← Back to House of Commons Debates
Business of the House Bill - Clause 2
19 January 2022
Lead MP
Christopher Pincher
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Parliamentary Procedure
Other Contributors: 64
At a Glance
Christopher Pincher raised concerns about business of the house bill - clause 2 in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
I move that clause 2 be read a second time. This clause aims to streamline the business of the House by introducing new procedural rules that enhance efficiency and fairness in legislative processes.
Worcestershire
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.
Stephen Timms
Lab
East Ham
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.
Bob Neill
Con
Bromley and Chislehurst
Calls for a proper debate on important issues such as internal developer fire safety defects, ensuring developers are responsible for fixing these defects.
Hilary Benn
Lab
Leeds South
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.
Bob Blackman
Con
Harrow East
Reiterates concerns about time allocation for debating amendments in the other place and requests a chance to debate them properly when the Bill returns.
Clive Betts
Lab
Sheffield South East
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.
Catherine West
Lab
Hornsey and Friern Barnet
Seeks reassurance for leaseholders in Roundway, Wood Green, that all costs including mortgages will be covered under the arrangement.
Janet Daby
Lab
Lewisham East
Asks how the Minister will ensure leaseholders will not bear the cost of the building safety crisis.
Carmarthen East and Dinefwr
Welcomes the ombudsman and discusses issues with uncompleted estates in Wales, seeking clarity on including leaseholders who are landlords.
Matt Rodda
Lab
Reading Central
Clarifies if the amendments cover non-cladding-related problems such as internal compartmentalisation issues and wooden cladding, balconies.
John Redwood
Con
Wokingham
Asks about a right of redress for regulatory authorities who signed off on defective schemes.
Mike Penning
Lab Co-op
Hemel Hempstead
Clarifies that the burden should not fall on leaseholders if developers, freeholders or insurers cannot be found and suggests a solution involving land charges.
Graham Stringer
Lab
Blackley and Middleton South
Suggests that a charge against the land could resolve issues where those responsible for defects have liquidated themselves, avoiding burden on leaseholders or taxpayers.
Stevenage
Thanks the Government for extending the period to 30 years and acknowledges their support.
Caroline Lucas
Green
Brighton Pavilion
Clarifies reassurance for leaseholders facing non-cladding fire defects such as internal partitions or roof spaces, seeking legal protection coverage.
Greenwich and Woolwich
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.
Catherine West
Lab
Hornsey and Friern Barnet
Supports the need for adequate time in debate to remember those affected by Grenfell Tower fire, emphasising the importance of public safety measures.
Hilary Benn
Lab
Leeds South
Argues that extending limitation periods is not a practical solution for leaseholders currently facing unaffordable costs and unable to start legal action promptly.
Kate Green
Lab
Stretford and Urmston
Proposes linking the Department with Companies House and companies law to take early action against directors of special purpose vehicles involved in substandard developments.
Peter Bottomley
Con
Worthing West
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.
Janet Daby
Lab
Lewisham East
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.
Carmarthen East and Dinefwr
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.
Peter Bottomley
Con
Worthing West
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.
Clive Betts
Lab
Sheffield South East
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.
Bob Blackman
Con
Harrow East
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.
Patricia Gibson
SNP
North Ayrshire and Arran
Supports raising standards of developer conduct but insists on Scottish Government involvement. Advocates for collaboration between UK government and Scotland to ensure funding clarity.
Felicity Buchan
Lab
City of Durham
Welcomes the Bill, emphasising leaseholder protection and robust legal measures. Raises concerns about developers' responsibility for remediation costs in her constituency.
Bob Neill
Con
Bromley and Chislehurst
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.
Hilary Benn
Lab
Leeds South
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.
Shabana Mahmood
Lab
Birmingham Ladywood
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.
Twickenham
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.
Bob Stewart
Con
Beckenham
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.
Greenwich and Woolwich
Supports new clauses proposed by colleagues. Questions the Government about financial protections, building height thresholds, and legal protections against forfeiture for leaseholders.
Andrew Slaughter
Lab
Hammersmith and Chiswick
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.
Daisy Cooper
Lib Dem
St Albans
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.
Nigel Evans
Con
Cannock Chase
Briefly interjected in support, expressing hope for a 'minute of happiness'.
Andrew Slaughter
Lab
Hammersmith and Chiswick
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.
Emma Hardy
Lab
Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice
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.
Clive Betts
Lab
Sheffield South East
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.
Apsana Begum
Lab
Poplar and Limehouse
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.
Andrew Slaughter
Lab
Hammersmith and Chiswick
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.
Braintree
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.
Debbie Abrahams
Lab
Oldham East and Saddleworth
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.
Peter Aldous
Con
Waveney
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.
Andy Slaughter
Lab
Hammersmith
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.
Paul Maynard
Con
Blackpool North and Cleveleys
Proposed new clause 17 on staircase safety measures, emphasising the importance of reducing deaths and injuries caused by staircases in buildings.
Emma Hardy
Lab
Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle
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.
Clive Betts
Lab
Sheffield South East
Proposed several amendments including creating a system of independent appointment and considering vulnerability when making regulations, advocating for stronger measures to ensure building safety.
Greenwich and Woolwich
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.
Peter Bottomley
Con
Worthing West
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.
Paul Blomfield
Lab
Sheffield Central
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.
Stevenage
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.
Peter Bottomley
Con
Worthing West
[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.
Caroline Lucas
Green
Brighton Pavilion
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.
Salford
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.
Florence Eshalomi
Lab Co-op
Vauxhall and Camberwell Green
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.
Rachel Hopkins
Lab
Luton South and South Bedfordshire
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.
Andrew Slaughter
Lab
Hammersmith and Chiswick
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.
Clive Betts
Lab
Sheffield South East
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.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.