argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Christopher John Pincher (Conservative, Centre-right): I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. It is not true to say that leaseholders are being left to foot the bill. He and the House know full well that the taxpayer is spending £1.6 billion in this financial year to help remediate those buildings most at risk where the owners are unable to pay. Of course, those discussions across Government are ongoing. We keep the situation under review. However, I remind the House that it is not fair simply to place such a burden on the taxpayer. Developers and owners must step up and play their part The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the external wall system 1 form, which he knows is a form produced by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; it is not a Government form. I am pleased that, as a result of the negotiations undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Lord Greenhalgh, the EWS1 form will no longer be necessary for those buildings that are not clad. The industry has made that clear. That will be to the benefit of something like 450,000 leaseholders. But there is more to do, and we will continue to do it The hon. Gentleman asked me what affordability is. It is a very subjective matter, because what is affordable to one person is not to another. We want to ensure that, as a result of the work that my noble Friend is doing with the financial services sector and the insurance sector, we come up with appropriate and innovative solutions to ensure that unfair costs do not fall on leaseholders for defects that may be identified down the line The hon. Gentleman also referred to commentary on lies told about fire safety tests. I entirely agree that that was wrong. It was outrageous. Where firms have been proven to lie, they must of course receive the full force of the law.
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Nicola Jane Aiken (Conservative, Centre-right): While I welcome the fact that a number of responsible property owners have taken the necessary steps, supported by Government funding, to remove dangerous cladding from their buildings, the leaseholders and residents of Paddington Walk in my constituency are still under pressure from their buildings’ owner, European Land, to pay for the works required to remove ACM cladding. As those residents said to me in an email sent this morning: "Manufacturers are responsible for defective kettles or cars. Why is it different for the most expensive purchase anyone will ever make in their lives?" Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the billions of pounds being made available by the Government, it is now inexcusable that many building owners have still failed to remove dangerous cladding and are still trying to pass the cost and, indeed, the buck to leaseholders, who have suffered enough in this living nightmare?
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Christopher John Pincher (Conservative, Centre-right): I quite agree with my hon. Friend. The buck ought to lie with the owners, their developers or the warrantee holder. She will know that we have spent a great deal of public money to remediate those buildings that are most in need of it, as I have described, but the responsibility of the developers—there are some very good developers out there—must be fully understood by us in this House and by them as an industry to remediate buildings that need it and to restore the reputation of their sector.
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Christopher John Pincher (Conservative, Centre-right): I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I will touch on two points that he raised. He is right that the financial services sector has commonalities throughout the United Kingdom: not simply in England but in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is why the Secretary of State and Lord Greenhalgh have held a series of meetings with UK Finance and other components of the financial services sector. It is why an agreement has been reached that the EWS1 form should not apply to buildings without cladding, which, as I say, will help 450,000 or so leaseholders around the country. There is more work to do. I trust that the Scottish financial sector will take note of the advances we have made very recently in England and which we will continue to make. He raises the question of 18 metres. That is the guidance provided to us by Judith Hackitt and her committee and we are following that guidance. He also refers to leasehold reform. A leasehold reform White Paper will be forthcoming. Perhaps we may, at that time, be able to debate the advantages and disadvantages of the Scottish system and see where we are able to learn from them and possibly they are able to learn from us.[Official Report, 26 November 2020, Vol. 684, c. 9MC.]
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
David Anthony Andrew Amess (Conservative, Centre-right): A number of constituents in a low-rise block of flats in Southend West have been unable to get their properties insured because of cladding issues. It will cost £400,000 to remove the cladding and their service charges will escalate. Will my right hon. Friend please reiterate the principle that those costs should not be passed on to tenants or leaseholders?
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Christopher John Pincher (Conservative, Centre-right): I am happy to reiterate that point to my hon. Friend. Lord Greenhalgh has had a series of meetings with the insurance industry to make sure it fully understands and takes on board that point. He will continue to do so, as my hon. Friend will continue to campaign doughtily on behalf of his constituents.
