← Back to House of Commons Debates
Unsafe Cladding: Protecting Tenants and Leaseholders
01 February 2021
Lead MP
Thangam Debbonaire
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
NHSHousing
Other Contributors: 68
At a Glance
Thangam Debbonaire raised concerns about unsafe cladding: protecting tenants and leaseholders 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 Labour MP calls on the Government to urgently establish the extent of dangerous cladding, prioritise buildings according to risk, provide upfront funding for remediation, protect leaseholders and taxpayers from costs, and update Parliament monthly. She outlines a human tragedy affecting first-time buyers, elderly residents, NHS workers, housing associations, councils, and their tenants due to building safety defects caused by corporate malpractice and Government inaction. The MP stresses the need for up-front funding to fix dangerous cladding and fire safety issues immediately.
Stephen Doughty
Lab Co-op
Cardiff South and Penarth
Asks for clarity on the timing of fire safety and building safety legislation, as well as an update on EWS1 forms.
Bury South
Confirms that leaseholders will not be gagged by confidentiality clauses in remediation contracts.
Requests the Minister to give way for a question.
Tom Hunt
Con
Ipswich
Inquires about the adequacy of the £30 million waking watch relief fund and expresses concern that it may not cover all buildings needing new fire alarm systems.
Kevin Hollinrake
Con
Thirsk and Malton
Discusses the issue of building owners without contractual or legal obligations to remediate unsafe cladding, suggesting a wider community approach might be necessary for funding solutions.
David Linden
SNP
Glasgow East
The Grenfell fire's aftermath necessitates serious measures to prevent future catastrophes. However, the UK Government’s current policies fall short as their fund is inadequate and results in a first-come-first-served approach, leaving many with unsafe cladding. Despite housing being devolved, guidance from England affects Scotland negatively, burdening residents who are not legally responsible for external cladding costs. The situation is further exacerbated by the inability to remortgage or sell homes due to insurance and mortgage providers refusing risks associated with cladding. Scottish Government's approach contrasts as it requires safer building practices, resulting in fewer properties with Grenfell-style cladding. The UK Government should prioritise those affected by unsafe cladding and address renters' safety concerns.
John Lamont
Con
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk
Intervened to critique the Scottish Government's management of high-rise inventory and their inactive fund allocation group since April last year. Highlighted press criticism regarding these issues.
Peter Bottomley
Con
Worthing West
Acknowledged as a leaseholder facing no cladding problems but has worked on such issues for over 10 years with the support of Leasehold Knowledge Partnership. Praised the Government for understanding the scale of problems and suggested avoiding a vote in favour of a 'take note' debate. Emphasised the need to address unsafe, unsaleable and unaffordable homes by making funds available immediately, challenging insurance industry practices, and ensuring those responsible pay for remediation without burdening taxpayers.
Clive Betts
Lab
Sheffield South East
Thanked the Father of the House for kind comments and congratulated members of the Select Committee on cross-party collaboration. Cited recommendations from reports urging the Government to provide funding to remove combustible cladding, increase the Building Safety Fund to £15 billion, and ensure leaseholders should not pay towards remediation costs. Emphasised the broader issue beyond high-rise buildings and highlighted the human impact of debt and unsafe living conditions.
Bob Blackman
Con
Harrow East
Acknowledged the long-standing issues since the Grenfell tragedy, noting slow progress in remediation. Criticised the testing regime for cladding and building regulations as not fit for purpose. Highlighted complexities in building ownership, emphasising that leaseholders should not pay towards remediation costs. Urged the Government to come forward with alternative amendments ensuring leaseholders do not bear costs.
Discussed a fire incident at Samuel Garside House in Barking, highlighting the plight of families who lost possessions and are unable to afford remediation. Criticised the Government for failing to act comprehensively on building safety issues. Called for protection of all multi-occupancy buildings regardless of height, ensuring freeholders contribute towards costs, and solving insurance cost problems.
Highlighted that leaseholders have faced huge bills and bankruptcy due to the cladding crisis, despite trusting developers and assuming building regulations were sound. Emphasised that while previous Governments share blame for building safety failures, the current Government has an opportunity to solve this once and for all. Urged acceptance of their amendment ensuring leaseholders do not pay towards remediation costs.
