Building Safety Bill - Second Reading motion

Raises concerns about unnecessary anxiety and cost for leaseholders when there is little or no increase in fire risk. Calls for a focus on genuine fire risks rather than generic cladding issues.

Raises concerns about the lack of clarity from the Secretary of State regarding funding for Welsh Government's building safety fund, impacting leaseholders in Wales.

Questions whether it is normal practice to lay a ministerial statement before an important debate without providing Members the opportunity to scrutinise it properly.

Considers it unacceptable that relevant documents are not available for scrutiny by Members prior to the Second Reading of the Bill.

Asks what discussions have been had with insurance companies to enable companies like Bell Building Projects Ltd, which specialises in cladding, to secure appropriate indemnity insurance.

Suggests that the Secretary of State should speak to Electrical Safety First charity to ensure electrical safety is a priority in the Bill.

Questions the Secretary of State about leaseholders being required to pay for expensive waking watches despite the risk of fire being low, pointing out a contradiction in the approach.

Asks if the Secretary of State agrees with the London Fire Brigade that buildings under 18 metres pose equal or greater risks than those currently in scope.

Requests confirmation from the Secretary of State regarding powers for a new homes ombudsman to address non-disclosure agreements and similar defects issues by developers.

Suggests extending the Building Act 1984 provision for six years after a plaintiff is aware of a defect to better address current issues.

SPEAKER: Eleanor Laing (15:07:00) - Is still finishing her response to a point of order. - Suggests allowing the Secretary of State additional time for his Second Reading speech, in addition to taking questions on a written statement due to its significance. - Requests that House authorities make the relevant ministerial statement accessible online quickly to assist Members participating virtually.

rose— [INTERVENTION by Peter Bottomley] - Raises a point of order asking the House authorities to ensure that Members participating virtually can access the written ministerial statement online.

rose— [INTERVENTION by Clive Betts] - Seeks explanation from the Secretary of State regarding whether significant remediation works are necessary for buildings below 18 metres. - Questions the timing and adequacy of the Government's statement in addressing long-standing issues raised by parliamentary committees.

rose— [INTERVENTION by Meg Hillier] - Expresses regret over the short notice given to digest the statement. - Raises concerns about the timing of the statement, given that Members and committees have been raising issues for several years. - Calls for more explanation on why remediation works are not necessary for buildings below 18 metres.

Argues that the building safety fund is insufficient, deadlines are too tight, and the administration is too slow. She calls for a more rigorous approach to assess real fire risks, commission necessary works, and certify buildings as safe. Suggests an agency similar to Australia's model.

Intervenes to agree that leaseholders are trapped without leverage, facing unjustified service charges and difficulty in getting resolution. This compounds their ongoing situation with uncertainty, stress, and anxiety.

Intervenes to ask if Lucy Powell agrees that the announcement regarding EWS1 forms is a welcome change they have campaigned for.

Intervenes to clarify that EWS1 forms are not a product of the Government but rather created by lenders and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.

Intervenes to question whether combustible cladding needs removal from buildings below 18 metres and clarifies the need for EWS1 forms as part of that process.

Critiques the current approach of reclaiming money from leaseholders, stating it is financially unjustifiable. Proposes extending the Building Act 1984 and making insurance industry liable to fix problems faced by building owners. Emphasises the need for leaseholders' involvement in committees addressing building safety issues.

Welcomes the housing ombudsman scheme but highlights challenges due to devolved responsibilities. Advocates for a UK-wide basis for the scheme and dialogue between UK and Scottish Governments. Questions the vagueness of the statement on costly remediation work and seeks clarity on talks with insurance industry. Criticises the arbitrary 18 metres cut-off point in the Government's approach.

Mr Betts expresses concerns about building control, risk assessment based on height alone, qualifications of workers in high-rise buildings, product testing regime, and support for leaseholders. He calls for the Secretary of State to address these issues and provide certainty for leaseholders facing bills.

Mr Penning agrees with Mr McPartland, stating the need for better support for leaseholders who face large remedial works and fire watch costs. He criticises current practices such as restricting resident activities in communal areas and calls for insurance companies to pay out on premiums.

Welcomes systemic measures but finds the financial cost imposed on leaseholders objectionable. Argues that the Bill will see leaseholders pay out billions of pounds over coming years, which is unfair given their current hard-pressed state. Criticises lack of protection for leaseholders from costs related to historical cladding and non-cladding defects, urging the Government to work with Members to ensure all victims are protected at Third Reading.

States that leaseholders should not have to pay for remediation. Argues against the classification of many issues as fire safety defects and highlights insurance companies' failure to step up, suggesting a levy on house builders to address remediation costs.

Emphasises the ongoing fear and financial burden faced by leaseholders. Raises concerns over the impact on social housing sector, highlighting £10 billion in remediation costs, which has led to a fall in house building programme and investment in safety issues.

Highlights the issue of stair safety as significant cause of death and injuries. Proposes an amendment to mandate British standard 5395-1 in all new build homes, noting its proven effectiveness in reducing falls by 60%.

