← Back to House of Commons Debates
Flammable Cladding Removal
14 July 2020
Lead MP
Rushanara Ali
Debate Type
Adjournment Debate
Tags
HousingEnvironment
Other Contributors: 6
At a Glance
Rushanara Ali raised concerns about flammable cladding removal in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The MP paid respects to those who lost their lives in the Grenfell Tower fire. She highlighted that an estimated 60,000 people are still living in homes with dangerous aluminium composite material cladding, along with many more in buildings at risk due to other factors. The Fire Brigades Union estimates that over half a million people are currently residing in unsafe housing across the UK as a result of flammable materials like ACM and HPL. She criticised the government for taking too long to fund removal efforts (1 year for social sector, 2 years for private) and stated that £3-3.5 billion is needed compared to the £1.6 billion provided so far. Residents cannot sell or remortgage their flats due to a lack of EWS1 forms and fear of fire risks. She called on the government to use powers if necessary, including compulsory purchasing orders for non-compliant building owners.
Meg Hillier
Lab
The MP emphasised the need for better insurance coverage and quick action on professional indemnity insurance.
Stephen Doughty
Lab
The MP highlighted the responsibilities of original developers in ensuring fire safety measures, including the refusal by Laing O’Rourke to engage with residents regarding fire safety issues at Celestia development.
Tom Hunt
Con
Ipswich
The MP supported the view that leaseholders should not be harassed for payments to remove dangerous cladding at St Francis Tower in Ipswich.
Andrew Slaughter
Lab
Hounslow West
The MP agreed with the need for more funding and wider identification of tall buildings and those with high-value occupants like hospitals.
Stephen Timms
Lab
East Ham
The MP noted that only £1 billion building safety fund would cover 600 buildings, whereas the need is much greater to ensure all unsafe buildings are remediated.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
The MP raised concerns about Northern Ireland students in university flats and housing being at risk of fire safety issues similar to Grenfell Tower.
Government Response
The Minister acknowledged the importance of the debate and thanked Rushanara Ali for her work. He stated that the Building Safety Programme was established within days of the Grenfell Tower fire, aiming to remove unsafe ACM cladding from high-rise buildings at no cost to leaseholders. £1.6 billion in funding has been set aside for remediation efforts, with progress being made but much more still required. The Minister emphasised that building owners and managers should be responsible for costs, but public funding is available for those who cannot afford it themselves. He committed to increasing pace of remediation through specialist consultants like Faithful+Gould and announced an additional £1 billion fund for non-ACM unsafe cladding materials. The Fire Safety Bill was mentioned as a key measure to strengthen enforcement actions against irresponsible behaviour. The Minister also addressed concerns about waking watch costs, committing to investigate ways to reduce these expenses. He reiterated the government’s commitment to address professional indemnity insurance issues.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.