The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
(Michael Gove) With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should
like to make a statement that allows me to update the House on the
Government’s progress in making buildings safe. It is a basic
requirement of any civilised society that people should feel safe
in their own homes, but for too many people for far too long, that
has not been the case. As I have said before, so I say again: this
has been a...Request free trial
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
()
With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a
statement that allows me to update the House on the Government’s
progress in making buildings safe. It is a basic requirement of
any civilised society that people should feel safe in their own
homes, but for too many people for far too long, that has not
been the case. As I have said before, so I say again: this has
been a collective failure. Those in government who made the rules
did not make them clear enough. Those who built our homes did not
build them well enough. Those who made the materials that
contributed to the construction of those homes often made them
unsafe; at times, knowingly so. Those who were to check the work
undertaken did not always check thoroughly enough. Of course,
those who own the buildings have sometimes managed them so poorly
that people have been left unsafe, and too many of those owners
have still shirked their obligations to make people safe.
The only party to the crisis who do not share in the
responsibility are the blameless leaseholders and the tenants who
live in those buildings. That is why it is right that this
Parliament protected those leaseholders through the Building
Safety Act 2022 and apportioned financial responsibility more
fairly. We continue to work to ensure that those who bear the
blame for the crisis also shoulder the burden of putting the
situation right.
We have made significant progress. Those who put unsafe material
on people’s homes must now pay, instead of the innocent residents
living in them. Leaseholders need no longer fear financial ruin
simply to make their homes safe, and the major mortgage lenders,
thanks to their confidence in our new approach, will now lend on
properties that are covered by the leaseholder protections in the
Building Safety Act. Of course, they will also lend where the
building is eligible for a Government or developer remediation
scheme. Leaseholders are no longer hostages to their mortgage
arrangements.
We have also reopened and turbocharged the building safety fund
for new applications and are piloting our medium-rise fund, paid
for from a levy on developers, to ensure that dangerous cladding
will be removed. Leaseholders can rest assured that their
buildings will be made safe. Where remediation is required and
building owners are sitting on their hands—even when money is
being provided by the Government—we will use powers under the Act
to force the owners to fix their unsafe buildings. Members should
be in no doubt that there will be significant consequences for
those who fail to comply with their legal obligations.
Leaseholders should know that the law is on their side. Today, we
make further progress on delivery. In April last year, I
announced that the largest house builders had signed a pledge
committing to fix all life-critical fire safety issues, internal
and external, in buildings over 11 metres that they had a role in
developing or refurbishing in England. Developers also committed
to reimbursing the taxpayer where that work has already been done
and subsidised by the taxpayer. In the summer, my Department
published the draft contract that will bind developers to honour
that pledge. Since then, my officials have been working through
that contract line by line to ensure that it codifies the pledge
in a way that is fair and transparent, committing developers to
fixing buildings for which they are responsible as swiftly as
possible and therefore keeping residents and leaseholders
informed about that work. I am grateful to all the developers who
work with us and to the Home Builders Federation and its
chairman, Stewart Baseley, who have worked so hard in order to
ensure that this contract can deliver. Today, we are publishing
the final contract that I expect housing developers to sign. A
copy of the contract has been deposited in the Library of each
House and it is available on gov.uk.
Let me be clear: if you are one of the developers we invited to
submit comments on the contract, I now expect you to sign it
within the next six weeks—by 13 March. That includes every
company who signed the original pledge as well as several
companies who have regrettably not done so. Now is the time for
all of them to make a binding commitment that will not only see
them doing right by those whose homes they have blighted, but
help them to maintain their credibility with those who may seek
to contract with them or who may consider buying their homes in
future. Those who fail to step up and make this commitment will
suffer the consequences that this Parliament has so clearly
spelled out.
Using powers provided by the Building Safety Act, I will lay
regulations this spring to create a new responsible actors
scheme. Those regulations will set out which developers, by
signing the contract, will be eligible to be members. We expect
those who built unsafe buildings to sign the contract. To join
the scheme, they will have to sign and comply with the terms of
the contract published today. Of course, we will invite
developers to join the scheme in order to ensure that we do right
by leaseholders.
Anyone who fails to sign the contract will be prohibited from
carrying out future development and from receiving building
control sign-offs for buildings under construction. A developer
who fails to sign this contract will have to find another line of
work. I say to all developers who have built unsafe buildings
over 11 metres, “I am putting you on notice. You will be asked to
step up.”