The Bill is a step forward but falls short in several areas. It does not address delays in regulatory oversight, lack of fire safety surveyors, confusion over EWS1 forms, and financial burdens from insurance and mortgages. The proposed levy on developers must be enforced to protect leaseholders, alongside addressing social housing needs.

Welcomes measures in the Bill but highlights that it does not fully protect leaseholders from remediation costs. The Bill focuses on new constructions rather than existing blocks, lacks details on loan schemes for medium and low-rise buildings, and fails to address current issues like unaffordable insurance premiums. Nevertheless, he will vote for the Bill as a necessary lifeline for constituents but seeks further amendments.

Critiques the inadequacies of the Bill in addressing leaseholder fears, financial constraints, and lack of accountability for developers. Points out instances where original developers transferred ownership to offshore companies, rendering legal action ineffective. Questions progress on the building safety fund and calls for greater government intervention.

Welcomed the Secretary of State’s announcement on EWS1 forms but echoed concerns about clause 124 and its impact on leaseholders. Argued for greater legislative support to help leaseholders, citing examples from her constituency where parents have invested in their children's homes only to find them trapped by insurance costs due to building safety regulations.

Welcomed the Bill but expressed serious reservations about its impact on existing leaseholders who will not benefit and may face exorbitant costs. Raised concerns over properties under 18 metres being excluded from relief, highlighting a specific example in Reading where residents could face £150,000 remediation costs per flat. Criticised the Government for presenting critical information as a written statement on the eve of debate.

Welcomed the Bill’s progress but raised concerns about language clarity and immediate fire safety defect remediation for leaseholders. Urged urgent action on the fourth loan scheme details to help people plan, emphasising that developers must address historical elements of fire safety defects without burdening innocent leaseholders.

Welcomed the Bill’s focus on external cladding but urged for more prescriptive measures regarding timber buildings and those housing vulnerable people. Highlighted concerns over fire safety in timber-framed buildings post-completion, advocated for mandatory sprinklers in care homes and schools based on Welsh and Scottish precedents.

Cooper welcomed some elements of the Bill but criticised its reliance on height as a criterion for regulation, calling for risk factors to be considered. She expressed disappointment over missing measures such as a register of fire risk assessors and highlighted issues with EWS1 forms. Cooper also argued that leaseholders should not bear costs and called on the Government to address the plight of tens of thousands of leaseholders.

Logan supported the proposed reforms but questioned the timing and potential costs for leaseholders. He highlighted issues in his constituency, such as water ingress and fire risk due to poor conversions, emphasising the need for provisions to help cash-strapped leaseholders with legal action involving extensions to the limitation period.

Ali paid tribute to those affected by the Grenfell Tower disaster, stressing that the Government is missing an opportunity to protect residents. She argued for additional funding beyond the building safety fund and emphasised the need for companies responsible for unsafe buildings to pay. Ali also highlighted local issues in her constituency where residents are at risk from ACM cladding.

Benn discussed the anxieties of leaseholders affected by building safety issues in Leeds and called for a comprehensive approach similar to Victoria's. He highlighted specific fire incidents and deficiencies not covered by the funding offer, stressing that leaseholders do not have the resources to fix these defects themselves.

Suggests an amendment to the Building Act 1984 and 2010 building regulations to mandate automatic fire sprinklers. Cites a factory fire example where sprinklers could have prevented job losses and environmental degradation. Urges the Government to consider this amendment in Committee.

Critiques the Bill's focus on higher-risk buildings and lack of funding for non-cladding defects. Highlights unjust costs imposed on leaseholders and social landlords, citing specific cases like Transport House. Emphasises mental health impacts on residents due to unsafe conditions.

Highlights the all-party parliamentary group's concerns over future revisions to fire safety design guides, particularly regarding sprinklers in schools. Discusses tragic personal stories of residents affected by fires and calls for continuous improvement in building regulations.

Critiques the construction industry's culture, highlighting issues with payment practices that prioritise low-cost solutions over safety. Urges for recording of contracts' payment terms as part of a digital building safety file to improve transparency and prevent exploitation.

Welcomes the Bill, stressing its importance in transforming building safety and prioritising resident safety. Acknowledges the need for a cultural shift in the building industry post-Grenfell Tower tragedy. Supports measures like the building products regulator, extended limitation period to 15 years, and improvements concerning EWS1 forms.

Raises issues regarding Barnett consequentials for Wales, highlighting the Scottish Government's efforts in setting up a single building assessment scheme. Expresses concern over insurance difficulties faced by residents and calls for solutions from the Minister to address market failures and affordability issues.

Supports the Bill as a necessary measure for dealing with cladding issues. Welcomes the announcement on EWS1 forms not being required below 18 metres and highlights the building safety fund, waking watch fund, and legal requirements for builders as positive steps.

While acknowledging the Bill's progress, expresses concern over the time it will take to resolve issues and the potential cost implications. Highlights legal challenges such as the extension of limitation period only if developers are still in business, arguing that leaseholders face immense inequality in litigation.

