Business of the House Bill - Clause 2

Clause 2 seeks to improve the management of parliamentary business through enhanced procedural mechanisms. It addresses inefficiencies by setting clear time limits for debates and voting, ensuring that all MPs have equal opportunities to contribute.

Asked whether the Government intends to table amendments in the House of Lords for statutory protection of leaseholders as announced by the Secretary of State. He sought confirmation on the publication of these amendments before debate in the House of Lords so that they could be considered properly.

Calls for a proper debate on important issues such as internal developer fire safety defects, ensuring developers are responsible for fixing these defects.

Questions why statutory protection will not extend to leaseholders not living in their flats and highlights a case where a constituent had to leave his flat due to waking watch costs.

Reiterates concerns about time allocation for debating amendments in the other place and requests a chance to debate them properly when the Bill returns.

Emphasises the need for a full-day debate due to the key issues addressed by the amendments and expresses hope that business managers will allocate sufficient time.

Seeks reassurance for leaseholders in Roundway, Wood Green, that all costs including mortgages will be covered under the arrangement.

Asks how the Minister will ensure leaseholders will not bear the cost of the building safety crisis.

Welcomes the ombudsman and discusses issues with uncompleted estates in Wales, seeking clarity on including leaseholders who are landlords.

Clarifies if the amendments cover non-cladding-related problems such as internal compartmentalisation issues and wooden cladding, balconies.

Asks about a right of redress for regulatory authorities who signed off on defective schemes.

Clarifies that the burden should not fall on leaseholders if developers, freeholders or insurers cannot be found and suggests a solution involving land charges.

Suggests that a charge against the land could resolve issues where those responsible for defects have liquidated themselves, avoiding burden on leaseholders or taxpayers.

Thanks the Government for extending the period to 30 years and acknowledges their support.

Clarifies reassurance for leaseholders facing non-cladding fire defects such as internal partitions or roof spaces, seeking legal protection coverage.

Raises concerns about clause 126's limitations in providing leaseholder protection, urging for additional provisions to ensure robust legal protection against costs of remediating all historical defects.

Supports the need for adequate time in debate to remember those affected by Grenfell Tower fire, emphasising the importance of public safety measures.

Argues that extending limitation periods is not a practical solution for leaseholders currently facing unaffordable costs and unable to start legal action promptly.

Proposes linking the Department with Companies House and companies law to take early action against directors of special purpose vehicles involved in substandard developments.

Highlights that leaseholders do not have an interest in the building and suggests creating a public agency to claim against developers on behalf of landlords and leaseholders.

Agrees that the Government needs to work with lenders to allow properties affected by cladding scandal to be sold and re-mortgaged, easing financial burden on leaseholders.

Mr. Edwards fully supports Labour's new clause 3, suggesting it will protect small buy-to-let landlords in Wales where his party is in government. He raises concerns about passing on costs to social housing if developers and constructors are not made to pay through legal or voluntary means.

Mr. Bottomley expresses gratitude for his colleague's persistent efforts in addressing leaseholder issues and calls for continued work to support over 1 million leaseholders across England and Wales.

Argues that social housing tenants are bearing increased service charges due to remediation efforts, which is unfair and goes against protecting leaseholders from such costs. He calls for treating social housing tenants the same as others in ensuring no additional burdens on them.

Supports Clive Betts's position, emphasising that leaseholders should not be responsible for remediation costs. He calls for retrospectively putting a date on what happens to prevent unscrupulous billing and suggests making claims against insurance companies that insured those who signed off buildings as compliant with regulations.

Supports raising standards of developer conduct but insists on Scottish Government involvement. Advocates for collaboration between UK government and Scotland to ensure funding clarity.

Welcomes the Bill, emphasising leaseholder protection and robust legal measures. Raises concerns about developers' responsibility for remediation costs in her constituency.

Welcomes Minister's approach but stresses leaseholder protection. Suggests developer liability as a fail-safe system to prevent costly litigation.