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Christopher John Pincher (Conservative, Centre-right): I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I sympathise with him for his personal loss and the loss of many of his friends and associates at Grenfell Tower. He asks what is being done to accelerate the pace of remediation in London, where there have been challenges that are unique to our capital. Lord Greenhalgh convened a summit of the London Mayor and the London Fire Brigade back in September to address an action plan to accelerate the work of London remediation. There was a further progress tracking meeting last month, and there are case conference meetings to address specific buildings in the capital and beyond. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there were something like 2,700 applications for the £1 billion that we put aside for non-ACM cladding. We will work through those. We have now agreed that a significant number of them meet the criteria, and the first funding of those applications is about to begin. I am confident that the funding will be fully allocated by the end of the financial year in 2021, for which the money was made available.
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Liam Fox (Conservative, Centre-right): This is an issue of huge concern to many of my constituents in Portishead. It must be an absolute principle that leaseholders must be protected from the cost of remediation for safety issues that were not their fault. I welcome the Government’s support and approach. A £1.6 billion taxpayers’ commitment is huge, but the taxes of working families up and down the country should not be used to absolve developers, insurers and owners from their proper responsibilities. When will my hon. Friend come forward and set out how these responsibilities will be enforced?
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Christopher John Pincher (Conservative, Centre-right): 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.
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Christopher John Pincher (Conservative, Centre-right): 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.
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Thomas Patrick Hunt (Conservative, Centre-right): I spoke about this issue soon after being elected. It affected one tower in my constituency. Since then, the problem has ballooned, and every week more of my constituents seem to be dragged into this. I agree that responsibility should ultimately lie with the freeholder, but the reality is that while the Government have that dispute with freeholders, it is the leaseholders in the middle who have this uncertainty hanging over them. Just last week, residents at Cardinal Lofts on Ipswich waterfront were all notified by quite a distant building manager that they had to pay £300 a month for a waking watch, at a time of uncertainty about employment for many of them because of the pandemic. That is completely wrong. I am glad that some support has been provided by the Government, but we need far more certainty far sooner. Will the Minister meet me and colleagues to talk in detail about the timeline for providing that certainty?
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Christopher John Pincher (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend has raised this particular issue with me before, and I know that he has campaigned hard and long on it since his election just 11 months ago. I am happy to meet him to discuss that. The issue of waking watch has been raised by other Members. As I said, we want to ensure that leaseholders are aware of waking watch costs and the opportunities to mitigate them. It is the reason why we want developers to get on and remediate, and it is also why we have put £1.6 billion of taxpayers’ money aside to ensure that we can remediate those buildings where owners cannot, so that the waking watch issue becomes moot.
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Christopher John Pincher (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman asks what we are doing to speed up the surveying process. We are making more professionals available to undertake EWS assessments. We are spending something like £700,000 to fund the training of those assessors, and we will produce about 2,000 of them over the next six months, which should help to speed up the process.
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Christopher Stephen Grayling (Conservative, Centre-right): In my constituency, the biggest concern for residents has been the inappropriate application of these rules and the EWS form to much lower-rise buildings than were ever envisaged and the resulting problems created for them in selling flats, moving flat and so forth. I welcome the announcements made by my right hon. Friend last weekend; I am grateful to him for that. Could I ask him to keep up the pressure on the different professionals and organisations involved, to ensure that this problem really does disappear? These homeowners should not be subject to pressures because of something that is not designed for their kind of property.
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Christopher John Pincher (Conservative, Centre-right): I can tell the hon. Gentleman that 2,704 applications were received. A significant number of them, I regret to tell the House, were not sufficient to allow an immediate assessment, but more than 100 have been assessed successfully to move on to the next stage. The first tender for payment has been agreed, and I am confident that by the end of the financial year for which this money was set aside, it will have been fully allocated, and remediation work will have begun.
