Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

House of Commons, 27 October 2026.

Angela Rayner (Labour, Ashton-under-Lyne)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Nine years ago, 72 people, 18 of them children, died in the Grenfell Tower tragedy. It was a deadly betrayal and a national tragedy that must never happen again. Let me start by remembering those who lost their lives and paying tribute to the bereaved families, the survivors and members of the Grenfell community.

In the time since, the community has campaigned to fix the building safety crisis exposed by the tragedy. That is why we are all here today—so that no one suffers as they have. A decent, safe and secure home is not too much to ask for, but for many it is still out of reach. Despite nine years passing since the Grenfell tragedy, up to 380,000 residents are still living in buildings with unsafe cladding. Every single one of them tells a story of someone unable to move on with their life, stuck in an unsafe home, unable to sell, and often unable to sleep at night. There are even stories of families evacuated without any guarantee of when they can return home. The mental and financial burden can become unbearable.

We have taken action, and we have accepted our responsibilities, but the truth is that others have not. There are still people and companies out there who are not acting quickly enough to make homes safe. Of the 4,724 buildings where unsafe cladding has been identified, work has been completed on only 1,849. Regulators have so far had to take enforcement action on over 900 buildings where those responsible were not taking their responsibilities seriously. As a Government, we will stand up for every leaseholder who is stuck in an unremediated flat, unable to move on with their lives and facing huge costs in the meantime.

When this Government came to power, the pace of remediation was unacceptably slow. That is why in December 2024 I announced the remediation acceleration plan—our blueprint to identify all buildings with unsafe cladding. We are now delivering on that plan, which means that buildings will be fixed faster and residents will be supported better.

Meg Hillier (Labour/Co-operative, Hackney South and Shoreditch)

I declare that I am a leaseholder whose home did have cladding, though happily that has now been resolved. I represent one of the largest concentrations of new builds with cladding, and there are serious issues, as the Secretary of State has begun to highlight. Back in 2020, the Public Accounts Committee issued a report about the need to improve skills and make more contractors available, so I appreciate the grip that she took of the situation in 2024 as Secretary of State. Will she flesh out a bit more what work she is doing with other Departments to ensure we get the necessary skilled workforce? That is one of the biggest factors that slows down my constituents’ getting the justice that they deserve.

Angela Rayner (Labour, Ashton-under-Lyne)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we need to ensure that we have the skilled workforce this situation requires. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, alongside other Departments, has put more investment into ensuring we have the people in post, and we will continue with that piece of work. We also launched a national identification drive to understand the scale of the problem.

Jeremy Corbyn (Independent, Islington North)

I commend the Secretary of State for the Bill, the work she has done and the statement she just made. In my constituency, the local authority has been very good and effective at dealing with dangerous cladding—it did so immediately, which is to its credit, and that is basically the story across the whole country—but the private sector is less like that. In my constituency, a number of places including Drayton Park and Highbury Gardens among others have now had years with unsafe cladding, with people facing massive insurance costs and, as she rightly said, the inability to move on with their lives. Can the Government take over responsibility, ensure the work is done, charge it to the perpetrators of the problem and, above all, ensure there is compensation for residents for the massive insurance costs they have faced over the last few years?

Angela Rayner (Labour, Ashton-under-Lyne)

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He is right to highlight the devastating impact on communities. The Bill will I hope go some way towards doing the things he wants to see for his constituents. Anyone who has deliberately failed to mitigate or remediate buildings that are over 11 metres will face tougher consequences as a result of the Bill, including fines of up to £500,000 and, where needed, criminal prosecution.

Since we launched the national identification drive to understand the scale of the problem, over 200,000 building records have been reviewed. That is significantly improving our understanding of the affected building stock and enabling remediation activity to be targeted more effectively. To drive the pace of remediation work, we also gave social housing providers equal access to Government funding schemes for the first time.

Janet Daby (Labour, Lewisham East)

I thank the Secretary of State for the work she has been doing on dangerous cladding remediation. Some constituents of mine have been able to benefit from the remediation work for buildings under 11 metres, but could she say a bit more about when funding will become available? My constituents are still waiting on the release of funding for work that needs to take place.

Angela Rayner (Labour, Ashton-under-Lyne)

I thank my hon. Friend for that. Hopefully, as we go through the Bill she will see how we are changing the emphasis in particular to ensure that the buildings most at risk will be remediated first. As I said, we have given social housing providers access to Government funding schemes for the first time, investing over £1 billion to ensure that the most vulnerable residents have safe homes. We have also ended the binary approach to remediation funding based on building height.

Meg Hillier (Labour/Co-operative, Hackney South and Shoreditch)

I thank the Secretary of State for being so generous with her time. Picking up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), a number of my constituents are stuck in blocks that are not high priority. They do not have as much cladding to be removed, but they are down the list because there are not enough skilled people to do the work—it is not always that the developers are dragging their heels; sometimes that is an issue as well. Therefore, for the sake of a small amount of work, their lives are on hold. They are unable to sell their properties and find it challenging to get a mortgage—all the issues that we know people are still facing, many years on. Could she take that away for the Department to revisit some of the priority issues and get some of those blocks that could be done quickly up the list?

Angela Rayner (Labour, Ashton-under-Lyne)

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I hope that in the passage of the Bill she will see we are hoping that we can do that piece of work, because we do understand the devastating impact on people’s lives.

All buildings are now considered based on the risk presented to those living in them. As part of that, we have announced targeted funding for buildings under 11 metres with the highest risk so that the cost of fixing cladding on those buildings does not fall on the leaseholders. We will always ensure that developers pay their fair share towards making buildings safe. We have already agreed stretched targets for developers to accelerate work to assess and remediate buildings and we will hold them to account on their progress.

Jim Dickson (Labour, Dartford)

Over the weekend, in Ebbsfleet in my constituency we saw the damage that a fire in a residential block can cause. I express my concern for those in Bodycomb Street who were harmed in that fire or have been displaced by it. Another block nearby, Heron Court, has recently had a waking watch imposed on it by FirstPort, with the costs accruing to residents. Do not those two instances underline for everyone in the House how important it is that we get the Bill through Parliament so that we can get some recompense and support for residents who are suffering under the current regime?

Angela Rayner (Labour, Ashton-under-Lyne)

I am really sorry to hear about the situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Since the Grenfell tragedy, many hon. Members across the House have had similar experiences of fires, including fatalities. As I outlined in terms of the thousands of buildings that need remediation, that is one thing that weighs heavily on my mind every night as Secretary of State. I would not want my family to be in a property that was unsafe. That is why the Bill is so important. He made an important point about waking watches, which I will come to further into my speech.

Shockat Adam (Independent, Leicester South)

Although only 10% of 394 developer-pledged projects have been completed, I believe that under the Bill resident management companies could face criminal charges while the developers who sign the pledges would not. Can the Secretary of State clarify whether that is the case?

Angela Rayner (Labour, Ashton-under-Lyne)

We are trying to ensure that those who are responsible will be part of that. We know that manufacturers and so on have been using routes to try to get out of paying their fair share and doing what they need to do. This remediation Bill is about closing some of the gaps we see. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman as the Bill goes through the House.

We have also ensured that social housing providers have ambitious targets for the completion of all remediation work for which they are responsible. The data is clear that the action is working: since we published the remediation acceleration plan, remediation has been reported to be completed on over 470 more buildings. That is about 35,000 more residents who can at least feel safer in their homes.

Janet Daby (Labour, Lewisham East)

May I press the Secretary of State a little further? In my constituency, there is a block of flats under 11 metres that has already been recognised as a priority, but the challenge is the release of that funding. Will she arrange to meet me or agree to look at that further?

Angela Rayner (Labour, Ashton-under-Lyne)

My officials will have heard that call, and I or the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith, who is in her place, will be happy to meet my hon. Friend.

Coming back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) about residents paying for costly waking watch patrols, we have provided an additional £62 million for fire alarms in buildings with defects. That will keep residents safe until remediation work is completed and save leaseholders about £280 a month.

We are also taking action on insurance. We will introduce secondary legislation to do two things: strengthen transparency and bring the insurance commissions ban into force. The ban will stop people—including freeholders and property managing agents—from passing those commissions on to leaseholders. That will end the incentive for unscrupulous landlords and agents to seek out unearned profits and simply pass the cost on to innocent leaseholders.

Abena Oppong-Asare (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)

I thank the Secretary of State for her work on this. Some campaigners have raised concerns about past methods and how the Government have come to the conclusions on which they have legislated. There are concerns that legislation could be gamed by developers, making the situation much worse for residents. I would be grateful for clarification on that.

Angela Rayner (Labour, Ashton-under-Lyne)

We are establishing a single, consistent approach to assessing external walls so that buildings are judged on the same basis. Central to that is PAS 9980, which will become the required standard for fire risk appraisals of external walls.

Before the end of the year, we will bring forward the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which will put power back in the hands of residents and tackle unfair costs and charges. We will cap ground rents at £250 a year before reducing them to a peppercorn after 40 years, and also cap administration fees.

Neil Coyle (Labour, Bermondsey and Old Southwark)

I welcome the Secretary of State back to the Cabinet. It took months of legal wrangling and court time to secure a £1 million refund for leaseholders and £9 million in remediation works on Empire Square in Southwark. Although I fully support the Government’s action to tackle freeholder delays and neglect, as well as some of the charges, will she set out how some of the penalty amounts in the legislation were set? The sum in clause 6 is capped at £14,000, which seems very low, given the overall sums involved. How is the Department working with leaseholders and other stakeholders to set fees that allow us to go at the pace required to deliver on her ambition, and that of the Government?

Angela Rayner (Labour, Ashton-under-Lyne)

This is about meeting the challenges that we face, and making sure that those who are not taking responsibility, do. I am happy to continue the conversations with my hon. Friend to make sure that we get that balance right; that is what we want. We want those people to take responsibility and carry out the remediation. The remediation Bill before the House is the next major step in ending the building safety crisis.

Tessa Munt (Liberal Democrat, Wells and Mendip Hills)

I applaud what the Secretary of State is doing. However, would it not be sensible to stop the business of fire engineers, paid for by the building owners, using PAS 9980 to sign off dangerous cladding as acceptable, so that assessments confirm that buildings meet building regulations?

Angela Rayner (Labour, Ashton-under-Lyne)

We are working on that. PAS 9980 is the established approach used across Government remediation programmes. It provides a robust and proportionate way of identifying the risk of fire spreading through a building’s external walls and the action needed to keep residents safe.

Meg Hillier (Labour/Co-operative, Hackney South and Shoreditch)

Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

Angela Rayner (Labour, Ashton-under-Lyne)

I will give way one last time.

Meg Hillier (Labour/Co-operative, Hackney South and Shoreditch)

This is a rare opportunity to get direct answers from the Secretary of State in the House. That is not a reflection on her, but that is what we are here for. I have a constituent who is an expert on fire safety. We know that the Adam Kiziak forged EWS1 form has been a real issue, and that fire safety is now considered by measures of tolerability, rather than to the set standards. I raised that in a Westminster Hall debate with the Minister for Homelessness, because it is a real concern, and the Bill does not address all of it. Is that in the Secretary of State’s mind? Will she meet interested Members of Parliament—cross-party, because a number of us have this issue—and my very able constituent, Ian Abley, who is an expert on the matter, to discuss how we can future-proof the system? We cannot afford mistakes made as we try to solve the problems of the past.

Angela Rayner (Labour, Ashton-under-Lyne)

My hon. Friend’s intervention shows that the remediation Bill is crucial to us meeting our ongoing challenges with the remediation acceleration plan. The relevant Minister will be happy to meet her to go through the specifics relating to fire safety and the regulations on that.

The Bill will help us complete the task of identifying all remaining buildings that require remediation. It will introduce a register of 11 to 18-metre buildings, giving Government a complete record for the first time of all medium-rise buildings in England. It will also mandate how external wall assessments are carried out, to ensure a nationally consistent approach to remediation. Also, for the first time, the Bill makes it indisputable that responsible entities have to remediate building safety defects with urgency through a new legal duty to remediate. They must take action now or risk severe consequences, including criminal charges where appropriate.

It is unacceptable that enforcement is too slow and penalties are too weak to compel those responsible to act. We will give regulators the tools that they need, including the ability to issue escalating financial penalties, and to pursue criminal prosecution in the worst cases. From now on, no building and no resident will be left behind. Our new remediation backstop will allow public bodies to step in and carry out remediation work themselves. That will mean that residents have a route to remediation, even when the responsible entity is determined to ignore its duty to keep residents safe.

James Naish (Labour, Rushcliffe)

Exactly 12 months ago, I met the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), alongside the mum and brother of Amanda Walker. Amanda sadly took her own life as a result of the cladding scandal, which consumed her completely. Before her death, she gave evidence to the other place, seeking five changes, included closure of the loopholes that leave non-qualifying and enfranchised leaseholders exposed, and an industry-funded remediation scheme. I know the Secretary of State is aware of Amanda’s case. Will she consider Amanda’s asks as the Bill continues through this place?

Angela Rayner (Labour, Ashton-under-Lyne)

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that case and the incredible work that the family have done. Today, I wrote to Amanda’s mother, who has been tremendous in making sure that some of the measures in this Bill were included. It is a devastating case.

Our measures will be backed by tough sanctions, including provisions for cost recovery and the sale of responsible parties’ interests in the building, so that they cannot benefit. We will also bring an end to indefinite decamps, in which residents are evacuated from their home and given no assurances about when they can return. We will empower residents to make sure that their buildings are safe, even when the responsible entity is absent, neglectful or insolvent.

The Bill is not just about getting the work done, but about making sure that the cost of the remediation work is borne by those who are responsible for the building safety crisis. That brings me on to construction product manufacturers who produced unsafe cladding, released it on to the market, and have yet to meaningfully contribute towards the remediation work. As well as being unjust, that puts additional financial pressure on those who are getting on with doing the work. The Bill will fix long-standing gaps in the law: developers, contractors and others who have paid to make buildings safe will be able to properly pursue manufacturers, rather than being blocked by technical legal barriers.

That is not all. I intend to table amendments, as the Bill passes through Parliament, that go further on construction product redress. Through the Bill, for the first time, we will require relevant construction product manufacturers to contribute towards remediation costs that are met by the taxpayer. It is not right that taxpayers should shoulder the burden on their behalf.

At the heart of everything that we do to make buildings safe are the residents and leaseholders who bear absolutely no responsibility for the building safety crisis, but who feel its most acute consequences. The most important thing that we can do for residents is remediate their homes as quickly as possible, to ensure that they are safe. This is not just a safety crisis; for many leaseholders, the presence of unsafe cladding on their home has had a terrible financial toll. Although the Building Safety Act 2022 protects the majority of leaseholders from substantial building safety costs, there are some groups who remain excluded, and who are exposed to remediation bills. Some are forced to pay higher insurance premiums until their buildings are made safe. As a member of this Government, who are committed to lowering the cost of living, I am not prepared to let that continue, so I can announce that the Government will go further than ever to shield leaseholders from the financial burden of this crisis. I am pleased to announce that this Government will commit grant funding towards the remediation of high-risk, high-cost internal fire safety defects in eligible collectively owned and enfranchised buildings. Those buildings do not benefit from existing protections because there is no separate freeholder to carry the cost. The funding will narrow the gap between leaseholders in such buildings and those already protected from remediation costs under the Building Safety Act, giving them greater certainty and support in making their home safe.

