Environment Select Committee. I declare my professional involvement with property and construction. My focus is particularly on property economics, leasehold issues and the sheer level of collateral damage being inflicted on an entire home ownership sector.

So I am glad to have this opportunity to speak on the matter once again, because the problems have not gone away, nor has the ruination of people’s lives and finances due to failures to construct buildings to a standard of safety and competence we should expect. It is not as if the required standards of the past 40 years have gone away, or that overarching principles of safe construction have been abandoned; rather, there has been attrition in the oversight of those charged with the solemn duty to comply with them together with what is termed “value engineering”.

You could not get away with constructing a car to unsafe standards, so why permit a building constructor to plead the principle of caveat emptor on a far more important element in people’s lives? Unsafe buildings cause deaths. The Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, refers to safe housing. Yes, indeed, one’s home should be a place of sanctuary, of occupation on one’s own terms, of security, and is often the embodiment of the owner’s entire capital asset. Destroy the safety, security, comfort, predictability and confidence that this embodies and you do much more than create some remediable, physical or financial loss. It results in trauma of impossible and inescapable proportions for individuals and households, and a loss of faith in the sector and in what the Government are doing about it.

As we have heard, this has gone far beyond the cladding issue alone. Investigations have revealed a raft of omissions and defects in construction that, had they been known about at the time, would not have passed the regulatory material suitability or code of practice standards when a building project was approved and subsequently implemented. It is a fundamental truth that those home owners now faced with unsaleable properties, eye-watering service charges and remediation costs purchased in good faith and had no part in the creation of those defective buildings. It is also the case that the identity of those responsible for construction deficiency is, in most cases, known.

So, while I advocated the Government getting ahead of the curve and leading the way on this very complex issue, with many economically powerful players, I did not mean to suggest that the taxpayer should bail out the home owners. Of course, there is a role for a compensatory fund and a levy, and the Government are acting on this but only for the limited capacity of the most at-risk buildings. That leaves a gap between the scope of what the Government set out to do and the extent of the problems, as we now know them.

I believe that the Government should be the instigator and driver of a more encompassing framework. Here I pay tribute to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, because much of what I say will dovetail with them. The framework should ensure that those responsible are indeed held to account, that home owners are thereby accorded relief from their resultant woes and that confidence is restored.

In the last five months, I have had many discussions with Steve Day, an inspirational campaigner who is well known to the Minister and who was faced with a huge remediation bill on an east London flat. Due in large part to his persistence, a group colloquially termed the “polluter pays” movement has grown up and garnered very considerable support. I wish to address the principles behind it this afternoon. It borrows from the principles in the Environmental Protection Act, seeking to make the polluter—or, in this case, the developer or constructor and his team responsible for the works—liable for the consequences of their failures. It differs from the EPA in that it would not try to apportion individual responsibility in some proportional manner but would provide joint and several liability on the developer or builder and leave those who are responsible to sort it out among themselves, after the Government have recovered the money.

It would make the first point of recourse for appeals to the First-tier Tribunal to keep things out of the mainstream courts as far as possible, thus discouraging economic might from bullying much weaker parties. It would attach parent company liability by a device customarily used by the Competition and Markets Authority, when treating a company and its subsidiaries as a single liable entity. It would remove the protection of special purpose vehicles, which developers have often used to try to ring-fence, if not actually escape, liability.

The polluter pays principle asks the Government to employ industry experts to check whether builders built to the required standards, including manufacturers’ instructions. If not, it then places the burden of proof on constructors to evidence that their installations met building regulations in force at the time of construction. If they do not have the evidence or they broke the building regulations in force at the time, they would need to put their hands in their pockets. As we have seen all over the media and in professional reports, there has been widespread non-compliance with construction standards, despite the fact that there is a very profitable housebuilding sector—so I believe that a large recovery potential is in fact there.

The polluter pays principle would also provide a way forward for proportionality in risk assessment, providing for the full range of property types, building heights, defect categories, and so on. It would draw on a vastly greater resource than the Government currently propose under their levy, and it would not impose a blanket levy on the many good and conscientious builders and their development teams. But it needs government to get ahead of the current freefall in risk-averse reactions and broker a pan-sector approach.

As a consequence, if this was taken forward, it would in fact set in place a legacy that would restore confidence and counter the perversity of the race to the bottom in construction standards and the culture of getting away with things if you can, rather than doing a good job and going that little bit further.

I fervently hope that, given the information, background, purposes and mechanics, the Government will see fit to incorporate this into the Building Safety Bill as an amendment of their own. If so, I will strongly support it; if not, I shall argue for one to be incorporated notwithstanding. I put it to the Minister that, in all justice and morality, this demands action. The problems of damage to market confidence, sector economics, social fabric, and personal health, well-being and life chances simply cannot be allowed to persist. This is a systemic failure that must not be allowed to persist. I know he has listened to the polluter pays argument, but I now ask him to take it forward.

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

Earl of Lytton Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 19th October 2021 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, the procedure for this debate before Second Reading was queried at the time of the Chief Whip’s commitment Motion. I had not realised that not only has this procedure been used only once before—namely, last October during our hybrid phase—but, so far as I know, the Procedure Committee has not reported on it. I have to say that I consider it unsatisfactory to separate in time and place the bulk of debate here from a decision to give a Second Reading some other time in the Chamber. Can the Minister confirm what discussions with the Procedure Committee have taken place about using this procedure now that we are out of hybrid mode? He may need to come back to me on that on some other occasion.

