Fire Safety Bill - Before Clause 117 - Meaning of ‘relevant building’

Moved an amendment to Lords amendment 93.

Asked why social housing tenants are not receiving financial support, highlighting their particular vulnerability after Grenfell.

Inquired about the Minister’s commitment to further revise and embrace more people through secondary legislation post-Bill passage.

Asked for clarification on the UK-wide applicability of financial support commitments, particularly concerning Redrow's responsibilities in Wales.

Inquired about foreign companies’ involvement and their contribution to addressing the issue.

Clarified the Department’s willingness to consider case-by-case support for leaseholders in buildings under 11 metres.

Asked about PAS 9980's role and requested clarity on its preference over EWS1 forms.

Questioned whether there is an estimate for buildings under 11 metres requiring extensive remediation works.

Asked about the focus on vulnerable residents in low-rise buildings during future reviews.

Inquired about building regulator's responsibility and professional indemnity insurance scheme applicability to PAS 9980 assessors.

Asked for assurance on a consultation timeline concerning leaseholders who exercised the right to manage.

Suggested a building works agency with independent assessors to prevent cost-passing to leaseholders and protect residents' confidence.

Suggested a review of building cost thresholds based on regional house prices rather than London-only criteria.

Called for insurance companies to bear the burden instead of leaseholders, highlighting their initial legal protection role.

Asked about the Ministry's stance on insurance company premium increases affecting leaseholders significantly.

Inquired about policy discussions with the Welsh Government and expected timeframe for similar measures in Wales.

Ms. Ali interjected to support her colleague's position, emphasising that failing to safeguard smaller buildings would make it difficult for residents to secure insurance or mortgages, highlighting the short-sightedness of not addressing these issues comprehensively.

Praises the Minister for introducing amendments and acknowledges non-party contributions. Acknowledges the work of committee members and others in highlighting leasehold issues. Urges major media organisations to appoint a housing editor with continuity, emphasising the importance of detailed coverage on housing matters. Criticises Treasury delays and calls for fixing problems by identifying responsible parties and funding remediation costs appropriately. Supports extending Building Safety Regulator responsibilities but opposes leaving residential leaseholders with some costs. Cites examples like Gibson Court fire and Worcester Park fire to illustrate spread of fires, advocating for provisions on remediation costs below 11 metres. Expresses concern over potential £15 billion cost burdening poor residential leaseholders and urges fair insurance premiums. Calls for transparency in broker-agent-insurance company relationships and criticises those profiting from residential leaseholders' misfortunes.

The MP supports further leasehold reform, emphasising that non-responsible leaseholders and social housing tenants should not bear costs. He criticises the slow pace of reforms since Grenfell and highlights the need for a broader scope in the Government's offer to assist more leaseholders and social housing landlords. Betts also questions why buildings under 11 metres are excluded from support, and why some leaseholders who have already paid are excluded from any help.

[INTERVENTION] Rushanara Ali agrees that not investing in social housing could create safety risks, emphasising that it is short-sighted to divert funds from improving these properties.

Penning acknowledges significant progress on the Bill but argues that it needs to be passed in its current form. He supports the measures and opposes any amendments sending it back to the other place, advocating for more work through secondary legislation and addressing insurance companies' responsibilities.

Acknowledges progress made but emphasises the continued suffering of leaseholders due to uncertainty and financial burden. Argues that leaseholders should not have to pay anything towards remediation costs since they are not responsible for the safety issues. Highlights concerns about buildings under 11 metres being excluded from relief, suggesting case-by-case consideration could be done even if included in the scheme. Raises issue of ongoing costs like waking watch and insurance for those who have already paid the cap. Questions fairness of limiting buy-to-let landlords' inclusion in the relief scheme, arguing it impacts resident leaseholders negatively. Criticises complexity of the Government's approach which prolongs uncertainty for affected individuals.

Expressed gratitude towards the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, National Leaseholders Campaign, and Lord Greenhalgh for their persistent advocacy in addressing leaseholder issues.

The MP supports the Building Safety Bill and acknowledges its progress since it was introduced, praising the rapid changes made. He emphasises the need for leaseholders not to be penalised for fire safety costs they did not cause and welcomes a cap on contributions but questions why it is set at a particular figure. Bob Blackman highlights that many people affected by these bills are living on fixed incomes and cannot afford large sums of money. He also calls for clarity from the Government regarding housing associations pursuing developers responsible for unsafe buildings, access to building safety funds for housing associations, and proper protection given to the affordable homes programme. Furthermore, he advocates for improved fire safety in lower height properties, disabled access considerations, stricter regulations on new high-density developments, and a review of commonhold versus leasehold models. He also raises concerns about overseas ownership of buildings and insurance companies not adequately addressing these issues.

Raises concerns over the costs cap, arguing it undermines the principle that innocent leaseholders should not have to pay for building safety remediation. Criticises the arbitrary nature of the cap and its potential to open up legal challenges. Calls for more details on Government calculations regarding how many leaseholders might be affected and requests a consultation on the valuation method.

McPartland supports the Government’s efforts to negotiate with leaseholders and emphasises that while a £0 cap would be ideal, it is crucial to ensure developers and other responsible parties are first held accountable. He mentions his constituency's Monument Court case where leaseholders face bills despite their innocence and advocates for finding ways to ensure building safety without placing undue financial burden on leaseholders.

Daby supports Lords amendment 155, emphasising that residential leaseholders should not be liable for fire remediation costs. She cites her constituents' concerns regarding uncertainties and delays in remediation works by Peabody, Rydon, and Ardmore. Daby calls for clear timeframes and reassurances from the Government to protect leaseholders and socially rented residents.

Thanked the government for their work in addressing leaseholders' concerns. Acknowledged that while progress has been made, there are still issues with buildings under 11 metres and the involvement of insurers needs to be addressed. Emphasised the need for case-by-case assessments and welcomed the changes made by the Government.

Critiqued the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the government's proposals. Cited specific examples like Mandale House, where leaseholders face significant financial burdens and uncertainties over remediation funding. Raised concerns about enfranchised buildings and highlighted Wicker Riverside as an example of right-to-manage companies being excluded from existing protections. Urged the Government to provide clear plans for consultation and protection for such leaseholders.

Leaseholders in my constituency still fall through gaps in proposals that the Secretary of State has outlined so far. A recent survey shows over 64% and 83% of leaseholders outside London and within London will not be protected from costs of non-cladding fire safety defects. I urge the Government to support amendments for statutory protection.

This crisis will not end until leaseholders in buildings of all heights are exempt from all fire safety costs. Sadly, this is still not the situation. I support Lords amendment 155, tabled by Baroness Hayman, which would abolish unfair cap and legally protect leaseholders from all remediation costs.

Asked about the issue when developers go out of business, leaving social housing landlords without a solution. Sought clarity on whether the Minister would accept an invitation to appear before the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee.

Inquired about how developers who built under existing regulations 30 years ago would be treated if they were now required to remediate buildings according to current fire safety standards.

Suggested that the Minister and his advisers should work with Law Officers to find practical ways to ensure claims for remediation can be made by leaseholders' landlords without facing indemnity funding issues. Provided an example of a situation where new bosses resisted paying for defect rectification.

Pointed out that the valuation process proposed by the Minister might not be fair, as it could lead to identical flats in the same block facing different remediation costs based on their last sale prices.