My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 260A in my name and to speak to Amendments 282J and 315B, which are linked to it. I first express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for her willingness to engage, and I wish her a speedy recovery and restoration to full health. However, I note with regret that a 35 or 40-minute slot is insufficient to cover the ground and that, given that the premise of my amendment has never been accepted, discussion of much of the detail has not been possible.
I make it clear from the outset that I may wish to test the opinion of the House but, before deciding that, I particularly wish to consider and gauge the views of noble Lords on a matter that I believe to be of fundamental importance to the purposes of good government, justice, equality under the law and economic stability. I refer to a crib sheet, if I may call it that, which I submitted to the department. I hope that it reached the attention of the noble Earl, should he be responding to this. I apologise for the fact that it was not sent earlier, as I had intended, which is something to do with the stability of the electrical grid in my part of West Sussex during most of yesterday.
I outlined in Committee the aims of these amendments, which have had the benefit of expert scrutiny by parliamentary counsel and construction councils, construction administrators, conveyancers, academics, property professionals and trade associations. There has been support from all these quarters. I am therefore satisfied that the amendments are technically competent, complementary to the measures already in the Building Safety Act 2022 and capable of implementation. In short, they aim to make the development and construction sector responsible for defects in buildings arising from poor building practices and to prevent the burden falling on innocent leaseholders in their homes or being funded by the taxpayer.
I remind your Lordships of the basics of Amendment 260A; I will not go into detail. First, it is aimed at simplifying establishing initial liability without a lengthy legal process. This asks the question of whether there was a significant critical defect in the original construction and, if so, who was responsible for the works, and their route to compliance. Secondly,
it aims to reduce the contested areas to one largely of quantum, via an adjudication process and the First-tier Tribunal. Thirdly, it aims thereby to cut costs and risk barriers to leaseholders in getting redress directly or indirectly. Finally, it provides a backstop levy where the defects are not a result of construction failure, or else where the developer or contractor no longer exists. The intention is that this should be wide and shallow, and encompass materials, manufacturers, warranty providers, approved inspectors, specifiers and so on, as well as contractors.
My amendments mean that DLUHC would have to do things differently, but I weigh that against the current situation of allowing innocent homeowners to bear the brunt. Going forward, the incentive for housebuilders to cut corners must be replaced with an ongoing reminder to meet good construction practice at all times. The amendments also give exceptionally wide discretion to the Secretary of State in implementing proposals, subject to certain core principles. So, it is getting ahead of the process to claim, as some have, that these would not work.
More to the point, my amendments would dismantle much of the complexity the Government have decided to put in place with their own remediation scheme under the BSA. I am returning to this theme because I am not satisfied with the government response I have received to date. My case rests on one of the most fundamental principles of humankind: that if someone does something wrong and it injures another, they should provide restitution. On 13 September last week we discussed amendments to the Bill on nutrient neutrality. There were outstanding speeches from these Benches, not least from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and a stellar contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Deben. In response, the Minister stated:
“Another issue brought up by a number of noble Lords is that the developer should pay. The Government agree. It is essential that housebuilders contribute fairly, and we all agree with the principle that the polluter should pay”.—[Official Report, 13/9/23; col. 1060.]
In the context of building safety, however, it appears that the Government do not accept that same principle—or, if they do, they think it stops short of protecting all innocent leaseholders or indeed of making developers and main contractors liable for the mistakes they made at the time of construction, at a point when they had full agency and control over the construction project.
The ill effects, as we see them now, blight hundreds of thousands of leasehold homeowners who bought in good faith. I do not know the numbers but I believe there are more than 200,000, a figure that I have quoted before and the Government have not disputed. These people did not buy a product sold discounted “as seen” from a seconds rack but a full-value home, backed by warranties and certificates of every sort, covering many things that they could not possibly see or inspect for themselves.
I took away from a meeting last week with the Minister and the Bill team that the Government believe it sufficient that the BSA has widened the Defective Premises Act so that leaseholders can better pursue big corporates, via their freeholder, for redress over demonstrable failings to construct buildings to the then regulatory standards. Further, the Government
believe they should do so at their own risk and expense, and to bear the consequential costs in the meantime. They also believe it is in order for affected leaseholders who are deemed non-qualified to continue to live in potentially unsafe blocks, in a financial fix and under the cloud of remediation costs.
When we discussed similar amendments to the Building Safety Act in 2022, speaker after speaker expressed a clear wish for focused, timely and effective action. As time goes by, there is a growing tally of enforced building evacuations—I believe there have been 27 since 2017—and a rising tide of leaseholders who are adversely affected. They have written to me in large numbers, some 250 since the middle of March, telling me of waking watch costs, enormous insurance rises, crippling remediation bills, properties that cannot be sold or refinanced, and lives upended. What should have been the security of their homes has turned into a financial and emotional prison. Just recently, some 51,000 people have signed a petition asking for something to be done. This is a problem that has not gone away.
So complicated are the rules under the BSA—developed by our rather process-focused administration—that even lawyers and conveyancers cannot figure them out and are now distancing themselves from handling work involving affected flats. I refer to the rules on leaseholder qualification; landlord certification; estimating remedial costs in times of rapidly rising prices; ascertaining landlord worth; the pitfalls leading to exclusions; the roulette of getting any recovery from original contractors; the programme for remediation; and the sheer arbitrariness and lack of clarity of it all.
My fear is that the financial standing of these assets is next in line. The Government assumed that landlords as building owners had the money and means to protect leaseholders. Some do but their respective interests do not coincide, and it is a moot point whether building owners are any more responsible for the construction defects in their buildings than the occupiers. The Government’s apparent predilection for charging owners with open-ended responsibilities without any clear route to cost recovery looks to me like a less than even-handed application of equality under the law.
