Fire Safety Bill - Lords amendments 1-5, Government motion to disagree/amend/accept

I confirm that the extra £3.5 billion brings the total to £5 billion, fully covering the cost of removing cladding in high-rise buildings. This ensures leaseholders will not have to pay for remediation costs.

Leaseholders in my constituency are confused due to lack of clarity on the building development levy, new tax, and additional funding for Wales. Urgent responses from MHCLG and a meeting with Welsh Housing Minister Julie James are required.

The Government must ensure the construction industry pays its fair share for remediation and future prevention of risks. This is crucial to prevent leaseholders from bearing unnecessary costs.

Incorporating these amendments may delay the Bill, potentially hindering immediate execution of necessary measures to ensure fire safety in buildings.

This amendment could be counterproductive as it places the financial burden on building owners, who might abandon their properties. This leaves residents vulnerable to future safety risks.

Supports Lords amendments, particularly amendment 2, which implements recommendations from the Grenfell inquiry. Argues for a robust definition of responsible persons and an accreditation system for fire risk assessors. Emphasises the need for clear timelines and concrete actions to address fire safety issues.

Intervenes to express support from his party leader, highlighting extreme concerns about properties owned by relatives on the mainland. Asks whether Sarah Jones is convinced by the Minister's stance and suggests pushing for a vote.

Questions whether the amendment addresses the issue of building owners walking away from costs. Argues that the amendment is fundamentally flawed due to potential financial implications for leaseholders.

Stresses the importance of paragraph (a) in Lords amendment 2, advocating for consistency in obtaining information about building materials such as architectural drawings.

Argues that the Government's current approach is robust and supported by experts, including Dame Judith Hackitt. Suggests that a step-by-step process has been endorsed.

Emphasises the importance of getting policies right rather than quickly, suggesting that tackling issues for those at most concern first is a prudent approach.

Echoes Ben Everitt's sentiment about the need to get policies right before implementing them quickly. Suggests that the amendments are tackling issues correctly and should be prioritised.

Reiterates concerns about financial uncertainty for leaseholders, pointing out that many of those affected are traditional Conservative voters who feel abandoned by the Government.

Questions the claim about negative equity, providing an analysis that suggests leaseholders would be better off with a maximum charge of £50 per month per unit.

Highlights data indicating 57% of flats requiring remediation were purchased for under £250,000 and argues that these people are living in negative equity. Emphasises the need for immediate action.

Recalls a previous debate where he asked the Minister to take Labour's amendment, fix it and make it work if it was defective. Questions why this wasn't done.

Calls for a compromise with the Government to ensure leaseholders are not financially responsible for fire safety remediation costs. Emphasises the need for a taxpayer-funded safety net to cover initial expenses, which would be recouped from those responsible within the industry over 10 years. Argues that the Fire Safety Bill is an appropriate place for such amendments as it creates legal obligations on freeholders and leaseholders.

Stresses that leaseholders should not be financially responsible for remediation costs of historical building safety defects. Highlights issues with freeholder liability, especially for small companies who may walk away due to financial burden. Raises concerns about funding limitations and proposes alternatives like a levy from the construction industry.

Argued that leaseholders should not bear costs for remediation due to moral, economic, and political reasons. Criticised the Government's approach as unhelpful.

Supported amendments aiming to protect leaseholders from costs. Pointed out inconsistencies in the Government's position and argued that building owners should bear the cost.

Emphasised the need to implement the Bill quickly, citing the urgency of remediation for dangerous buildings. Criticised delays and suggested focusing on immediate implementation.

Argued that the Bill inadequately addresses leaseholder injustices post-Grenfell. Urged Government to adopt a comprehensive approach.

Suggested that leaseholders should not have to pay for remediation costs, as they could not reasonably foresee fire safety issues. Called on the Government to bring forward proposals in the Lords to ensure leaseholders do not pay.

Emphasised the urgency of addressing fire safety issues following Grenfell, highlighting that leaseholders are blameless and should not bear the costs. Criticised the Building Safety Bill for its slow implementation.

Called for a risk-based approach to addressing fire safety issues, urging the Government to change the focus from 18 metres and above buildings. Highlighted concerns about the financial burden on leaseholders.

Described the devastating impact of fire safety remediation costs on residents, urging the Government to legislate for the principle that residents and leaseholders should not pay for historical fire safety defects.

Acknowledged the need for high levels of fire safety regulations but expressed concern about long-term unintended consequences, such as leaseholders being unable to afford soaring costs and leaving their homes.

The speaker argues that interim costs for leaseholders are unaffordable, causing financial hardship. She believes it is morally right to protect leaseholders from these costs since they did not cause the building safety crisis.

The speaker supports the Bill and the £5 billion investment for remediation costs, but does not explicitly address interim costs. She believes the Bill is an essential step in improving building safety.

The speaker emphasises that leaseholders are facing exorbitant costs to make their homes safe, often without fault. He argues for remedying this injustice by supporting amendments to ensure no leaseholder pays these costs.

The speaker advocates for a balance between protecting taxpayers and ensuring that leaseholders do not bear unfair burdens. He highlights the need for detailed guidance on EWS1 certification, realistic insurance practices, and fair solutions to protect those caught in regulatory changes.

Argues that Lords amendment 4 should be implemented immediately, as leaseholders cannot wait for further assurances on remediation costs. The Government's claims about time and place are dismissed; the amendments address an urgent need.

Acknowledges the strength of feeling in support of protecting leaseholders from fire safety remediation costs. Supports additional funding measures announced by the Government but pauses her support for current amendments in favour of further consideration in the Building Safety Bill.