I support the amendment and have previously taken similar measures through Parliament. The insurers should be levied to compensate leaseholders, as they were insured during construction. We must avoid penalising those who paid costs in good faith while others did not. This Bill is an opportunity to address this issue.

Supports new clause 13, emphasising the principle that has united the House. Argues for a levy on insurers and industry to fund safety measures due to collective failure. Proposes a buildings works agency to expedite building safety work, avoid conflicts of interest, and review safety assessments efficiently.

Welcomes the Secretary of State's statement but calls for clarity on leaseholder protection. Cites her constituency example to highlight ongoing issues with management companies and lack of transparency, urging the Government to provide assurances.

Supports legal protection for leaseholders from costs related to removing dangerous cladding and remediation of non-cladding defects. Criticises negligent practices in building construction, highlighting insurance premium hikes as an additional burden on residents despite mitigations.

Christopher Pincher acknowledged contributions from Members regarding the plight of leaseholders in buildings like Brindley House. He confirmed that legal protections would be brought forward for leaseholders in medium and high-rise buildings, including those who have had to move out due to current situations. He urged hon. Members aware of demands by freeholders for payment from their leaseholders to inform him or his officials about such demands. Pincher emphasised the intention to ensure that robust legal protections are put in place before any further payments are required from leaseholders, as raised by several hon. Members. He committed to working cross-party and with interested parties to ensure appropriate measures are implemented.

Mr. Bob Stewart intervened to clarify that the special measures proposed are intended to ensure accountability and prompt action by those identified as responsible for addressing building safety issues. He sought confirmation from Mr. Evans on this interpretation.

Supports new clauses proposed by colleagues. Questions the Government about financial protections, building height thresholds, and legal protections against forfeiture for leaseholders.

Intervenes to highlight inconsistency in electrical safety duties between private landlords and resident leaseholders. Emphasises the need for consistency and suggests cost estimates.

Proposes new clause 2 and amendment 1, adding property protection to building regulations. Advocates for fire safety measures like sprinklers to prevent fires and reduce damage.

Supports amendment 75 which exempts social landlords from the building safety levy. Proposes new clauses to extend a stringent building safety framework to buildings under 18 metres.

Briefly interjected in support, expressing hope for a 'minute of happiness'.

Discussed new clauses 15 and 16 related to electrical safety checks. Raised concerns about the causes of fire, citing Grenfell as an example of electrical ignition. Emphasised the need for consistency in safety standards across different tenures.

Supports new clause 18, arguing that the current laissez-faire approach to flood protection is inadequate. She cites the need for standardisation of property flood resilience measures across different local authorities and the importance of a certification scheme. Emma also highlights the lack of clarity in effective PFR measures and proposes making relevant data publicly available to aid insurers in setting accurate premiums.

Supports new clause 18, emphasising the need for consistent flood protection measures across different local authorities. He mentions that without standardisation and a proper certification scheme, insurers find it difficult to offer competitive premiums.

I rise to speak in support of amendment 73... The Bill is a small step forward, but it does not resolve the overall building safety crisis across the UK.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she has done to draw wider attention to the Ballymore application, and indeed it has now been withdrawn.

I rise to speak in support of new clauses 1, 2, 15, 16 and 23... While preservation of life is of course the most key consideration, the lifespan of buildings must be protected too.

The Minister argued against the amendments proposed by opposition MPs such as new clauses on fair payment practices, additional objectives for the Building Safety Regulator, and staircase safety measures. He emphasised that existing regulations and initiatives were sufficient to address these issues.

Not present in the debate but proposed new clause 1 regarding fair payment practices in construction, emphasising the need to address poor adversarial practices that lead to unsafe building outcomes.

Proposed new clauses 2 and amendment 1 related to additional objectives for the Building Safety Regulator, arguing the need for clarity in its mission regarding property protection.

Supported new clauses 15 and 16 on electrical safety standards in social housing, highlighting existing obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018.

