The House of Lords debated an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill tabled by Baroness Pinnock, Liberal Democrat Lords Spokesperson for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
The debate was held on the 27 October.
Identifying fire safety risks
The amendment aimed at increasing the rate at which buildings with identified fire safety risks are remediated by preventing major developers from undertaking new projects until they commit to fully remediating all unsafe buildings at no cost to leaseholders.
Baroness Pinnock explained that the purpose of the amendment was about “seeking to put more pressure on those who created the conditions in which people died and which many leaseholders now have to endure”.
The amendment, co-signed by the Earl of Lytton, aimed to expand the scope of the Responsible Actors Scheme to include all unsafe buildings, regardless of height and to ensure remediation is carried out to a higher standard than currently mandated under PAS 9980.
According to government figures cited during the debate, between 5,900 and 9,000 buildings over 11 metres still have unsafe cladding, affecting over 250,000 flats and potentially half a million residents.
While 1,927 blocks have been remediated and 750 are undergoing work, thousands remain in limbo.
Liberal Democrat Lords Spokesperson for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Baroness Pinnock’s statement
Baroness Pinnock criticised the Government’s timeline, which commits to completing remediation by 2029—12 years after the Grenfell fire, saying: “Leaseholders are paying the price for a situation that in no part is of their making.
“They are paying for it in extortionate insurance bills, in ever-rising service charges and in knowing that they have no way out as their flats do not sell.”
Earl of Lytton’s statement
During the debate, the Earl of Lytton described the current remediation framework as “complex, uncertain, and capricious,” with fragmented funding and inconsistent standards.
He warned that the PAS 9980 standard allows for “tolerable risk” and “proportionate remediation,” which he argued can delay action and leave residents exposed.
He added: “Markets need transparency, and the government need to be upfront about the general quality of buildings and building regulation compliance over the past 30 years.
“This amendment would give the Secretary of State the tools to end the two-tier remediation standard, the basic inequity and uncertainty of the current protections and the market disruption that has accompanied them.”
Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Baroness Taylor Stevenage’s statement
Responding for the government, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Housing, Communities and Local Government, argued that the amendment would “slow remediation and risk stopping essential housebuilding”.
In opposing the amendment, she said that “attempting to make those changes to the statutory scheme would undermine the remediation contracts that developers have signed with government.”
She defended the PAS 9980 standard as “evidence-based and proportionate,” and highlighted the fire safety reinsurance facility launched in April 2024, which has supported over 760 buildings and increased its claims limit to £75 million.
Shadow Minister for Housing, Lord Jamieson’s statement
Lord Jamieson, Shadow Minister for Housing, echoed concerns about delaying new housing developments.
He explained: “We urgently need the remediation of unsafe blocks of flats.
“But with a housing crisis and over 350,000 people living in temporary accommodation, we also need to build the safe homes we desperately need.”
Baroness Pinnock rejected the binary framing of the issue, saying that it “should not be either/or; it should be both/and”, and argued that there “is capacity within the housebuilding industry to do that.”
Former Secretary of State, Lord Gove’s statement
Lord Gove, former Secretary of State and architect of the Responsible Actors Scheme, expressed sympathy but cautioned against unintended consequences.
Lord Gove shared: “I had to strike a balance between putting the squeeze on them—by making it clear that unless they acted to remediate, they would receive no planning permission whatever—and making sure that they could continue to build the houses we need.”
He questioned whether the amendment considered the financial impact on developers and noted that some non-qualifying leaseholders are wealthy property owners.
Gove added: “A line has to be drawn somewhere to ensure that those with significant wealth do not benefit, while those who do need support receive it.”
After a wide-ranging debate, the amendment was ultimately defeated, with 83 votes in favour and 157 against, with Baroness Taylor noting: “There will be further opportunities for this House to debate the issues of building safety and remediation, including their interaction with this Government’s bold ambitions on housing supply.”