The Member of Parliament asks whether the Minister’s announcement on building safety addresses the concerns raised by residents in his constituency who are facing huge bills to rectify cladding issues and questions why leaseholders should be forced to pay for these when it is clear that the cost should fall on developers.

The Member of Parliament highlights the need for a more assertive stance towards irresponsible developers and questions the effectiveness of measures like withdrawing eligibility from Help to Buy schemes, given that these companies have not been deterred in the past. He also criticises the lack of clarity on how costs will be recovered if negotiations fail.

The Member of Parliament asks whether the announcement addresses concerns around rising insurance premiums for leaseholders and questions how these costs can be mitigated.

The Member of Parliament raises concerns about the impact on local authorities and housing associations, questioning how they will be supported in addressing building safety issues.

May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your kind words about Jack Dromey, who should have been with us here today? There is a space over there that I know Jack would have occupied. Back in the 1970s, horrified by the spectacle of a skyscraper in London that lay empty while people slept rough underneath it, Jack was one of those who occupied Centre Point tower in protest. He was never afraid to speak truth to power, and I hope that today marks the start of all of us across the House invoking his spirit. Four and a half years after the appalling tragedy at Grenfell, and with a road paved with broken promises and false dawns, hundreds of thousands are still trapped in unsafe homes, millions are caught in the wider crisis, and the families of 72 people who lost their lives are waiting for justice. It is a relief that we finally have a consensus that the developers and manufacturers who profited from this appalling scandal should bear greater costs, not the victims, and that blameless leaseholders must not pay. After a year of hell of the prospect hanging over leaseholders, we welcome the decision to remove the threat of forced loans, but can the Secretary of State tell us what makes him think that he can force developers, who have refused to do the right thing for four years, to pay up? We have been told there is a March deadline and a roundtable, but there is not a plan. If he has one, can we hear it?

I will co-operate, Mr Speaker, and may I say, through you, to the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), that the tributes to her husband Jack Dromey for his work on people’s interests at work and at home will be long remembered, together with that of David Amess, who for 20 years worked on the all-party group on fire safety and rescue with Ronnie King and others? I believe that this is another step forward that is greatly welcomed and greatly needed, but I think the extension of the liability to 30 years is wrong for those who knew that what they were doing was wrong: 30 years may be fine for those who did it by mistake, but for those who knew what they were doing, there should be unlimited liability both in time and in money. I hope that the Secretary of State will have a roundtable. If he wants to take over the all-party group roundtable for a summit on this, he can pick up some of the other issues that no doubt he has been working on, but which, to keep his statement reasonable, he may not have covered today. One problem is the insurance premiums paid by leaseholders for a property they do not own, which may have gone up from an illustrative £300 a year to £3,000 a year. I believe that the Association of British Insurers should be told that the Competition and Markets Authority will look to see whether there is price gouging, in simple terms, and, that if there is some kind of catastrophic reinsurance needed, the Government should help them to make communal arrangements to deal with that, because insurance premiums should come down to the £300 they were before. The last point of very many I would like to make is that the Treasury will expect to get the benefit of the levy and tax towards the £5 billion already announced, and the contributions that will come in from developers will relieve burdens on residential leaseholders, but the Government should also get the VAT on money that is spent, which is 20% of the total cost. If the total cost comes down from £15 billion to, say, £12 billion, my right hon. Friend can calculate and discuss with the Treasury how much extra the Treasury is getting. The Treasury should not be making a profit out of all this catastrophe.

I wish to echo the sentiments from across the House on the work Jack Dromey did on this issue and his campaigning to get justice for those affected. It has been almost five years since the Grenfell fire. In that time, we have had four Housing Secretaries and several different policies and approaches to this issue. First the Government would pay, then leaseholders would pay and now developers will pay, all because the Treasury has for so long refused to act further on this issue. The confusion is not only harming homeowners facing a Tory cost of living crisis, but affecting the ability of devolved Governments to plan their responses appropriately. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that this latest policy will be acted on, and will he commit to working with the devolved Governments to provide further clarity? Additionally, can he make it clear when already promised funding will fully and finally be delivered to the devolved Governments for this matter?