As to the matter for debate, noble Lords will know of my involvement, over a lifetime as a property professional, with business rates and local government finance and in this House, from the day of my maiden speech to the present time. With my having declared that matter, it will come as no surprise that it is the rating part in Clause 1 of the Bill that I seek to address, and that only. I do not propose to disappoint the Minister in what I have to say, but I apologise in advance because I will need a little time to explain it. I declare at the same time that I am an occupier of business premises and I benefit from a small-business exemption—but, for the avoidance of doubt, I did not claim any Covid grant or relief for the interruption of business activities.

I acknowledge that the Government have made great efforts to relieve business rate payers of many of the worst effects and burdens that have arisen during the pandemic, but it is far from the case that it has been applied equally to all, or indeed evenly across the spectrum of property. Nor has it been in any way linked to impact or means, so far as I can tell.

I also acknowledge that, having introduced measures to grant emergency relief, it might be seen as perverse to allow those who benefited from them to make further claims for the same period due to material changes of circumstances, or MCCs. However, it would be simplistic to go down that road. I do not believe that those who set about to make MCC appeals were those same beneficiaries or intended to claim for the same period, given that the duration of relief was not known at that time. Indeed, it is likely that they were not one and the same. Either way, it should be a simple matter to make provision to prevent such double counting, if indeed there is evidence of it.

MCCs have always been available where substantial change has affected the assumed annual value of property; a supermarket opening up down the road, affecting traditional high streets, or changes in highway arrangements, affecting trade—that sort of thing. However, the Government suggest that this was never intended to address an issue of global impact such as a pandemic. From the dawn of rating under the statute of Elizabeth I to the General Rate Act 1967—on which I cut my professional teeth—and on to the present day, there has been plenty of time to ponder such matters, and yet we have this measure only now. Coincidence? I think not.

The reality is that in the pandemic some sectors did well, others realigned their processes and activities to stay afloat, and a further group floundered and continue to do so. It is not correct to say that the pandemic produced a general downturn lasting for more than a year, which is the usual benchmark for dealing with material matters for rating valuation purposes.

It is a concern that the Government took so long after the commencement of the lockdown to come forward with a measure of this type. Effectively, a year elapsed before the Government chose to lay, initially, a statutory instrument with prospective effect, with the promise of a Bill with retrospective effect—which is where we are now, of course. I do not believe that proper consultation with business rate payers was part of that process.

The courts have been at pains to point out that rateable values are meant to represent the benefit of occupation to the occupier. Where government prevents or limits such beneficial use, rateable values should reduce—but not, it seems, where HM Treasury deems otherwise. As a result, appeals against assessments on grounds of MCCs were made in good faith, in time, and were validated long before the end of March 2021. No attempt was made to avoid this wasted cost and effort during the period when doubtless many public servants were furloughed, but equally the resources were there to consider and act in an appropriate and timely manner on such issues. The Valuation Office Agency was actively involved in negotiations regarding these MCC appeals, in conjunction with ratepayers’ representatives.

I have received representations from, among others, Heathrow Airport—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth—and some advice from rating experts Gerald Eve. If ever there was an MCC event sufficient to interrupt the operation of the nation’s largest airport, this had to be it. While late in the day a grant scheme was set up, it was capped at £2 million per hereditament, so amounted to a flea-bite of a concession in something like the Heathrow rates bill.

Worse than that, it selectively, and, I suggest, unreasonably, failed to address the issues affecting very large assessments and operations such as Heathrow and Gatwick, which to all intents and purposes were completely shut down by force of law while, at the same time, support was given to other types of activity that were still able to keep going, as we have heard. It is therefore hard to comprehend precisely what sort of a material change of circumstances would afford any relief to such a large enterprise, given the effect of the Bill. Nor does it dispel the impression of selective discrimination against a specific class of undertaking.

It is not just about mega-businesses of this sort—many others have suffered equally. Although the productivity may have held up, the double overheads of supporting remote working staff and maintaining empty office buildings have none the less been significant. The Government have protected office tenants from being hounded by their landlords to pay rent for space that they were prevented from physically occupying but have offered them zero protection when it came to business rate bills. That seems to be nothing short of double standards.

The Government have promised to set in place a £1.5 billion discretionary business rates relief fund in place of the MCC reductions that this Bill will now negate. I doubt whether many local authorities will exercise discretion in favour of an international airport, or indeed any but a relatively local cause célèbre, however significant the larger employment and economic activities are of big undertakings that underpin local economies and employment.

The explanatory paper produced at the same time as the SI gives examples in which a ratepayer with a £95,000 assessment might get £7,300 of relief, despite their turnover collapsing to zero. What that tells us is that any benefit is likely to be minimal and that £1.5 billion is a drop in the ocean. To follow what other noble Lords have said, could the Minister please clarify how the Government arrived at this sum of £1.5 billion as appropriate recompense for ratepayers badly impacted by the pandemic? Having been announced in March 2021, in the 2021 fiscal year, does this sum relate only to that year, with nothing further, or is it intended that there should be some further funding for 2021-22?

