Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities:
To ask His Majesty's Government what is the number of housing developments for which developers have not progressed a Fire Risk Appraisal of External Walls, where this is required.
Answered by Baroness Penn - Minister on Leave (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State)
The Building Safety Act protects qualifying leaseholders from the costs of professional services relating to relevant defects. This would include any Fire Risk Appraisal of External Walls (FRAEW) undertaken in relation to a relevant defect, including to ascertain whether such a defect exists. Where a building is enrolled in the Cladding Safety Scheme (CSS) or the Building Safety Fund (BSF), funding for an FRAEW can be provided.
Developers who sign the developer remediation contract are obliged to obtain an assessment of life-critical fire safety defects caused by the original design, construction or refurbishment of the building. Those developers must also use all reasonable endeavours to enter into a works contract with the building owner/responsible entity and agree the plan for remediation. Published data from November 2023 shows that developers have yet to obtain a Works Assessment for 1,277 (28%) of the 4,540 buildings for which they have accepted responsibility under the developer remediation contract (for reporting purposes, ‘Works Assessments’ include but are not limited to Fire Risk Appraisals of External Walls and may include other assessments e.g., Fire Risk Assessment). The Department is closely monitoring progress and holding regular discussions with developers to enforce compliance with their contractual obligations. All developers who fail to comply with their obligations face significant consequences, and members of the statutory Responsible Actors Scheme that the Government launched in July 2023 would face planning and building control prohibitions.
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Vere of Norbiton on 22 November (HL158), why they agreed to defer Cuba’s debt repayments in 2021, how much the UK is owed by Cuba as a member of the Group of Creditors of Cuba, and when payment is expected.
Answered by Baroness Vere of Norbiton - Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
As outlined in the answer to HL549, the Group of Creditors to Cuba (GCC), including the UK, agreed in 2021 to defer payments due under the 2015 Agreement. This was on the basis of the Republic of Cuba’s economic and financial situation and the Cuban Government’s efforts to support Cuban economic development in the context of Covid-19.
The GCC and Cuba have confirmed their willingness to preserve the 2015 Agreement and commitment to ensure its full implementation. The GCC has not published the terms of implementation.
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Vere of Norbiton on 22 November (HL158), what was the rationale behind the decision to defer payments under the 2015 agreement; and when they expect Cuba to make payments against this debt.
Answered by Baroness Vere of Norbiton - Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
In 2021, the Group of Creditors to Cuba (GCC), including the UK, agreed to defer payments due under the 2015 Agreement. This was on the basis of the Republic of Cuba’s economic and financial situation and the Cuban Government’s efforts to support Cuban economic development in the context of Covid-19.
The GCC and Cuba have confirmed their willingness to preserve the 2015 Agreement and commitment to ensure its full implementation.
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Davies of Gower on 27 November (HL339), why the steel sidebars on the disability buggies at Euston station were replaced in the last two weeks; what was the cost of installing the original ones and replacing them with the new ones; and who was responsible for making the decision on both sets of bars.
Answered by Lord Davies of Gower - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
Following an incident involving a passenger on one of the buggies at Euston Station, Network Rail undertook a safety investigation. One of the outputs from the investigation was to ensure safety bars were present on all buggies. Network Rail found that the design of the bars caused issues for some passengers getting on and off the buggies. Therefore, Network Rail replaced them with the newly designed safety bars which allows more of the bar to be pushed back into its housing, resulting in more space for passengers to get on and off.
The cost of installing the original bars and then replacing them with the new bars was £2617.20 excluding VAT. The decision for the bars to be replaced was made by the Route’s Head of Stations.
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Vere of Norbiton on 27 September (HL10350), what text is included in Avanti's National Rail Contract on the provision of catering in first class.
Answered by Lord Davies of Gower - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
The provision of First-Class Catering is included in the Continuing Ancillary Services Document which sets out services that are required to be carried over from the previous Franchise Agreement. Clause 4.5 of the National Rail Contract states that the operator shall continue to provide any Continuing Ancillary Service and not vary the terms or stop providing without the Secretary of State’s prior approval.