I will consult in due course on how we expand the responsible
actors scheme to make sure that we capture all those who built
unsafe buildings and should now fix them. Altogether, I expect
developer remediation to be worth more than £2 billion of
investment in safety and to protect people in hundreds of
buildings. I am grateful to those in the development community
who have got on with assessing and remediating their buildings
without waiting for the final form of contract; I welcome their
constructive engagement.
All developers should recognise that in signing the contract,
they are taking a big step towards restoring confidence in the
construction sector and providing much-needed certainty to all
concerned. Those who sign will confirm that they are responsible
companies. I know from the positive discussions that I have had
that many are now keen to sign; I particularly thank all those
developers who have today confirmed that they will sign.
Accepting their new responsibilities will allow developers to
plan ahead in the knowledge that they now understand the full
extent of their legal obligations.
When these buildings are safe and a full reckoning has been made,
we can then look to the future with a new clarity and confidence
in our construction sector, but until that point, my
determination will be to ensure that buildings are fixed, to do
what we must all do to achieve that, and not to waver. My
Department has a recovery strategy unit, which is relentlessly
targeting those who have consistently failed to do the right
thing. As well as targeting developers, it has also begun legal
action against recalcitrant freeholders. It has active
investigations under way into the conduct of various companies,
including contractors and construction product manufacturers that
bear responsibility for this crisis.
Let me again be clear to freeholders, from this Dispatch Box: if
you are holding back work to make buildings safe, even where the
Government have made sufficient money directly available to you
through the building safety fund, you must fix your buildings or
we will take action, including through the courts. To those
freeholders who are trying to bully leaseholders into paying
service charges that the Building Safety Act has already
proscribed, let me spell out the law. Invoices issued before the
Act came into force must be scrapped. New bills must comply with
the law, including our new leaseholder protections.
While buildings await remediation, I know that many leaseholders
continue to suffer spiralling insurance bills. Last year, I asked
the Financial Conduct Authority to investigate the market. The
serious issues that it uncovered concerned me greatly. It is
simply unacceptable for managing agents, landlords and
freeholders to profit from commissions secured out of the pockets
of innocent leaseholders as bills spiral, so I can confirm today
that I will take action to ban property managing agents,
landlords and freeholders from receiving commissions and other
such payments from insurers and brokers, replacing them with more
transparent fees.
I will not permit people to hide charges in obscure invoices; I
will require service charges to be issued to leaseholders
transparently with clearly labelled statements. I will not allow
building owners and landlords to charge their leaseholders to pay
for their own legal bills, even to pay for settlements when
leaseholders win their cases. Together, these steps will ensure
that leaseholder insurance costs are fairer and more transparent,
and they will empower leaseholders to challenge dodgy bills. I am
also pleased to see that the FCA has committed to investigate
broker practices and to consult on further regulatory changes to
protect and empower leaseholders.
Leaseholders also now need insurance premiums to be reduced
significantly—and urgently—so I expect the FCA to report on what
further actions it will take to ensure that there is a fairer and
more competitive market by the summer, and to continue its
monitoring of this sector. I welcome work from within the
insurance industry on launching a UK-wide scheme to reduce the
most severe premiums for leaseholders and buildings with fire
safety issues, but I must stress the urgency of this work:
leaseholders need support now.
As we right the wrongs of the past, we must ensure that we can
say with confidence that the future will be better. We want a
culture of high standards that will transform not only the
attitudes of people working in the construction sector but,
ultimately, our whole built environment. Working together, we can
put standards and safety first, and that means listening to the
tenants and leaseholders who have suffered so much. Their
experience is what matters, and their views must be at the heart
of our approach. When everyone’s interest is aligned with the
interests of tenants and leaseholders, everyone will benefit in
the long run.
Government must play their part through clear regulation, but
also through leadership that holds current wrongdoers to account.
The new building safety regulator that we have established will
oversee a culture of higher standards, and over the coming year
my ministerial team and I will present an ambitious programme of
secondary legislation to set the regulator on firmer foundations.
Building owners and managers should already be preparing for the
first requirement, due to come into force soon—the requirement to
register higher-risk buildings with the regulator.
In the last year, we have made significant progress. When we were
told that there was an impasse, we managed collectively in the
House to break through. When we were told that leaseholders must
pay, we ensured that they were protected; we were told that
developers would never pay, but billions of pounds are now being
pledged by developers to help those in their buildings. That
demonstrates what can be achieved when people accept
responsibility in a spirit of good will and collective endeavour.
While there is much more to do, today is a major step forward,
and I commend this statement to the House.