I welcome the direction of travel in the statement, specifically that leaseholders will not have to pay for cladding remediation. I am also glad that building product makers are now coming within the scope of Government, not only property developers. I have been personally shocked by some of the revelations coming from the Grenfell inquiry and I think that potentially we need to address the building products sector. May I stress to my right hon. Friend that speed and delivery here is critical? It is now four and a half years since the tragedy in my constituency. What is important is not only having a good plan, but executing it quickly and efficiently.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I am sure he will welcome an invitation from the Select Committee to come and discuss these matters further in detail. Just two important issues. First, will he clarify that leaseholders will not have to pay the cost of remediation, including non-cladding work, because that is not exactly what his statement says? Secondly, will he clarify that, apart from the removal of aluminium composite material cladding, the Government will give social housing providers no help whatsoever? If developers do not pay for the measures that he announced today or taxes are not raised, and there are cuts to his budget as a result, will that come off social housing provision as well? What assessment has he done of the total impact on the future building of social housing?

I welcome these further measures to provide critical support to leaseholders and to restore a greater degree of confidence to the housing market. In particular, may I welcome the future support for those in medium-rise buildings? It is a pity that the Treasury did not agree to that proposal in January of last year, but such is the way with this issue. May I ask my right hon. Friend about two particular points? First, he has agreed a backstop with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury whereby the ultimate risk will be borne by the provision of social housing. I am sure that he would agree that it would be quite wrong for social housing tenants and the homeless to pay the price for solving this issue, so will he say that that will not be the case? Secondly, I see that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has failed to make good on the conversations we have been having for several months, if not years, to instil a more proportionate and sensible approach into the assignment of risk. What further steps—he alluded to some in his remarks—can he take against RICS, because its behaviour is now bordering on scandalous in not taking this issue seriously?

My constituents in Eclipse House, Wood Green have been suffering for more than a year with astronomical costs due to fire door gaps and external wall insulation. Can the Minister confirm that these issues are not covered by today’s statement? Secondly, what voice will tenants have in the future?

I welcome today’s announcement which offers up to £9 billion support for leaseholders. Can you clarify if developers are responsible for internal fire safety defects and will there be amendments to the Building Safety Bill to protect innocent parties?

Many local authorities responded immediately after Grenfell but the private sector did not. Can I tell my constituents tomorrow that the Government will underwrite all their costs and help them sell and move on?

My right hon. Friend should crack the whip on this issue as it has caused much misery and anxiety, with clear issues of timing and other details to address.

A retired teacher in my constituency faces a £200,000 bill and £9 million remedial costs; will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and the leaseholders to discuss how the policy change benefits them?

Will the Government compensate leaseholders who have already paid for remedial work, and do they realise that leaseholders have no rights against building insurance policies?

Will the Secretary of State confirm that BSI guidance will be mandatory and that there are protections against assessors offering lightest touch mitigations?

Will the Secretary of State look again at insurers’ role in this problem, ensuring they have to pay as developers will?

Will the Secretary of State ensure that loopholes in company law are closed and that new developer obligations take precedence over other financial obligations?

I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement today but, like others, I will be awaiting the detail. What has happened to change the Government’s mind?

Today’s statement focuses on cladding, whereas the vast majority of leaseholders are suffering in unsafe homes as a result of other insulation and fire stopping defects. How will he address that? He has told the companies to pay up, but many have now gone into voluntary liquidation.

Many in my constituency face huge bills. The biggest problem is getting the developers to talk to those who have suffered. I spent two years trying to get representatives of Telford Homes to meet leaseholders, but they have now gone to ground.

There are many tall buildings in my constituency that have issues affecting them, including compartmentalisation costs and cladding types not covered under the scheme. Can the Secretary of State say something about the wider issue?

May I ask him to look again at sprinklers as a safety measure? They are required in many countries, and developers often use lower-quality materials which create a greater risk to safety.

Given that housing is a devolved matter, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive?

Everyone remembers their first visit to Bolton, but on his next visit, will the Secretary of State come with me to Holden Mill in Blackburn Road and Astley Bridge?

May I add my voice to those who have spoken of the sudden passing of Jack Dromey? Leaseholders are feeling anxious and angry about delays, including residents of the Parkside development in my constituency.

Building owners are still dragging their feet, delaying essential remedial works even though they might be eligible for Government funding. What incentive can he give today?

The Secretary of State acknowledges the unjust treatment of buildings under 18 metres. However, what he has outlined will involve a voluntary contribution from developers which may take a while.

The complexity of this issue has been highlighted by the Secretary of State’s statement and questioning. May I challenge him on one point?

Leaseholders in the constituency have struggled with issues around fire safety and cladding, impacting their mental wellbeing. Will the Secretary of State bring forward additional measures to support leaseholders’ mental health?

Will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that the bodies responsible for the cladding crisis cannot find a place to hide and will be pursued to pay for it?