Ellie Reeves
Lab
Lewisham West and East Dulwich
It is shocking that the Government have failed to get a grip of the cladding scandal, leaving countless families facing colossal bills. A constituent expecting her second child in March faces an estimated £30,000 bill for cladding removal and increased service charges. Another single parent on Universal Credit faces astronomical fees. The £1.6 billion building safety fund does not cover buildings under 18 metres, affecting thousands of leaseholders.
Mary Robinson
Party Unspecified
Constituency Unspecified
Alex Di-Giuseppe from Manchester Cladiators described the fear and uncertainty faced by residents in unsafe high-rise buildings. Despite progress on cladding removal, more than 160 buildings still have ACM cladding. The Government needs clear targets for building owners to take responsibility seriously and fix this problem. Leaseholders should not face huge bills for a problem not their fault. We need expanded funds to ensure costs are managed properly by building owners.
Felicity Buchan
Party Unspecified
Constituency Unspecified
We need a comprehensive and speedy solution to the leaseholder situation, as they face unsaleable properties that may be dangerous. While welcoming the £1.6 billion cladding remediation fund, I suspect it will not be enough. The Government should put together a substantial package to remove all dangerous cladding on high-risk buildings, ensuring freeholders, insurance companies and developers pay their fair share.
Seema Malhotra
Lab Co-op
Feltham and Heston
The Government's handling of the cladding crisis lacks grip and urgency. Residents face lockdown in inflammable buildings with huge bills for repair work, higher insurance, interim safety measures, and inability to sell flats. A2Dominion and others lack transparency on costs for leaseholders, causing stress and uncertainty. We need a Government-led plan now that does not burden leaseholders with the cost.
Hilary Benn
Lab
Leeds South
Expresses concern about the mental health impact on constituents due to cladding issues, calls for immediate action by the Government to draw up a plan to address the situation, and argues against leaseholders having to pay for remedial works.
Matthew Offord
Con
Hendon
Critiques Labour's approach as cynical and aimed at gaining popularity rather than helping constituents, expresses frustration with the debate format, and intends to abstain from voting due to lack of substantive action on the issue.
Lucy Powell
Lab Co-op
Manchester Central
Describes the impact on constituents in Manchester, highlights the inadequacies of the ACM building fund, criticises the Government's response as inadequate and slow, and calls for urgent reform to fix the broken market caused by cladding issues.
The issue of building safety, particularly concerning ACM cladding, is critical. The Government’s £600 million fund has started work on buildings with provided information and interim safety measures are in place. Building owners should take responsibility for remediation without burdening leaseholders financially. Multiple stakeholders must be involved to ensure comprehensive solutions that prevent further tragedies.
Apsana Begum
Lab
Poplar and Limehouse
The replacement of cladding in Poplar and Limehouse, specifically New Providence Wharf, highlights the ongoing scandal. Leaseholders are facing astronomical remediation costs and uncertainty about safety measures. The building owner, Ballymore housing, has not adequately addressed these issues, leaving residents stranded with bills they cannot afford to pay.
Cladding has significantly impacted the housing sector, affecting buy-to-let landlords and creating market stagnation. EWS1 forms continue to hamper property movement despite Government efforts to rectify issues. Solutions are needed to allocate responsibility fairly without overburdening taxpayers or leaseholders financially.
Greenwich and Woolwich
Matthew Pennycook criticises the Government's proposal to fund remediation through long-term loans attached to individual sites, which he believes would lead to significant service charge increases for leaseholders. He also warns of property devaluation and negative equity risks for affected leaseholders. Matthew calls on Ministers to protect blameless leaseholders from costs and confront vested interests that created this problem.
Caroline Ansell expresses her concerns about the ongoing stress faced by local leaseholders due to towering costs of remedial works. She mentions 40 buildings in Eastbourne at risk, including one building with an estimated £5.1 million cost for works. She asks the Minister to enforce legal responsibilities against non-compliant building owners and seeks assurances that applications will not suffer disadvantageously. Caroline stresses the need for speed in resolving this issue.
