Leaseholders and Cladding

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for his question. He is absolutely right. As I said in my earlier remarks, first and foremost the responsibility must fall squarely on the developers of these properties, their owners and warranty holders. There are some good developers that have worked hard to remediate ACM cladding; something like 50% of the buildings that have had ACM cladding remediated have been done, and are being done, by the private sector. Pemberstone, Mace, Peabody, Barratt Developments and others are all working to remediate their buildings. We have been clear that those that do not, such as those referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), must recognise that they will receive the full force of the law. I can tell the House that, from December, those responsible for buildings where remediation is not forecast to start by the end of 2020 will be publicly named, as a further incentive for them to get going.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It would be an inexcusable outrage if the costs of making buildings safe in the light of the Grenfell tragedy fell in practice not on the developers or the governments, whose disregard of safety led to that tragedy, but instead fell on the innocent leaseholders; yet, in effect, that is the Government’s default position, as people are left with homes they cannot afford to make safe and homes that they cannot sell. Will the Government accept Lords amendment 13 to the Fire Safety Bill in the name of my honourable friends Baroness Pinnock and Lord Shipley in order to stop this injustice?

[Christopher Pincher]

The hon. Gentleman asks about an amendment that is being sent down to us from the other place. We will, of course, examine very closely the wording of that amendment, but my understanding is that it is a defective one, notwithstanding the issues that he raises and the concerns that he properly posits about leaseholders footing the bill. I hope that I have been clear to the House about my view on that. My understanding of the particular amendment is that it would be retrospective, which raises all sorts of legal challenges. It would also mean that building owners would be responsible for the normal wear and tear of buildings, which I am sure the whole House will accept would not be appropriate. We will look closely at the amendment, but I do not think that I can say at this stage that we can support it.