4.51pm
(Wigan) (Lab)
I welcome the statement and some of the measures announced in it,
but the fact is that, five and a half years after the appalling
Grenfell fire, millions of people are still trapped in buildings
with dangerous cladding, in flats that are unsellable, and facing
eye-watering bills. I believe that the Secretary of State is
absolutely sincere in his desire to solve this problem, but he
announced a year ago that he was putting developers on notice,
saying that
“we are coming for you.”[—[Official Report, 10 January 2022; Vol.
706, c.
284.]](/search/column?VolumeNumber=706&ColumnNumber=284&House=1)
Well, that is a long notice period, and for all the zeal, the
reality is that the developers did not stump up the cash that he
demanded, and only 7% of flats at risk of fire have been fixed.
He says that leaseholders are no longer hostages of their
mortgages, but if he spent five minutes reading the contents of
my inbox, he would gain a very different perspective on what is
the reality on the ground.
This has been another year of lives on hold, huge anxiety and
countless amounts of human misery, and people are losing hope.
The Secretary of State is now giving those same developers
another six-week deadline to sign a contract or face penalties,
but the date that matters to leaseholders is not the date by
which a new contract is signed; it is the date by which the
cladding will be removed or replaced. Am I right in understanding
that there is no deadline for that? Am I also right to understand
that the Secretary of State is not today announcing any new
action against product manufacturers and building owners? If we
all acknowledge their role in this, and the fact that in many
instances they continue to profit from homes that are unsafe,
this is not just an unhelpful omission but an immoral one. The
Secretary of State said today that his Department was pursuing
them through the courts, and I welcome that, but can he tell us
how many of those cases have been successful? Can he also tell
us—given that other Members will have inboxes like mine, full of
stories of people who are still struggling and still
suffering—how we can refer cases to this unit within his
Department, so that the onus of taking action does not rest on
the victims of this appalling scandal, but we and the Government
use our collective might to do the same?
While I am asking the Secretary of State about omissions from the
scheme, can he tell us why foreign developers are off the hook?
Within the last few hours it has been reported that two major
house builders have indicated that they will sign the contract,
but it is also reported that they are only doing so after he
watered it down to limit their liability, restrict the work that
is covered, and prevent the Government from revisiting the
contract at a later date. A quick read of the contract on gov.uk
appears to confirm that he has retreated from his previous
position and returned to the provisions agreed with his
predecessors last summer, which, he said on retaking office,
simply were not good enough.
Inside Housing quotes a senior house building industry source as
saying:
“Our view is the contract is now just committing us to things
we’re already doing.”
Persimmon has since confirmed that it believes that the contract
simply reflects its existing commitments. Did the Secretary of
State receive legal advice on the implications of the changes? In
the spirit of greater transparency, will he commit to publish
that today? We welcome action to help leaseholders challenge
dodgy bills, but has he stopped to consider for a moment why on
earth they should have to do so? Why on earth do we continue to
tolerate those sorts of industry practices? Most of all, why on
earth do we continue to tolerate leasehold—an arcane, feudal form
of tenure that has no place in a modern country? If the sorry
saga that millions of people have been forced to live with over
the last five and a half years has done anything, it has lifted
the lid on the reality facing millions of leaseholders in this
country. No ifs or buts—leasehold ought to be abolished.
I was encouraged to hear the Secretary of State agree with that
sentiment yesterday, just as I was when the Government first
committed to it in 2017. If he legislates to ban leaseholds on
new builds and to phase out existing leasehold in favour of
commonhold tenure, he will have the Opposition’s full support.
Will he commit to not just introducing that legislation in the
final Session of this Parliament, but to passing it? The right to
a decent, safe and secure home is non-negotiable. Too many people
have been denied that for too long. No more excuses: it is time
to get on with the job.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her constructive approach
today. She has consistently taken such an approach to resolving
the building safety crisis. She recognises that responsibility
for the crisis must, as I have mentioned, be shouldered
collectively by Government and actors—from developers through to
freeholders, insurance companies and construction product
manufacturers.
The contract that we are publishing is the result of detailed
negotiations with developers. Developers made a number of points
that seemed fair and to reflect their responsibilities. We also
robustly rejected a number of points that they made during the
contract negotiation, so as to ensure that we receive payment
from them as quickly as possibly for the work required. There is
now a clear six-week deadline to sign the contract. The fact that
two major developers have already agreed to sign is welcome, as
is the fact that some have already undertaken this work, as I
mentioned in my statement. It was not necessary for every
developer to sign the contract for that work to begin. I welcome
that it has begun and that work has been completed or is being
undertaken on the overwhelming majority of buildings over the
height of 18 metres with aluminium composite material
cladding.