Tulip Siddiq
Lab
Hampstead and Highgate
Tulip Siddiq discusses the impact of the Grenfell fire on her constituency, noting that many residents had to be evacuated due to ACM cladding. She highlights the stress faced by leaseholders who are being forced to pay for remediation costs, including waking watch patrols and replacement of unsafe materials. She urges Ministers to shield leaseholders from these costs and make those responsible for installing dangerous cladding accountable.
Sir David Amess agrees that leaseholders should not be responsible for remediation work to identify unsafe properties with combustible materials. He stresses the need for funding to be made available pending resolution of disputes or difficulties in identifying owners. He supports a target for completion of remedial work by June 2022 and calls for collaboration between industry bodies and fire safety sectors.
Neil Coyle
Lab
Bermondsey and Old Southwark
Over 60 blocks of homes in Bermondsey and Old Southwark are affected, leaving residents like Lucy Grayston and William Lecky facing financial burdens and uncertainty. The Government's repeated promises without action have left constituents waiting too long for relief measures such as the waking watch fund. The motion seeks to address these issues promptly.
Welcomes the Government’s efforts in addressing dangerous ACM cladding and providing £1.6 billion for its removal, urging building owners not to pass costs onto leaseholders. Supports measures such as the waking watch fund but criticises the motion as simplistic, calling for a complex resolution within a proper timeframe.
Vicky Foxcroft
Lab
Lewisham North
Leaseholders are trapped in unsafe homes unable to sell or remortgage due to high remediation costs and interim safety measures. Residents face financial burdens and stress; examples include Norfolk House and Aragon Tower in Deptford. Urges the Government to take proper resources to ensure tenants' safety, highlighting concerns for disabled residents.
Kevin Hollinrake
Con
Thirsk and Malton
The crisis stems from systemic failures over decades involving developers, manufacturers, building control, and regulations. Calls for a pan-industry solution spreading costs across the construction industry rather than burdening leaseholders who should not be legally obliged to remediate buildings without contractual obligation.
Stephen Morgan
Lab
Portsmouth South
Residents in Portsmouth face unsafe buildings with non-ACM cladding and are struggling to access the Government’s building safety fund. They are liable for large costs towards remediation, often more than £20,000, which they cannot afford. Morgan emphasises that health and safety must be prioritised, urging ministers to focus on rapid disbursal of funds with low burden of proof and recovery later if necessary. He also calls for the building safety fund to cover buildings of any height rather than being limited to those above 18 metres.
Neil O'Brien
Con
Harborough, Oadby and Wigston
O'Brien highlights the need for a comprehensive approach to fire safety, including auditing the state of fire doors in social housing blocks. He calls on the Government to ensure that those responsible for the Grenfell tragedy are brought to justice, expressing hope that pressure can be put on companies refusing to testify at the inquiry. O'Brien encourages Ministers to continue their efforts to remove unsafe cladding and introduce a new regulator for construction products.
James Murray
Lab Co-op
Ealing North
Murray discusses ongoing delays in resolving who pays for building remediation, affecting hundreds of thousands of people living in unsafe homes. He calls for upfront funding to ensure immediate remediation and protection of leaseholders from costs. He uses the example of residents in Central West building, which is only just under 18 metres and thus not eligible for the Government’s building safety fund, highlighting the need for better support.
Green welcomes the new Housing Minister and underscores the importance of addressing the fire safety issue comprehensively. He mentions concerns raised by Bolton at Home regarding fire doors and risk assessments. He supports an amendment to the Fire Safety Bill, urging for decisive action on building safety to prevent future tragedies.
Tan Dhesi
Lab
Slough
The Government's response has been inadequate, forcing action only after significant pressure from campaigners. Leaseholders are being unfairly burdened with financial responsibilities and fears for their safety. All dangerous cladding should be removed immediately with up-front funding, ensuring those responsible pay the costs.
John Lamont
Con
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk
The case of Sam and Cora Younger highlights unintended consequences for innocent individuals due to strict cladding guidelines. The couple faces financial difficulties in selling their property, leading to dual mortgage payments and a stamp duty uplift. This situation must be addressed to ensure it does not continue affecting families.
