Building Safety Bill – Review of Consideration of Commons and Lords Amendments

MPs in Attendance 

• Dame Rosie Winterton MP (Labour) – Madam Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons 

• Stuart Andrew MP (Conservative) – Minister for Housing  

• Clive Betts MP (Labour) 

• Bob Blackman MP (Conservative) 

• Stephen Doughty MP (Labour) 

• John Redwood MP (Conservative) 

• Stephen McPartland MP (Conservative) 

• Royston Smith MP (Conservative) 

• Hilary Benn MP (Labour) 

• Daisy Cooper MP (Liberal Democrat) 

• Paul Blomfield MP (Labour) 

• Rushanara Ali MP (Labour) 

• Ben Spencer MP (Conservative) 

• Sir Mike Penning MP (Conservative) 

• Jonathan Edwards MP (Independent) 

• Matthew Pennycook MP (Labour) – Shadow Minister for Housing 

• Sir Peter Bottomley MP (Conservative) 

• Janet Daby MP (Labour) 

• Rebecca Long Bailey (Labour) 

• Florence Eshalomi (Labour) 

Prior to the amendments being debated by MPs, there was a series of interventions where MPs questioned the Minister for Housing. Some of the main interventions have been detailed below.  

• The Minister for Housing, Stuart Andrew MP (Conservative) – began with an overview of the progress that the Bill has made through Parliament so far including an overarching view of the purpose of the new building safety regime and its reason for existing. Mr Andrew then thanked those Lords, MPs, stakeholders and cladding groups that had been involved in the process to date for their help in refining the Bill.  

• Clive Betts MP (Labour) – broadly agreed with the sentiments of the Minister for Housing but asked why social housing tenants had not been considered within the Bill and why were they not being offered the same level of financial support as private tenants or leaseholders. The Minister responded by stating that the Government is continuing to review this and is consulting with those in the affordable housing and social housing policy arena to ensure that the Bill correctly provides for social rented tenants. It was later clarified in the debate that these aspects will be looked at through secondary legislation. 

• Stephen McPartland MP (Conservative) – asked the Minister for Housing whether he would clarify if the Government had plans to look at protections for leaseholders in buildings under 11 metres on a case-by-case basis if needed. The Minister confirmed that the Department would deal with those buildings on a case-by-case basis. This was new information for observers of the Bill and has been introduced by Government to appease those who have been calling for buildings under 11 metres to be included within the scope of the Bill.  

• Hilary Benn MP (Labour) – subsequently questioned the Minister for Housing on how many residential buildings below 11 metres existed that may require extensive remediation works. In response, the Minister stated that the building safety regulator will assess whether further work needs to be done to ensure the future safety of buildings under 11 metres and will advise the Government accordingly but did not directly address the numbers requiring extensive remediation works.   

• Rushanara Ali (Labour) – raised an issue relating to building safety assessments, stating that there is conflict of interest as it is often the freeholder that undertakes the safety assessments which can result in biased reports and inaccuracy. Ms Ali asked the Minister for Housing whether he would support the creation of an independent building works agency to carry out building safety assessments. The Minister responded by stating that the building safety regulator will ensure that buildings are safe in an independent manor to avoid any potential conflicts of interest and would not support the creation of a separate body for this role.  

• Shadow Minister for Housing, Matthew Pennycook MP (Labour) – rose to thank the Lords and MPs for the work that had been done on the Bill to date and stated that this legislation has been a long time coming. He also stated that the Labour Party is pleased with some of the progress that has been made to protect leaseholders from the costs of historic remediation. However, he stated concerns that the number of amendments raised by the Government in the House of Lords meant that peers were not given enough time to correctly debate and scrutinise all of the changes to the Bill. He added that there are five remaining issues with the Bill from the Labour Party’s perspective: the duties placed on the Building Safety Regulator regarding reviewing safety and standards, protection for leaseholders in buildings below 11 metres in height, protection for leaseholders in enfranchised buildings, the issue of buildings held in trust, and the proposed leaseholder cap. He stated that some of these issues are being dealt with in subsequent Government amendments, however, the Labour Party does not support the opinion the buildings under 11 metres should not be covered by the Bill. Mr Pennycook MP ended by urging the Government to reconsider its opinion on this matter.  

• Sir Peter Bottomley MP (Conservative) – suggested that the Government host a roundtable with prominent figures within the insurance industry to understand what informal provisions are being made to deal with claims levied against buildings under 11 metres. He suggested that the sector should set aside a pot of monies to fund the claims to underpin the principle that leaseholders should not pay for remediation regardless of building height. This suggestion was echoed by other MPs during the session.  

Minister for Housing, Stewart Andrew MP then turned to address the amendments proposed in the House of Lords. On Amendment 94, which would insert a clause into the Bill to change the definition of “relevant building” to include all buildings under 11 metres, Mr Andrew stated that there was no systematic risk of fire for buildings below 11 metres and that these buildings would therefore not need remediation to make them safe. Alongside this he stated that bringing these buildings into the scope of the Bill would be disproportionate as it would only affect a small number of buildings as many under 11 metres would not require extensive remediation. Therefore, Mr Andrew introduced a Government amendment that would reinstate the definition of a “relevant building” as one that is at least 11 metres, or five storeys in height, and contains at least two dwellings. A division was created on this amendment with 318 ayes and 189 noes. This was agreed by the House, reinstating the Government’s definition of a relevant building.  