Matt Rodda (Labour, Reading Central)

I thank the Secretary of State for her drive and determination on this very important matter. Will she give the House a little more detail relating to that group of residents and, in particular, those who face issues with dangerous materials inside their property, such as wood, which have led to a potential fire safety problem?

Angela Rayner (Labour, Ashton-under-Lyne)

Again, I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Hopefully, what I have said today goes some way to reassuring those who have raised that issue with us. Since my return to Government, my noble Friend Baroness Blake, who is watching the debate, and I have met End Our Cladding Scandal. We have heard the requests of its members and other leaseholders to expand the leaseholder protections in the Building Safety Act. We have also heard from those who bought their first home, only to find it was a non-qualifying lease. The Government will investigate whether we can extend the protection to any leaseholder who owns a lease on their only or principal home.

We have also heard those who have spoken about the plight of those with small portfolios who were excluded from protection. As the Bill passes through Parliament, I will table amendments to expand the protection from three to six properties. In our manifesto, we committed to reviewing how to better protect leaseholders from costs. These actions show that we are a Government who are committed to keeping our promises.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds South)

I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend just announced about those who have found themselves the owner of a flat that they did not know was non-qualifying, because of a previous owner. It is clearly unfair that they should be penalised. Will that measure be retrospective? I have a constituent who unknowingly bought a non-qualifying flat and was gobsmacked—traumatised, actually—to discover what had happened to him. He faces potentially huge costs. Will someone who is already in that position benefit from the measure?

Angela Rayner (Labour, Ashton-under-Lyne)

We are hoping to make sure that nobody is left out, or left feeling those pressures. My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I outlined before that many of the groups we have met recently are making the case that we need to push harder on doing everything that we can. As the Bill goes through Parliament, the Building Safety Minister is happy to meet Members to see how far we can go, so that we can make sure that we are doing everything that we said we would do in our manifesto. We committed to accelerating the pace of remediation, better protecting leaseholders, and ensuring that those responsible for the crisis pay towards putting it right.

Our record since 2024 shows that we are getting on with the job, but there is still work to do, which is why, through the Bill, we will go further than ever before. Every building that we make safe helps to give those living in these flats and those looking to buy a home confidence that they are safe. This is about restoring trust in our housing market, protecting our communities and bringing an end to the building safety crisis, once and for all.

I pay tribute, once again, to the Grenfell community—the survivors and the families who were affected—and to all of us who have contributed to getting to this stage, with the Bill in front of us. I commend it to the House.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

I thank the Secretary of State for her remarks. All of us, across the House, agree on the fundamental need to resolve this issue. As she movingly said, the appalling fire at Grenfell Tower and the resultant loss of life were horrifying. I join her in paying tribute to the victims, survivors and their friends and family.

We all agree that home is the place where people ought to feel safest. It is deeply concerning that so many people across the country still live in a home that has been rendered unsafe, and we welcome the Government’s desire to put that right. The Opposition have concerns about some of the Bill’s provisions, and about whether the proposed measures will definitely ensure that more people end up living in a safer home. I will set out some of those concerns. We look forward to working with the Government to improve the Bill however we can.

Remediation of unsafe cladding is often slow because there are simply not enough qualified people to do the work. This point has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), but I will spend a moment on it. Every affected building needs a specialist assessment of its external walls, at a time when fire engineers and assessors are in short supply. Training new specialists takes years, yet the Bill does not lay out any particular plans for training those skilled professionals. Contractors face the same shortage of skilled labour and materials. Too often, owners who want to act cannot find anyone to carry out the work.

Remediation is slow because the work is complicated and unpredictable. When old cladding is removed, contractors regularly find further defects, so the scope, cost and delays grow. On top of those practical difficulties, many of the buildings concerned are part-owned by their leaseholders.

Remediation is also slow because when it comes to the practical implementation of the legal regime, the situation is fragmented. Implementation is managed building by building, and the responsibility is split between owners, managing agents, contractors and three overlapping regulators. Unsurprisingly, that drives up costs and drags out timelines, however willing the owners are. The Bill’s answer is to ask the three regulators to write a statement on how they will co-operate, which is not the same as getting the work done.

We already have evidence that a legal obligation, such as the one proposed in the Bill, does not by itself guarantee timely remediation. Developers on the developer remediation contract, which the last Conservative Government implemented so that developers, not taxpayers, would cover the cost of remediation, are already bound by equivalent requirements, which is why the Bill exempts them. The Government’s figures show that developers have finished work on only a third of their buildings, and fewer than one in four of all their buildings with life-critical defects.

Responding to the Public Accounts Committee, the National Fire Chiefs Council warned that limited workforce capacity was the primary bottleneck to remediation. The then NFCC chair, Mark Hardingham, put it best when he said that

“we cannot enforce our way out of the cladding crisis.”

Meg Hillier (Labour/Co-operative, Hackney South and Shoreditch)

I do not want to be party political—I think we all know that this was one of the biggest failures of regulation in many generations, and it has affected many people very badly—but this is a disappointment. I wonder if the hon. Lady can reflect, as she is new to her post and new in this Parliament, on how decisions sometimes need to be made early. James Brokenshire, a previous Secretary of State—sadly, he is no longer with us—made some bold decisions in the early days after Grenfell, but then there were delays in things like getting fire safety surveyors trained up, which takes three years. If those decisions had been made earlier, we would be in a better position now. In the spirit of trying to improve things, will she reflect on why those decisions were not made and why we need to back this Government Bill to make sure that we move as fast as we can?

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

I think it is fair to say that there are all sorts of ways in which the response to this appalling event and the wider questions that it raised did not happen as quickly and was not as effective as we might have liked—otherwise, we would not still be discussing it today. What is important now is that we make sure that whatever plan we come up with together, as a Parliament, is as effective as it can be to make sure that people are living in the safest possible homes. That is our responsibility now.

It should not come as a surprise that legislating to make something true does not make it so. Passing a law that says that buildings must be fixed will not create a single new fire engineer. Rather than easing those practical bottlenecks, however, the Bill too often assumes that the main blocker to timely remediation is owners deliberately choosing not to act. Our fear is that, as drafted, the Bill may risk making the problem worse.

Under the Bill, every building must be assessed within a year, and every assessment that recommends work must be audited by Homes England, drawing on the same small pool of specialists. There are owners who obstruct, and they should face the full force of the law, but they are the exception, not the rule.

I say once again that I do not doubt that the intentions behind the Bill are noble, but we must always be careful that legislation, even when drafted with the best of intentions, does not produce unintended consequences. Perhaps the clearest risk of unintended consequences comes with the proposed new legal duty. Owners could face two years in prison or penalties of up to half a million pounds for deliberately failing to remediate as soon as reasonably practicable. Those standards—“deliberately” and “as soon as reasonably practicable”—are broad and subjective, particularly given the severity of the punishments prescribed by the Bill. Given that many of the decisions about whether owners have complied with the standards will fall to the regulator, can the Government be sure that due regard will be given to the real practical hurdles to remediation? What guidance will regulators get on what counts as “reasonably practicable”?

Doubtless the Government intend for these measures to be used only in the most extreme cases of deliberate obstruction or delay, but we must be incredibly careful when designing new legal duties and criminal penalties. Like it or not, these standards will hang over owners who are attempting to act in good faith, but who are constrained by the practical difficulty of remediation.

Likewise, opening up directors to personal prosecution on grounds of neglect risks generating unintended consequences. While directors’ liability for building safety is long established, the Bill goes much further. Have the Government assessed how many capable people will simply refuse to be named as directors on remediation compliance plans? What will it do to the cost of directors’ insurance? What impact will it have on the willingness of well-run management firms to get involved in residential property? How many will conclude that it is simply no longer worth the legal risk? Have the Government assessed whether the Bill will have an impact on access to directors’ insurance more broadly, and whether it could create a disincentive to involvement in residential property by well-run management firms?

Another point of concern derives from the Bill’s approach to group accountability for parent companies and firms that are deemed to exercise control. The Bill builds on powers in the 2022 Act, but extends them from recovering costs to imposing penalties for offences. The Government must do more to explain where this stops. In 2022, Parliament let a court or tribunal look through a company’s structure where it was just and equitable to do so. The Bill will allow a regulator to adopt quasi-judicial powers and enforce large penalties in doing so.

Limited liability is an important principle that, in its modern form, has endured in this country for more than a century and a half. It encourages investment and entrepreneurship. The erosion of limited liability that the Bill represents may set a worrying precedent. Until now, Parliament has qualified the principle only through the courts. The Bill qualifies the principle through regulators rather than judges. If that is acceptable in one sector, why not in others? Even if we confine ourselves to this sector, can the Government be sure that the erosion of limited liability will not create a direct deterrent to investment in large residential properties, including build to rent? Housing in this country is far too expensive for far too many people. People must be able to trust that their homes are safe, but they also need homes to buy or rent in the first place.

Another concerning legal precedent emerges from the Bill’s provisions on retrospective liability for product manufacturers. In 2022, the previous Government gave building owners a route to claim against the manufacturers of defective cladding. The Bill goes much further. It loosens the test itself, so that a product need only have contributed “more than trivially” to a building’s being unsafe. The Government must explain why the 2022 test was not enough. Complying with the regulations in force at the time will no longer be a defence; firms that followed the rules can no longer rely on having done so.

Nobody would deny the existence of bad actors—firms that have broken the rules or falsified evidence about their own compliance. Such firms have put people in danger, and some of the consequences have been unimaginably awful. They must be punished. However, there is no reason to believe that those firms would have complied had the legal standard been tougher. The point is that firms that break the rules are going to break the rules, no matter what they are. As is so often the case, the problem is one of enforcement. However, in an effort to tackle this non-compliant minority, the Bill extends retrospective liability well beyond what Parliament agreed in 2022—something that we must always be very cautious about doing. When firms or individuals cannot be sure that complying with the law today will ensure legal safety tomorrow, their behaviour can change. They may be more reluctant to enter the market in the first place, and will certainly be more reluctant to innovate. Insurers will price in that risk, and every new home will cost more to build.

As with so many aspects of the Bill, the Government, in attempting to achieve a noble aim, risk undermining important principles. The presumption against retrospective legislation, the principle of limited liability and the principle of clear legal tests are foundational to the way in which we have designed the law in this country. Of course, we can deviate from them—in our country, Parliament is sovereign and can make whatever law it chooses—but when we do deviate, we ought to ensure that we do so with a full appreciation of the facts and implications. It ought to happen only when we can see no other way to solve the problem at hand, and only when we are sure that new legislation, rather than better enforcement or efforts to ease practical bottlenecks, is the right course of action.

I reiterate my appreciation for the intention behind the Bill. That anybody should feel unsafe in their own home because of structural or material faults is a profoundly depressing state of affairs. However, we are concerned that, in pursuing this noble aim, the Government may not have given due regard to some of the unintended consequences of the solutions they propose. As the Bill progresses, we will probe all those points and more. We look forward to working, with the same noble aim, to improve the Bill however we can.

Joe Powell (Labour, Kensington and Bayswater)

I wish we did not have to be here debating this Bill today—first and foremost because we are doing so largely due to the Grenfell Tower fire, more than nine years ago. It is right that we again remember the 72 who lost their lives in an entirely avoidable fire, and recognise the suffering that the bereaved, survivors and Grenfell community in my constituency continue to endure.

I place on record my thanks to the Prime Minister for his commitment, at Prime Minister’s questions two weeks ago, to work with me every day for justice for the victims. I also thank the Secretary of State for her determination to find solutions across Government that will implement the Grenfell inquiry recommendations and make necessary changes to how our state functions, including on building safety. Our hope and expectation is that those responsible will face the full force of the law by May next year, when the Crown Prosecution Service makes its charging decisions on the 20 organisations and 54 individuals passed to it by the Metropolitan police. While we wait, almost 10 years on, for justice through criminal accountability, we must also pursue justice through meaningful change in policies, laws and culture. That is how I approach the Bill.

The second reason I wish we were not here is that I believe many of the provisions in the Bill should have been enacted a long time ago and, at very least, should have been part of the Building Safety Act 2022. How is it that, in a similar timeframe since Grenfell, the state of Victoria in Australia has completed works on 99% of the 1,600 buildings that needed remediation, while we have completed only 39% of 4,724 identified buildings? More have not even been assessed, which is something the Bill tries to address. In 2020, Victoria passed a law setting up a group that assessed all buildings over three storeys, identified those at risk using a common state-prescribed standard and then paid for the work via an up-front fund, in part capitalised by developer contributions.

Jeremy Corbyn (Independent, Islington North)

What the hon. Member is saying is excellent. Does he accept that there is a cultural issue here? The dangerous cladding on Grenfell, as in many other places, was dismissed as being unimportant because the people living there were often poor, working-class families, and they were simply not cared about. I hope that the Bill will change that culture, as well as bringing safety to an awful lot of people.

Joe Powell (Labour, Kensington and Bayswater)

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Residents who raised concerns were ignored, and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea made a decision to cut costs that resulted in the contract that ended up being a major contributory factor in what happened. I have not had the chance to say this on the record, but I am pleased that one of the individuals involved in that is no longer at the Barnet tenant management organisation. That decision was wrong, and it has been corrected. I am glad that that has been done.

In short, in Victoria the government stepped in and put homeowners and residents first. In this country, the previous Government took a market-based approach that has comprehensively failed to deliver remediation in a timely way. Why? It is because, for too long, the British state has been too passive in the face of this problem, relying on private developers to come up with the answers while millions of people suffer the consequences. The British state’s response to the cladding scandal has exposed many of the weaknesses that this Government want to fix: unaccountable power, opaque ownership and a shirking of responsibility; penny-wise cost cutting that stores up massive costs in the future; and a lack of public control over the basics of life, including housing.

I hope that the Bill will contribute to that effort by creating more jeopardy for those delaying remediation and more options to finally fix every building that needs it, but the work to make buildings safe must continue even while we debate the Bill. Existing powers such as remediation orders and remediation contribution orders can be useful tools if Ministers provide a hands-on grip on the crisis by co-ordinating local remediation plans, creating national standards and ensuring that tomorrow’s Budget continues to fund the Department to get the work moving now. We need belatedly to shift to a “fix first and fast” model based on risk, as the Secretary of State said, leveraging all existing avenues to get work started.

Meg Hillier (Labour/Co-operative, Hackney South and Shoreditch)

I concur with my hon. Friend’s tribute to those who lost their lives in the Grenfell tragedy and to their loved ones. I remember the shock in this place when that tragedy happened.

I have a real concern about tolerability and how fire safety is assessed. This is something that built up over generations, and my hon. Friend gave a summary of it. Decisions on building safety were left to the wrong people; there was no outside inspection. Tolerability is a subjective standard, rather than a safe set of fixed standards. Does my hon. Friend have anything to say about that? We need to be clear as we go forward about fixing that problem and ensuring that it is not down to individuals. Some developers cherry-pick who will assess the building safety of a block, knowing that some people will pass it when others would be more rigorous. That is not an acceptable situation.