I find it disturbing that a deliberate decision has been made not to provide information as to how the £1.5 billion will be apportioned between councils and how they should make decisions as to which businesses in their areas should receive some of it—until, that is, this Bill is passed. Of course, that leaves businesses and billing authorities alike in no position to make any plans in relation to it. Can the Minister explain why he cannot today publish a draft of the proposed allocation of the £1.5 billion to each local billing authority and share the draft guidance planned to be issued to councils explaining the circumstances in which the Government believe that businesses should qualify for a share of the cash?

The apparent intention is to make the distribution according to the official data on the impacts of the pandemic on different sectors and not according to estimates of the impact on a property’s value. All this is apparently to ensure

“an even and more proportionate allocation of support”.

We were told that this would enable a speedier payment of support than would have been possible under the usual MCC appeal rules. I am afraid that I do not entirely follow that.

I feel that this is a matter of a veil of obfuscation. Fundamentally, it is about protecting Treasury income streams, first and foremost—and I am afraid that it is just too bad if businesses crumble. It lacks equity and fairness; the most desperate of businesses will be least able to mount a case or may have already gone under, waiting in desperation for government support that has failed to materialise. There is nothing in prospect for those at tipping point now. I have long said, and will say again, that if HM Treasury can think of nothing better to do than to disadvantage businesses which suffer serious losses, due in significant part to government edict, it will be of small concern to it that, in response, reduced exposure to a tax on business floorspace—perhaps by trading increasingly on the web—becomes a standard business plan and, for those who cannot avoid it, a fetter on the nature and extent of the financial risks they will be prepared to underwrite on behalf of the taxman. The moral hazard in all this is that it continues to underpin government willingness to game the system without taking adequate responsibility for the outcome. I suspect that, by the time the £1.5 billion fund kicks in, it will be too little and almost certainly much too late.

Of course, part of the answer is much more frequent revaluations—that, of course, is well beyond the scope of this Bill—but there was supposed to be a fundamental review of business rates, and many expected it to have progressed beyond the 2017 findings. I invite the Minister to give us an update on that if he is willing, but it is no wonder that some on the political spectrum suggest abolishing business rates altogether. It does not need to be so. It would be a perfectly good, fair and cheap-to-run system save for government insistence on overworking it and, essentially, unfairly treating businesses ever since the arrival of the poll tax in 1990. It is a salutary tale of mismanagement, and Clause 1 of this Bill continues the fundamental error.

I leave your Lordships with this thought: what else follows from this further incursion into business rate payer protections and stability of local government budgets?

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]

Earl of Lytton Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 20th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

I wish to speak to Amendment 3, in my name. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for speaking to me about my concerns about Clause 1(4). It is important that today, we have had an acknowledgement that Clause 6, which I understand is the way the Government intend to deal with preserving the right of a landlord to continued receipt of ground rent for the duration of the original lease, does not extend to a situation where the tenant requests, and the landlord might otherwise agree, subject to this Bill, to grant an extended demise or an extended grant of property.

At the moment, the Bill does not address one of the two circumstances in which, in the normal course of events, there will be a deemed surrender and regrant by operation of law, which operates irrespective of the intention or awareness of the parties. The Minister says that it does not matter because the landlord can always agree with the tenant to grant a separate lease of any extended area of land which the tenant wishes to include in the lease, and that the landlord would otherwise be willing to grant. This leaves a very messy situation. Clause 6—which, with respect, is not entirely straight- forward—is intended to deal with the second situation whereby there is a deemed grant and surrender, and that is where there is any extension to the duration of the lease.

The second normal circumstance is not addressed at all. It is an everyday occurrence, not an unusual one, for a tenant and a landlord to agree informally to changes in the area of the lease. Therefore, subject to the solution that is proposed, which is a separate lease of this grant of extended land included within the lease, there is nothing in the Bill that addresses this. This can be dealt with quite simply, either by taking out Clause 1(4) or by extending Clause 6 to include this second situation, which is the granting of greater land than is currently within the original lease. It makes absolutely no sense to include something dealing with the one but not the other, when those are the only two circumstances which would normally give rise to a deemed grant and surrender. It leaves a lacuna in the Bill, in that there still may well be a landlord who is not aware of the terms of the Bill and who may not appreciate that granting, in accordance with the tenant’s request, a greater piece of land to them has the effect of removing the ground rent to which the landlord would otherwise be entitled.

Although I very much welcome what the Minister has said about many of the amendments he has tabled, and his explanation, legally speaking we are left with a very untidy situation. There is now a distinction between the two circumstances in which there is a deemed surrender and regrant, one being expressly dealt with in Clause 6, and the other not at all. That could lead to a landlord with no awareness of the situation—and with no intention of doing so—losing the benefit of the ground rent under the original lease.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and I thank the Minister for introducing this group of amendments, in which I have two: 5 and 39. I declare my property interest but hasten to add that it does not involve long leasehold; I also declare my interest as a property professional. I particularly thank the Minister for meeting me this morning at short notice; I very much appreciate that and I think it is fair to say that we had a frank and generally constructive conversation. I am indebted to the British Property Federation for the comments it sent me, to the Wallace Partnership Group for its observations on the Bill, and to the Homes for Later Living group, which is a retirement homes specialist.