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Roger James Gale (Conservative, Centre-right): In his opening remarks, my right hon. Friend said that people should not be required to pay for faults that they did not cause, and he is absolutely right. Further to the point raised by the Father of the House, I have in my constituency one block that has social housing, private rented accommodation and full and shared leaseholders; will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the leaseholder element will not ever be faced with a disproportionate bill that will in effect pay for those who do not pay at all?
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Christopher John Pincher (Conservative, Centre-right): I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for his question. As I said earlier, I cannot say that there will not be some cost that may occur at some point to leaseholders for historical defects work that may be undertaken, but we do want to make sure that, as a result of the work that Michael Wade is doing with the financial services and others, any such costs are fair and reasonable and can be carried. That is why we have put aside that £1.6 billion to make sure that the cost of cladding remediation for cladding such as ACM and high-pressure laminate can be funded by the taxpayer when the developers are not able to fund it, so that the cost does not fall on the leaseholder.
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Christopher John Pincher (Conservative, Centre-right): It is my understanding that buildings that do not have cladding will not need an EWS1 form. We clearly need to do more work with the financial services sector to advance the issues that have arisen with the EWS1 form but, as a result of the negotiations and the agreements made over the weekend, we anticipate that something like 450,000 holders will no longer need to use an EWS1 form.
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Matthew James Offord (Conservative, Centre-right): I wish to press the Minister on that specific point. Will he confirm whether UK Finance has officially acknowledged that leaseholders of residential properties without external cladding do not need to provide an EWS1 form to finance, remortgage or sell their properties? Where can my constituents view that confirmation?
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Christopher John Pincher (Conservative, Centre-right): As I said to the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), my understanding is that the industry has confirmed that the EWS1 form will not be necessary for buildings that do not have cladding. As I am saying it from the Dispatch Box, I would imagine that is the view of the Government.
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Dean Russell (Conservative, Centre-right): I welcome the EWS1 form measures as they will have a real impact and provide certainty for many in my constituency. However, a number of Watford residents, especially in places such as Outlook Place, are still finding it difficult to sell or remortgage their homes, so what reassurances can my right hon. Friend offer to those living in buildings with cladding that are under 18 metres?
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Christopher John Pincher (Conservative, Centre-right): I am obliged to my hon. Friend, who I know has been campaigning long and hard on this issue in Watford. As I have said, as a result of some considerable and lengthy negotiations with the financial services sector, we have agreed that EWS1 forms will not be necessary for buildings that are for sale that are not clad in the same way as some buildings that are in grave difficulty. That will help 450,000 people around the country, a number of whom I suspect will be my hon. Friend’s constituents. There is more work to do on this matter and we will continue to undertake it.
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Christopher John Pincher (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I know that she is a very considerate and assiduous Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. The Government, though, have stepped up. It is why we put £600 million on the table to remediate ACM-clad buildings, and about 79% of those have now either completed or begun their remediation. Ninety-seven per cent. of social housing buildings have had that remediation completed. It is why we stepped up again with £1 billion through the building safety fund to remediate buildings that have other non-ACM-style dangerous cladding, but we must not absolve the developers and the owners of their responsibility to make sure that remediation takes place in the buildings for which they are responsible. We work with them to make sure that happens while we keep the general situation under review.
Leaseholders and Cladding — House of Commons, 2020-11-24
Topic: Housing
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on whether leaseholders are expected to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding from their homes.
Felicity Christiana Buchan (Conservative, Centre-right): I welcome the additional money for training for assessors, because I understand from the industry that this is a very important issue, in terms of several of the delays. I am frustrated, however, that three and a half years on from the appalling Grenfell tragedy that happened in my constituency, we still have many outstanding issues. What assurance can my right hon. Friend give me that we will not be having the same conversation in six or 12 months’ time? Are there any interim measures that we can put in place to support leaseholders?