Joe Powell (Labour, Kensington and Bayswater)

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. At the very least, there needs to be independent scrutiny of these assessments so that people can feel reassured that someone is checking whether they pass muster. It should be about the whole of the building being made safe—I think the Secretary of State referred to that. Cladding defects are an extremely important component, but there are internal fire defects that also need to be assessed, which have contributed to rising costs.

I welcome the remediation backstop in the Bill that will give Homes England and local authorities the power to step in, but that should not only be a tool of last resort. It should be something that gets the system moving as quickly as possible, because leaseholders in particular have ended up shouldering the burden in recent years. To give one example—others have already spoken about leaseholders they represent—residents at Shaftesbury Place in Earl’s Court approached me in 2024 after receiving huge increases in their service charge, driven by a disputed fire risk assessment which led to a massive spike in insurance premiums for the building from £15,000 a year to £310,000. The following year it went to £375,000. For one leaseholder, their annual bill for the insurance went from £269 to £4,146.

The landlord, Notting Hill Genesis, which is in a shared ownership scheme, told leaseholders that the insurance rise was linked to a fire risk assessment that it had commissioned, but residents disputed it alongside the classification of the building as high-rise. In fact, it had even miscalculated the number of storeys in the building when it did the assessment, which obviously undermined confidence in that assessment. The Building Safety Regulator later agreed and removed the building from the high-rise register. Until recently, several residents were still receiving legal threats about the non-payment of those charges, causing them huge worry and anxiety—let alone their concerns about the value of their investment in the shared ownership scheme.

Meg Hillier (Labour/Co-operative, Hackney South and Shoreditch)

My hon. Friend is generous in giving way. The insurance issue is a big concern—it is something the Treasury Committee is looking into. Does he not agree that there is a problem with the industry? The premiums have gone up exponentially, and although there is an increased risk, the likelihood of it crystallising has not been proved to be as high as the insurance industry has said. Does my hon. Friend have any further thoughts on that?

Joe Powell (Labour, Kensington and Bayswater)

My experience from this case corroborates what my hon. Friend says. I met the Association of British Insurers, and the scheme it introduced subsequently kicked in and has in the last year brought down the buildings insurance, but only by about half—certainly not to anywhere near what it used to be. I hope that Ministers can look at insurance when thinking about protecting leaseholders from higher costs.

The end of the story for the building is that, following pressure from me and my team and from organisers in the building, Notting Hill Genesis has finally agreed to reimburse all the residents. It will repay the difference in the increase for the past several years. I thank Thomas, Hamid, Ian and all the other residents in that building for their work. That is just one example of what is happening in building after building across the country.

I welcome the Bill in the sense that it is an opportunity to fix some of the flaws left by the previous Government and to create a better system, including through the register, a consistent approach to external walls in fire risk assessments, and by listening to campaigners across the country, such as End Our Cladding Scandal, who have helped to give a voice to those most affected. I know that they will have the ear of the Secretary of State and Ministers as the Bill continues its passage.

Clearly, one element at the heart of the Bill is who should pay. I agree that it is high time that the construction product manufacturers who contributed to the cause of this crisis should pay towards resolving it. I really welcome part 5 of the Bill, which strengthens and extends provisions in the Building Safety Act on retrospective liability for cladding products, and the Secretary of State’s announcement today on the Government’s intention to go further. The Grenfell inquiry found that companies including Arconic, Kingspan and Celotex engaged in systematic dishonesty and deliberate manipulation of testing that misled buyers into thinking their products were safe. It is extraordinary that, aside from their payments into a civil settlement, these companies have not paid towards resolving a crisis of their making. In Arconic’s case, its civil settlement was overwhelmingly covered by its insurance and was dwarfed by the payment it made to its own shareholders in compensation.

It is clearly not right that leaseholders, taxpayers and even the developer levy should shoulder the bulk of the costs, while companies such as Arconic do not. That is yet another reason that they should be nowhere near public contracts and supply chains, especially while criminal investigations are ongoing. I know the Secretary of State is committed to working across Government to use every procurement power the Government have to ensure that that is not happening, and I will fully support her in that goal. I also look forward to the new system of construction products regulation being implemented, with consistent safety standards and a single products regulator under the Building Safety Regulator; that will make a big difference.

I am glad that protection from costs for leaseholders has been discussed in the Bill and the debate so far. They are not responsible for this crisis, yet they are the ones picking up the bill in far too many cases. I hope these new powers will give local remediation efforts such as the London Joint Remediation Partnership Board an extra tool to do the building-by-building analysis that cuts through the bureaucracy and delays to find a solution.

I am sure that the communities who have enfranchised their buildings or exercised right to manage will be really pleased to hear the announcement today on ensuring that they are protected. We want more leaseholders to take control of their buildings, appoint their own agents and run their own affairs. We will see more in the leasehold Bill soon, and it is right that the Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill should provide some consistency in protecting them, too.

The building safety crisis has become one of the defining symbols of state failure in the past decade. The entirely avoidable tragedy of Grenfell and the loss of 72 lives should have been a catalyst to making buildings safe as quickly as possible and recovering the costs later. Of course, if we had listened to the coroner after the Lakanal House fire in 2009, not only may it have been possible to prevent the Grenfell fire, but we could have put a halt to new build flats across the country being constructed with cladding that was putting lives at risk. Judge Frances Kirkham said then that approved document B of the building regulations concerning external fire spread, fire-resisting properties and cladding panels should be reviewed. That simply did not happen in the way it should have done, as the public inquiry found.

That missed opportunity is devastating for the Grenfell families but it is also devastating for everyone who bought a flat across the country in a building that could have been built or refurbished differently if that recommendation had been implemented. Think of the billions of pounds wasted that could have been invested in building more homes, including social and affordable homes. That is why I will continue to campaign for a national oversight mechanism to ensure that there is independent scrutiny of recommendations of inquests and inquiries, so that change actually happens. I am delighted that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister are supportive of that effort, and I hope we can now make rapid progress towards setting it up.

The Prime Minister said something at the homelessness summit on Monday that really resonated with me: “names not numbers”. He was talking about how to best support people off the streets. We need a similar approach to this crisis. Behind every statistic is a family who are stuck, who cannot sell their home, who are worried about the value of their main asset and who have had to take on another job of chasing for answers about when the work will be finished, all while they suffer the anxiety of living in an unsafe building.

I hope today marks a shift in approach under a Government who I know are absolutely committed to doing all they can to end this scandal once and for all. The new tools in this Bill will certainly help, and the ones announced at the Dispatch Box today will help even further. With the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the ministerial team providing the leadership that this crisis needs, I am sure we can right the wrongs of the previous approach and deliver the solutions that so many people across the country are crying out for.

Nusrat Ghani (Conservative, Sussex Weald)

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat, Taunton and Wellington)

As we remember the 72 victims of Grenfell and the many who are still waiting for justice, I know the Secretary of State and Members from across the whole House share the same commitment to do right by them, to ensure such a calamity never happens again, and to do better for all the leaseholders and residents living with unsafe cladding through no fault of their own.

We need a Bill that will, once and for all, make people’s homes not just safer but as safe as their residents have a right to expect them to be. The Liberal Democrats remain committed to getting the removal of unsafe cladding urgently and by a statutory deadline, to getting remediation to the right safety standard—the one that building regulations were uprated to post-Grenfell—and to residents not having to pay a penny towards fixing a crisis not of their own making. We will look at the amendments that have just been outlined, and we look forward studying them when they come forward. Sadly, as the Bill stands it does none of those things and, because of that, it is substandard and needs radical improvement.

On the plus side, let me be clear about the positive aspects of the Bill that we support. We support the legal duty for responsible entities to remediate, including the important extension of the duty in relation to buildings of 11 to 18 metres in height. We support the stronger intervention powers for housing authorities and the regulator against the blockers, such as through remediation management orders. We support making it easier to bring claims against cladding manufacturers, and we support requirements to have fire risk assessments of external walls and associated registers.

For those reasons, we have not gone as far as tabling a fatal amendment, despite the very serious flaws, as we see them. It would be wrong to deny support to any leaseholders or residents who without this Bill would get less help, but I call on the Government to consider seriously the degree to which the Bill is lacking. While I do not doubt the sincerity of the Secretary of State or the Bill, the Government need to think harder and bring forward amendments that are urgently needed to strengthen the Bill. In the stages that follow Second Reading, we will be suggesting and proposing changes, and working with the Government as constructively as we can to get the improvements that we believe are necessary.

Where does the Bill fall short? First and foremost, it enshrines into law the discredited publicly available specification 9980—PAS 9980—approach. As shown in clause 44, that will allow cladding of “tolerable” risk of combustion to remain on homes after they have been remediated. One may expect “tolerable” risk to be no more than the level of risk allowed in new buildings under the building regulations, as tightened up after Grenfell, but as the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) has already alluded to, it is not that standard. In this Bill, remediation will be only to a standard that a fire risk assessor decides is “tolerable”. We are talking about fire risk assessors paid by building owners, who are more likely than not to have commercial interests in doing as few works as possible to their building. While I am sure that most assessors are reliable professionals, given that the Grenfell inquiry report chaired by judge Sir Martin Moore-Bick cited “commercial interests” in this area of work as one of the contributory factors to the fire, is retaining commercial interests in the system of fire risk assessment, assessors and building inspectors a risk worth taking?

Meg Hillier (Labour/Co-operative, Hackney South and Shoreditch)

The hon. Gentleman and I have common cause in this respect, and I rely on the expertise of my constituents in this matter. The PAS 9980 approach was not reassuring for insurers. There was a big problem with insurance anyway, but PAS 9980 does not solve it, because it does not give insurers the certainty they need to do the risk assessment. I am not here as an apologist for the insurance industry—in fact, there are many issues that we will be taking up with that industry—but this approach is not the answer. Given his level of deep expertise in this matter before he came to the place, what would the hon. Gentleman propose instead? Is there an amendment to the Bill that he and the Government could coalesce around and reach agreement on?

Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat, Taunton and Wellington)

The hon. Member is very kind—I am sure my experience is as great as many other Members of the House. I am coming to what we believe would be a preferable standard. Our approach is that these issues of “commercial interests” should be expunged from the Bill, and that the tolerability approach should be removed. We believe that existing homes and buildings should be remediated to meet the standard of fire safety required in the building regulations that were uprated in 2018, after Grenfell.

Vikki Slade (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Although this Bill is specifically about the remediation of cladding, this issue goes further. Building control is typically undertaken or at least instructed by the local planning authority, and is now instructed and employed by the developers. When my constituents Trisha and Ray moved into their new build in Wimborne, they found that the structural issues in their property had not been independently signed off. They have now found that no one has access to the structural drawings of their building other than the inspector, so when they had problems with their roof, the council had no details, they could not access details and they could not check compliance. Does my hon. Friend agree that, for the protection of residents, an ethical wall needs to be created between developers and inspectors, with proper enforcement and mandatory Housing Ombudsman Service membership for developers?

Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat, Taunton and Wellington)

I certainly support my hon. Friend’s plea. I will come to the issue of the independence of building inspectors, which is very important.

Let me return to standards. The building regulations are the standard that the Government have set; they are needed for newly built homes to be safe, so the same standard therefore has to apply to the homes that people already live in. I have visited high-rise apartments in London and elsewhere, and seen them covered in scaffolding and being remediated under the developer scheme, but many of them are being left with so much cladding breaching building regulations and fire safety standards that residents cannot get insurance.

It is the insurance that really gives the game away. If the building really was safe, why would the insurance premiums be so high? We have increases in insurance costs of 56% and higher. For that reason, many owners cannot sell or get a new mortgage, so they sink into negative equity and become mortgage prisoners in their own home.

Jeremy Corbyn (Independent, Islington North)

The hon. Member is making a very important point. Does he agree that the high insurance costs are in no way caused by any action taken by the residents who are forced to pay them? In all honesty, they deserve compensation.

Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat, Taunton and Wellington)

Absolutely. The right hon. Gentleman almost read the next line of my speech—I do not know how he did that from his seat over there.

Leaseholders and residents should not have to pay a penny for defects that were not their fault. Thousands of pounds extra in insurance are being paid by completely innocent homeowners to compensate for a safety standard that, while of course is better than nothing, is quite frankly not the standard that it should be—and that is after remediation to the standard has been carried out through this Bill. Meeting the established building regulations standard would perhaps cost more, but why should residents be condemned to live in buildings remediated to a lesser standard than the one that we consider safe for new homes?

The profit motive needs to be expunged from building inspector services generally, and the Bill fails to do that. We need to remove commercial interests from building inspectors and fire risk assessors by placing them all under a publicly controlled, non-profit making authority. There is still no statutory certification requirement for a competent person to become a fire risk assessor. When will those measures be brought forward, as has been promised in previous legislation?

The second big omission is that this Bill provides no more funding for those in buildings under 11 metres in height now that the funding window has closed. While medium-rise buildings come more firmly into scope, which is welcome, why should any residents be forced to pay to put right bad practice that was not their fault? Leaseholders in Taunton and Wellington and across the country are already paying ground rents that are too high to absentee landlords for nothing in return, as abolishing residential leasehold seems to recede further and further into the future.

The Bill fails to give residents the right to see their building’s fire risk assessment and to give local authorities the resources to deliver the new enforcement duties. It also fails to commit the Government to making manufacturers—those that make unsafe products that cause fire—pay. That leaves the onus on others to pursue them through slow and costly court action. It is our position that, in those ways, the Bill fails to fully implement the Grenfell Tower inquiry recommendations. Finally, there is no deadline in the Bill by which all the defects revealed by Grenfell across the tall buildings estate will be put right.

The fire safety of all homes needs to meet the standard that we require for new homes. Existing residents are no less worthy of that than the residents of future homes, who will benefit from the building regulations standard. The commercial interests that ran rife in building safety inspections in the lead-up to Grenfell need to be rooted out once and for all, and residents and leaseholders must not be expected to pay a penny towards repairing a crisis they are completely innocent of causing. We must make homes fully safe under building regulations revised for that purpose; make oversight and inspection independent, not profit-dependent; hold developers and manufacturers to account by pursuing them for the costs; protect leaseholders, including those in buildings under 11 metres; and put residents at the heart of remediation, so that they can see the assessments of their homes and have a real, statutory deadline. That is the Bill that the House needed to see today, and it is the Bill we will work hard to shape through its remaining stages.

Jack Abbott (Labour/Co-operative, Ipswich)

I thank the Secretary of State for the intent she has shown in the Bill that is before us. It is a privilege to be sat next to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell)—I know that his mission in this place is to fight for justice for so many of his constituents who have been left alone for so long.

Across the country, far too many lives have been ruined by the building safety crisis. In Ipswich, we have hundreds of residents who have endured years of fear, uncertainty and immense financial hardship. These are people who did everything right—worked hard, saved for a deposit and bought somewhere to call home—only to discover that their home was unsafe. Since the day of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, in which 72 people lost their lives—each entirely avoidable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater said—leaseholders across the country have been left in limbo. What should have been a catalyst for change instead became a straitjacket for so many people who do not know whether they are safe, whether they will lose their home, or whether they will be forced to pay tens of thousands of pounds to put right failures they did nothing to cause.