Hayes and Harlington
Ballymore Group has exacerbated the crisis by failing to communicate with residents and shifting costs onto them, leaving many unsure of their safety. Shared owners are particularly vulnerable as they face high costs without ownership benefits or support from housing associations.
Paul Howell
Party Unspecified
Constituency Unspecified
The need for stringent standards and enforcement processes to prevent the repetition of events like Grenfell is crucial. Proper regulation and penalties are necessary to ensure safety, especially concerning fire-safe products, respecting those who risk their lives for public safety.
Shabana Mahmood
Lab
Birmingham Ladywood
The cladding scandal has wrought emotional and financial devastation upon my constituents who live in affected buildings. The Government need to step in to sort out the insurance costs issue, because there seems to be little relationship between interim measures leaseholders are paying for and the cost of insurance premiums. Businesses responsible for these buildings should face consequences if they do not remedy defects.
The cladding scandal has had unintended consequences, leaving many innocent leaseholders with huge bills for remediation works or waking watches and unable to get insurance. The Building Safety Bill will drive up building safety standards, but amendments should be pursued through this bill rather than the Fire Safety Bill to avoid unforeseen delays.
Andrew Slaughter
Lab
Hammersmith and Chiswick
Hundreds of thousands of people are still living in tall buildings at risk from fire, threatened with bills that could make them penniless or bankrupt. Social landlords have done better than private ones but unless the Government funds costs for remedial action, leaseholders will face high expenses. Developers seeking planning approval should comply with stringent safety measures to avoid future issues.
Barry Gardiner
Lab
Brent West
Critiques the Government's response as inadequate and points out that building owners are not taking responsibility. He mentions residents in his constituency who have faced significant challenges due to fire safety defects and believes there was full knowledge of statutory breaches, potentially constituting a criminal offence. Calls for imposing a windfall levy on the construction industry.
Supports the need for action but criticises Labour's inaction and points out that the cladding scandal affects Wales as well, leaving people with unsaleable properties or astronomical bills to make homes safe. He questions the Leader of the Opposition's call for a national taskforce.
Commends the Government’s reform of bureaucracy within the EWS1 form process and highlights measures such as funding the training of 2,000 assessors to speed up valuations. She supports the Ministry's actions in making homes safer.
Andrew Gwynne
Ind
Gorton and Denton
It is astounding—no, that is the wrong word. It is shameful that we are still debating unsafe cladding on buildings. It is three and a half years since the awful scenes at Grenfell, yet far too many people are still living with the nightmare that their homes are wrapped in combustible cladding. What is incomprehensible is that despite promising that all Grenfell-style cladding would be removed by last June, there are nearly 50,000 people still living in around 165 buildings over 18 metres tall that are still covered in the same cladding found on Grenfell Tower. However, the scale is even bigger. We know that there are other types of combustible cladding—not all the same as that used at Grenfell, but equally dangerous. There are at least 450,000 people still living in blocks with all forms of unsafe cladding. Here in Greater Manchester, there are currently 107 high-rise residential buildings that have adopted interim measures as a result of significant fire safety deficiencies, but a further 64 buildings in Greater Manchester are known to have failed the ACM test with no remedy yet, and another 75 privately owned buildings have fire safety issues that are attributable to other unsafe cladding. I want to be constructive, which is why I support the motion tonight. I particularly welcome the call to create a national cladding taskforce, putting residents at its heart, as they did in Australia. The Government’s joint inspection team just does not have formal enforcement or funding powers. Somebody should urgently carry out an audit to establish the extent of dangerous materials on buildings, prioritise them according to risk, and ensure that there is enforcement against those who do not undertake the work.
