On 29th March 2022, the House of Lords debated amendments to the Building Safety Bill. There were votes held on several amendments, in which Bishops took part.
Division 1:
The Bishop of Worcester took part in a vote on an amendment tabled by Lord Stunell on fire and safety regulations:
Lord Stunell moved amendment 8, in clause 5, page 3, line 26, at end to insert—
“(2) The regulator must within two years of this section coming into force carry out and publish an assessment of the benefits and costs of measures on improving the safety of people in or about buildings relating to—
(a) fire suppression systems;
(b) safety of stairways and ramps;
(c) certification of electrical equipment and systems;
(d) provision for people with disabilities.
(3) The regulator’s assessment may—
(a) make proposals in accordance with section 7(2) for regulations in respect of any of these matters, and
(b) identify and give notice of such other matters relating to safety of people in or about buildings that they determine require further examination.”
The amendment was agreed. Content: 176 / Not Content 151.
The Bishop of Worcester voted Content.
Division 2:
The Bishop of St Albans and the Bishop of Worcester took part in a vote on an amendment tabled by the Earl of Lytton:
The Earl of Lytton: I welcome a lot of these amendments and would welcome some of those from the Government if I was not troubled by their basic premise of deciding that orphan cost liabilities must be spread between two categories of the innocent. It is a matter of policy; it is not a matter of human rights. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said on that, and I found it absolutely fascinating. The fact remains that freeholders as we know them very often have a minority interest by value, so the questions remain: where do you find that real, available hard cash to fund the remediation, and after what degree of litigation, delay and cost?
Despite what the Minister said, and I admire his tenacity, I remain unconvinced by the arguments. On sub-11 metres, I do not see that the argument has been made for the quantifiable difference under the Bill that the Government are trying to achieve, bearing in mind that the Worcester Park building was a four-storey building. I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 115. Hansard
The Earl of Lytton moved amendment 115, in clause 120, page 127, line 27, to leave out from “dwellings” to end of line 32.
The amendment was agreed. Content: 156 / Not Content: 123.
The Bishop of St Albans and the Bishop of Worcester voted Content.
Division 3:
The Bishop of St Albans and the Bishop of Worcester took part in a vote on an amendment tabled by Lord Young of Cookham:
Lord Young of Cookham: I turn now to Amendment 117 in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. It seeks to expand the service charge protections to enfranchised buildings and buildings where the right to manage has been exercised. This would ensure that all leaseholders are treated equally. Hansard
Lord Young of Cookham moved amendment 117, in clause 120, page 127, line 33, leave out subsection (3).
The amendment was agreed. Content: 146 / Not Content: 114.
The Bishop of St Albans and the Bishop of Worcester voted Content.
Division 4:
The Bishop of St Albans and the Bishop of Worcester took part in a vote on an amendment tabled by Baroness Hayman of Ullock:
Baroness Hayman of Ullock: I turn to my Amendment 155. It is really important that we take account of the principle that has been referred to by other noble Lords: there should be no cost to people who have done nothing wrong. It is not the fault of leaseholders that they have been left with these huge costs. We believe it is desperately unfair to force them to pay a penny, which is why my amendment has the word “zero” in it. As mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, we must not forget the strain on the mental health of leaseholders. They need clear and proper support, and they are relying on your Lordships to do the right thing by them. To me, this is a moral question. Should leaseholders pay costs that, for many, will still be huge despite the caps proposed by the Government? They are blameless; they should pay nothing.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock moved amendment 155, in Schedule 9, page 227, line 14, to leave out from “is” to end of line 17 and insert “zero”. Hansard
The amendment was agreed. Content: 137 / Not Content: 123.
The Bishop of St Albans and the Bishop of Worcester voted Content.
The Church of England in Parliament 
You must be logged in to post a comment.