I have spoken to plenty of residents in my constituency of Ipswich about their experiences. Their stories—like, I am sure, so many we will hear this afternoon—are devastating. They cannot sell their home, cannot move, and cannot move on with their lives. Their entire financial future is at stake, but so too is their mental health and peace of mind. Some have considered bankruptcy just to get out; others have thought about handing back the keys and simply walking away. It is heartbreaking that anyone should reach that point through no fault of their own.

I want to highlight a few of the buildings that we in Ipswich have been facing issues with for many years, beginning with St Francis Tower. Remediation work on that building started in 2018, and residents spent years living under shrink wrap as it dragged on. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing visited St Francis Tower in a previous life, when I was a candidate and he was a shadow Minister, and we could not see natural daylight through the shrink wrap. Even when that was replaced, the work dragged on and on, and in July 2023, flooding forced those poor people from their homes after years of misery. Years of disruption were followed by the trauma of evacuation.

My team and I worked with residents and the Government to secure funding for repairs in November 2024. That was an important step forward that replaced the outer cladding, but the internals are still damaged, and three years on, people have not yet been able to return to their homes. Although I am hopeful that there will be good news in the coming weeks, even if remediation work is able to start in the weeks before Christmas, it is unlikely that those people will be able to return to their homes until spring 2028—a decade after work on the building first started. Residents should never have been put in that position. Nobody should have to fight for something as basic as a safe home, but these people cannot even live in their homes.

At Churchmans House, investigations revealed problems extending beyond external cladding—missing fire barriers and inadequate protection around structural steelwork. Leaseholders faced demands for eye-watering payments and the threat that they might have to leave their homes. The original developer was insolvent and people who had done nothing wrong were left facing the consequences, a story that we hear over and over again. The good news is that our Government confirmed funding for the necessary works to make the building safe, but not before months and years of worry. Unfortunately, residents of Cardinal Lofts were not so lucky. I cannot believe that such a building was ever deemed fit for habitation; if a fire broke out there, it would have ripped through the entire building because of a lack of compartmentalisation. People unknowingly slept in their beds every night—some for decades—without knowing how deeply unsafe their building was and how much of a threat to their lives it posed. No one ever never returned to Cardinal Lofts. The building is not fit for use.

These are different buildings with different owners, but the same injustice is shared by so many people, in Ipswich and across the country, and I could name many other buildings in our town that have been subjects of the same stories. People bought those homes in good faith, but were sold something faulty, and they should never have been left with the costs of putting things right. That is why the Bill is so important. For the first time, those responsible will face a clear legal duty to identify and remediate unsafe cladding in residential buildings. Building owners and others with repairing responsibilities must act. That means an end to indefinite delays as residents live with fear and financial uncertainty, trapped in unsafe buildings. Crucially, those who ignore their responsibilities may face substantial financial penalties, criminal prosecution and further enforcement action. Responsibilities can be enforced, and there will be consequences for those who ignore them.

The remediation backstop is particularly important: when building owners fail to act, Homes England and local authorities will be able to step in, arrange repairs, and recover costs from those responsible. That matters enormously to people trapped in the middle of endless arguments over who should do the work. I also welcome measures to secure contributions from manufacturers whose unsafe construction products contributed to this crisis.

We were elected to accelerate remediation and protect leaseholders better, and the Bill is an important step forward in the delivery of that promise. It builds on the remediation acceleration plan, which is already helping thousands of people across the country to live in safer homes. Alongside it are the plans announced by the Government to extend leaseholder protections and support necessary fire safety works in eligible buildings owned collectively by residents.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Ipswich Cladiators, and the many, many residents of our town who have campaigned so tirelessly for change—not just for themselves but for their neighbours, their communities and people across the country. They should never have had to fight so hard, and we cannot give them back the years that they have all lost, but we can maintain a relentless focus on making their homes safe, protecting them from unfair costs, and helping them to move forward. That is what they deserve, and that, with this Bill, is what the Government are doing.

Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)

Before I speak about the Bill and wider issues in the construction industry, let me say that my thoughts and prayers are with the loved ones of the 72 people who lost their lives in the Grenfell fire. Earlier today the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee was carrying out a review of fire and rescue services, and, unsurprisingly, building safety and Grenfell were covered., I appreciate that the Bill focuses on building and construction practices—among other issues—and not really on fire services, but I was surprised and disappointed to hear earlier today from the head of His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services that it had not been consulted about it at all. Firefighters put their lives in danger to cope with and tackle the failures in the construction industry, and I hope that the Minister will agree to consult the inspectorate on the Bill to ensure that any amendments are approved by it. That would also give the inspectorate an opportunity to suggest amendments.

My constituency of Woking has been plagued by three big building safety and construction issues. In 2023, 100 residents of the Eastgate building in Woking were evacuated from their homes after structural defects were found. To this day, Eastgate stands empty—a visual reminder of how our building safety system has failed. Southern Housing, which manages Eastgate, says that it is structurally unsafe, and Barratt, which built it, says that it is safe. After the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and I became involved last year, independent testing was carried out, and I am grateful to the Government for supporting me in that effort. The new testing on the building was completed many months ago, but the results have still not been released. There is no way that both sides can be right in that situation. I do not know what they are hiding, but this needs to be resolved immediately. Residents deserve to know what is going on. Either residents need to be allowed back in, or the developer needs to rebuild Eastgate and pay compensation. Will the Minister meet me and force the results of the testing to be released?

Sadly, Woking’s building safety issues and construction failures go beyond our homes. The Victoria Square development, which is a new shopping centre with residential towers and a hotel, was built by Sir Robert McAlpine several years ago. It was due to open in October 2020, but following problems with broken cladding fixtures on the Hilton hotel, it finally opened four years after that. The main A road that goes through Woking town centre had to repeatedly close due to the cladding failures, and this caused significant financial losses to local businesses and residents. Thankfully, the road has now reopened, and the cladding panels have been properly secured. Under the common law on negligence, purely economic losses are not recoverable. The formerly Conservative-run borough council could have ensured that this was covered through contract law, but it did not do so. Why is that not standard practice for building projects? Will the Minister amend the Bill, so that any losses consequent on dangerous cladding failures, such as those experienced by businesses and residents in Woking, are paid for by developers like Sir Robert McAlpine?

There is one final building safety issue in Woking that I wish to speak about, and it involves the estate where I grew up. Lakeview in Goldsworth Park is made up of mainly four-storey maisonettes. Woking borough council recently discovered that the cladding is dangerous, and quickly took steps to make it as safe as possible. The council created a plan for a comprehensive refurbishment and a long-term solution to the cladding problems on the estate. I congratulate and thank the council, especially the portfolio holder for housing, Councillor Ian Johnson, and the strategic director for housing, Louise Strongitharm, for their tireless work on this issue.

Although we are getting the right result in Lakeview, what happened on my old estate shows why we as a country need to take building safety much more seriously, and need to agree to legislative changes. Most properties in Lakeview are council homes, but there are almost 100 privately owned leasehold properties in the area. Leaseholders will be charged for the refurbishment but, quite rightly, not for the cladding works. That construction work and refurbishment is planned to start in early January. If it was a private development, leaseholders would slowly pay into a sinking fund, but local authorities are banned from running such a fund. Will the Minister not only lift the ban on local authorities having a sinking fund, but mandate them to have one, so that what happened to leaseholders in Lakeview does not happen again?

Those three examples from Woking show that this Bill does not go far or fast enough, and it is not fit for purpose. As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) said, we will not support it, but we will propose more amendments, to ensure that we genuinely tackle all the building safety issues facing Woking and constituencies across the country.

Darren Paffey (Labour, Southampton Itchen)

Southampton Itchen is one of the places in Hampshire with the most buildings with unsafe cladding. As hon. Members have said so eloquently, that means people live with the worry that the horrendous tragedy that befell Grenfell all those years ago could well befall them. Even where there has been action, it is hardly ideal. Nearly 200 of my constituents are currently out of their home. They were evacuated in the spring and summer of last year, and they will not be able to return until the summer of 2028 at the earliest. This is the stark reality that drives the urgent need for this Bill, and it is why I very much welcome it.

I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for bringing forward the Bill. Like other Members, I pay tribute to residents and campaigners, including those from End Our Cladding Scandal who supported one of the very first public meetings that I conducted as a new MP, and who have not let go of this issue over the years. Since I was elected, I have listened to residents who are affected by unsafe cladding on their buildings, pressed Ministers, and submitted evidence to the Public Accounts Committee’s inquiry on remediation. The Bill is the next instalment in resolving these ongoing issues; it will certainly not be the last. I want to acknowledge the real progress that it makes, but also ask for important clarification from the Minister.

Take Oceana Boulevard, a flagship development in the regeneration of brownfield sites in the centre of Southampton. It was built some 20 years ago, and its fire safety problems were first identified nearly 10 years ago. Since then, compartmentation works have been done, but that is all. Today, we have finally got in an application to the Building Safety Regulator, covering cladding, automatic opening vents and balcony remediation works, but—sadly, as we have heard, this is not an isolated story—there is still no agreement between the freeholder and the developer on who will pay for the non-cladding-related remediation, and none of that work is anywhere near starting.

In the meantime, as we all know, residents’ costs have been skyrocketing. Ellie bought her flat in Oceana Boulevard brand new. Her service charge and insurance rose from £1,500 a year to £6,000 a year, and she has not been able to keep up with the payments, so she has handed her home back to the bank. People are losing their homes, even if not to fire, because of these issues, which have taken far too long to resolve. For that reason, alongside this very welcome remediation Bill, we must with all urgency progress the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, and the action that the Prime Minister recently announced on regulating managing agents.

Peter Fortune (Conservative, Bromley and Biggin Hill)

The hon. Member is right to point out the stress on residents. Those at Northpoint in Bromley are part of a residents’ management company, but RMCs have no assets, so they lean into the service charges in order to pay some of the company’s liabilities. Would he agree with me that people in RMCs need to be protected as well?

Darren Paffey (Labour, Southampton Itchen)

We are all fighting for our constituents to be protected from the bills that are landing on them through no fault of their own. They certainly did not choose any of this. They want the simple comfort of having their own home, and they work incredibly hard to achieve that, yet look at where so many of them are.

I welcome the mandatory auditing of fire risk assessments to that all-important single standard. A dispute about what is wrong with a building must never again, as in the case of Oceana Boulevard, outlast a decade; there has been constant back and forth about whether the parties accept what they read in the fire engineer’s report. I certainly agree with the comments made by Members on both sides of the Chamber about people picking and choosing who to commission a report from. In some cases, it seems that they decide whether they like what they read in a report before commissioning a different one. That has to come to an end.

I welcome the message that waking watches are temporary. At Sirocco, a development in nearby Ocean Village, the residents paid for one for years. One of the residents, Ro, tells me that she had to use a freedom of information request just to see the fire risk assessments. Under this Bill, remediation plans have to be published, along with timelines and contacts. No resident should need an FOI request to learn the truth about their home.

I welcome the legal duty to remediate. Ben and his family have told me their story, and again, unfortunately, it is not the only time I have heard such a story. They have put their life on hold and have put off having more children—growing their family—because they cannot sell and move on. Since when should anyone’s life aspirations be subject to the stalling of these companies, many of which have literally not bothered to get their own houses in order? Sadly, being unable to sell and move on is a story I have heard many times, and which other hon. Members have repeated. Remediation work at the Blake building close by began only this summer. It certainly will not finish before next summer, four years after enforcement action was first taken. It is clear that delays cost, and it is far too often still the residents who pay those costs.

Deirdre Costigan (Labour, Ealing Southall)

Much of what my hon. Friend is saying has echoes in my constituency. Residents in Hanwell Locks have been in a battle with Bellway over remediation works to their building. There has been an acknowledgment that works are needed, but there is no clear programme of works, and no progress at all. Those residents, like those in his constituency, are having trouble re-mortgaging or selling, and they are worried about the continuing fire risk. Does he agree that the remediation compliance plans required in the Bill and the strong financial penalties against builders will make a difference to our constituents?

Darren Paffey (Labour, Southampton Itchen)

I absolutely agree. As I will come on to say, it is simply unforgivable that too many companies still have no plan whatever for remediation, and people are paying the price, financially, but also with their life ambitions.

Shockat Adam (Independent, Leicester South)

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that although the Government already have remediation orders, remediation contribution orders and the responsible actor scheme, the Property Institute says that it has seen absolutely no evidence that they have been used proactively, and that no developer to date has faced any consequences? The Bill must ensure that is addressed.

Darren Paffey (Labour, Southampton Itchen)

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s closing point. The Bill must fix that, which is why I welcome its progress, but like Members from across the Chamber, I will follow its progress very closely to ensure it is not just a Bill that gets a headline, but instead fixes things and gets things right.

The Blake building sits outside the developer contract, so this new duty will finally reach it. That is real progress from the Bill, but there are points on which residents still have questions, and campaigners are not yet convinced that all this goes far enough. I hope that the Minister will address some of those questions today.

First, most Ocean Village buildings are subject to the developer contract, but the Bill excludes them from the new duty because “equivalent requirements” are already in place; however, physical works have still not started on Sirocco, Moresby, Hawkins or Oceana Boulevard. We have heard different statistics, but those I am looking at tell me that nationally, there are over 2,500 buildings in that contract, but for 854 of them, work has not started and there is no plan in place—not a single plan between them. What will the measures mean for those living in buildings with no plan? It must mean progress. Should they not have audited assessments, published timetables and a backstop if a developer stalls? I hope that the Minister will confirm that Ocean Village residents will benefit from all three. The Bill rightly focuses on cladding, but residents live in whole buildings, and internal safety matters, too, so I very much welcome the announcement made at the Dispatch Box today. When it comes to filling that gap, I hope that as the Bill progresses, we will hear more detail about what the grant funding will cover.

Secondly, on enforcement, the Bill provides for prosecution, penalties of up to £500,000, and a backstop that allows Homes England or councils to step in, but as we all know, a power is only as good as the capacity to use it, and the route to the backstop will run through notices, representations and tribunals. How long will it take from first notice to a contractor on site? Will Homes England and councils such as Southampton city council be resourced to use that power?

Finally, and most practically for residents like Ben, is the question of when. The duty is to remediate

“as soon as reasonably practicable”,

but the detail is left to regulations. The Government’s 2029 and 2031 deadlines, already put forward in the remediation acceleration plan, do not appear in the Bill. I ask the Minister to add them; my constituents would find that reassuring. If she will not, can she commit to dated milestones, and a hard stop date in those regulations, so that 2029 is the final, legally enforceable deadline that constituents need, not just an aspiration?

Those who have been waiting years and cannot move on have asked if there is any way for the Government to buy back those homes while they are waiting. Now, I suspect that I know the answer, but I will ask—particularly as the Budget is tomorrow. The previous Chancellor amended some of the rules to ensure that council-owned properties are assets, not liabilities. By releasing people from the stalemate that they are in with their homes and families, could we be looking at assets that this Government, who need to build and own more housing, could very much use?

I will proudly support the Bill on Second Reading. For everyone who needs the Bill to be the strongest it can be, I will be glad to engage with Ministers and others as it progresses through the House. We need to fix all our buildings. We need to ensure that the work is paid for by those who were responsible for this sorry episode, which I believe is an absolute stain on our history. In doing so, we might just be able to give people their futures back—people like Ellie, Ro, Ben, the hundreds of others in Southampton Itchen, and the thousands more across the country whose stories have been told by Members across the House. They have all had enough and want an end to the nightmare. The Bill—if we do it right—gives them that hope.

