The MP's question or point. Include their concern, local impact, or criticism. 2-4 sentences.

The hon. Member for Bristol West expressed concern over the lack of progress in remediation efforts despite previous commitments, noting that hundreds of thousands are still living in unsafe homes three and a half years after the Grenfell tragedy. She questioned the adequacy of the funding announced, particularly its coverage for buildings under 18 metres which remain excluded from certain funds. Debbonaire also raised issues about loan terms such as interest rates and repayment conditions, stressing the financial hardship faced by leaseholders who are unable to sell their properties due to safety concerns.

May I first say that I am a leaseholder who is neither affected by the problem nor gaining by the solution? We recognise that this is another set of major steps along the way. During the last three years, the problems have been spelled out by the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for working together in a cross- party way. There will be more to do, and the Select Committee will no doubt have hearings. Will my right hon. Friend thank the Chancellor and the Prime Minister for helping to make the funding available? I do not claim that it is going to be enough, but it is a major step forward and I recognise that. There is a problem about low-rise accommodation in low-income areas looking at high-rises in high-income areas getting more direct help. Will my right hon. Friend talk about that? Can he also confirm that no leaseholder who does not actually own anything will have to sign away any of their rights to eventual compensation, as and when the inquiry finishes and any civil claims of liability against developers, cladding manufacturers, local building control or national regulators come to be finalised?

The announcement today of an additional £3.5 billion is encouraging as far as it goes, and I am sure that the Scottish Government look forward to the consequentials arising from it. What the Secretary of State has said will offer some relief to homeowners affected by cladding issues, many of whom are already struggling with bills and simply do not feel able to take on more debt as their dream homes have become a nightmare, with mortgage valuations of zero due to unsafe cladding. As he knows, the consequences have been far reaching for those caught up in this scandal, with homes currently worth nothing that cannot be sold and in which residents feel unsafe. I very much welcome the responsibility for cladding being borne—in part, at least—by the larger players in the industry, but more details as to how that works are needed. Despite the Secretary of State saying that no leaseholder will ever pay back more than £50 a month in loans to remove this cladding, I am sure that he will understand that that will still be disappointing for many, since, through no fault of their own, they are still facing additional costs after buying their homes in good faith; they face debt that they do not want and which will impact on household incomes during these difficult times. Much more detail on exactly how these low interest loans will work is needed. Can the Secretary of State confirm that there will be an upper limit to these additional costs for leaseholders, or is the £50 cap only a monthly cap? He will appreciate that this matters because building work so often overruns. Will he also tell me within what timeframe he expects this remediation work to be completed?

I thank the Secretary of State for working so closely with me on cladding issues over the past 15 months. I have been calling for a substantial and comprehensive package for cladding remediation, so I warmly welcome this announcement, which, importantly, allows funds to be deployed very quickly and does not require taskforces or legislation. I have called for a package of £5 billion to £10 billion; I quickly tried to tot up all the numbers as the Secretary of State went through the details, and I think this funding could be approaching certainly the middle if not the upper end of that range. Will he confirm that and assure me that money will be deployed as quickly as possible?

On behalf of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I thank the Secretary for his statement and welcome it—as far as it goes, because in terms of the Select Committee recommendations, it only goes so far. I invite him to come back to the Select Committee to discuss the issues in more detail shortly after the recess. First, immediately, will he confirm that as a result of the loan scheme, no leaseholder will be placed in negative equity? Secondly, has he done any assessment of the total amount of additional non-cladding costs to deal with building safety that will fall on leaseholders? Finally, will he confirm that there is no help in his statement for councils and housing associations, and that as a result, to carry out essential safety work, they are going to have to put up rents, cut maintenance or cut the number of affordable homes that they can build?

I welcome the measures that my right hon. Friend has set out, but may I urge him to review the long-term issues here? Profitability should not come before safety. Will he look into the issue that I hear about regularly of new build properties not being built to high enough standards, leaving homeowners spending months chasing developers to come back and fix problems with their homes?

I agree with everything my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) said, with knobs on. My constituents will not be reassured by what they have heard. Loans for leaseholders still are not off the table. The Secretary of State has avoided talking about non-cladding costs, and there is still no guarantee that my constituents will not be left with large associated bills for problems they did not create. A number of institutions are profiteering from this crisis, including parts of the insurance industry and others, with eye-watering premiums. Why are we still waiting for the Secretary of State to get a grip on this crisis?