The hon. Lady asked about the work to deal with freeholders and,
in particular, construction product manufacturers. Again, work
will be undertaken by the recovery strategy unit, which has
already secured change from freeholders and is pursing
construction product manufacturers. Brigadier Graham Cundy is the
leader of the RSU. He has a distinguished service career and a
commitment to ensuring that there is no hiding place for those
responsible for the building crisis. He and his team are united
in how they operate. If any Member of this House would like
Brigadier Cundy and the recovery strategy unit to work with them
and their constituents, they need only contact me and I will
ensure that we have action this day.
Foreign developers and those who operate opaque structures that
enable individuals to profit and to evade their responsibility,
which the hon. Lady referred to, are precisely and squarely
within the remit of the RSU. I would be delighted for Graham and
his team to brief Opposition Front Benchers and others on our
approach. Some of the work undertaken requires a degree of
commercial confidentiality, but I would be delighted to share
that work.
Finally, the hon. Lady asked if we will maintain our commitment
to abolish the feudal system of leasehold. We absolutely will. We
will bring forward legislation shortly. But I gently say that the
urgency with which she makes the case for change was not an
urgency exhibited by the last Labour Government. In 1995—[Hon.
Members: “You can’t blame us for this!”] I think we can,
actually. In 1995, this brilliant document entitled “An end to
feudalism” was published by the Labour party, then during all
their years in power, the Labour Government did nothing to end
feudalism. We need a Conservative Government to do that, and that
is what we will do.
(Worthing West) (Con)
I am a leaseholder without any problems. In 2002, 20 years ago,
Parliament and the Labour Government passed leasehold and
commonhold reform, but the commonhold bit did not work.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said and I hope that the
House will manage to pass the Law Commission’s proposals on the
reform of leasehold and commonhold and that we will be able to
make progress. Incidentally, that would make the value of
leasehold properties higher and the revenue would in part go to
the Treasury, so his colleagues in government should be helping
him to get this legislation brought to Parliament, not hindering
it.
I also welcome what my right hon. Friend has announced on
commissions. Can he find a way of ensuring that leaseholders who
pay for buildings insurance become a party to the insurance
policy, so that when things go wrong they can appeal to the
insurance ombudsman and not be cut out because they are only
paying and do not own the bricks?
Those responsible for the defects all had insurers, including the
developers, architects, surveyors, component manufacturers,
building control and, as my right hon. Friend has said, the
Government in setting standards. I suggest that he re-engage with
the insurance industry, because if people can take over the
claims from those who have had losses—including the leaseholders
and, for that matter, some of the landlords—and have a class
action, the insurers will have to contribute significantly more
than they are at the moment. There is much more progress to be
made, so will he and his colleagues ensure that they carry on
listening to the leaseholders and their representatives, and
hopefully, in time, to the representatives of commonholders
too?
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. Please can I ask everyone to focus on asking single
questions? Otherwise, it will be well after 1 o’clock before we
get on to the Adjournment debate tonight.
Leaseholders have no better champion in this House than the
Father of the House, and we absolutely will proceed along the
lines that the Law Commission has outlined. I know that
colleagues in His Majesty’s Treasury will appreciate the benefits
that will accrue to the whole national economy through reform.
The points that my hon. Friend makes about the insurance sector
are well made, totally understood and will be acted on.
(Glasgow South West)
(SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his
statement. He has rightly said the quiet part out loud—namely,
that faulty and ambiguous Government guidance is to blame,
alongside those who exploited a broken system. But his statement
was light on the support that will be given to those who are
carrying out remediation works. He knows that I have a
constituency interest in this regard, with Bell Building Projects
carrying out work. What help will be given to companies carrying
out remediation works in relation to insurance? He rightly says
that insurance companies are throttling the market, so can he say
a bit more about what he is doing to assist those who are
carrying out the remediation work? Will he give us an assurance
that they will be paid on time by Homes England, for example, and
that their issues will be timeously dealt with? Will he meet me
to discuss some of the issues that this company has been faced in
the recent past?
