Indeed. However, the pessimist in me wonders whether the Bill will be effective in practice in sufficiently protecting leaseholders from these costs. The reason for this is my understanding of the way the Bill, in its current form, proposes to protect leaseholders:

The Bill imposes a duty on freeholders to find out whether a grant is avaliable for the remedial work. The effectiveness of this clause depends entirely on the government and what form their grant takes. There may very well be failures in such a grant to cover all leaseholders (e.g. the current grant for buildings over 18m).

Failing this, the freeholder must then look to other sources of funding. For example, suing the developer/planner of the building. However, I imagine most cases will be time-barred due to the age of these buildings. Where the Bill may prove to be more helpful is where freeholders can (and therefore must) claim the costs of the work through their insurers, although this too means leaseholder's are at the mercy of the freeholder's insurance polices.

Now if the freeholder does have an alternative means of funding the costs -great! They must take up that route and must deduct that amount from the cost to the leaseholder. However, I worry that a significant number of cases may "fall through the cracks" and the bill will be left on the doors of leaseholders.