How retrospective will these measures be and will constituents receive compensation for waking watch costs? Will there be an end to the EWS1 forms?

Can the Secretary of State confirm that this means the Government are accepting the principle of polluter pays? How confident is he that those responsible will pay without additional taxation?

Will officials look at the issue of companies that work from England and are subject to its strictures, but also work in Wales?

Will leaseholders—living in buildings of 11 metres or lower, or having problems with external or internal building defects—not pay any costs?

When will there be a deadline for developers and businesses to take responsibility? Will residents in buildings under 11 metres be covered?

What assurances can my right hon Friend give constituents concerned about imminent bills for remediation?

Will the Secretary of State amend the Building Safety Bill to finally clarify responsibility and load the burden where it belongs—on developers, builders and manufacturers?

Morello Quarter in my constituency has issues not only with cladding but with other building defects such as the apparent lack of firebreaks. Will my right hon. Friend include those in the scope of the measures, or should I go back to my residents and tell them to pursue legal action against the developers?

Will the Secretary of State spell out how the statutory protection he has announced will help leaseholders in developments such as Waterside Park, built by Barratt in my constituency, which does not have a cladding problem, but where apartments have become valueless because of other serious building defects—missing firebreaks and unsafe insulation?

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the work that the Minister has done as well. I hope it will bring resolution to people in blocks of flats in Plough Lane in the centre of Wimbledon and in Chorus properties. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he will expect and, if necessary, require lenders to base their lending decisions in future on the new risk mechanism?

The Secretary of State has been asked by both sides of the House about protecting social landlords and tenants from remediation costs. Will he answer that point, bearing in mind that the biggest social landlords have said that their new housing programmes will be cut by 40% over the next five years if they have to cover fire safety costs themselves?

My right hon. Friend spoke earlier about lifting the cloud that is hanging over leaseholders. Can he provide reassurance to residents such as those in Banning Street in Romsey, where the building is sub-18 metres, the freeholder is a housing association and the defects are cladding related, that they will be swept up in his reforms?

Sadly, cladding is not one of the only risks to building safety: flooding is another huge risk. While the Secretary of State is open to looking at amendments to building safety in general, will he also look at strengthening the standards for all new public and private buildings in terms of flood resilience?

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, which will yield significant benefits directly for leaseholders in England. As he has acknowledged, this policy area is devolved and therefore responsibility in Wales falls to the Welsh Government. However, the UK Government, through their initiatives, may well raise significant sums of money for this purpose.

It was a good weekend for Cambridge United, but sadly the misery continues for so many people in and around Cambridge who find themselves trapped in buildings that were not built to the expected standards. For so many of those people, lack of an EWS1 form means that they cannot move—they are absolutely trapped.

In welcoming my right hon. Friend’s statement, may I draw his attention to the situation at Nobel House in Redhill? The development has 126 apartments, 86 of which are privately leased, but the ownership of the freehold has changed twice.

The shadow Secretary of State said that we cannot make a building half safe, but some residential buildings are possibly more dangerous than others. In October 2020, over 800 leaseholders and students were evicted from the Paragon blocks in Brentford.

My right hon. Friend is entirely correct that this is a substantial step forward, and he and the Minister for Housing, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) are to be congratulated on it.

Welcomes the statement but expresses concern for leaseholders facing non-cladding costs and bankruptcy. Asks how these individuals should handle their bills in light of statutory protection.

Urges the Secretary of State to revisit his previous answers about liability for non-cladding costs due to a perverse incentive.

Asks that the Government act promptly to fix regulatory failures and recover money from developers without delay.

Welcomes the statement and inquires about enabling lenders and insurers to offer products at reasonable rates.

Inquires if reimbursement will be provided for waking watch costs already incurred by leaseholders.

Welcomes scrapping of loan scheme and inquires if naming and shaming could be an effective tool.

Asks for steps to ensure that costs are not solely on tenants and inquires about tax breaks for developers.

Inquires about contributions from construction product manufacturers towards remediation costs.

Asks about discussions with devolved Administrations on remediating buildings across the UK.

Welcomed the announcement on cladding remediation for flats between 11 to 18 metres, but expressed concerns about non-cladding issues and living conditions during remediation work. Invited the Minister to visit St Francis Tower in Ipswich.

Welcomed measures announced but urged the Minister for greater detail and speed in implementation, as constituents are desperate for certainty.

Welcomed announcement but raised concerns about electrical safety standards, suggesting that all homes should have regular inspections like MOTs.

Linked safety issues with broader developer and house builder accountability, suggesting public sympathy would be low for further delays.