Proposed new clause 17 on staircase safety measures, emphasising the importance of reducing deaths and injuries caused by staircases in buildings.

Introduced new clause 18 on flood mitigation for new homes, advocating for stricter planning regulations to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding.

Proposed several amendments including creating a system of independent appointment and considering vulnerability when making regulations, advocating for stronger measures to ensure building safety.

Pennycook acknowledges the impetus for the Bill due to the Grenfell Tower tragedy, highlighting state failure in regulatory oversight. He supports improvements made on Report but expresses concerns about unresolved fire safety issues and implementation capacity of new regulations. Labour is disappointed that robust legal protection for leaseholders facing ruinous costs was not included.

Agrees with Matthew Pennycook's contribution to Third Reading and thanks the Minister for progressive moves over months since Grenfell. Regrets making the issue party political and allowing media focus to detract from safety measures. Emphasises that the 18-metre cut-off point is arbitrary and supports analysis indicating lower heights pose greater risks. Calls for modifications to polluter pays principle into practical measures to address financial burdens on residential leaseholders. Highlights need for justice over legalities, supporting equity retention for leaseholders in cases of debt.

Pays tribute to work done on leaseholder protection and expresses cross-party consensus. Expresses concern over timing of debates without amendments for scrutiny. Highlights issues such as rejected applications due to regulatory criteria, developers no longer in business leaving leaseholders responsible, support needed for those not occupying flats due to costs or family growth. Advocates for clear assurances that statutory protections cover all non-cladding remediation and insurance problems faced by residents.

Mr. McPartland supports the Bill's amendments, focusing on the need for leaseholders to be protected from historic fire safety defects and construction issues, such as missing fire breaks at Vista Tower in his constituency. He also requests further support for residents to take legal action against original developers.

[INTERVENTION] Mr. Bottomley adds that insurance companies are increasing premiums 10 or 20 times higher due to fire risks and requests the Government to collaborate with insurers and regulators to reduce these premiums.

Ms Lucas supports the Bill but highlights gaps in leaseholder protection, particularly concerning non-cladding remedial work costs. She raises concerns about the lack of commitment to ensure developers cover these costs and emphasises the need for a clear timeline for resolution. She provides an example from Stepney Court where residents face substantial repair bills if applications to the building safety fund are unsuccessful.

Ms Long-Bailey calls for comprehensive legislative protection for leaseholders against all fire safety defect costs and ancillary costs. She questions the Government's commitment to protect residents facing financial demands, risks of eviction, or bankruptcy. She also inquires about compensation for funds already spent on interim costs and insurance premiums.

Welcomes the measures in the Bill to ensure fire safety but regrets that it does not go far enough. Supports leaseholders being protected from cladding costs for buildings under 11 metres, and welcomes new rights for leaseholders to challenge freeholders and developers when negligence has occurred. Criticises the Government's inconsistency regarding other defects' costs. Emphasises concerns about extortionate insurance premiums and secondary costs before remediation is complete.

Welcomes many of the Bill’s provisions but stresses that no innocent leaseholder should have to pay for historical cladding or non-cladding defects. Emphasises the need for statutory protections for leaseholders, immediate compulsion on developers to pay £4 billion for cladding removal in buildings under 18 metres, and mental health support for affected leaseholders. Calls for urgent action from the Government to address concerns raised by Members across the House.

Expresses concern over the lack of comprehensive coverage in the Bill, citing non-cladding defects, buildings below 18 metres that still pose risks, and the issue of private developers not fully funding remediation costs. Also raises concerns about social landlords and tenants being forced to pay for necessary repairs, leading to cuts in housing developments.

Welcomes the Bill but calls for continued transparency and accountability from the construction industry. Emphasises that leaseholders and tenants should not be responsible for payment and opposes cuts in social housing programmes to fund remediation.

Acknowledges the work of officials and Members who campaigned zealously on behalf of their constituents. Congratulates all Members involved and expresses hope for swift passage of the Bill, wishing it well in becoming law.