It is also perfectly clear to me that many freeholders do not have the assets to enable them to risk taking on contractors, while others may be minded to do a disappearing act or become insolvent. I know that the Government’s proceedings against Railpen in respect of Vista Tower in Stevenage—I am sure that the noble Baroness opposite will be familiar with that one—are still stuck in the courts. In reality, however, no block owner or leaseholder collective could possibly afford to mount such a case.
Last Wednesday in the nutrient debate, if I can call it that, the Minister’s parting shot was that some £18 billion of added value to the economy was at stake, but that is not the only metric. The National Residential Landlords Association estimates—it is the only estimate that I know of—that there are 1.7 million non-qualifying leaseholders in existence. If just 10% of them are in buildings requiring significant remediation, which appears to be the general experience of building owners in terms of a percentage, even taking a well
below average remediation and consequential cost per flat of, say, £20,000, that amounts to a staggering £34 billion write-down on the private sector alone, or nearly double what was bothering the Minister on Wednesday. Some observers put the damage north of £50 billion, and I can well believe it. Add in social housing and shared ownership, plus the potential sectoral damage in terms of market sentiment that I believe is now taking root, and potentially it is a lot more still.
DLUHC’s own latest data shows that the building safety fund is still taking ages to process, approve and release funds—typically more than three years, in a time of rapid inflation in construction costs. It reveals that, as at the 14th of this month, there were 2,833 remediation resident registrations in relation to non-ACM—the cladding material—private sector blocks, of which only 49 have had their problems fixed. It seems that in all this the Government are not collecting the data, still less sharing it. I have asked how many properties of 11 metres and below there are which may be affected. The Government do not seem to know this; it follows that the data on impacts is effectively unknown. How then is policy made on this matter?
I think everyone will agree that there has been a lot of time available to sort this out, so the process requires the turbocharging that my amendments would provide. I am aware that the Government’s objections to these amendments are many, but I do not believe they fully address the issues. There is a social evil taking root here, in that innocent consumers are paying heavily for the mistakes of producers. One criticism is that the amendments would require individual building assessments, and that that would slow the whole process—but how else does one identify or assess the essentially random nature of poor construction, other than on a per-building basis? Another is that there is not enough professional inspection capacity, but that applies whatever the total number of defects may be—unless, of course, the intention is simply to ignore some significant defects altogether.
I am also told that it would overstretch limited departmental resources, but it is over six years since the awful tragedy of the Grenfell Tower, and it is the job of government to take necessary action, not to wring their hands. The Government say that my solution is too complex. I say that it is not half as complex as what they have already put in place—and remember, I am not asking for a taxpayer bailout. The levy provided for in these amendments would deal with any shortfalls.
We clearly are not there yet. Conveyancing sources tell me that there is a growing trend at this very moment in contracts for sale of new flats, where there are now inserted clauses placing the entire onus for future defects on the buyer, on a “take it or leave it” basis. Meanwhile, I am not aware of any moves by the Government to remove the unfairness of excluding so many leaseholders from their scheme, or indeed of moves to put anything in place to tackle the building safety problems that I have identified.
4.45 pm
I am going to say very little about the other amendments in this group, because I think it is fair that noble Lords should speak for themselves on them.
However, I see there is some backing for Amendment 282ND in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. Both he and I want effective solutions. I remind the noble Lord that we stood shoulder to shoulder on previous amendments. I was very grateful for his support there, but I think we probably diverge a little here.
As I understand it, under the noble Lord’s amendment, post-remediation qualified status would disappear. If some further defect is found at a later date, the building owner would then impose the cost of sorting it out on all the leaseholders, regardless of their original status—by which time, the original constructor would probably be off the hook. I am not sure if that is what he intends, so I hope he will put my mind at rest. I also ask him whether his amendment deals with minority shared ownerships, of which I believe there are many.
The other amendments in this group seek to mandate progress reports and other types of report, which is fair enough, but I do not believe that that propels us to the more decisive solutions that I wish to see. Recently, one developer executive claimed that it was inappropriate for me, as a chartered surveyor, to be criticising his sector—so be it. I come here not as a chartered surveyor, but as an independent Cross-Bench Peer. I cannot finish without also commenting on an email that I received this morning from a cladding group, soliciting my support for all the amendments in this group, apart from the ones that I am speaking to. There was a complete absence of any reference to my own amendments. As noble Lords can see, as I am standing here, I am perhaps not that easy to airbrush out of the scene. However, I did reach out to a number of these groups early this year and had an online meeting with representatives. At no time since have I had any further feedback from them; they have not suggested a different approach, let alone given any support to the fundamental change that I am advocating for. As far as I am concerned, they have all been silent—or perhaps, in silent opposition. Why? Am I not asking for precisely the same things that they claim to want?
Affected leaseholders may wish to ask why this apparent cancel culture has occurred. I may be a long way from being the most proficient expert on political manoeuvrings in this place, but I come to the House with professional knowledge and experience of property, construction, leasehold, building-defect identification and remediation, valuation and—perhaps most significantly—with complete independence from any person or body, and no motive beyond a biding dislike of injustice. This is not the time for political manoeuvring, and even less for sitting on the fence; it is time for action to protect leaseholders in particular. This may be the last opportunity to do anything for some time. I believe the eyes of many are on us, fervently hoping that we will protect the 1.7 million leaseholders—as indeed we should. I hope noble Lords will therefore understand why I have been so persistent about the scale of problem and the enormity of the damage that has already occurred and may yet come. I invite noble Lords to reaffirm their agreement with the principles that I have set out in moving my amendment or, conversely, to explain why I should not press the matter.