The pivotal point here is the question of who takes on the responsibilities of property management and things such as safety oversight, particularly in complex buildings. I am thinking of developments such as Salford Quays, but there are others in the pipeline, including King’s Cross and Battersea, that will come on stream and are in the process of evolving even as I speak.

The British Property Federation believes—and I agree with it—that most leaseholders in these large, complex, often urban developments will not want to take on the sort of responsibilities implicit in the management and future-proofing of the common areas and common parts of buildings in these multi-occupied developments. Hardly had I considered that point when it was pointed out to me that a poll by Savanta found that only 31% of people would willingly take on the management of their apartment block, even when faced with the option of saving on ground rent. I have some experience that reinforces this, so much more so when we come to the scale of some of these urban and often redevelopment situations that are truly industrial in their complexity.

A buy-to-let investor is hardly going to have interest in participating in the day-to-day running of an estate. Freeholders, with a nil or peppercorn rent and no other interest beyond the maintenance and management charges that may be taken away from them by right to manage, are hardly going to have an interest in taking on costs that they might not be able to recover. By that I mean costs on things such as long-term capital expenditure on visual improvements or repurposing parts of the development—matters that are not a service charge and therefore there is some question as to the degree to which they could be recovered. With no skin in the game, how is the freeholder going to finance or forward-fund these things? For practical purposes, the Bill ends up providing us with the opportunity for non-responsive freeholders.

If leaseholder-led arrangements fail or the leaseholders want to hand back the management process, an effective freeholder is traditionally there as a backstop to take on the responsibilities. Curiously, under the Bill that onus will persist, with the freeholder having a peppercorn rent. I question whether the liabilities will in fact be shouldered in that way or can be imposed in practice.

I do not intend to press either of my amendments, but it is worth my while going into Amendment 5 in a little more detail. The amendment would make leases that meet certain criteria excepted leases and therefore still able to operate on a ground rent principle. Freeholders would thereby be incentivised to invest in the property in the long term and to bring their expertise, their ability to deal with complex developments at scale and their property management skills and safety oversight.

As buyers of individual long leaseholds, consumers would still have the choice at the market-wide level as to whether they wanted to live in a block run by a freeholder and pay a ground rent or to purchase a flat in a communally run block. Consumers would also retain the right, as they have now, to enfranchise or exercise their right to manage and take over the block, which the Government have said they will seek to make easier as they work on a second leasehold reform Bill.

I propose the choice of a functioning leasehold system in larger and particularly complex apartment building arrangements because, as I say, there is good evidence that a lot of leaseholders do not want the responsibility of running these blocks. It must be pointed out that service charges relate to current expenditure. They do not customarily cover future investment, improvement or adaption and may potentially be challengeable by leaseholders.

A point about retirement developments was rather eloquently made by Homes for Later Living. These often have specialised development models, including extensive communal facilities, so although they are not the same as these large, mixed-use commercial redevelopments, they have some of the same problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group and I am grateful to the Minister for finding the time to have a meeting with me. It was very helpful.

I shall come on to another amendment I have later. For this group, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, mentioned the need to speed things up. I entirely support that. We should get the rest of the Law Commission’s report on the statute book as quickly as possible. The noble and learned Lord’s amendment and that from my noble friend Lord Lennie are fundamental in trying to, shall we say, stem the tide of very unfair practices that seem to have developed in some parts of the market. I do not know how widespread it is, and I am quite surprised that the CMA has not been more helpful because its role, after all, is to look after the interests of consumers. Sometimes I feel that it possibly does not do that, but we can discuss that another time.

I have the pleasure of being on your Lordships’ Built Environment Committee that has just started one inquiry—out of two—into housing. At our meeting this morning, I was struck by three of the witnesses all saying that security of tenure was one of the biggest problems in housing. Whether it is leasehold or rental, it does not really matter very much. It is important to understand that people need to have some comfort that they can continue to live where they are living if they want to, and that the amount that they pay cannot go shooting up because of the wishes of the owners or other people involved in a way that could not have been foreseen when they took out the lease. It is not good when people are locked in—there are many press comments about it—and cannot sell. What do they do? That is before you get into the problem of cladding, which again is outside this discussion.

I am not sure whether my noble friend’s amendment or that of the noble and learned Lord is the best one. They both try to find some way of providing financial comfort to those who have been caught in this sudden upsurge—to me anyway—of increasing ground rents or other similar charges.

When we do these stages, it is funny that the Minister answers before the amendment has actually been proposed—but that is another thing we will get to. I look forward to my noble friend speaking on this matter, as he is much more knowledgeable than I am on it. I shall also be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say. It is really important that something like this is done very quickly, long before the next stage of the Law Commission’s report becomes a Bill.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am largely supportive of this group of amendments, particularly the one moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. It always seemed to me that some of these clauses, particularly relating to escalating ground rents, were unfair, with hidden implications that were not apparent to purchasers at the time when they were entered into. The CMA intervention is welcome but the ongoing blight continues. This is certainly an evil that causes me to support this amendment very much.

I also support Amendment 9. This seems to be a logical provision against pre-emption and creates, as I see it, greater transparency, which really should be the hallmark of landlord/tenant relationships in this area.