Salford
Happy birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thousands of residents across Salford live in unsafe homes. They are families, key workers, couples and people young and old who want to be part of the vibrant city that Salford has become. Many scrimped, saved and pushed themselves to their financial limits to buy their home, and they were assured that they were safe—but they were not. Now they not only live in fear for their lives, but face financial devastation for a crisis that they did not cause. One high-rise block in Salford estimates fire-safety remediation costs of up to £100,000 per flat. Buildings even under 18 metres are failing EWS1, and many residents are being forced to pay thousands for measures such as waking watch and increased insurance premiums. Those people are at risk. They are trapped, and they cannot move, sell or even remortgage their homes. Various Secretaries of State over the last few years have made sympathetic noises. They have even applauded cases where developers have stepped up and footed the bill. However, sympathetic noises were all they were. The Government never legislated to ensure that leaseholders did not have to pay.
Gareth Bacon
Con
Orpington
Many happy returns, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is an extremely important and highly complex issue, and it is important to note at the outset what the Government have done so far. A £1.6 billion building safety fund has been provided to remove cladding from residential buildings 18 metres and over, and there is now a requirement for the installation of sprinkler systems in all new blocks of high-rises over 11 metres. The MHCLG already publishes monthly data on all identified high-rise residential and publicly owned buildings where remediation works have taken place or are in progress. The EWS1 form process has been tidied up to a degree, with agreement reached with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors to confirm that buildings with no cladding do not require a form. In addition, funding has been provided to train assessors to speed up the valuation process, leading within six months to 2,000 additional assessors to help unlock the housing market. Those things are a step in the right direction, but they are not the end of the journey, as the Government have made clear.
Daisy Cooper
Lib Dem
St Albans
The cost of fixing cladding is astronomical, causing leaseholders to face bankruptcy, suicide, and loss of life savings. The Government's failure to act on this issue is disgraceful.
I welcome the £1.6 billion allocated so far for removing cladding and the work being done to remove ACM cladding in all types of buildings. I also support the Government's efforts to address mortgage issues arising from EWS1 forms, and the independent review commissioned by the Government on construction industry practices.
Florence Eshalomi
Lab Co-op
Vauxhall and Camberwell Green
The debate is a national scandal. Leaseholders in my constituency are paying eye-watering costs for interim safety measures and face the threat of bankruptcy. There is an urgent need to fast-track a waking watch fund, and I urge colleagues to support amendments to the Fire Safety Bill.
Leaseholders are trapped in homes they cannot sell or rent, facing extortionate costs for remedial works. Developers, lenders, freeholders have not stepped up; the Government needs to ensure that leaseholders like those in my constituency do not bear the cost of fixing this issue.
Angela Richardson discusses the importance of housing as a fundamental human need and acknowledges the complexities involved in addressing cladding issues. She speaks on behalf of her constituent, Jasmin, who is concerned about potential bankruptcy due to remediation costs and lack of developer responsibility. Richardson urges the Minister to continue engaging with all relevant sectors to find solutions.
Janet Daby
Lab
Lewisham East
Janet Daby highlights the ongoing issue of unsafe cladding post-Grenfell, affecting millions of residents who are trapped in dangerous situations. She emphasises that the Government's failure to act promptly has left leaseholders facing financial ruin and psychological distress. Janet calls for a resolution that ensures costs are not passed onto residents and holds those responsible accountable.
Tom Randall acknowledges the urgency of addressing cladding issues but emphasises the need for correct action. He discusses measures such as the Building Safety Bill, creation of a building safety fund with £1 billion to remove unsafe cladding, and steps taken to address aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding used in Grenfell.
Daniel Zeichner
Lab
Cambridge
Mr. Zeichner discussed the widespread issues faced by homeowners due to building failures, including defective construction practices, excessive leasehold charges, and unsafe cladding materials. He cited specific examples from Cambridge such as the Kaleidoscope estate and the Belvedere development.
Mr. Fox welcomed the new Minister responsible for housing matters and praised a local example of successful brownfield site redevelopment in Portishead. He stressed the need to hold developers accountable for substandard construction practices, highlighting issues with Ninety4 on the Estuary in his constituency.
Warrington North
Ms. Nichols argued that dangerous cladding must be addressed urgently and funded up-front by those responsible for unsafe properties. She expressed frustration over delays since Grenfell and highlighted the worsening conditions during the pandemic, stressing the need for immediate action.