Carla Denyer (Green, Bristol Central)

As we approach 10 years since the Grenfell tragedy, I thank the Grenfell community and families for the tireless campaigning that they should not have had to do. I welcome the Bill as far as it goes. It includes important measures that are needed, but there remain serious concerns that it does not do enough for those still trapped by the terrible cladding scandal. The issue of the remediation of unsafe cladding in buildings of less than 11 metres is a big problem in my constituency, but it is not just a Bristol issue.

There are a number of medium-height blocks of flats in Bristol Central with flammable cladding. I am going to tell the story of just one of those flats. It is a mid-rise block that is part of a development of three blocks. The other two blocks are taller—over 11 metres. They have the same developer and were built at the same time. All the buildings have the same dangerous cladding; the taller two are eligible for the building safety fund, but the one that is under 11 metres is not. A leading specialist building surveyor has identified that the shorter building also has severe cladding deficiencies that are in urgent need of remediation.

Until recently, the flat was the home of a 97-year-old woman, who eventually moved into a residential home. Because she owned a flat, she was not eligible for a council-funded care home place, so her children needed to sell the flat to fund her care—except they could not. The Conservative Government’s position was that there is no systemic fire safety issue in buildings under 11 metres. In 2022, the then Government said that they had examined specific buildings under 11 metres and found that

“in the overwhelming majority of cases it has subsequently been confirmed that they do not require remediation.”—[Official Report, 26 March 2024; Vol. 747, c. 1419.]

The Labour Government under Keir Starmer maintained that position, stating in September 2024 that:

“the risk to life is usually lower in buildings under 11 metres, and they are very unlikely to need the same costly remediation.”—[Official Report, 11 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 929.]

The result is that buildings under 11 metres are not eligible for funding under the building safety fund.

The catch? Try telling all that to the mortgage market. No lender will give a mortgage to a flat in a building with unsafe cladding, regardless of height. Therefore, the children of my 97-year-old constituent cannot sell the flat on the open market. They cannot persuade the company that holds the freehold to pay for the remediations from its own balance sheet—believe me, they have tried. That company has insisted that it will only fulfil its legal obligations and not spend a penny more, and based on the legislation, the company believes it is not liable. The building’s insurance policy will also not cover the cladding work.

Even if the owners of the five flats in this small block wanted to pay for the work themselves—which would be wholly unjust, because it is not their fault—as leaseholders, according to their lease, they are not permitted to contribute more than £15,000 per flat. It is estimated that the work would cost more than £1 million.

What are people meant to do? They are trapped in an intolerable Catch-22 situation. The two adult children of this 97-year-old woman were forced to buy the flat themselves in order to release the equity to fund her care. It is lucky that they could afford to do that, although “lucky” seems like a wild choice of word to describe their situation. They are now stuck in possession of an unsafe flat that they do not live in and never wanted to own, with no recourse to the developers, the insurance, the warrantees or anything else to rectify the cladding faults.

In July 2026, as we have heard, MHCLG launched a separate funding pot to address cladding fire safety risks in buildings under 11 metres, called the cladding safety scheme. The Government said that this delivered on their commitment in the remediation acceleration plan and supported a risk-based approach to remediation. However, the application window for the scheme was open for just three months. It has now closed. The management company of the building in my constituency has applied, but there has been no response, and there is apparently no guarantee of receiving this targeted funding.

The Bill before us proposes sticking with the Conservative and Starmer Governments’ insistence that “relevant buildings” means only buildings of 11 metres or more. Surely the Minister can see that that is not good enough.

I have a few questions for the Minister. First, is she confident that three months was long enough for 100% of those in charge of affected buildings under 11 metres to hear about the fund and apply to it? That includes both for-profit management companies, which, famously, can be pretty sluggish when it comes to repairs in their buildings, and internal management companies made up of owner-occupiers and leaseholders, who are often juggling flat admin alongside a full-time job and being a parent.

Secondly, is the fund large enough to cover all the affected sub-11 metre buildings? Thirdly, if the Government do not make funding available for all the affected sub-11 metre buildings, what will the Minister’s message be to the leaseholders of flats that do not receive the funding?

Finally, will the Minister take steps to end this funding lottery and ensure that the remediation of buildings below 11 metres is incorporated into the main Bill and is fully funded, and that there is a legal requirement on freeholders to do this work?

Mike Reader (Labour, Northampton South)

Next June will mark 10 years since the Grenfell fire. As many have said, at the end of August this year, more than 2,000 residential buildings still had unsafe building cladding, with remediation not yet started. Behind that figure are tens of thousands of people who cannot sell their homes, get mortgages or get affordable insurance, and many who cannot sleep at night. Those people did nothing wrong; they bought a home in good faith, and they have been left carrying the consequences of the failures of others. That is why I welcome this Bill and will support it throughout its passage. At its heart, the Bill is about responsibility: who must act, who must pay and who must be protected.

I will start with the question of who it is that must act. For too long, the system has relied on expectations and good will. Building owners have been asked, encouraged and cajoled to get on and fix the problem, but many have chosen simply not to act. When we debated remediation in Westminster Hall in September, I argued that we had to move from targets to duties and ensure that any duties we set are enforceable.

The Bill does just that: it puts a clear legal duty on those who are responsible for a building to fix it; it gives regulators real power, backed by real penalties; and, where an owner will not act, it will let the local authority step in and get the job done. For residents who have spent many years being passed from freeholder to managing agent to developer and back again, that clarity will matter enormously.

The Bill also tackles something that has quietly undermined progress for years. We have heard today about buildings that sit in the middle ground and are not quite high rise. We still do not know where all these buildings are or who really owns them. A register of mid-rise buildings and new powers to find out who sits behind a building’s ownership will mean that owners are no longer be able to hide behind complex structures. A problem cannot be fixed if it cannot be seen, and someone cannot be held to account if they cannot be found.

The Bill will protect leaseholders by making sure that when a building owner is penalised for failing to act, the bill for fixing the issue cannot be passed back to residents through their service charges. The people who are failing must pay, and the people who have been failed must be protected.

That brings me to the part of the Bill that I have shown a particular interest in: part 5 on construction product liability. So far, the cost of fixing this crisis has fallen on taxpayers and developers. More than £5 billion of public money has been committed to remediation, but the manufacturers who sold the products that are now being stripped off buildings across the country have contributed next to nothing. That cannot be right.

The last Government recognised those principles in the Building Safety Act, but we have to be honest and admit that under its provisions many manufacturers were not held to account, many of the legal hurdles were too high and the claims were too few. Too many manufacturers were able to sit back, confident that nobody could prove enough to make them pay.

This Bill changes that. It shifts the test away from narrow technicalities about whether a regulation was breached and towards the questions that matter: was the product unsafe in the way that it was actually used, and was it marketed in a misleading way? It gives the courts the power to look inside these companies so that we can see what they knew and when they knew it. It also makes sure that corporate structures cannot be used to put assets beyond reach.

There is a really simple principle here—that the polluter pays. That approach is guided by the adage, “Fix it first and fast”. Residents should not be waiting for companies to argue over the bill. Buildings must be made safe now; the fight over who pays should happen afterwards—maybe in court, between the companies responsible, but not on the doorsteps of the people living with the consequences.

I ask the Minister to keep one point in mind as the Bill goes into Committee. Liability has to flow properly through the supply chain and the interface with other regulations, such as the legislation on defective products. If we extend liability at the top of the supply chain but it does not carry further down to the façade contractor and their supply chain and suppliers, we risk loading main contractors with liability while those who supplied or made the products are able to escape. Getting liability right all the way through the supply chain is critical to whether the Bill delivers real money for remediation or simply moves the risk around.

The Bill is a big step forward but it is not the end of the job. I want to raise two areas where there is more to do. I really welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement today from the Dispatch Box on enfranchised and non-qualifying leaseholders. These are people who were excluded from protections that many other leaseholders enjoy, often for reasons such as the date on which they bought their flat. I look forward to amendments coming forward to help shape those provisions further.

The second area is the people who made hay from this crisis. There are two groups who have done very well from building safety issues: insurers and lawyers. I have heard many people talk about the challenges of getting insurance for a building, but I have also heard from contractors and developers. I have heard of contractors who were encouraged to take out professional indemnity cover for works, only to find insurers using every single technicality to avoid paying. When I worked at Mace, I sat on the silver team on building safety, and we were faced with the complexity of working out where our liability sat and how we dealt with our insurers. Dealing with the complexities of product liability as a main contractor was something that gave a lot of people many nights of headaches, and it is an area that I do not think we are completely finished with.

We risk seeing contractors collapse if we do not fix this. I mentioned lawyers as well, because I have heard stories where the legal fees for trying to fix cladding have vastly exceeded the actual cost of fixing the cladding itself. That cannot be right. It is a scandal within the scandal. The Bill rightly opens up a stronger route to recover costs for manufacturers. It does not yet start to address those who make money out of this crisis, but it does ensure that the Government deliver a route for redress, not another payday. Every pound should be spent on making homes safer, not on lawyers’ fees and insurers’ delaying tactics.

Let me end where I began. The Bill puts responsibility where it belongs and makes sure that we are protecting those who need protection. It builds on and strengthens the work of the previous Government, but it rebalances power so that we can fix this crisis once and for all. I support the Bill and hope that the whole House will work to ensure that it passes quickly through this place—we need to see it become legislation, not be stuck in Committee—so that we can end the crisis of dangerous buildings in our country once and for all, and end this nightmare for all.

Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

I start by adding my voice to the tributes paid by the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) to the victims and survivors of the Grenfell disaster. I will not forget waking up that morning and seeing that appalling tragedy unfolding on our television screens; many people across London will have felt the same. I welcome the Government’s attempts to ensure that such a tragedy does not happen again, but it is almost unbelievable that nine years later we are debating this particular bit of legislation in our collective effort to ensure that buildings can be made safe.

Like the Fire Safety Act 2021 and the Building Safety Act 2022, the Bill is a step in the right direction, but—again—it does not go far enough. As the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who is no longer in her place, has raised repeatedly, the PAS 9980 regime, which allows a fire engineer chosen and paid for by the building owner to declare dangerous cladding tolerable and decide that no work is required, will remain in place. Would hon. Members in this House feel reassured if a fire engineer paid for by a building’s owner declared the cladding in their block of flats to be “tolerable”?

The anger that followed the Grenfell disaster was directed towards those in power who repeated the sentiments that officials had known about the dangers posed by unsafe cladding but did not care enough to act. Much of the feeling was that the people in Grenfell and others who lived in council housing did not matter enough for serious action to be taken to prevent such a disaster. That speaks to a wider issue that we in the House all need to work to address: accessibility to safe and secure housing.

New high-rise homes must be built with materials that do not burn. If combustible cladding is considered too dangerous for new high-rise homes, what reassurances does that provide to people living in “tolerable” levels of danger? That should not be our benchmark. All Londoners should be entitled to housing of a standard that is higher than tolerable.

In March 2026, the Government announced a new package of support for house building in London, which provided temporary relief from developer levies. However, BusinessLDN has highlighted that the costs associated with the community infrastructure levy relief included in the package would be offset in effect by the additional costs from the building safety levy in more than a third of cases. I welcome the Government’s intent to remediate building safety defects via the building safety levy, but the two policies seem to contradict each other. Just this morning, a headline in the Financial Times read, “Labour's housebuilding target effectively dead’. We should not be deciding between building houses and building safe housing.

If the Government’s assessment is that housing developments are being stalled in London due to costs, does more need to be done to incentivise developments following the introduction of the building safety levy? I would be grateful if in winding up the Minister could reflect on what the Bill’s measures on manufacturers and developers of construction products providing some of the costs towards remediating cladding mean for the building safety levy and the particular stress that is placing on house building in London.

Rebecca Long-Bailey (Labour, Salford)

The Minister and the Secretary of State will both know that Salford has had a large number of buildings affected by the building safety crisis. That has meant years of worry about safety for residents, who have often faced eye-watering bills they cannot afford or been trapped in a home they cannot sell—all for a crisis that they did not cause.

Before I move on with my contribution, I place on record my thanks to two key organisations and individuals. The first is Salford council. In the early days after the horrors of Grenfell, it was one of the first local authorities to act fast and think later in removing dangerous cladding from its council properties. It faced years of legal wranglings trying to recoup the costs from the developers, but it did the right thing and made sure that residents’ safety came first.

Secondly, I place on record my special thanks to two special individuals: Darren Matthews and Mandy Sandhu. They were the first residents to come to me about the building safety crisis and a building called Transport House. They led an amazing campaign when they were faced with eye-watering bills of £97,000 each to pay for building safety remediation in their building. They secured the costs that they needed to carry out the remediations from the developers and the Building Safety Fund, and they acted as an inspiration to many other campaign organisations across Salford—and there were many.

It is welcome to see the Government seeking to fill many of the apparent gaps in the Building Safety Act 2022. However, I will mention a few points that I hope the Minister and the Government will take forward as the Bill progresses through the House. First, on continued delays at the Building Safety Regulator, I know that the Government have introduced a plan to speed up applications, but in many cases it is not yet working. One building in Salford, Quebec Building, has faced significant delays. One resident there told me:

“Our mortgage interest is now 8.9%. Our provider refuses us a new product until remediations are done. We cannot sell as ‘non qualifying leaseholders’ as the status carries on for new owners which might mean liability for payment for some remediations. I am 65 years old and wanting to enjoy retirement and my husband has uncurable cancer and the stress is not helping. We just cannot sustain all this.”

I implore the Minister and the Government to review, as a priority, what the blockages are at the Building Safety Regulator and ensure that it is properly staffed and resourced to tackle the backlog.

Secondly, Salford has had huge issues with non-cladding-related fire safety defects, from non-compliant wooden balconies all the way through to insufficient internal fire doors. Residents have been left wrangling with developers in a David and Goliath-style legal battle, with the cost of temporary fire safety provisions ramping up service charges year on year and huge insurance bills to boot. Many have ultimately been forced to foot the bill for remediation themselves, which is simply unjust. The issue had already been raised in 2025 by the National Fire Chiefs Council, but the Bill still excludes non-cladding fire safety defects, so that must be addressed. I welcome the comments made by the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box, as they suggest that the issue is on her radar. I look forward to seeing the details on that work going forward, and perhaps the Minister will divulge a little more detail in her summing up.

Thirdly, though the Bill places legal requirements on building owners and responsible entities, developers signed up to the developer remediation contract are exempt. I know why: because the Government assume that being part of the DRC is a sufficient carrot. Yet it is worrying, given that we know that the auditing of assessments at DRC buildings is very thin on the ground in practice, and as End Our Cladding Scandal notes, there is a raft of conclusions

“based on assumption rather than test evidence.”

Worse still, we know that enforcement is weak. Property Week has already stated:

“developer-led remediation continues to progress too slowly, with only 10% of projects complete and nearly 60% still awaiting agreed scopes of work.”

Put simply, ruling out developers from the new remediation duty in the Bill but imposing it on resident-controlled entities sadly highlights just how skewed and unfair the system still is. That is a crucial issue that I hope the Government will look at getting right.