It is unfortunate perhaps that I am speaking before Amendment 26 has been spoken to. I see it as potentially retroactive, and think it might remove the value of an asset without fair compensation. In its specific scope, it would not distinguish between a fair and reasonable ground rent and one that was flagrantly unfair. I do not in any way defend leasehold interests as such, but if we go down this road it has much wider public interest and property law implications.

Again with Amendment 30, I would have liked to have spoken after the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, whom I believe will speak to it, but, from a technical standpoint, the question of rent is a payment that in this instance the tenant makes to the landlord for the bits of the property which exist but which are not within the tenant’s specific demise under their leasehold. It is not a service charge. Are we at risk of getting rent and services provided for rent confused—in other words, the use of property as opposed to a tangible benefit in terms of the service charge? In general, however, subject to those points, I support this group of amendments.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 7, 8, 9 and 30. I will focus most of my remarks on Amendment 9, but I cannot speak without first saying that the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, which I see as essentially introducing an early buy-out option for existing leaseholders, is the next necessary step and should have been endorsed by the Minister and incorporated in this legislation. It is yet another of the unfinished bits of business dogging our debates on the Bill. Like others, I am looking forward to Amendment 26 being presented by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, which, as far as I understand its meaning and intention, has essentially the same purpose of moving forward the implementation of leasehold reform for that cohort of existing leaseholders who will be left out of this legislation. As such, in principle, we support that strongly.

Amendments 7, 8, 9 and 30, tabled by my noble friend Lady Grender and myself, are various alternative approaches to ensure that if the limited circumstances of this Bill are as far as the Minister is prepared to go, it is at least not a cause of exploitation of existing leaseholders who may be very close to agreeing an informal lease extension. The process of informal lease extensions is a well-accepted norm in the leasehold industry and, as was discussed extensively at previous stages of this legislation, one which comes into play when the existing lease is within sight of its end. That may be some distance away but nevertheless the value of the lease is declining rapidly, and perhaps its mortgageability on resale is compromised because there is not a sufficient existing term of the lease. If a completely new lease is not to be entered into, an informal lease extension may be negotiated between the leaseholder and the proprietor.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, described Amendment 9 as an anti pre-emption provision. Perhaps his three-word soundbite says it all. The risk at the moment is that an owner—or, should we say, one of the less-scrupulous landlords—may see this as an opportunity to preserve the value of his asset by offering an informal leasehold extension on terms which would be applicable under the current legislation now to pre-empt the possibility of that extension value declining to nil once the new legislation comes into force.

The Government have set their face against either of the approaches set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, at least at this stage, and I suspect that they will strongly resist the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. That is a pity and comes despite the evidence that has been put on the table by the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the examples given by my noble friend Lady Grender in Committee, which were referred to extensively at Second Reading. That leaves precisely the problem that I have outlined. An informal leasehold extension may very well be useful to both parties when the leaseholder is shortly to sell or is making arrangements prior to disposal, but clearly it is dangerous if the leaseholder simply wants to continue their lease.

It is also dangerous if the condition for entering negotiations is that the lawyers will be appointed by the owner, and it is dangerous if the new terms which are inserted into that leasehold extension are not drawn properly to the attention of the leaseholder. The evidence shows that it is not unusual for escalator clauses to be built into those leasehold extensions, which are not transparent and not brought clearly to the notice of the leaseholder who is going to sign. The risk is that unscrupulous landlords can see very clearly that, after Royal Assent, their golden goose will be stuffed. If I can mix my metaphors, they have an incentive to offer new lamps for old when it comes to extensions. To offer informal leasehold extensions to unsuspecting leaseholders locks them into a new, unfavourable set of terms when, if they had waited, under the full enactment of the Bill they would have been eligible for its new provisions limiting the ground rent to a peppercorn.

We have tried to fix this statutorily. Amendments 7 and 8 set this out in different ways, but Ministers resisted our efforts strenuously. We have had discussions with the Minister, which I have very much welcomed. He has been very generous with his time and with his officials’ time in working on this problem. Amendment 9 is therefore really quite modest in its intent and its impact. It simply proposes that landlords should have an obligation to alert their leaseholders in advance of these changes coming into force of informal leasehold extension terms being altered by this new legislation. It is a proportionate safeguard which is not onerous on landlords but gives leaseholders a clear sight of the forthcoming changes before they commit to less favourable terms under the existing law. It does not prevent those to whom the balance of advantage still lies with a speedy signature on the existing terms for an informal leasehold extension from choosing to do so, but it seeks to protect the unwary from making a costly mistake which ultimately, as in one or two of the examples which my noble friend Lady Grender brought to the House in Committee, may lead to them losing that property entirely.

I intend to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 9 when the appropriate moment arises.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the amendment just moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.

I am a fan of what I see as post-occupation evaluation. I welcome the amendment for that alone. I would more comfortable if it did not just refer to leaseholders, because the whole dynamic—as regards the ongoing interaction between leaseholders, freeholders, management and so on—is ever moving. That needs to be seen in the round. It should include not just the financial matters referred to in the amendment but a more holistic measure in terms of the sense of place, security, ability to control or influence outcomes and user contentment. I suspect that the Government have a system anyway for reviewing the effects of legislation, but I ask whether that is frequent enough to meet the noble Baroness’s objectives. In general, I support the other amendments in this group.