Ms. Webb acknowledged the tragedy at Grenfell Tower and outlined measures taken to address cladding issues, including £1.6 billion funding and enforcement actions against building owners. She called for accountability from developers and industry stakeholders and expressed concern over leasehold fees and waking watch costs.
Paul Blomfield
Lab
Sheffield Central
Residents in Sheffield's Wicker Riverside complex were forced to leave their homes due to building safety failings. The Minister provided assistance, but leaseholders face ongoing costs for remediation despite not being responsible for the issues. These costs are unsustainable and damaging to residents' mental health and financial stability. Government must intervene to resolve this issue without burdening leaseholders.
Lyn Brown
Lab
West Ham
Constituents in West Ham face escalating insurance premiums, waking watch costs, and mortgage payments due to fire safety issues unrelated to their actions. The Olympic park's Stratford East Village is an example where contractors worked for the Government but residents are bearing the cost through inflated insurance premiums. London’s high housing costs exacerbate this issue further, making it unaffordable for leaseholders.
Nickie Aiken
Con
City of Westminster
The debate focuses on supporting leaseholders facing financial strain due to building safety issues. Government grants have helped with remediation work, but more needs to be done to ensure developers and property owners are held accountable for the costs. The Building Safety Bill is awaited to introduce necessary measures for fire safety and prevent future tragedies.
Brighton Kemptown
Many residents in Brighton face difficulties selling their homes due to safety concerns, with some not receiving support because of arbitrary size limits. Government must take responsibility for ensuring public safety and financial stability by stepping in as an underwriter and recovering costs from those responsible without burdening leaseholders.
Catherine West
Lab
Hornsey and Friern Barnet
Government inaction has left innocent leaseholders facing lockdown trapped in flammable homes and paying colossal bills for repair work, leading to bankruptcy. The motion calls on the Government to establish a proper audit of risk, provide up-front funding, protect leaseholders from costs by pursuing those responsible for the cladding crisis, and get the job done.
Lilian Greenwood
Lab
Nottingham South
My constituents are facing unacceptable pressures including panic attacks, sleepless nights, and fear of fire and bankruptcy. They did nothing wrong yet face crippling upfront charges due to building issues such as missing cavity barriers and substandard fire doors. The Government should pay the upfront costs and hold developers and building owners accountable.
Mike Amesbury
Lab
Newton Abbot
The MP emphasises the human impact of the scandal, highlighting cases where individuals have lost their homes or faced bankruptcy due to cladding issues. He criticises the Government's failure to establish a risk register and prioritise remediation efforts, suggesting that moral considerations were secondary to profit in the building industry. The speaker calls for an end to financial burdens on leaseholders, advocating for upfront funding of remediation works with recovery from those responsible ('polluter pays').
Southgate and Wood Green
The MP supports his colleague's stance, emphasising the severe personal impacts faced by constituents due to dangerous cladding. He stresses that Government action is needed to ensure those responsible for the scandal bear the costs of remediation.
Tan Dhesi
Lab
Slough
The MP agrees with his colleague, praising the Labour Party's clear plan to address the cladding crisis. He criticises the Government's lack of progress in understanding and addressing the scale of the problem, calling for a statement from the Prime Minister outlining a comprehensive strategy.
Eddie Hughes
Con
Hereford and South Herefordshire
Responded on behalf of the Government, acknowledging that building safety has been important to him personally. He mentioned Hayley's story and others like Sophie from Glasgow East and residents in London from Berwickshire. Acknowledged some developers have taken responsibility but also highlighted contractors who have delayed action and manufacturers of materials gaming test systems. Emphasised the need for individuals' safety and that no contractor should engage in disgraceful behaviour. Pledged to hold those responsible accountable and fix problems as effectively and quickly as possible.
Government Response
Discussed the Government's Building Safety Programme, established after Grenfell Tower fire. Highlighted £30 million waking-watch fund, though there is a delay with GLA for issuing funds due to lack of agreement. Mentioned £700,000 to train up to 2,000 people in EWS form production and expressed hope that the amendment to Fire Safety Bill will be tabled elsewhere to avoid delaying legislation.
▸
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.