It cannot be right to continue to place significant burdens on the shoulders of volunteer leaseholders, especially in buildings owned by leaseholders, which were ruled out of the leaseholder protections. The Bill makes no mention of protecting them at the moment, nor does it close gaps affecting non-qualifying leaseholders, shared owners and buildings below 11 metres. Those people are left fending for themselves. Again, the Secretary of State highlighted that she seeks to address those things, and I look forward to seeing the detail in due course.

I will briefly make a final point on the wider issue of the capacity of fire authorities to respond to high-rise blazes. In 2025, I wrote to the Government to highlight significant understaffing, often due to poor pay, which was having an impact on the recruitment and retention of firefighters. That has resulted in situations where vehicles are sometimes sent out without a full complement of five firefighters riding, where vehicles are deployed elsewhere to compensate for equipment or staffing gaps, or where vehicles simply cannot be deployed at all due to there not being enough staff to crew or repair them.

Salford’s firefighters and appliances are frequently directed to surrounding boroughs to tackle high-rise blazes because there are not enough fire vehicles available at that time. That results in fewer firefighters on the ground in the early stages of an incident in Salford, which greatly increases the risks for everyone involved. At this time of year, with bonfire night approaching, the situation becomes more acute.

I had three asks of Government in 2025, and I repeat them again today. First, they should co-ordinate with the Chancellor—we have the Budget tomorrow, so they will have to get in quick—to reverse the cuts and invest in the future of fire and rescue services with additional central Government funding. Secondly, they should urgently bring forward the plan to reintroduce national standards to remove the postcode lottery of incident responses and hold fire chiefs accountable. Lastly, they should give firefighters a fair say through a new advisory body that includes trade union representation, and powers and resourcing to investigate fires of special interest.

The Bill is very welcome, and it is definitely a good starting place for identifying the gaps, but there is a long way to go. I hope that we will now have a collective and collegiate conversation about how we can get the final version of the Bill spot on.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds South)

I unreservedly welcome the Bill. The story of the cladding crisis arose out of the appalling tragedy at Grenfell on that night over nine years ago, when all those people died in the place they should have felt most safe—their home. They died because of a series of catastrophic failures.

The first and most obvious failure was that cladding was allowed to be put in combinations on the sides of buildings when no one had actually tested what would happen if those combinations caught fire. It is astonishing, when one looks back at it, that architects were able to specify combinations. We now know that when some of those combinations had been put on rigs and set fire to—boom!—they had gone up very quickly.

The second thing—my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) spoke so well—is that we are here, over nine years after the event, and we still have not sorted it out. I am much struck by the example that he quoted from Australia; he is right. Many of my constituents have been affected by the cladding scandal. For most of them, it is fair to say, their homes have now been dealt with, but there are still far too many people whose homes have not been. The reaction of the Government at the time was, “Well, it’s not really our responsibility.” They had to be forced by stages, over the years, to do more and more.

There was also a failure to build the blocks in line with the building regulations at the time. It is one thing to look at the cladding—people said, “Oh, I didn’t know that was a problem”—but as it was pulled off buildings, one after another, what did we find? We found that the fire-stopping measures, the firebreaks, were missing—even though that was a requirement of the building regulations at the time. This is a story of a load of jerry-built buildings that people lived in for many years, as one Member said, with no idea that they were living in a fire trap. I make that point because, on occasion, I have heard Members in this Chamber lambast Britain as an over-regulated society. I mean, give us a break! This story is a monumental failure of regulation. People died as a result, and many other people’s lives have been put on hold, as we have heard.

I join others in paying tribute to the End Our Cladding Scandal group, Leeds Cladding Scandal, and the many constituents who have raised cases with me and who have worked so hard to try to change the circumstances in which they find themselves. Time and again, people have said to me, as they have to all other hon. Members, “I thought I’d bought the home of my dreams, and I find I’m living in a nightmare that I don’t seem able to get out of.” Many Members have referred to people’s lives being put on hold. That is absolutely true: they cannot get on with things, whether having a family or moving to another part of the country where they have been offered a good job, because they cannot sell their flat. There appears to be no escape. The bills go up, the waking watches are costly, insurance is expensive and service charges go up. I remember the first constituent who told me, “I’ve had to move out of my flat.” I said, “You’ve moved out of your flat?” He said, “Yes, I couldn’t afford the bills, so I moved out of my flat; I’m now renting it, so I can pay the bills that I can’t afford in the flat that I thought was the home of my dreams.”

Each block, particularly the ones that have not yet been remediated, is a very complex story—changing ownership, developers disappearing or going bust, the legal pass the parcel, which was mentioned in a previous speech, and mortgage lenders refusing to lend. The hard truth is that no legislation is going to require a mortgage lender to lend on a property it does not want to lend on. The mortgage lenders therefore have to have confidence.

Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat, Taunton and Wellington)

The right hon. Gentleman is making a typically cogent, sensible speech. Is not the logical conclusion of what he is driving at that buildings should be remediated to a standard such that they can be insured at reasonable levels and will get mortgages, and that that is the building regulation standard we require for new buildings?

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds South)

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but is he arguing that a mortgage lender should be required by law—

Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat, Taunton and Wellington)

indicated dissent.

Hilary Benn (Labour, Leeds South)

No, the hon. Gentleman is not; I did not think that he was. That is a fundamental problem. It is about confidence in the system and in the property. Too many of my constituents still worry that they could be landed with bills they simply cannot afford. Someone said to me, “Thirty thousand quid? It might as well be 30 million quid, because I can’t afford thirty thousand.”

I want to raise three specific issues. First, I very much welcome what the Secretary of State said in her opening speech about those who have bought non-qualifying flats. As I was reflecting on the question I put to her about making the measure retrospective, I realised that that probably is not an issue here. The sole owner of a flat that was deemed to be non-qualifying will be relieved of the requirement to meet the costs themselves and will be eligible for the support that other leaseholders have.

The second issue relates to blocks below 11 metres. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer). There is a development in Leeds called the Chandlers; some of the blocks are over 11 metres and some are below 11 metres. Applications have been made to the new fund that was opened—from memory, the closing day was 17 August. There will be lots of applications, and we do not know who will be successful and who will not. I seek clarity from the Minister. As I understand it, under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, a “responsible person” is required to carry out fire risk assessments on all buildings and put in place measures to address fire risks they identify. A House of Commons Library briefing note states:

“Since 2022, this risk assessment duty has included assessing the structure and external walls of the building, including cladding”.

Although the Government generally argue that most buildings under 11 metres do not present a risk, what is the situation in cases where there is a risk in those buildings? For example, a PAS 9980 assessment was done for the Chandlers. The residents were first told that the blocks under 11 metres were a high risk; they were then told that those blocks were a medium risk. But hey—a medium risk is still a risk. Would you want to live in a block that has a medium risk of catching fire, putting your life at risk? I have read the Bill and the explanatory memorandum on this point quite hurriedly, and it appears that these particular powers apply to buildings of over 11 metres. However, since the Government have said, “We are prepared to provide funding for buildings under 11 metres,” can the Minister tell me whether any of the powers in the legislation as it is currently drafted apply to blocks of under 11 metres and the people responsible for them? If not, if such a block has got a PAS 9980 assessment that says, “This is a risk”, then why, logically, would we not extend these powers to ensure the remediation of blocks under 11 metres?

Finally, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) in making a plea about people who really, really, really need to move. Could the Government think creatively about developers buying back flats or, as was said a moment ago, the local authority purchasing them? We want more social housing, and each one would be one more unit. I wonder whether we could see what might be done to help people who really needed to move—for example, if their mother were extremely ill and they needed to move in order to look after her.

Having said that, our constituents who still live in unsafe flats have waited far too long to have them made safe, and I look forward to the Bill making very speedy passage through both Houses.

Matt Rodda (Labour, Reading Central)

Could I pay my own tribute to the whole Grenfell family? I think we all remember quite vividly the moment when we heard on the news about this absolutely and utterly appalling disaster. Our hearts go out to all those who were affected and their families, particularly at this time when so many people must be thinking about the anniversary next year as well. It was quite clear, as other hon. Members have said, that this was a complete and utter failure of regulation, and I am so pleased that the Bill is tackling that.

As other Members have said, cladding is an issue around the whole country, and I will address some matters in my constituency, but first, I thank the Secretary of State and the ministerial team for their drive and ambition on this important matter after some years of what, sadly, can only be described as drift under the last Government. I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill, and in particular some of its key elements and points. It creates greater certainty, which is long overdue. It gives regulators the powers they need. It makes companies that made unsafe products contribute towards remediation—that is such an important point, as other Members have said. Most of all, it ensures that residents have a route to remediation, which is utterly important.

I am conscious of time as some other Member wish to speak, so I would like to turn to Reading. There are serious concerns locally, like those we have heard from Members describing the situations in their own constituencies. Our town has grown and changed dramatically within my lifetime, from being a county town made up of Victorian terraces and many brick buildings to now having a large number of taller buildings, many of which are blocks of flats. Obviously, the recent crisis has a huge implication for our community and for other towns across the county of Berkshire.

At the time of the Grenfell disaster, I remember receiving a briefing from the Royal Berkshire fire and rescue service, and I can only say that it had an utterly chilling effect on those who listened to it—on myself, local councillors and others. The situation they described was one of a service trying to cope with serious concerns and issues across a large English county. For example, as Members have described, they mentioned the problem of cladding on many buildings—a number of them below 11 metres—as well as related issues such as poor compartmentalisation. I remember them talking about blocks in Slough where builders had unwittingly drilled holes through walls that were meant to prevent fire. In Reading, some blocks had very serious problems with compartmentalisation. There were a whole series of issues with dangerous wooden cladding, dangerous wooden fittings in foyers or doors that were not fire-safe at all—and all of this existed in just one county. Fire and rescue service staff and local authority staff were enormously pressed to deal with it.

I remember listening to the accounts of waking watches being set up and thinking how terrifying it must have been to live in one of the blocks that were affected, just after Grenfell, when people were very aware of the disaster and horror that had happened not far away, in London. Those people had to live through a waking watch every single night. They were not able to have a whole range of items, and they could not cook certain types of food because of the fire risks from frying and other common forms of cooking. This was a huge issue for our community, particularly in the town centre and nearby areas. Many building owners were extremely responsible and acted as quickly as they could, despite the supply problems, the lack of skilled tradespeople, problems with putting up scaffolding and the pandemic that followed. I pay tribute to a number of housing associations that acted very quickly.

Luckily, all the council housing in Reading was not affected because it was not built using cladding; the council had taken a very robust approach to that. However, there were a number of problems with private blocks that were either rented or leasehold, and some of those issues have continued right up to the present day; there have been local media reports on ITV and the BBC that have highlighted some of the problems. Like other Members—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) put it very well—I have constituents who bought flats in blocks with cladding and were then trapped in them. They were struggling to sleep, and they lived in complete stress. Sometimes, I think it is fair to say that they had moments of terror living in these flats where they clearly were at great risk. They could not get the work done, and they were facing huge financial costs, which has been a problem across the whole country. I am so pleased that the current Government have gripped this and want to tackle it and to introduce some reassurance and routes to remediation at a much greater pace.

I would like to press the Minister on the point about flats under 11 metres, and I hope she will be able to respond to this when she winds up the debate. It is great to hear about the fund for flats under 11 metres—there will be a number of these in many medium-sized towns—but there are other non-cladding-based fire safety issues in exactly this type of block. That includes the issues I mentioned, such as dangerous wooden items in the foyer of a large block in Reading, and wooden balconies; in one case, a building had wooden balconies next to an underground car park, which was then discovered to be a huge fire risk. Some of these risks are in blocks under 11 metres, which may not be covered by the fund. Could the Minister elaborate on the nature of the fund, to provide further reassurance to residents?

Could the Minister also look into the wider issue of fire safety in buildings under 11 metres? As will be the case in many constituencies, we have a significant number of older blocks that are under 11 metres and might date back to the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s. They may not have dangerous cladding, but there might be issues with fire safety doors, evacuation procedures and a whole series of things. Because of the large number of these flats, residents will be concerned about the capacity of local authorities or the fire service to investigate. If the Minister could provide more information on that point, it would be very reassuring to residents in Reading and other similar towns.

I am conscious of time, so I will conclude by wholeheartedly welcoming the Bill. It is a huge step forward, and I really welcome the drive and thrust of activity from the Department on this matter. I am sure that the whole House will once again want to offer their thoughts to the families of the Grenfell community. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister.

Apsana Begum (Labour, Poplar and Limehouse)

Six weeks ago, residents in Neutron Tower in my constituency woke up in the middle of the night to a fire. They had to rush from flat to flat to warn their neighbours of what was unfolding. Tragically, one of my constituents lost his life, and I am sure that all of us in this House send our condolences to his family and loved ones. Others were hospitalised, and evacuated residents are being told that it may be months before they can return. This was the first fatal fire at a tower block that has unsafe cladding since Grenfell. It happened in a building that had been identified as having combustible insulation in the cladding, combustible balcony floors and defective balcony doors. While investigations are still ongoing, early indications are that the cladding itself did not play a role in this fire. However, the fact that the fire occurred in a building that has been awaiting remediation for so long has terrified residents of Neutron Tower and the adjacent Proton and Elektron Towers, and of Switch House, as well as those in the hundreds of other high-rise residential units in my constituency that need remediation work.

This serious incident is a stark and grave reminder of the potential peril faced by hundreds of thousands of people in this country, who feel that they are at the mercy of unscrupulous developers and managing agents. Repairs and remediation are being delayed again and again, and residents’ safety concerns are going unheard, all while they are tied to unsellable assets and escalating fees. Astonishingly, traumatised residents who have been evacuated from Neutron Tower are still being made to pay rent and service charges in the meantime. The fact that this Bill is being put before the House is welcome, as are the engagements that I have had with the Building Safety Regulator, the Secretary of State and officials in her Department; I know from them that the Neutron Tower fire is being taken extremely seriously.

Many of my constituents who fall into the category of having non-external cladding risks and internal defects in their homes, or of being non-qualified leaseholders, will be looking closely at the Bill as it progresses through the House. They will be pleased to have heard the Secretary of State’s announcement that these areas will be explored as the Bill progresses. I pay tribute to the End Our Cladding Scandal campaign, led by a group who have been campaigning on these fronts for a long time. I have been contacted by unpaid resident directors of local right-to-manage companies, who are worried about the new liabilities that they might face for defects that they did not cause, without any new funding or support for meeting those duties.

Then there is the bigger picture—the behaviours and the dispute practices that have allowed remediation processes to drag on for completely unacceptable lengths of time for so many buildings. I am disappointed that the new powers that will be placed on responsible entities will exclude developers who are part of the developer remediation contract, because developers under the DRC are able to delay remediation, drag their heels and avoid financial responsibilities. I understand that the Government’s position is that there are enough existing mechanisms under the DRC, so the backstop powers in the Bill do not need to be extended any further, but the system is not working in practice. Many residents are alarmed that there is not greater accountability for those ultimately responsible.