I am grateful to the hon. Member. The statement refers
specifically to action in England, but we have been working with
the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern
Ireland Executive to see what can be done to make buildings safe
in those jurisdictions. On his point about remediation work, a
number of companies in the private sector across the United
Kingdom are contributing to this work and I have already raised
with the chairman and chief executive of Homes England the
importance of ensuring that they are paid for their work in a
timely fashion. I will investigate further to make sure that
progress is being made, particularly in the areas of insurance
that the hon. Member mentions.
(Wokingham) (Con)
What actions will the Government take to make it more likely that
people will set up new construction companies and grow smaller
companies, since we clearly need more capacity and more
competition to get high-quality work done?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and many of the
provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill are designed
explicitly to aid the entry of new small and medium-sized
enterprises into the construction sector. Many of those
provisions follow on from the excellent work of my hon. Friend
the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), who as a champion of
self and custom builders has done more than anyone else in this
House to help to ensure diversification in housing supply.
(Sheffield South East)
(Lab)
I welcome the progress made so far. In a couple of weeks’ time,
the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee will be
looking further at the omissions that probably still exist in the
system, including how the Secretary of State will actually get
the money out of the product providers, on which he has not given
details.
Today’s big omission is social housing. Help for leaseholders is
very welcome, but social housing providers, housing associations
and councils are challenged with disrepair problems and the need
to make their homes more energy-efficient, on top of which they
now have the building safety work. Apart from on ACM cladding,
there is no help at all for social housing providers. Why can the
Secretary of State not remedy this unfairness?
The Chairman of the Select Committee makes an important point. I
am grateful for his support for the progress we have made. I am
well aware of the pressures on the social housing sector and of
the need to work collectively to ensure it can discharge its
obligations. I hope to say more about how we can do so in the
weeks ahead.
Sir (New Forest East) (Con)
I declare an interest as a leaseholder.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the progress he has made.
If he does reform the freehold and leasehold systems, what
provision will he make so that people with short leases are able
to take over their freehold without having to pay huge charges
for extending their lease, which is the current situation?
My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and we need to
make sure there is a fair valuation so that, as the Father of the
House rightly said, those on short-term leases do not have to pay
over the odds to acquire freehold or commonhold status if the
value of the property increases.
(Brentford and Isleworth)
(Lab)
Flammable cladding and fire safety issues are not the only
building safety concerns that affect the residents of blocks,
particularly those built since the post-2010 bonfire of red tape.
What is the Secretary of State doing to protect leaseholders and
residents in blocks that have non-fire-related safety issues?
The hon. Lady makes an important point. One of the things I
announced last week was new support, initially for Greater
Manchester and the west midlands, to make safe a variety of
safety issues in social housing in particular. We all have the
horrific death of Awaab Ishak in our mind and on our conscience.
More work is required on building safety, and I gently say that I
do not believe there is a material difference in our post-2010
approach to this important issue, but I do believe this
Government should have acted earlier to learn the lessons of the
past.
(Hendon) (Con)
This issue has been a Kafkaesque nightmare for so many of our
constituents. It has exposed the sharp practices of freeholders
and management companies. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge
the work done by many of us Conservative Back Benchers in voting
against the Government on many occasions and, particularly, the
work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (), who unfortunately is
not here today, and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton,
Itchen (), who has just walked into
the Chamber?
Although I never endorse voting against this Government under any
circumstances, I nevertheless reflect on the heroism and
principle of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage
() and my hon. Friend the
Member for Southampton, Itchen (), who have been genuine
friends of those in need.
(Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Everybody agrees that leaseholders should not carry the can for
these dangerous buildings, but the problem is in the delivery. I
have been contacted by many constituents, including those on
Planetree Path in Walthamstow, who cannot turn to their developer
because it has gone bust, and whose freeholders claim to be too
small to be liable. In the absence of anybody to hold to account,
these residents have already had to scrape together £10,000 to
pay for the surveys and reviews required before a single change
can be contemplated to make safe the buildings in which they
live. Can the Secretary of State confirm that those residents
will be able to reclaim those costs from the building safety
fund? How will that happen so the Government can make good on
their pledge that leaseholders will not pay the costs?
I very much doubt the freeholders’ appeals to poverty in this
case. If the hon. Lady lets me know precisely who the freeholders
are, the RSU can make sure we find the truth.
(Ipswich) (Con)
It is vitally important that we make these buildings safe, and
that leaseholders should be paid, but it is also vitally
important that, when this remediation work is carried out, the
mental health of those still living in the buildings is taken
into account. Twenty months ago, after the management of St
Francis Tower gained access to the building safety fund, a giant
shrink wrap was put on the building. A number of my constituents
have been literally living in darkness. I would not allow animals
to live in those conditions, and it should not be legal. Has any
thought been given to a code of practice with teeth that sets
benchmarks for what is acceptable and what is not acceptable when
it comes to this sort of work? The block management of St Francis
Tower have badly let down the residents, and I believe they have
acted in an immoral way.
