The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing this Private Member’s Bill to the House on all these important issues, and I thank all those who have contributed for their very thoughtful and sensitive contributions. The tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire, which claimed 72 lives, was a profound failure that should never have happened, and we must ensure that the lessons of Grenfell are learned. It is right that all those affected are at the forefront of our thoughts while dealing with the issues before us. I start by being completely open and honest. I share completely the concerns of noble Lords about the ongoing cladding safety crisis. As we have heard, over 4,000 buildings have been identified as requiring remediation, and too many residents still face uncertainty about their homes and their finances as a result. This crisis continues to leave people stuck in unsuitable homes, while some of those responsible have yet to contribute towards the costs, as we have heard throughout these discussions. That is why the Government committed in our manifesto to accelerating remediation, making those responsible pay and better protecting leaseholders from costs through the remediation acceleration plan. While the Government share the noble Baroness’s objectives, the question before us is not one of intent but of whether the mechanisms proposed in this Bill are the right means of achieving those objectives. The Government’s position is that they are not. Some proposals in the Bill could create worse outcomes for people affected. For example, the noble Baroness’s Bill, in Clauses 1 to 5, seeks to prevent leaseholders from contributing towards remediation costs in all circumstances. Although this is an understandable ambition, it risks creating significant legal and practical challenges. A blanket prohibition is likely to give rise to delays due to concerns around property rights, and it risks greater uncertainty over how remediation will be financed. The proposal also overlaps with existing leaseholder protections established by the Building Safety Act 2022, creating uncertainty about how the different statutory schemes interact. So, while the Government share the objective of further protecting leaseholders from costs, we do not believe that the blanket approach is appropriate. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Young, the Government are considering how we can go further to protect leaseholders from current and future building safety issues, particularly groups not covered by existing protections. There are proposals in the Bill that have already been delivered through changes made since the Grenfell Tower tragedy; for example, we share the noble Baroness’s ambition, proposed in Clause 11, that developers should be strongly incentivised to remediate. The previous Government—full credit to them—introduced the responsible actors scheme in the Building Safety Act, which led 53 developers to sign a contract with the Government to remediate, or to pay to remediate, over 2,600 buildings at a cost to themselves of around £4.2 billion. Any developer that has signed that contract and fails to meet its remediation obligations faces severe commercial consequences. We are also concerned that Clause 11 could have significant unintended consequences. In practice, it could prevent developers with outstanding remediation liabilities from building new homes until defects have been remediated or funded. As outlined by the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Sanderson, that risks reducing housing supply and undermining the resources available to support remediation itself. The Government also recognise the proposals to strengthen enforcement in Clauses 7, 8 and 17. We strongly agree with all those who raised the point, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, that construction product manufacturers should play their part in meeting the costs of remediating unsafe buildings where their products have played a part in making buildings unsafe, as highlighted in Clause 12. Although we share these objectives, we do not consider that those approaches would most effectively achieve her desired outcomes. That brings me to the forthcoming remediation Bill. The Government will seek to address these issues through legislation and wider work within the department, which will happen—in response to the noble Lord, Lord Young—when parliamentary time allows. The objectives of that Bill are fourfold. First, we will create certainty over which buildings require cladding remediation and the standard to which that remediation must be completed. Secondly, the Bill will give regulators the powers they need to hold blockers to account, ensuring that those responsible for addressing failures do so more quickly. Thirdly, we will strengthen the law so that construction products manufacturers can, as I have said, be held to account and those who have paid for remediation have a clearer route to recover their costs. Finally, the Bill will ensure that all residents have a route for cladding remediation, even where responsible entities fail, disappear or refuse to act. So, while I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing attention to so many important matters, our focus is on delivering solutions through the existing framework and the remediation Bill. I turn briefly to other points raised. There is enormous concern from across the House about buildings under 11 metres. I want to reassure the House that we have launched new funding, delivered through an extension of the cladding safety scheme, providing access to funding through remediation of unsafe cladding on a number of multi-occupied residential buildings under 11 metres in England. This will be prioritised towards high-risk buildings, focusing on those with the most serious cladding and fire defects. On leasehold protections, those responsible for historic building safety defects must pay for them. Again, we are very mindful of the regime established by the Building Safety Act and we have to make sure that we strike a careful balance between the rights of all parties. We have to recognise that some freeholders have no connection to the original defects. On internal defects, all leaseholders can access support for cladding remediation. Most leaseholders cannot be charged for internal building safety defects through their service charge beyond specified annual caps. Obviously, enormous concern has been expressed about the wider leaseholder system reform. I do not have time to go into that, but it will of course be an issue that we pick up very seriously as we go forward. I cannot emphasise enough the need for construction products manufacturers’ redress. So far, I do not think there has been a single contribution from that avenue towards the work. My time is coming to an end. I stress to the noble Baroness—we have had a conversation about this—that we share her ambitions and concerns but we are determined to find the most deliverable way of delivering on the objectives. I am very grateful for the opportunity to begin discussing this with noble Lords. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that the Government are unable to support the Bill but, respectfully, I look forward to engaging with noble Lords from across the House as we take these important measures forward, particularly when the remediation Bill is published.