The noble Baroness referred to the driver behind this being the tragedy of Grenfell. Although the process of evaluation and what has come out of it may be seen, in government terms, to be moving at lightning speed, it has not been nearly fast enough for leaseholders and those who pay service charges. The consequences of that have been amply exposed by the noble Baroness and are ongoing. This is truly a tragedy for many households, which have walked unknowingly into a situation created by the neglect of others. The auguries are not particularly good. The proposal, as I interpret it, to leave the power in the hands of leaseholders to claim—admittedly on a longer timeframe—against those who did not observe basic construction standards creates an almost insuperable hurdle.

It is appropriate that I pay tribute to those outside the House who have promoted the polluter pays principle. I know that this matter has been brought to the attention of the Government, and it would place the basic strict liability on those who failed to make the grade in construction standards. My question is: when are the Government going to act on it? I consider the matter of such importance that if the noble Baroness decides to test the opinion of the House, I shall be voting with her.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, this is a devastating case, again, of unfinished business. We have talked several times about unfinished business in respect of reforming the whole leasehold system. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has spoken with great passion about the need to deal with the unfinished business of getting the damaged blocks discovered since the Grenfell fire put back in a safe and workmanlike position. That is a terrible story, which is still unravelling and still producing—I think we can say—shock and amazement as the evidence comes out of the inquiry at Grenfell. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, it is not an isolated failure. I ought to have started by reminding the House that I was the Minister with responsibility for building regulations between 2010 and 2012, which was well before this but is nevertheless relevant.

There was a failure of regulation, a failure at every level of the supply chain, a failure of the designers and a failure of those responsible for monitoring progress. Of course, the fallout is not simply that one building was found to be dangerous and defective and burned at the cost of 72 lives, but that more than 400 other buildings have been found to be equally defective or worse. As is so often the case, once you begin to look, you see plenty else. The British Woodworking Federation estimates that 600,000 defective fire doors are installed in buildings in this country. In that context, it is good to know that the Government have come forward with a compensation scheme, allocating £5 billion. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the guidelines for applying for that compensation have yet been published. My last understanding is that they have not, but maybe he can bring some information to your Lordships’ House today.

It has to be right that this House considers the situation facing those leaseholders and, in so far as we can, safeguards their position. This is actually a very modest amendment; it calls only for a review within six months, not for the spending of government money, so there is nothing for Ministers to shy away from. It would simply make sure that this legislation, relevant to the ongoing tragedy of Grenfell and the ongoing battle that hundreds of thousands of leaseholders are facing with enormous bills—which the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, eloquently spelled out—cannot be passed by your Lordships’ House without serious consideration.

I know that the Minister has repeatedly found himself at the Dispatch Box having to say essentially the same thing: “This is not the time; this is not the place; this is not the right legislation.” We have to reply to him: “Well, when is the time? Where is the place? Where is the legislation?” We need to see some answers. Certainly, this is a matter we wish to press in the oncoming vote.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]

Earl of Lytton Excerpts

Monday 24th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate this Bill and in doing so refer to 45 years of professional interest in the matter and my interest as the first chairman of the Leasehold Advisory Service. Although I have personal interests in residential and commercial lettings, they do not include long leasehold and, as a technician, I take no particular position for or against it. I, too, am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

First, to positive matters: I pay tribute to the Government for moving to tackle some of the known problems and abhorrent abuses with long leaseholds—especially that of escalating ground rents. For years, I have advised clients against taking on such leaseholds, so that maybe makes me part of the problem. But I do think that much swifter action could have been taken to deal with them—but there we are. I welcome the measures. I also welcome the actions of the CMA. But, before we get too excited, I would just point out that 18,000 escalator rents, as I would call them, equate to 0.4% of all leasehold ground rents.

Anything that speeds up the leasehold transaction process is, of course, good for market confidence. So dealing with unnecessary delays is also extremely welcome. However, I do need to point out some procedural shortcomings here. There is an overwhelming case for remedies, so it is utterly extraordinary to me that the department should have chosen to conduct its consultation via SurveyMonkey. The department then found it necessary, on analysis, to allocate a significant proportion of the responses to a category entitled “General comments that did not answer the question”. Undaunted, but finding there some muddle in responses on leaseholders’ payments for various things, it then resorted to regression analysis to resolve the confusion. I suggest that this is not an appropriate way to conduct consultation on such an important matter, and I feel that in this instance it damages the credibility of the process.

The Government also make the point that leaseholders see no benefit from the ground rent they pay—but it is ostensibly for the use of the shared bits they do not own outright. The same could be said of any rent under any lease—or, for that matter, many taxes—so I regard that argument as potentially disingenuous and unhelpful.

I acknowledge that this is the first part of a two-part approach, but I believe that from the consultation there was a clear expectation that other evils would swiftly be dealt with, such as unjustified charges for rent collection, the fees for consent, unfair rent charge situations and more—all of them abuses at the expense of leasehold and freehold homeowners. There was no reason to delay tackling at least some of these, and it is a disappointment that we have an indeterminate wait for action in some of these areas, which has already been mentioned. I am not sure why the whole process needs to be so convoluted and multistage. The means chosen to achieve the Bill’s ends are complex, and complexity leads to loopholes, avoidance and unintended consequences. A part-reform is always hazardous, and this should be a more coherent and thoroughgoing package.