My hon. Friend has been a very effective advocate for those
residents and for people in the Cardinal Lofts building. He is
absolutely right; sometimes it is necessary to decant people from
buildings that are unsafe, and there should be an obligation on
those who are doing that to ensure that people are in appropriate
accommodation. More will follow in order to ensure that we give
teeth to that provision.
(Cardiff South and Penarth)
(Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State is aware that thousands of residents in my
constituency are affected and are in buildings with issues such
as these. There is a great deal of frustration, and I met some of
them again last week to hear their concerns. He spoke about tough
action against those who have not signed up to the contract or
the pledge. He will be aware that there is a similar developers’
pledge in Wales, to which 11 companies have signed up. However, a
number have not done so, including Laing O’Rourke. Has it signed
up to the pledge in England? If it has not, what is his message
to that company? Will he also take action against companies that
fail to sign up to the pledges in other parts of the United
Kingdom?
I will work with all the devolved Administrations to ensure that
we work together on this. I do not know whether Laing O’Rourke
has yet signed, but if it does not, it will face consequences. I
look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman and of course the
Welsh Government.
(Brent North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said that those who built these buildings
did not always build them safely, “at times knowingly”. What
sanctions will be faced by those who knowingly took shortcuts on
safety, endangering and blighting residents’ lives, and who will
bring them? As for the companies that he says must either sign or
get out and find another business, what happens when they simply
go out of business and pop up under another name?
The hon. Gentleman makes some very good points. We have found
that one particular company— I will not name it at the Dispatch
Box at this time but I am more than happy to name it in private
conversation—has tried to do just that and shift responsibility,
and it was directly involved in construction at Grenfell. As a
result, we have said that it cannot have access to Government
funds through Help to Buy or any other schemes. The whole
question of what further action may be taken against companies
that knowingly put people’s lives at risk will be a matter for
the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, following on from
the conclusion of the Grenfell inquiry. I know that people have
had to wait a long time for justice. I do sympathise with them,
but, obviously, I cannot interfere with the independent operation
of the justice system.
(Islington North) (Ind)
The Secretary of State will know from my correspondence with him
about buildings in Drayton Park and in other parts of my
constituency the deep stress and concern that many leaseholders
and tenants have had. They have had to pay increased insurance
costs and they have had their lives put on hold, as many other
colleagues’ constituents have. I think they deserve compensation
for the increased payments they have had to make. They also need
to know exactly when this work will begin. They have been waiting
years for it. I want to be able to go back to them and say that
it is going to start—I would like to give them a date.
That is entirely understandable, and once construction companies
have signed this contract—and indeed this applies to social
landlords too, once they commit to remediation—they should be in
touch with the tenants and leaseholders to let them know when
that work will be carried out. Again, I want to make sure that
everyone is operating as they should. I would be grateful to the
right hon. Gentleman if he could let me know, building by
building, scheme by scheme, where people are still in doubt about
this, and we will do everything possible to give them the
information they deserve.
(Leeds Central) (Lab)
Far too many leaseholders are still living in properties that
have not been remediated, including in my constituency at Cartier
House, the Gateway, and the Drive, Saxton Gardens, which was
turned down for building safety funding even though the cladding
has recently failed a fire test. As a result, five and a half
years after Grenfell, a waking watch has been put in place. This
is not good enough, is it? When are they going to get sorted
out?
No, it is not. There are a number of other constituencies and
local authorities where either a waking watch has been installed
or people have had to be decanted from the building, as was the
case in Ipswich and in South Yorkshire. We are seeking to move as
quickly as possible in order to ensure that that work advances.
As I mentioned, the overwhelming majority of the buildings over
18 metres that have ACM now have work in place or being carried
out. However, I will follow up on the individual cases that the
right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to mention.
(North Shropshire) (LD)
The statement today is a welcome, if belated, step in the right
direction. We all agree across the House, I think, that leasehold
is no longer a fit-for-purpose form of property ownership. Can
the Secretary of State give us some timelines of when he might be
bringing property ownership into the 21st century?
The aim is to do this in the Queen’s Speech.
(Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said nothing about leaseholders in smaller
buildings, nothing about leaseholders who have bought their
freeholds, and, above all, nothing about social housing. This is
a time when social landlords are selling their vacant stock and
not developing new programmes. When will he make some
announcement on this? At the moment, the only solution is for the
Government to step into the shoes of social landlords. Why should
social tenants have to pay for these mistakes?
I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman’s passion and commitment on
this issue. I trespassed on the House’s patience by speaking for
more than 10 minutes, so there were a number of issues that I did
not cover. I hope to be able to do so in greater detail at
departmental questions and through correspondence. The nub of the
matter is that this Government have acted, and are acting, to
ensure that social housing tenants get a better deal. The
announcement I made last week, while it is only £30 million, is
earnest in its intent to ensure that tenants in social homes get
money from central Government in order to ensure that they are
safe.
Sir (East Ham) (Lab)
My constituents welcome the Secretary of State’s grasp of their
problems, but his changes have required some arrangements that
were previously in place to be reworked. In the case of Barrier
Point in my constituency, the insurers have responded to the
delay by increasing the insurance charges for the coming
financial year sixfold, as set out in my letter to him dated 13
January. Will the changes that he has announced offer any
assistance and relief to them?
They should do. Again, the right hon. Gentleman homes in on
something that is very important, as have a number of other
colleagues. Developers are stepping up to the plate and accepting
their responsibilities, with one or two exceptions, and those
developers have to alter their behaviour. It is also the case
that lenders, for the most part, have changed their behaviour in
order to help people who are trapped by their mortgages—but we
have to monitor that behaviour. There are others—and the insurers
as well as construction product manufacturers are squarely in our
gun sights—who do need to do more. I believe that what we have
announced today will help, but there does need to be additional
Financial Conduct Authority and Government co-ordinated action.
If the right hon. Gentleman has not yet received a response to
his letter, I hope to lay out in my response exactly what we will
do.
(Putney) (Lab)
My constituents will welcome this statement, but they will not
break out in celebrations just yet. We want to see some action.
Two big developments in my constituency, which had unsafe
cladding identified three years ago, applied to the building
safety fund. Since then they have been given vague promises by
the developer but no action from the building safety fund. Can
the Secretary of State confirm that those developments will now
be taken out of the building safety fund and given to their
developers, who will be told to do the remediation by a certain
date, so that this lack of clarity over who is responsible for
getting on with it is ended, and people can at last sleep well at
night?
That is exactly what today’s announcement is intended to
achieve.
(Vauxhall)
(Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the overdue progress on developer responsibility; that
gives some hope to my constituents. I want to draw the Secretary
of State’s attention to an area that is often forgotten: safety
for disabled residents. We know that the death rate for disabled
residents in high-rise buildings is quite high. This delay has
had a catastrophic effect. In December, a constituent emailed me
to say that his young relative, who was in a wheelchair, had died
when a fire broke out in her flat because she had no way to
escape. Avoidable tragedies such as that will keep happening
until we make the change. How can this be acceptable?
The hon. Lady is completely correct. There are some inherited
structural problems with high-rise buildings in this country,
which make life more difficult for residents living with
disabilities. For example, we tend to have one staircase only,
whereas other countries tend to have two. Critically, one
recommendation from the inquiry—the need for personal emergency
evacuation plans—is one that the Government have not yet met. I
have been working with my colleagues in the Home Office to make
sure that we do, but I understand her exasperation. We need to
move more quickly to give disabled people the certainty that they
will be safe.
(Ellesmere Port and Neston)
(Lab)
May I point out to the Secretary of State, who chastised the
previous Labour Government for not abolishing leasehold, that
most of the industrial-scale scandals we are now familiar with
developed over the past decade? I think we are all agreed, are we
not, that leasehold’s time is up, so can he give us a date by
which all our constituents will be free of that feudal
practice?
That will depend on how quickly this House can agree the passage
of the Bill. Given the generous words from the Opposition Front
Bench, if we introduce it in the Queen’s Speech, then I hope it
will be law as quickly as possible. One thing we all recognise is
that when a system of property ownership has grown up over
centuries, unpicking it all requires delicate work, but that work
has been done by the Law Commission and others. I hope that our
friends in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, who are the
unsung heroes and heroines of legislation, will hear the
determined chorus of unity across the House asking for the
legislation to be developed as quickly as possible.