Supports Lords amendment 4 and other amendments to prevent freeholders from passing fire safety remediation costs onto blameless leaseholders. Emphasises the need for decisive action and transparency in addressing building safety defects.

Recognises the Government's efforts to provide financial support but argues that there is no certainty for leaseholders under 18 metres, who may face costs earlier than anticipated. Urges the Government to provide more clarity and legal certainty.

Supports amendments tabled by hon. Friends on the Opposition side, highlighting the national scandal of leaseholder uncertainty and mental health impacts. Advocates for constructive action across the UK Government, including working with the Welsh Government to address pre-devolution issues. Criticises developers like Redrow, Laing O’Rourke, and Taylor Whimpey for building shoddy buildings while profiting from them.

Declares interest as a leaseholder in a dangerous cladding building. Commends the Minister for Security's early action on ACM cladding removal but calls for more financial support from developers and Government. Supports the Bill’s introduction while highlighting inherent contradictions, such as funding work to implement it. Emphasises the need for further clarity on the £50 a month loan scheme and timing of the building safety bill.

Expresses sympathy with Lords amendment 4 but argues that the fire safety order is not the appropriate legislative device for resolving remediation costs. Suggests that addressing issues raised by the amendment should be done through the building safety Bill instead. Supports Government measures to fund cladding removal for leaseholders, highlighting a risk of fatality in taller buildings and lower risks for shorter buildings.

Ms Cadbury raises concerns about the Bill's limited scope, highlighting issues such as deregulation of building standards since the 1980s and ongoing skills crises in construction. She calls for greater responsibility from the Government and construction sector to address fire safety deficiencies beyond residential housing.

Mr Everitt supports the Bill, praising its progress in removing ACM cladding from social buildings and addressing leaseholders' concerns. He acknowledges the financial envelope constraints but notes that recent Treasury measures are designed to protect leaseholders from unaffordable costs.

Mr Timms supports Lords amendment 2 and raises concerns about the proposed remediation of buildings with B1 EWS1 certification, arguing that leaseholders should not be charged for replacing combustible material in walls if there is no legal requirement to do so. He seeks clarity on the status of buildings being remediated under the Government's cladding fund.

Nearly four years after Grenfell, people are still living in unsafe buildings. Over 50% of blocks with unsafe cladding have not started remediation or completed it. This causes sleepless nights and anxiety about financial costs for many leaseholders. The Government’s funding fails to cover all fire safety defects beyond cladding removal for buildings under 18 metres. Leaseholders earning £35,000 or less cannot afford these costs, impacting their mental health and putting them at risk of bankruptcy. It is unjust to leave leaseholders responsible when they bought properties in good faith unaware of the regulatory failures.

The Government’s commitment to fully funding cladding replacement for buildings over 18 metres is a step in the right direction. However, public money should be used wisely and not create further financial burdens on taxpayers who are also leaseholders or key workers. The Building Safety Bill aims to ensure safety but must address all fire safety defects beyond just cladding. There needs to be a balance between safety and affordable costs for affected leaseholders.

Supports amendments tabled by Opposition and others to ensure no leaseholders pay for cladding remediation costs or other fire safety issues. Emphasises the need for financial support based on fire risk, not building height.

Concerned about fairness and additional costs beyond cladding removal; supports Government's commitment to resolving the problem but highlights issues with current funding model for buildings under 18 metres. Proposes a post-construction fire safety model.

Acknowledged Marco Longhi's speech despite technical difficulties

Welcomes the Bill but criticises the lack of implementation of Grenfell inquiry recommendations. Highlights constituents' fears and financial burdens due to unsafe cladding. Calls for the Government to bring companies responsible for cutting corners to justice.

Supports amendments to ensure leaseholders in buildings over 18 metres receive support for fire safety costs. Emphasises the ongoing uncertainty and financial burden faced by constituents due to unsafe cladding issues.

Supports the Fire Safety Bill as a necessary and urgent measure to address fire safety issues highlighted by the Grenfell Tower inquiry. Emphasises the importance of implementing the bill quickly while recognising the need for other legislation like the Building Safety Bill. Acknowledges the concerns of leaseholders and welcomes government funding commitments, calling on ministers to prioritise addressing these issues.

Critiques the Government's failure to commit fully to funding all building safety measures, highlighting that many leaseholders are blameless and should not bear the financial burden alone. Suggests the Bill does not address issues like wooden balconies or cement particle board behind cladding, which also need remediation. Calls for amendments to ensure equitable support across different property heights.

Supports the Fire Safety Bill as an important step towards improving building safety, referencing the Hackitt report. Acknowledges concerns about remediation costs but argues that detailed amendments would delay implementation. Calls for a balanced approach to ensure high-rise buildings are made safe without unnecessary legislative delays.

The Minister thanked MPs for their contributions and acknowledged the complexity of dealing with building safety issues, emphasising the need to address remediation swiftly while ensuring proper scrutiny of proposed legislative changes. He highlighted the significant funding provided by the Government (£5 billion) for leaseholder support in removing unsafe cladding and mentioned ongoing discussions with financial institutions to facilitate property transfers. The Minister also explained that the Building Safety Bill contains over 140 clauses, making it complex to provide a specific timetable for its implementation. While the Government agrees with the intent of providing certainty for leaseholders, they believe Lords amendment 1 is unnecessary and inflexible. He stressed the importance of addressing building safety through appropriate legislation rather than this short but crucial Bill, which focuses on fire risk assessments.