Between muddle and confusion stalks another character, known as dishonesty. Those with a pre-disposition towards fleecing homeowners are not guided by ethical or moral considerations, and there is no knowing what they may dream up next. This might also explain why the Law Commission’s consultation produced minimal responses on intermediate interest—those lying between the freehold and the long leasehold. To me, it is obvious why: sharp practitioners tend to keep their own counsel and their powder dry.

A preference for keeping things simple prompts me to ask why, more generally, there could not be a statutory redefinition of “quiet enjoyment”, a covenant for which is embedded in every leasehold either expressly or by statutory implication. What is there not to like in specifying that this means no unfair, unjustifiable, oppressive, opaque or deceitful activities?

I now turn to some areas where the Bill may have gone more seriously awry. First, as was pointed by the British Property Federation and the noble Lord, Lord Hammond, the Bill would prevent the granting of any residential long lease at a rack rent. It also makes some complex provisions for mixed-use exemptions, but I am far from clear that these and the meaning of “significant contribution” would actually work or be free from challenge. I expect market sentiment to be negative. This may be unintentional but, if not, I ask the Minister to explain it.

Secondly, the timeframe for providing lease information is tight—potentially unreasonably so. I will leave the point at that.

Thirdly, the proposal to render ground rents under long lease as valueless is not a free bet. In any large and complex building in which individual flat owners have ownership over a small portion only and no direct contractual relationship with each other, there is a need to govern how the common parts—the fabric of the building, its services, its uses and the environment in which it sits—are organised. This and the conduct of the respective interest holders vis-à-vis each other and the building they occupy do not happen by accident but by the legal construct of a lease and the enforceability of governance.

If long leaseholds are the time-honoured, legally understood and principal means for procuring occupation and title in a physically subdivided building, they will continue to be a feature for many years to come. It therefore matters that they function effectively and command confidence and that both tenures be made fit for purpose, with freeholders who are motivated, competent, of substance and, above all, engaged. This measure does not consolidate this parallel need, which I fear is sadly out of scope. As I have observed in separate correspondence with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and others—I look forward to her speech later—if you think a greedy landlord is a nadir, you have not encountered a clueless, ineffective or inactive one.

The Bill would reduce the freehold rental value in future long leasehold tenure to nil. I may have missed it, but I do not see that the Bill mandates what happens to the truncated rump of freehold interest and the remaining important functions attached to it. What is to stop cost recovery and these being the vehicle for the very same unfair practices we all want to prevent, or to stop these freeholds falling into the hands of unscrupulous entities, perhaps becoming of negative worth or being bankrupt, with significant implications for leaseholders? We are not necessarily dealing with decent people in the ownership of these assets, so to my mind the remaining freehold should be parked permanently in a safe and competent pair of hands. I invite the Minister to explain why he does not feel that this can happen.

There is also the risk of a wider message getting about that residential long leasehold is intrinsically bad. That is untrue, and in so far as it may be intended to accelerate lacklustre commonhold or support some political platform, there is a need to be very careful that market sentiment does not downvalue wholesale—the investments of more than 3 million homeowners, many of whom are already under severe stress due to fire safety matters. I cannot overstate the importance of this.

Should commonhold take off—I wish the work of the Commonhold Council well—it will likely be many years before it is the main form of apartment tenure. Running two systems is inherently problematic for market confidence, and I did not detect from its briefing that UK Finance, the sectoral voice, views this differently. The Law Commission refers to the divergent interests of freeholder and leaseholder. Insurers, building managers, safety regulators and even fellow leaseholders often have divergent interests, yet come together for specific reasons of mutual convenience and necessity. Commonhold may improve this but it will not make these issues disappear altogether.

I end by thanking all the bodies that sent me briefings, as well as the Minister and his staff for responding to my queries and offering to arrange a meeting. I hope that, with good will and understanding, we can improve this Bill.

Fire Safety Bill

Earl of Lytton Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 28th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a member of Kirklees Council.

Throughout the course of this Bill, I have said that I support its contents and purpose. I cannot support the unintended consequences that will have a devastating impact on individual leaseholders and a very damaging effect on the housing market. Those are the reasons for my asking again for the Government to take responsibility for the consequences of this Bill, which despite the Minister’s best efforts has been totally underwhelming so far. Promises have been made by the Government and not kept.

The Government’s response to date is to provide grant funding of £5 billion while knowing that the total cost is estimated at £16 billion. The grant includes only blocks over 18 metres and only removes the flammable cladding. For those in lower blocks, there is the prospect of paying up to £50 per month for years to come.

Conveniently, the Government fail to take into account the non-cladding issues that are a result of construction failure of immense proportions. These non-cladding issues are the ones that will finally push individuals over the edge. Meanwhile, those who have literally built this catastrophe walk away with their billions of profit. The Government have a duty to protect their citizens—it is their prime duty—yet here we are today with perhaps a million of our fellow citizens being thrown to the ravages of financial bankruptcy, and the Government wash their hands and look the other way.