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement; it was clearly the right one. What leaseholders will ultimately care about is making sure that this remediation is done. What work is he undertaking with small and medium-sized enterprises, such as S Bayliss Roofing and Cladding in Tipton, to make sure that they can get this work done, so that leaseholders can finally be free of this dangerous cladding and the impact that it has on their status as homeowners?

I am pleased that the Secretary of State wants to tackle rising insurance premiums, but I have spoken to many leaseholders in my constituency of Luton South who have faced the additional costs of interim safety measures, such as waking watch, and of fixing other fire safety issues, which the Secretary of State seemed to push back on. These joined-up financial pressures are pushing many leaseholders near to bankruptcy, so what are the Government doing to help bring down these costs?

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and know that many people in my constituency and across the country will be relieved that the Government are taking further action on the issue of unsafe cladding. Does he agree that speed is of the essence, and will he confirm that the additional financial remediation will help relieve the worry and remove unfair and unfounded costs on leaseholders to deal with the removal of unsafe cladding?

When there was a failure of regulation in the City, the Government bailed out the banks in a matter of days, to the tune of £500 billion. In the face of a failure of fire safety regulation, when people are terrified of burning to death in their homes, the Government have taken three and a half years and offered only £6 billion. My constituents are still facing the costs of non-cladding fire safety problems, waking watches and more, so when will the Government accept the basic principle that cladding victims should not have to pay a penny to fix fire safety problems that are not of their making?

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement on building safety. Warrington does not have any apartments over 18 metres, which would require remediation, but I have heard from a number of parents concerned that their sons and daughters are paying additional charges, levied by landlords, to cover the cost of insurance and waking watches in apartments that they have purchased. What steps are the Government taking to cover these costs, so that the burden does not fall on families in my constituency?

The Secretary of State has referred to fairness and the need for building companies to step up, but what more is he doing to pursue those responsible for unsafe homes, leaving taxpayers and leaseholders to meet clean-up costs?

Will he assure me that the wealthiest individuals and organisations in the land will be paying their fair share?

What will the Government do immediately to engage with insurers so leaseholders can buy affordable cover until their buildings are made safe?

Does the Secretary of State agree that if developers behave in this manner again, the Government will come after them, not the taxpayer?

What about housing associations that do not have the money to give relief to desperate leaseholders?

Leaseholders of buildings below 18 metres will still need to foot the bill. What does the Secretary of State say to constituents who were promised that leaseholders would not have to pay for a crisis they did not cause?

Although we are focusing today on cladding, what further work will be done to help leaseholders facing costs in relation to other fire safety defects?

Leaseholders need reassurance that they will not have to wait another four years. Will the Secretary of State please explain why leaseholders should be made to pay hidden or other costs for a problem they did not cause?

May I once again say a word on behalf of the general taxpayers? My constituents hardly ever get a mention in this Chamber and they are being asked to bail out greedy developers. Can we have a balance? Additionally, may I ask my right hon. Friend about Lincoln University which has been forced to reclad one of its residences?

I welcome the announcement, but for many constituents it will make no or little material difference. Many continue to pay thousands of pounds for interim safety measures despite Government assurances. Why are not all leaseholders treated equally?

I welcome what he has announced today. May I ask him what the Scottish and Welsh Governments are doing to improve building safety?

How do today’s proposals protect a leaseholder who has been paying £50 a month but still has a large loan outstanding on their home at the point of sale due to cladding costs? Is the Secretary of State failing to deliver fairness?

In drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I say that this is one of the most generous and innovative schemes. Will it apply to non-cladding costs such as fire doors and asbestos?

I welcome the funding announced as a step in the right direction, but unfortunately it covers only around half the anticipated cost. The Secretary of State has said that he has sympathy for leaseholders, yet no one below 18 metres will be paying for cladding costs.

Yesterday revealed that a company shamefully sold flammable materials for Grenfell Tower because it was cheaper. Why is it taking so long to identify all buildings, including care homes and hospitals, that may have unsafe cladding?

Thanking the Minister for listening to representations made by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and other colleagues, Bob Blackman commends the Minister's recent announcements concerning high-rise buildings. However, he expresses concern about medium-rise blocks and incomplete applications for the Building Safety Fund that require survey work. He asks what measures are being taken to ensure these surveys are conducted and completed so that work on unsafe buildings can progress.