← Back to House of Commons Debates
Fire Safety Bill - Amendments 4B, 4C, 4D and 4E moved by the Lords
22 March 2021
Lead MP
Christopher Pincher
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Housing
Other Contributors: 18
At a Glance
Christopher Pincher raised concerns about fire safety bill - amendments 4b, 4c, 4d and 4e moved by the lords 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
The Minister Christopher Pincher opens the debate by disagreeing with the Lords amendments. He highlights the Government's commitment to delivering recommendations from the Grenfell Tower inquiry and emphasises the £3.5 billion funding for cladding removal and replacement on high-risk buildings over 18 metres tall. The Minister argues that the proposed Lords amendments are unworkable, would delay legislation, and may have unintended negative consequences. He concludes by urging the House to vote against the amendments.
Sarah Jones
Lab
Croydon West
Sarah Jones supports Labour’s previous amendment, which is now partially conceded by the Government. She emphasises that leaseholders should not be responsible for funding fire safety remediation costs if they are not at fault and cannot afford it. She highlights the ongoing struggle of Grenfell United and other communities affected by unsafe buildings and calls on the Government to do the right thing to protect innocent leaseholders.
Stephen Doughty
Lab Co-op
Cardiff South and Penarth
Stephen Doughty interjected twice, expressing concern that Welsh Government has not been adequately consulted about how the funding will be distributed to Wales. He agrees with Sarah Jones on the need for clarity and support for leaseholders affected by these issues.
Seema Malhotra
Lab Co-op
Feltham and Heston
Seema Malhotra interjected, highlighting the difficulties faced by those in shared ownership arrangements due to unclear quality of work done and relationship with social landlords. She stresses the importance of addressing these gaps for clarity and support.
Peter Bottomley
Con
Bognor Regis and Littlehampton
Supports Lords amendments as they protect leaseholders from bearing sole financial responsibility for building safety remediation costs. Criticises the Government's proposal for placing an unchallengeable burden on residential leaseholders, even in cases where leases may exclude such obligations. References an article highlighting unjustified building costs and expresses concern over disadvantaged innocent leaseholders unable to pay these costs.
Clive Betts
Lab
Sheffield South East
Supports Lords amendments, emphasising that both tenants and leaseholders should not be required to pay for remediation costs. Highlights confusion around Government’s loan scheme details and lack of clarity regarding how charges will apply in blocks under 18 metres. Expresses concerns over the complexity and fairness of the current proposal.
Stevenage
Urges the Minister to accept Lords amendments or table their own, criticising the transfer of liability from responsible parties to leaseholders. Expresses moral and financial concerns over potential bankruptcy and homelessness among leaseholders due to unaffordable remediation costs.
Hilary Benn
Lab
Leeds South
Supports the Bishop of St Albans’ amendment, providing reassurance to worried leaseholders that they will not be held responsible for fixing a problem not of their making. Highlights issues with Government funding covering only certain types of remediation and the lack of detail on how buildings will be declared safe post-remediation.
Vicky Foxcroft
Lab
Lewisham North
Foxcroft supports the amendment, citing numerous examples of constituents trapped in unsafe leasehold properties facing astronomical bills and bankruptcy. She mentions a case involving Berkeley Homes refusing to attend public meetings or answer questions about remediation costs. Additionally, she raises concerns over additional fire safety charges, including waking watch fees, and calls on the Government to support amendments that absolve leaseholders from bearing costs for a crisis not of their making.
Neil Coyle
Lab
Bermondsey and Old Southwark
Coyle highlights the ongoing struggle faced by over 3,000 households in his constituency still waiting for protection promised multiple times. He advocates for Lords amendments to address this issue and requests a VAT exemption on essential fire safety works to make the building safety fund go further. Coyle urges the Government not to profiteer from people's misery.
Bob Blackman
Con
Harrow East
Blackman supports the amendment, emphasising that leaseholders are innocent parties who did not build their buildings and have no fault in fire safety defects. He calls for the strongest signal to be sent that leaseholders should not pay any cost towards remediation of substandard materials used by builders without following proper regulations.
Daisy Cooper
Lib Dem
St Albans
Supports protection of leaseholders from extortionate costs related to fire safety remediation. Argues that existing Government measures are inadequate and that financial burdens should not fall on innocent leaseholders.
Liam Fox
Con
Portishead
Calls for urgency in addressing fire safety issues, highlighting concerns about the fairness of funding solutions and the need to address real-time problems. Emphasises that taxpayers should contribute to legislative changes made by the Government.
Florence Eshalomi
Lab Co-op
Vauxhall and Camberwell Green
Raises concerns about the impact on disabled leaseholders, noting that remediation costs can lead to financial ruin for those who have invested in adapted properties. Emphasises the need to protect all leaseholders from undue financial burdens.
Shabana Mahmood
Lab
Birmingham Ladywood
Argues that leaseholders should not be forced to pay for remediation costs resulting from regulatory failures by developers and Governments. Proposes a levy on the construction industry as an alternative funding solution.
Kevin Hollinrake
Con
Thirsk and Malton
He agrees with many comments made but cannot support the amendment as he believes it is ineffective. He mentions that the amendment could put freeholders on the hook for fire safety remediation costs indefinitely, which might not resolve issues faced by leaseholders.
Neill supports the amendment as it ensures leaseholders are not left responsible for costs they did not cause. He argues that leaseholders rely on surveys and regulations and should not be financially penalised despite buildings' height.
Acknowledges Members' passionate contributions and agrees with the goal of ending the cladding scandal quickly. He suggests that the Government is working towards a solution.
Stephen Doughty
Lab Co-op
Cardiff South and Penarth
Requests a meeting with Welsh Ministers to resolve issues regarding leaseholders in Wales, stressing the need for timely responses and solutions.
▸
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.