-
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what advice, if any, they are
giving to local housing authorities about the rights of
leaseholders in high-rise blocks which have cladding which
has failed fire safety tests.
-
(LD)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests in the register
and beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the
Order Paper.
-
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of
Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office
(Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, we have advised local housing authorities that
building owners should take responsibility for funding fire
safety measures and should draw on their existing resources
to do so. It is important that leaseholders are able to
access specialist advice to understand their rights. The
department is providing additional funding to the Leasehold
Advisory Service which provides free initial and tailored
advice to support leaseholders in understanding the terms of
their lease.
-
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, for the
announcement last Thursday of the extra £400 million being
provided by the Government and for the further clarification
yesterday which made it clear to the House that it could be
more than that if remediation of these tower blocks costs
more. I bring to the Minister’s attention the fact that in a
large number of local housing authority tower blocks,
fire-watching staff have been in post now for almost a year
and will presumably be for some time to come. I seek the
Minister’s confirmation that no cost will be incurred either
by tenants or leaseholders of such a block; the faulty
cladding is no fault of theirs and it seems unreasonable to
expect them to pay any additional cost, either through
service charges or through rents.
-
My Lords, the amount is actually £420 million, but the noble
Lord is absolutely right that that could be somewhat higher:
it is an estimate. That money is designed for replacing the
cladding system. On the type of 24/7 watch he referred to,
some of these interim measures were in place for blocks where
the remediation work has not yet been completed. It is
certainly our view that social tenants should not bear the
cost of that. In the private sector, similarly, interim
measures are in place and it is the view of the department
that those costs should be borne by freeholders. My right
honourable friend the Secretary of State is having
round-table meetings in the next few weeks to discuss these
issues with leaseholders and owners.
-
(CB)
Is it not the case that the responsibility of the landlord
will depend to a large extent upon the lease or tenancy
agreement and that these may vary considerably? In the
circumstances, does the noble Lord not agree that there is a
strong case for imposing a blanket statutory responsibility
on landlords in this connection?
-
My Lords, the noble Lord is right that the position will vary
according to the nature of the lease in question: it may vary
enormously from one lease to another. We already have the
example of Citiscape in Croydon where those responsible, the
leaseholders under the lease, have had the owner of the
block, Barratt, come forward and say it will bear the cost.
We are hoping that that position will be replicated in other
cases. We rule nothing out, but in the meantime the round
tables that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State
is organising provide a way forward to see how this will be
received.
-
(Lab
Co-op)
My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant interests as a
vice-president of the Local Government Association. The sum
of £400 million for removing potentially dangerous cladding
is welcome. Can the noble Lord confirm whether this is new
money or money diverted from the affordable homes programme?
Have the Government completely ruled out providing any new
additional funding to alleviate the problems highlighted by
the noble Lord, ?
-
My Lords, the noble Lord is right and I suspect he knows the
answer he is going to get. The money is out of the existing
funding programme but additional money will be forthcoming in
the year after: it alters the profile by delaying that
additional housing by a year.
-
(LD)
The Minister has set out very clearly the solutions to one
particular problem, but he will be well aware that the
Hackitt review said that to avoid these things recurring, it
was essential to have a dutyholder who would take
responsibility for every phase of the building. Can he
confirm that the Government have the power to do that by
regulation and do not need to wait for primary legislation in
order to deliver this important safety consideration?
-
My Lords, I believe the noble Lord has written on this very
subject—I saw a copy of his letter this morning. We are
looking at the points he has raised. But in relation to
Hackitt in general, some measures will need to be taken
forward in primary legislation, others possibly in secondary
legislation, while others might not need legislation at all.
We are reviewing that because obviously we accept what Dame
Judith has said in all regards, except in relation to the
banning of combustible cladding, which we are carrying out
and which she is content with.
I apologise to the noble Lord, . It was indeed £400
million, not £420 million. He is better informed than I am.
We have so many figures flying around but I apologise to him.
-
(LD)
My Lords, in many cases private leaseholders do not know the
identity of their freeholder. The freehold may be held in a
foreign trust away from the public gaze. Can the Minister
explain how in those cases leaseholders will be able to get
recourse on these expenses?
-
My Lords, the noble Lord is right that it is not always
straightforward; I suspect that that is a minority of cases.
We are, I think, beginning to get to the tail end of the
identification of buildings. We have made additional money
available to local authorities, which have powers under the
Housing Act 2004 to require information from the owners. He
is absolutely right about that issue. We are looking at that
with a view to ensuring that leaseholders do not pick up the
bill, irrespective of whether or not that is a provision in
the lease.