The Government will argue that the Bill is a vital response to the Grenfell tragedy. It is so vital that it has taken four years to get to the statute book. The Bill’s purpose is to include external walls, doors and balconies in the fire safety order of 2005, so that action is taken to protect people from another Grenfell tragedy. However, a Bill is not now needed to force action to remove cladding; that is happening. It is not needed to get fire alarms put in; that is happening. Those who own the buildings, and those who are leaseholders and tenants, already know that action has to be taken to make their buildings safe. It is no longer urgently necessary to get legislation to force the issue and it is no longer possible to force construction firms to take the necessary action; there is not capacity to do so. If, though, the Bill does fall, this provides a breathing space for the Government to develop a package of further measures that will protect the interests of leaseholders and save them from penury.

The amendment in my name seeks to achieve that breathing space. It is based on the original one in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and has been adjusted to include the various very valid points that have been made during the passage of the Bill. We must all recognise that passing this Bill will not magic away the crisis that individual leaseholders are facing. It will not remedy the construction scandal. It will not provide stability for a foundering housing market. It will be the beginning of a scandal of individual bankruptcies, homelessness, intense stress and mental illness. It will become a public scandal and I for one will at least have on my conscience that I have done all in my power to prevent it. Leaseholders have done everything right and nothing wrong. Liberal Democrats will stand by them. I give notice that I wish to test the opinion of the House on the amendment in my name.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, as we seem to be in the last chance saloon, I will try not to repeat myself too much, but declare my interests as both a property professional and a vice-president of the LGA. As I said yesterday, the House seems to be presented by the Government with a choice. On the one hand is the evident desirability of implementing fire safety measures in pursuance of the valuable recommendations in the report by Dame Judith Hackitt into the Grenfell tragedy, plus a partial solution to some of the effects of cladding replacement on a limited class of taller buildings, as we have heard. On the other is what I am afraid I must describe as the effective hanging out to dry of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of other home owners. It should not be a question of either/or in dealing with a growing and pressing social and economic disaster. I too support improved fire safety, but not on the basis of creating further untold, and probably unquantified, problems.

Yesterday, the Minister endeavoured to persuade us by saying that this brief and simple Bill merely clarified the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. I am afraid to say that, on my own rereading of that, he is plainly mistaken. This Bill amends the scope of the fire safety order by inserting an exception to paragraph 1a, referring in turn to two newly inserted paragraphs, 1A and 1B, that substantially expand the scope of the order. The fact that anything was attached to the named elements means the Bill has far wider implications than might be supposed. So I am afraid to say that the Minister’s assertion really did it for me. I felt it was misleading and what my late father would have described as an exercise in intellectual sharp practice. My distinct impression is that I am being taken for some sort of fool. The indisputable fact that must be regarded as plain is that this Bill makes the changes that by direct chain of causation have created the issues and caused the results that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, seek to resolve.

Another issue appears to be one of definition. The Government are concerned that any scheme that might be put in place could be used to avoid regular maintenance and routine upgrades. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in particular, seeks to address that. In my experience there may be grey areas, but I do not have any difficulty in my work in distinguishing repairs and the like, or like-for-like replacements, from those items that are improvements. Nor do most leaseholders and property owners.

Let us be clear—and here I take a cue from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for a bit of historical background—that it was on the watch of a Conservative Government that the 1984 Building Act brought in the approved inspector regime and the effective privatisation of the regulatory oversight of construction quality, previously exercised by local authority building control. Despite indicators of shortcomings and shortcutting, this process continued, without adequate checks on who was doing the inspection of the works, or how good the oversight was in practice. It is on the basis of the subsequent 37 years of construction and its legacy of known and unknown deficiencies, scattered randomly about the nation’s housing stock, that modern housebuilding, construction warranties, lending and home ownership have been founded.

If the Government consider that they need to take steps to protect the valiant and much-abused postmasters from system failure, how can they, with it any cogency or conscience, make a distinction concerning a far greater number of home owners who are affected at least as severely? So, while I note that the Minister in the other place this afternoon sought to point the finger at the unelected Lords blocking the democratic decision of the Commons, I simply say that the exercise of raw political power vis-à-vis the party whip to procure a majority in the Lobby does not endow the Government with a moral superiority, or indeed the social advancement of justice and ethical treatment of citizens. I note the reasons for rejecting our amendments, which simply translate as “too difficult”. I suspect not half as difficult as picking up the bits after this has rolled itself out.

At one point I believed the Government had it hand to corral all the potential damage, but I believe they have not done so. It would not concern me if this Bill fell, so unreasonable do I believe its true effects to be, and so lacking is the willingness of the Government to deal with it. What it has proposed will roll out far too slowly: eight months to do the highest-risk buildings, and how much longer to deal with the far greater number in future stages? What about capacity in terms of manpower, training and so on?

I took note of the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, but I find that sitting on my hands, signifying my acceptance of the Government’s position here, does not sit comfortably with my conscience—knowing, as I do from professional experience, just what harm the Bill is likely to do, alongside its undoubted good.

I suspect that the Bill will ultimately pass into law, even if the Parliament Act has to be invoked—but I am afraid I cannot agree to it as it stands. I fear that Lobby fatigue may mean that this is the end of the matter for now. Either way, I shall return to this subject in the new Session—as, doubtless, will the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Meanwhile, I have absolutely no hesitation in supporting the thrust of the amendments—any one of them, whichever might gain approval. And I hope I will sleep with my conscience clear as a result.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the following Members in the Chamber have indicated that they wish to speak: the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester and the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I call first the noble Baroness, Lady Fox.