Ultimately, this comes down to a question of ambition. There is no denying the complexities at play in this decade-long ordeal. I am glad that some of the glaring gaps in the Bill are already being addressed, so that we can finally, through legislation, fix issues that we have been talking about for so long. The questions for many of my constituents, including the residents of Neutron Tower, are: when will the remaining gaps be addressed and, most importantly, how long before they finally have a safe home? Like many hon. Members, I will follow the Bill very closely as it progresses through the House, and will look for ways in which it can be strengthened even further, because we cannot delay taking action any longer.

Fleur Anderson (Labour, Putney)

I too pay tribute to the families of those who died in the Grenfell fire, which we will never forget. It scarred not only those in that area of London, but all Londoners. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for his excellent speech, for the campaigning he has done and for standing up for his community, and for his work to ensure that the Bill is as good as it is.

I welcome and support the Bill, although I wish it had been introduced by the previous Government, years ago. Unsafe cladding is a big issue across the country. The UK Government track 4,724 high-rise buildings with unsafe cladding. Some 39% of those are now fully remediated, and 15% have works under way, but 46% are still waiting for works to start. There are more than 1,000 such buildings in London, several of which are in my constituency of Putney.

Let me begin by thanking the Minister and her team, as well as former Ministers, for their constructive engagement throughout the development of the Bill. They have taken the time to listen to me. I have shown case studies of what is happening to my constituents to Ministers and asked, “Would the Bill work for them?” I am so glad to see so many ways in which it will. The Bill goes a great way, in many ways, to address problems, and to hold to account the developers who built the buildings and who, in so many cases, seem to have been able to walk away, delay, obfuscate and make things really difficult, when they should have stepped up and said, “There were these issues. These are our buildings, and we will work to rectify them.”

The Bill represents a significant step, and builds on the remediation acceleration plan in putting safety, accountability and those affected first. For too long, many leaseholders have been trapped in homes that they cannot remortgage and, in some cases, do not even feel safe living in. They bought their homes in good faith and followed the rules, but they have found themselves paying the price for failures elsewhere in a system that they trusted. The human impact of the delays cannot be overestimated, as many Members have said. I have spoken to constituents who are not able to start or increase the size of a family, take up jobs or care for relatives across the country because they are stuck in their home and unable to move on with their life. They have experienced prolonged disruption and financial uncertainty, and huge levels of stress.

I welcome these measures. The Bill gives regulators stronger powers to hold to account those who delay or obstruct remediation, and introduces a statutory duty to remediate. It replaces cosy deals and voluntary commitments, as so many Ministers in the former Government promised to. Time and again, I came to the Chamber, with many other Members who are here, to be told, “We will take action. It will be done. I have got the developers round the table, and they are all going to do it—don’t you worry”, but that did not happen at all. No more of that.

Luke Murphy (Labour, Basingstoke)

My hon. Friend is making a really strong speech about the need for this Bill. Does she agree that this action is long overdue? Residents in Crown Heights in my constituency have waited for years—far too long. They have been in financial uncertainty, and uncertainty about their safety, and they deserve a clear timeline of when their remediation works will be completed. Residents like those in Crown Heights will be served better in the future by action that will be delivered through this Bill.

Fleur Anderson (Labour, Putney)

I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend’s constituents, my constituents and the constituents of all Members will be watching this debate, half feeling glad that all this is happening, and half hoping that it actually will happen. In that respect, one part of the Bill I really welcome is that a remediation compliance plan has to be published on a website, openly available and proactively shared with residents. The fact that that even has to be said is testament to how frustrating it has been for residents to try to find information. Instead of them asking, “Who has built this building? Who are the responsible parties? What are they going to do? Where is the plan? Will I be moved out? When is it going to happen? When can I get on with my life?”, a plan has to be published, put on a website and proactively shared. I really welcome that.

Al Pinkerton (Liberal Democrat, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Lady talks about the need and desire to end the culture of cosy deals. I completely agree, but is not PAS 9980 itself a cosy deal done by the former Secretary of State, Michael Gove, as a compromise with building developers, to let them off from so many of the financial obligations that they would have had if they had to remediate buildings to the standard at which they should have been built? Does this Bill not turn that cosy deal into law?

Fleur Anderson (Labour, Putney)

I have been following this issue closely. As well as EWS1 forms and the question of who fills them in, developers marking their own homework to any degree causes problems in the system. Many Members will be looking at the Bill as it progresses through this House and the other place to see how we can strengthen it even further. Measures may be put into the Bill in all good faith, but in practice, there may not be enough people inspecting buildings, so there may be huge delays in the system. We do not want those people to want to minimise the amount of work done and keep the delays going.

I welcome the fact that building owners who fail to act could face fines of £500,000 and even criminal prosecution. Where owners refuse to do the work, Homes England will have the backstop powers to step in and ensure remediation is finally carried out, with the costs falling on those responsible, rather than the leaseholders. The measures in the Bill will help accelerate the resolution of historical safety defects, require manufacturers of unsafe building products to contribute to putting things right, and ensure that those affected have a clearer route to redress.

For many people, the cladding scandal is not a historical issue, but a daily reality. Throughout this scandal, I have found out all the layers of poor regulation in building works. For many homes and developments in Putney, not only has the cladding been unsafe, but many other parts of the building have been unsafe as well. In looking at the cladding, we have also found missing or inadequate fire stopping, inadequate compartmentation, poorly installed cavity barriers, defective balconies and water ingress. In a couple of the developments I have been in, I have watched water flowing down through electrical cupboards. That shoddy building work and the way that developers seem to have been able to get away with it should also be looked at, although not in this Bill. This Bill needs to be specific, and we need to get on with it, but other questions are being asked as a result of this process.

My residents have had to find out a lot more about whole developments and how they work; about their managing agents and how they should be working for them, but in many ways are not; about waking watches; and about non-communication by those who are meant to communicate about other defects in their buildings. They have had to become experts in inspections and how they work. They have had to work with the fire service themselves, because they are the people who are involved with all of these different things. I have been to meeting after meeting that residents have called, or that I have called, to try to get answers. It really should not have been so hard—it should be far easier for residents and leaseholders to know what is going on in their building. That is why I really look forward to the upcoming leasehold and commonhold Bill, because in my constituency of Putney, Roehampton, Southfields and Wandsworth Town, I am still working with people whose lives continue to be disrupted years after these problems first emerged. Many of them are currently decanted and living in other places, and many are unable to rent, sell or remortgage. They struggle to obtain their EWS1 forms or—as has been mentioned by other Members—affordable insurance, and far too often, their service charges are also going up. They describe uncertainty, stress and frustration.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to continuing delays by the Building Safety Regulator, which I have talked about before in a Westminster Hall debate. I have had three developments really affected by huge delays by the Building Safety Regulator; two of them have now been fixed, so I thank the Ministers very much for that, but I have one left, so I am going to raise it now. That is the heritage-listed stilt blocks on the Alton estate in Roehampton. They are really iconic—people come from all over the world to look at our stilt blocks. We are very proud of them, but living inside them is not so nice. They have mould, and they have really poor windows that let the water and the weather in. Residents have endured winter after winter waiting for replacement windows.

Although Wandsworth council approved and funded new windows and stairwell fire doors in September 2023, the introduction of the new building safety regime transferred responsibility for approving those works to the Building Safety Regulator, because those listed blocks are classified as high-rise residential buildings. The residents narrowly missed the approval window before the new arrangements came in, leaving them in limbo with the Building Safety Regulator and causing further delays for people who have already waited far too long. They have waited through the winters of 2023, 2024 and 2025, and now they are approaching yet another winter with these very cold windows. Residents say that when they put a radiator on, they might as well just be throwing money out of the window. It is an appalling situation, and I really hope that as a result of me raising it in the Chamber today, the Ministers will address it.

None of us wants to return to the failures of the past. Robust regulation is essential, and the whole purpose of reform is to ensure that safety comes first, but a system that leaves people in prolonged uncertainty is also failing them. As implementation of the Bill proceeds, I urge Ministers to continue examining how regulatory processes can be made more efficient without compromising safety, whether that is ensuring they have the right number of staff or that their systems are right—whatever it takes to make the system work. People should not be left waiting months or years for decisions when works are ready to proceed. Safety and speed are not mutually exclusive; we need to have both.

As I have said, I look forward to the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill, which is part of the package of exciting and strong new regulatory powers that are being introduced by the Government in a number of ways. The last Government could have done the same, but did not.

I support this Bill, and I hope that while making these reforms, we will continue to focus relentlessly on turning regulation into results for the people of Putney and people across the country.

Christopher Vince (Labour/Co-operative, Harlow)

I thank the Secretary of State for opening the debate and, like many others, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for his extremely powerful and important speech, and for all the work that he has done to support the Grenfell families who so deserve that support. He is a fantastic champion for them. I also welcome the Bill, and the fact that those responsible for unsafe residential buildings will be held legally accountable. History has shown that these matters cannot be left unmonitored.

As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am forever honoured to stand in this place as the Member of Parliament for Harlow and the villages. To find myself listening to, for example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn)—of whom I admit to being a bit of a fan—is a “pinch me” moment. I have to say, though, that above all that, the biggest honour I have experienced in this place was when I spoke for the first time in a debate about Grenfell, some two years ago. I mentioned an incredible constituent, Rod Wainwright, who was one of the first responders on the scene at Grenfell. As you may remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, he witnessed at first hand the absolute horror that was caused by the unsafe cladding that had been used. That unavoidable tragedy that took so many lives has had a lasting impact not only on the families whom I have mentioned, but on heroes like Rod. He is an incredible man, both personally and professionally. People like Rod should not be suffering the consequences of others’ failings, and the Bill is just one step towards ensuring that that does not happen again.

I recently spoke to Rod, who, as I have mentioned previously, was medically retired owing to post-traumatic stress disorder. This is not an issue for the Ministers who are present today, but I hope that members of the Department for Work and Pensions team will listen. Every two years, Rod has to prove again that he has PTSD and that he should be medically retired. That has a massive impact on his mental health, and when I spoke to him I observed that impact at first hand. I do not think it right that heroes like Rod should have to go through this. He has to relive that terrible night every two years, again and again. It is very difficult for him, and it can be very difficult for his family.

I welcome the Government’s wider remediation acceleration plan, and the measures to protect leaseholders from unexpected costs and eye-watering bills to fix building safety defects that they themselves did not cause. In Harlow, there have been many cases of leaseholders facing such bills, and for many years this cladding was not seen as a defect. Criminalising those who fail to remediate or mitigate such important elements is a huge step in the right direction. It is clear that that failure costs lives, and I am glad that this Government are recognising the seriousness of it. I am pleased that the Bill provides for financial penalties to ensure that people are legally obliged to provide truthful information—which, as we know, did not happen in the aftermath of Grenfell—and will face penalties if they do not.

I also welcome the statutory duty to remediate multi-occupied residential buildings in England that are over 11 metres high or have at least five storeys. One of my constituents, Claire Miles, has talked about the tragic loss of her mother Daphne in a care home fire in April 2017 when building safety legislation applied only to buildings at least 30 metres high. Some consideration should be given to that during the Bill’s passage. While, as has been recognised, Harlow has great fire safety provision for high-rise buildings, earlier legislation has forgotten buildings such as care homes.

Finally, I thank the Secretary of State, the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith and the entire MHCLG team for bringing forward this legislation and for their continued championing of building safety—something that I think we can all agree is incredibly important. Everybody deserves a home, as we discussed yesterday, but more than that, everyone deserves a safe home.

Kevin Bonavia (Labour, Stevenage)

Time and again today, we have remembered all those who tragically died in the Grenfell fire all those years ago. We look back on that not only because they deserve our tribute, but because we all know in our hearts that it did not need to happen. It could have been avoided, and the warnings were there years before. As has been said a few times today, the fire happened nine years ago, and we still have not got things right.

I cannot speak any more eloquently than my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) did. He spoke for only a few minutes, but he has campaigned relentlessly on behalf of his constituents for many hours, days and months—not only to make sure that we get the truth and learn from it, but to keep championing all those people who are still worried. Many feel trapped in homes in which they should be able to live safely and comfortably, but in which they cannot.

I really welcome what the Government are doing today, and I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and her Ministers. In 2024, the Secretary of State began the remediation acceleration plan, because it was taking way too long. Relevant legislation has been passed in this place before, but we see that it is not delivering. There are too many gaps, and I believe that this Bill is a great step forward. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for saying that she will add to it, and I am sure that she has been listening carefully to what has been said today and will continue to listen, not just to us in this place but to the people we represent. I know that she and her Ministers have been meeting people affected by this issue and representatives of End Our Cladding Scandal. One of the big champions in my constituency, Sophie Bichener, has been working in this area for years, and she has acknowledged those meetings.

When we talk about examples in our constituencies, we sometimes think that MPs who represent big cities will have a lot, which might be true. I represent a new town, just like my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), who represents another fine new town that is not far from Stevenage. We do not have as many examples as the House might think, but I want to highlight two. It does not matter that we do not have many, because those residents who have been trapped for so long really feel it. In Stevenage we have Monument Court and Vista Tower, and I want to relay a couple of my residents’ expressions of despair.

One resident of Vista Tower said:

“Since the Grenfell disaster we have been imprisoned in a property that we cannot sell, has no apparent value and has continuing yearly safety improvements. But worst of all, the owners of flats have no visibility as to when this nightmare will finish.”

Another said:

“I am living in a home that I know to be unsafe, with no clear timeline for when the necessary remediation work will be completed. The ongoing uncertainty is causing significant stress and anxiety, particularly as I have two young children whose safety and wellbeing are my priority. I am also facing increased insurance costs and am having to deplete my savings to cover the financial burden. I cannot sell my property because of the unresolved cladding issues, leaving me effectively trapped in a home that may be unsafe and unable to move forward with my life.”

Those residents are just two examples of people trapped in their own homes, not knowing if they are safe after all these years.

Residents in Vista Tower are now going through a second round of remedial works. They have been told that they are to be decanted, but for how long? We do not know. When is that going to happen? We do not know. Vista Tower itself has been the subject of many legal actions going on for years, and there seems no end to it. We have to give those residents the hope of an ending, so that they can get on with their lives, feel safe in their homes and, if they want to do so, move on and live elsewhere.

I am pleased that the Bill takes us forward on some of those matters, but it has been very difficult for many Members to hear about some of the issues that have been raised today. We need to ensure that non-qualifying leaseholders, such as those living in Vista Tower and Monument Court, are not left with unaffordable bills to fix historical defects, such as the fire safety defects, so I am pleased to hear movement from the Secretary of State in that regard.

Al Pinkerton (Liberal Democrat, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Gentleman’s constituents’ stories resonate deeply, and are similar to those I hear from my constituents. Nine different properties in my constituency had EWS1 forms that were signed by a rogue fire safety engineer called Adam Kiziak, which has introduced further uncertainty and anxiety, alongside everything that the hon. Gentleman has spoken about. That is why I feel so passionately that this Bill could go just a little bit further, and call for the independent regulation of fire safety engineers to bring added certainty to those who do have to commission forms that ultimately speak to the quality, but also the safety, of the building. Will he join me in making that case?

Kevin Bonavia (Labour, Stevenage)

I thank the hon. Member for making a very sensible point. I am pleased that the Bill takes forward the idea of having independent actors to step in, which I would always welcome—the more of that, the better. We cannot have the developers or freeholders of these buildings essentially marking their own homework.