The Minister for Housing  spoke on the proposed Lords Amendment 184 which would insert a new schedule 8, titled “Remediation costs under qualifying leases”. This amendment would ensure that no costs for cladding remediation could be passed on to leaseholders under any circumstances. The Minister stated that the Bill, prior to this amendment, set out that where the building owner is, or is linked to, the developer or can afford to meet the costs in full, they would be prevented from passing costs on to leaseholders. The Minister reiterated that this was an extensive process which sets out a “waterfall” of responsibility for cladding remediation costs protecting the vast majority of leaseholders and ensuring that they do not pay any more than has been set out in the capped costs. However, where the building owner or landlord is not at fault and there is no link to the developer who created the defects, leaseholders will be required to contribute towards non-cladding remediation. The Minister proposed a Government amendment to Amendment 184 qualifying that it applies in tandem with the proposed “waterfall” of responsibility. This amendment drew concerns from the Labour Party as Shadow Minister for Housing, Matthew Pennycook MP who stated that the Labour Party would not support this amendment as they did not feel the Government was acting to ensure that the most vulnerable leaseholders are protected from unreasonable costs. A division was created on this amendment with 318 ayes and 188 noes. This was agreed by the House and will become part of the Bill.  

Of those amendments that drew contention within the House of Lords it is worth noting that the following amendment was agreed to:  

• Amendment 8 – which ensures that major issues of public concern in relation to building safety are addressed within a specified timescale by the building safety regulator. This amendment was proposed by Lord Stunell (Liberal Democrat) and remains part of the Bill. This amendment originally created a division in the House of Lords but has now been accepted by Government.  

After the session concluded, the Bill was sent back to the House of Lords for Peers to consider the amendments made in the Commons. This session took place on Tuesday 26 May 2022 and we have provided an overview of this session below.  

Lords in Attendance 

• Lord Greenhalgh (Conservative) – Minister for Building Safety 

• Lord Stunell (Liberal Democrat) 

• Lord Young of Crookham (Conservative) 

• Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Labour) 

• Lord Blencathra (Conservative) 

• Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative) 

• Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Affiliated) 

• The Earl of Lytton (Crossbench) 

• Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party) 

• Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)  

Minister for Building Safety, Lord Greenhalgh began the session by addressing the proposed amendment that would see the definition of ‘relevant building’ extended to cover all buildings under 11 metres. On this amendment the Minister explained that in rejecting this amendment the members in the House of Commons are seeking to restore proportionality to the building safety system. The Minister highlighted that, as mentioned by the Government, there is no systemic risk of fire for buildings below 11 metres and as such it is unlikely that a fund for remediating these buildings is needed. During this introduction the Minister also addressed the issue of leaseholder owned or collectively enfranchised and commonhold buildings. The Minister highlighted that the Government’s original proposals included an exemption from the leaseholder protection provisions for leaseholder-owned buildings: those in which the leaseholders have collectively enfranchised, and those which are on commonhold land, however, this exemption was removed by peers during the Bill’s consideration in the House of Lords. However, the Minister stated that the Government could not support this amendment as leaseholders who have enfranchised would still have to pay, but in their capacity as owners of the freehold rather than as leaseholders. Alongside this, where some leaseholders have enfranchised and others have not, the enfranchised leaseholders would have to pay for remediation of the whole building in their capacity as owners of the freehold, including the share of remediation costs that would otherwise have been recoverable from those leaseholders who have not enfranchised, once they have paid up to the cap. The Minister for Building Safety, Lord Greenhalgh also highlighted that the Minister for Housing, Stuart Andrew MP is consulting on how best leaseholders in collectively enfranchised and commonhold buildings could be protected from the costs associated with historical building defects as part of the secondary legislation associated with the Bill.  

• Lord Young of Crookham (Conservative), rose to thank the Minister and his team for their work on the Bill. However, Lord Young stated that he was concerned with the outcomes of the negotiations between the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) and the development sector. Lord Young expressed thanks to the remaining housebuilders that have signed up to contribute towards the remediation fund but was concerned that within the current pledge the definition of ‘life-critical fire safety’ work was too narrow and remained remarkable different to the definition included in the Bill. Lord Young held concerns that builders would argue that some aspects of remediation were not life critical to avoid additional costs. Finally, Lord Young voiced his support for the Government’s assertion that they would assess fire safety risks in buildings under 11 metres on a case-by-case basis and hoped that this comes to fruition. While the Minister did not respond to all of Lord Young’s points individually, he did reassure Lord Young that avoiding remediation for non-life-critical fire safety works would not be possible under the new building safety regime.  

• There was much concern from Lords across the political spectrum about the removal of Amendment 94 relating to remediation for buildings under 11 metres. These concerns were echoed by the Earl of Lytton (Crossbench) who stated that without presenting the data, the claims that there is little risk to these buildings lack foundation and credibility. The Earl of Lytton also raised concerns about the housebuilder pledge, bringing up the issue of legality and enforcement against those who have chosen not to contribute towards the remediation fund. While many peers were concerned about buildings below 11 metres not being included within the scope of the Bill, there was no vote to reinstate this schedule within the Bill.  

• Peers also raised concerns about the proposed ‘waterfall’ of financial responsibility and were frustrated that MPs had rejected the proposals for a new Schedule 8 of the Bill which would protect leaseholders from all possible costs related to building safety. Amongst those was Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat) who asserted that the Government was missing an opportunity to truly ensure that all leaseholders are protected from unfair building safety remediation costs.  

All motions introduced by the Government were raised successfully. There was only one division during the session on Motion H1 raised by Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Labour). This motion would see leaseholder contributions reduced to a maximum of £250. Many peers spoke in favour of this motion, however when it came to a vote the motion was defeated with 209 peers not content and only 187 content.