Supports the Bill for its safeguards and reform of building safety system, but raises concerns over clause 124 regarding cost recovery by landlords. Emphasises need for clear protections for leaseholders if landlords cannot secure alternative funding.

Highlights ongoing issues faced by leaseholders, including financial strain and uncertainty. Criticises Government’s building safety fund as inadequate and raises concerns about developers walking away from liability. Urges for explicit legal protections to prevent costs being passed on to innocent homeowners.

Welcomes the Bill as a step towards ending anxiety for leaseholders. Stresses importance of clarity in regulations to avoid unnecessary measures like EWS1 forms. Calls for learning from best practices in local authorities.

Supports the Bill but highlights critical areas needing improvement, particularly clause 124. Urges Government to address issues of solvent developers and inadequate regulations that leave leaseholders in financial distress.

Expresses frustration at the lack of progress on building safety regulations. Emphasises the need for legal protections to shield leaseholders from fire safety costs. Cites numerous instances where Government Ministers have reassured leaseholders but failed to follow through with concrete actions.

Supports the Government's efforts to target remedial activity at high-risk buildings, but raises concerns about fairness. Proposes a more robust regulatory system to ensure all homes are built to the highest safety standards and highlights the need for support with repairs before fire safety certificates can be issued.

Calls for immediate Government intervention to fund and fix unsafe buildings, recover costs from insurers and developers, and provide systematic support. Criticises the Government's delay in addressing this issue and emphasises that individuals are not in a position to manage such financial burdens.

Welcomes the Bill but raises concerns about leaseholders' worries regarding building owners passing on costs of remedial works. Supports measures like the new homes ombudsman and personal evacuation plans for disabled and vulnerable people.

The speaker criticises the Government for releasing details of a major policy shift just minutes before the debate, making proper scrutiny impossible. She highlights her efforts to raise the issue of dangerous cladding with fire safety Ministers and expresses disappointment that the Bill fails to protect leaseholders from extortionate charges and ensure their homes are mortgageable.

The speaker criticises the Government for foot-dragging on delivering protections needed by leaseholders, citing examples of dodgy contracts and corruption within the housing sector. He calls for amendments to ensure that costs are not passed onto innocent homeowners and tenants.

The speaker expresses concerns about the Bill's failure to prevent existing and new buildings under 18 metres from using flammable cladding materials. She urges the Government to reclassify all buildings with dangerous cladding as high-risk, not just high-rise buildings in big cities.

Anderson criticises the Building Safety Bill for being late and flawed, highlighting that it fails to support leaseholders in unsafe buildings. She raises concerns about the building safety fund's inefficiency and the excessive costs facing residents. Anderson emphasises the need for the Government to take a more active role in resolving the issue and calls for explicit legal protection against compulsory payments by leaseholders. She advocates for increased transparency and speed in the allocation process of the building safety fund.

Blomfield dissects the Prime Minister's pledge to protect leaseholders from unaffordable costs and argues that the Building Safety Bill falls short of fulfilling this promise. He highlights issues such as the arbitrary height limit, limited coverage for non-cladding defects, and impractical legal action requirements. Blomfield calls on the Government to take responsibility for making buildings safe and recovering costs from developers using the state's full resources.

Ferrier welcomes parts of the Building Safety Bill, particularly the establishment of a new building safety regulator and more stringent regulatory measures. However, she emphasises the need for broader changes in the construction industry to prevent future disasters like Grenfell. She calls for improvements in the product testing process and third-party certification systems, advocating for increased transparency and reliability in testing results.

Ms Johnson criticised the Government's inaction on the building safety crisis, stating that 10% of buildings in Liverpool are covered with dangerous cladding and leaseholders face excessive bills. She cited a constituent who received a £20,000 bill despite having no savings or means to pay it off. Ms Johnson emphasised the need for immediate action to fix historic failures caused by government deregulation.

Mr McDonnell highlighted a constituent's email expressing the severe mental health impacts on leaseholders due to building safety issues. He criticised developer Ballymore for refusing to meet with residents initially, applying for funds without assurances, and threatening further discussions if constituents protested again.

Mr Shannon welcomed the Government's commitment to address building safety issues. He emphasised the importance of electrical safety clauses in reducing fires caused by electrical sources and praised the Bill for introducing a new regulator overseeing high-risk buildings' controls.

Mike Amesbury criticised the last-minute publication of a written statement as discourteous and disrespectful to Members from all parties. He highlighted that while the Bill includes welcome measures such as a new housing ombudsman and improved standards, it falls short in addressing key issues like high remediation costs for leaseholders, rising insurance premiums, and inadequate support through the building safety fund.

Mr. Pincher argues that the Building Safety Bill is essential for improving fire safety in high-rise buildings, emphasising its role in preventing tragedies like Grenfell and ensuring residents' confidence in their living environments. He discusses proportionate risk management, developer accountability, homeowner redress mechanisms, and the establishment of a building safety regulator.