We must ensure that buildings are reviewed holistically and made safe as a whole. As I have said, Vista Tower is facing a second round of intrusive works and the decanting of residents, so we need to ensure that such things can be avoided. That is why it is so important to have compliance plans and, more importantly, to ensure that residents are informed of and are able to influence and shape these plans. I welcome the moves in that regard.

For Vista Tower, there have now been eight years of fighting, with no timeline for ending it. We must therefore make sure that remediation compliance plans guarantee access to assessments, work specifications, delivery timetables and completion evidence, with real and meaningful engagement for leaseholders, while also providing them with accessible routes to challenge decisions and raise concerns about their homes. In that way we can give leaseholders, but also the flats market as a whole, confidence that when work is required, it will be done properly and collaboratively.

Today is a day of real progress—we are filling the gaps one by one—and I am pleased to hear that Ministers are listening. They should carry on listening to make sure that the Bill becomes an Act that finally gives people who are living in fear of the future and uncertain about what is going to happen to their home the release from all of that that they truly deserve.

Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)

I call Jessica Toale.

Jessica Toale (Labour, Bournemouth West)

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last, but hopefully not least.

I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for bringing forward the Bill, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for all his work to honour the victims and families of Grenfell, and to ensure that nobody else suffers the horror of such unavoidable tragedy.

I fully support the Government’s determination to accelerate remediation and better protect leaseholders who have been left carrying the emotional and often financial burden of a crisis they did not create. As we have heard from many hon. Members from across the House today, too many people across the country have been trapped in unsafe homes, facing uncertainty, financial anxiety and delays that have stretched on for years. Everyone deserves to live in a safe home and that is why the Bill is so important. I welcome many of the provisions in the Bill, from the clear legal duty of responsibility for unsafe buildings to the stronger enforcement with clear consequences to ensure that leaseholders are not left paying the price for failures that were not their fault.

I do, however, have to be honest about some of the practical barriers that are impacting my constituents and delaying works on the ground. In my constituency, residents in several high-rise blocks have contacted me repeatedly about remediation delays. In one case, a developer is ready to proceed with the necessary cladding works that would make the building safe, but has been waiting for approval from the Building Safety Regulator since the middle of 2024. The decision on certification has been pushed back six times. I have written to the Minister in the other place, Baroness Blake, regarding the case, but it remains a significant problem and the BSR delayed approval yet again only last month.

Another property in my constituency is similarly impacted. The contractor has bought materials and submitted the relevant applications to the BSR in August 2025, but was rejected several months later. The application was submitted again, but it was rejected in May this year. In the meantime, residents continue to live with significant damp, mould and fire safety issues in the building.

These are not isolated incidents and I could relay others—and I will, because this is significant. One building, a social housing building in my constituency, had some botched internal works, leaving really unacceptable conditions in communal areas and embarrassment for residents. One of them brought me in and showed me a piece of exposed wall with mould all over it where they had affixed a nametag that said, “Jackson Pollock 2024”. That building is on a hill, and when they brought in a contractor to remediate the internal bits of the building, they discovered that the building is smaller at the front than it is at the back. They then had to reclassify the building and submit an application to the Building Safety Regulator. I have very little faith in the fact that those residents, who have already been waiting more than two years for the internal works, will get them done in good time.

This is not about weakening standards or cutting corners; it is about robust scrutiny and effective regulation that is absolutely necessary. The point is that residents, leaseholders and good contractors who are trying to do the right things should not be increasingly frustrated by these delays. My residents need certainty that the plans to make their homes safe can actually take place and be done at pace.

We on the Labour Benches all want stronger regulators, but there appear to be genuine questions about whether the Building Safety Regulator has sufficient capacity and specialist resources to process applications as quickly as everyone would like. Concerns about delays with the regulator have been raised elsewhere, including by the Industry and Regulators Committee in the other place. The provisions in the Bill are necessary and long overdue, but if the ambitions of the Bill are to be realised in practice, the Building Safety Regulator must have the capacity and resources to match those ambitions. I would be grateful if the Minister, in her closing remarks, could address Building Safety Regulator resourcing and capacity. Will she also consider meeting Members from across the House whose constituents are experiencing delays, so that these concerns can be discussed directly? The regulator must have the staff, expertise and support it needs to ensure that vital remediation projects are not delayed unnecessarily.

The people living in these buildings have waited long enough. They deserve safe homes. They deserve certainty and to see progress. I am proud to support the Bill and I hope that the Minister will address my concerns in her closing remarks.

Judith Cummins (Labour, Bradford South)

With the leave of the House, I call the shadow Minister.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

I would like to acknowledge some of the Back-Bench contributions to the debate. The sheer volume and range of locations affected by unsafe cladding is remarkable and speaks to the scale of this terrible problem. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), and the hon. Members for Ipswich (Jack Abbott), for Woking (Mr Forster), for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), for Putney (Fleur Anderson), for Harlow (Chris Vince), for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) and for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale), who have all spoken of the challenges that their constituents have in dealing with that terrible problem.

We of course heard from the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell). It must be a great responsibility to be the Member of Parliament for so many victims and survivors of Grenfell tower in his constituency—an area that we both know well. I am sure that he feels that acutely. Some of his descriptions of rogue and dangerous activity were shocking.

As outlined in my opening remarks, those of us on the Opposition Benches share the fundamental aims of the Bill. We too believe that every building with unsafe cladding should be fixed—and fixed fast. The questions that the Opposition pose are not about the Bill’s aims, but about whether it will work in practice and whether the full implications of its provisions have been considered by the Government.

The evidence suggests that remediation is slow mainly because there are not enough capable professionals to do the work, because the work is hard and unpredictable, and because delivery is fragmented. Elements of that have been acknowledged by Members on both sides of the House. In our view, there is a risk that a Bill that creates new legal duties, deadlines and penalties, but not a single new assessor or contractor, may add more pressure on the system and risk making the problem worse.

As the Bill progresses, I hope that the Government will be able to answer some of the questions raised in this debate. First, on capacity, every building in scope of the Bill must be assessed within a year of commencement, and every assessment that recommends work must be audited by Homes England. What assessment have the Government made of whether there are enough qualified people to meet that deadline and, if there are not, what happens to owners who miss the deadline through no fault of their own?

Secondly, on the new legal duties and associated offences, owners could face up to two years in prison or a penalty of up to £500,000 for deliberately failing to remediate as soon as reasonably practicable. What guidance will the relevant regulators be given on what that means in cases where qualified professionals are simply not available? Can the Minister be sure that an owner who is trying in good faith to commence remediation, but cannot get the work done, will not be prosecuted?

Thirdly, on group accountability, in 2022 Parliament allowed a court or tribunal to look through a company structure when it was just and equitable to do so. The Bill hands a version of that power to regulators through the power to issue penalty notices. Why was the judicial route not enough? Fourthly, on manufacturer’s liability, the 2022 Act gave building owners a route to claim against those who made defective cladding. The Bill loosens that test, but why was the 2022 test not sufficient? Have the Government made any assessment of what that will do to insurance costs and the cost of building new homes?

There is also a great deal that we have not yet seen. Remediation management orders will be set out in guidance that has not yet been published. Councils are being given new duties, including the remediation backstop, with no clear sense yet of how they will be resourced. Parliament should see the detail before it can approve those powers. The Opposition intend to table amendments in Committee to test each of those points, and we look forward to continuing that discussion with our shared ultimate aim in mind.

Florence Eshalomi (Labour/Co-operative, Vauxhall and Camberwell Green)

I thank Members from across the House for their contributions. As the Secretary of State, the shadow Minister and many hon. and right hon. Members outlined, next June will mark a decade since the Grenfell fire disaster took the lives of 72 people, including 18 children. None of us can imagine the horror that survivors, families and friends suffered that day, and the community will continue to carry that trauma, anguish and suffering throughout their lives.

It is a tragedy that should never have happened, and one that must never happen again, but we must be honest and say that it is unacceptable that far too many people in this country still do not have the safety and security of a safe roof over their heads, nine years after Grenfell. This is not just about building safety; it is about giving everyone the peace of mind that a safe, decent and affordable home brings. We must ask ourselves how we can expect anyone to sleep soundly, and get on in life, if the building they sleep in every night is covered in dangerous and flammable cladding. The building safety crisis must be resolved, homes must be made safe, and residents must be allowed to live their lives.

This Government were elected on a manifesto that made commitments to accelerate remediation, better protect leaseholders and make those responsible for the building safety crisis pay to put it right. Our remediation acceleration plan and this Bill deliver on that pledge. By introducing a register of 11 to 18 metre buildings and a national standard for assessing buildings, the Bill will finally bring certainty on the scale of the problem and the work required to fix it. By creating a new legal duty to remediate, backed up by substantial new penalties for inaction, we will compel those responsible to fix their buildings without delay.

Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat, Taunton and Wellington)

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way during a very serious and measured speech. She referred to the standard of remediation. A number of Members, including myself, raised use of the standard of tolerability instead of building regulations. Are the Government willing to review the standard of remediation so that after remediation, buildings are not left, as they are now, with flammable cladding on the outside?

Florence Eshalomi (Labour/Co-operative, Vauxhall and Camberwell Green)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. A number of Members have raised the matter of remediation standards. I know that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), who is sitting next to him, also raised it in a recent Westminster Hall debate that I responded to.

Many right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that the Bill will make independent auditing of fire risk appraisals of external walls mandatory. We are confident that PAS 9980 has a robust and appropriate methodology for assessing the risk of fire spreading throughout the building. The Bill will also look at the independent auditing and the statutory requirement, ensuring that additional checks on those assessments have been carried out properly. To reassure Members, Homes England will also audit all assessments that recommend mitigation and remediation and will have the power to audit other assessments.

By delivering the remediation backstop, we will ensure that no building and no resident is left behind, even if the person responsible for the building is determined to ignore the risks it presents to residents. By creating stronger avenues for redress against construction product manufacturers, we will ensure that those responsible for the cladding safety crisis pay towards the cost of fixing it.

I thank the Secretary of State and the Building Safety Minister, Baroness Blake, for bringing the Bill forward. I also thank all the Ministers who came before me for the work they did to make this Bill a reality, including the Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed) and my hon. Friends the Members for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon) and for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali).

Sam Carling (Labour, North West Cambridgeshire)

On the subject of fire safety, residents of Fletton Quays in my constituency were shocked recently to see nearly all internal fire doors fail an inspection; it turns out that they had not been inspected for many years and had been allowed to fall into disrepair, and residents are now on the hook to replace them at high cost, as well as being subjected to dangerous conditions. Does the Minister agree that that is really not on, and would she ask officials to examine whether that might be happening in other blocks of flats around the country, meaning that it might merit Government intervention?

Florence Eshalomi (Labour/Co-operative, Vauxhall and Camberwell Green)

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. This Bill deliberately focuses on unsafe external cladding, because the Grenfell tower inquiry phase 1 report found that cladding on external walls. We will be looking at the area he raises as the Bill progresses, so I give him that assurance.

I now turn to a number of comments made by right hon. and hon. Members today, and apologise that I may not be able to cover all Members’ comments. I start with the shadow Minister and the comments she made on the limited workforce capacity of fire safety technicians. We will continue to review that area. There is additional funding to ensure that those fire assessors are in place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) outlined why this is such an important issue. I thank him for tireless campaigning and continued work with the survivors of Grenfell. He highlighted some of the dangers that still exist and mentioned the increasing costs that many of his constituents are facing—examples of some residents who are having to pay eye-watering bills to fix the issues. One of the matters I worked with him on in my former role as Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee was the national oversight mechanism. It is not right that we are having to go through those recommendations one by one. I hope I can assure him that the Government accepted all the inquiry’s recommendations and we are making progress.

The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) outlined the issue with PAS 9980. I hope that he will be assured that we will continue to look at that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) detailed the real-life nature of this issue and the fact that many leaseholders continue to be left in limbo, and their mental state is being affected. Leaseholders are in limbo, waiting for remediation, sometimes having to spend a decade out of their homes. Residents continue to face this injustice, and I thank him for continuing to work with leaseholders.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) outlined the work that he has been leading around Ocean Village and Oceana Boulevard. That building was built only 20 years ago—yet, 10 years in, fire safety defects were outlined. That shows why we have to continue to work to ensure that all buildings are safe, including some that were deemed to be new builds.

The hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) detailed the tragic case of her 97-year-old constituent, who is having to rely on her children to buy her property to give her some certainty. They are now lumbered with a property that they cannot sell—simply for doing the right thing for their parent. No child should have to go through that process and face those costs. That is why we are making sure that the developers are paying for the work with the developer remediation fund.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) outlined points that a number of Members highlighted. We will continue to look at the issues around insurance and non-qualifying leaseholders. I know he has expertise and knowledge on construction product manufacture, and I will continue to engage with him as the Bill progresses.

My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) outlined the work she has been doing with her constituents for many years and praised the decisive action taken by Salford council to act fast and think later, and then seek those costs back. It shows that our local authorities, where possible, are stepping forward to fill the gaps where developers have failed, but councils should not have to be leading on this. The developers of the buildings should be the ones paying, and we hope that the Bill will identify those owners.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) outlined the fantastic work that he has been doing with the Leeds cladding campaigners. He also highlighted the issues around the delays in building safety regulations. Under the leadership of Lord Roe and Charlie Pugsley, I hope that Members will see that we are making progress in building regulation standards.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) highlighted the tragic case of the fire at Neutron Tower, which sadly resulted in a resident losing his life. My hon. Friend knows that the investigation is still ongoing, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment, but we are continuing to work with relevant parties to ensure that the safeguarding and wellbeing of displaced residents is addressed as soon as possible. The London Fire Brigade has stated that the fire is believed to be accidental, but as this investigation is ongoing, we will continue to engage with my hon. Friend and her residents.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) highlighted the PTSD faced by his constituent. That shows the real-life consequences that many of our firefighters—the first responders to that tragic fire and the many tragic fires we continue to see—have to live with. I hope that Ministers in the DWP will take into account how my hon. Friend’s constituent has to reapply every two years to that Department.

This is a real issue on which all hon. Members need to continue to engage and discuss. I hope that hon. Members will continue to engage constructively with us as the Bill progresses through the Public Bill Committee.

The passion with which hon. Members have spoken is testament to the desire we all share to bring the building safety crisis to an end and protect the residents and leaseholders who desperately need and want to see action. The Government are delivering on that. We are providing more remediation funding than ever before, remediating more buildings than ever before, prioritising higher-risk buildings and putting the safety of residents at the heart of our work.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) spoke about the work of his constituent, whom the Secretary of State and I had the pleasure of meeting two weeks ago, along with cladding scandal group members. No one could have been unmoved when listening to their testimony, given the real-life issues and trauma that the ongoing delay is causing to so many. People’s lives are on hold—they cannot plan for their future, and they are in financial ruins. Tragically, some people have died waiting for the issue to be resolved.

Alongside the package of measures we have delivered to accelerate remediation and support leaseholders, the Bill will ensure that no building and no resident is left behind. I hope that hon. Members see that the Bill will bring certainty, clarity and accountability to drive forward remediation and make every building safe. That is what we owe to residents, and that what we owe to the country.

I am grateful to hon. Members from all parties who have given their support to work with us on the Bill. In that spirit, I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.