(Belfast East) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his ongoing commitment on
these issues. He may be aware that in my constituency there is
the ARC—the Abercorn residential complex—a building complex with
474 individual leaseholders. They know that their building has
non-ACM cladding that needs to be remediated and that the
Northern Ireland Executive received money through Barnett funds
in March 2020, but the Northern Ireland Department for
Communities has yet to develop a scheme that can advance those
essential remediation works. There has been a request to
Whitehall, so will he engage with my colleagues and me to ensure
that the Northern Ireland Executive are given the support they
need to deliver the remediation?
Absolutely. I will ask , the second permanent secretary of my Department, to be
in touch with the Northern Ireland Executive this week to do just
that.
(Weaver Vale) (Lab)
On what date can we expect a positive response on personal
emergency evacuation plans and the next and final stage of
leasehold reform, to put it in the history books?
On PEEPs, I am reliant on the good offices of my friends in the
Home Office. They are working hard and I hope to update the House
shortly. On leasehold, the plan is for a Bill to be introduced in
the Queen’s Speech and then rapid progress through this House; I
do not know whether in the other place there might be one or two
people who are pro-feudalism, but I hope they will recognise that
this House will be speaking with a united voice.
(Lewisham West and Penge)
(Lab)
Dane House in Sydenham is a four-storey block of 26 flats with
cladding on the third floor. Due to fire safety concerns, the
building insurance is more than £23,000. Given today’s statement,
will the original developers, Crest Nicholson, now be obliged to
remove the cladding? The Secretary of State has talked about
tackling insurance, but will he give a commitment that my
constituents will no longer face such astronomical bills?
We will do everything we can, and I hope Crest Nicholson will
hear clearly exactly the eloquent plea the hon. Lady makes.
(Bethnal Green and Bow)
(Lab)
In my borough we have the largest number of cladded blocks and we
have had numerous fires, which have terrified residents. Last
March, more than 100 firefighters were at the scene of one fire
on Whitechapel High Street, in Houblon Apartments in the Relay
Building. The building is owned by a mixture of private companies
and social housing providers, and residents could not make head
or tail of where the owners of the private companies were. There
is a major issue with freeholders who are registered offshore so
that our constituents cannot track them down. After years of
asking for this, I ask again: can the Secretary of State commit
to providing the legal support, or to the Government’s going
directly after those who are not doing the work they are supposed
to, rather than our constituents’ having to fight legal battles
on top of living in dangerous cladded properties?
That is exactly what our establishment of the recovery strategy
unit is designed to do. I hope the hon. Lady will be in touch
directly with Brigadier Cundy.
(Sheffield Central)
(Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State’s ministerial and staff team for
the support they have given to residents in Wicker Riverside.
However, he will be aware of another case in my constituency,
that of Mandale House, where the managing agency, Y&Y
Management, which has directors in common with the landlords, is
not only denying leaseholders their rights, but challenging the
legal status of the legislation we have passed to protect them,
presumably believing that the leaseholders will not have the
resources to challenge them in court. Can the Secretary of State
explain how today’s announcement will help leaseholders in
Mandale House, and will he assure me that his Department will
provide all the support they need to make Y&Y Management
fulfil its responsibilities?
We absolutely will—it is with their concerns in mind that I made
the statement today. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his
kind words about the Department’s engagement. May I thank, in
particular, the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the
Member for North East Derbyshire (), who has made personal visits to many of those who
are most directly affected and is ensuring that, within the
Department, every lever is being pulled to help them on an
individual basis?
(Reading East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Could he
explain to the House how this action will help residents living
in blocks that are just under the threshold for intervention? We
have many such blocks in Reading and Woodley. In addition, could
he update the House on what measures the Department will take to
tackle wooden cladding, insufficient partitions walls, and weak
or unsafe fire doors?
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to stress that it is not
just cladding and buildings over 18 metres; there are other fire
safety issues. It will be the responsibility of developers or,
where appropriate, freeholders, to address those under the
waterfall system that we have put in place through the Building
Safety Act 2022.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for his statement.
Building safety is vital for all parts of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Further to the point made by
my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (), may I request a timescale
for communications between the Department for Levelling Up,
Housing and Communities and the Department for Communities in
Northern Ireland, which has responsibility for this? One thing to
consider in all this is that we in Northern Ireland deserve the
same safety as residents here on the United Kingdom mainland.
I could not agree more. I will ask , the second permanent secretary at my Department, to be
in touch with the Department for Communities this week. I will
write to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Belfast East
() with an update on the
progress that we expect to make.
May I apologise to the House for referring to the Queen’s Speech,
when I should, of course, have referred to the King’s Speech?
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Thank you very much. I thank the Secretary of State for his
statement and for responding to multiple questions.
|
