← Back to Westminster Hall Debates
Leaseholders and Cladding
12 February 2020
Lead MP
Hilary Benn
Leeds South
Lab
Responding Minister
Esther McVey
Tags
TaxationHousingForeign Affairs
Word Count: 14392
Other Contributors: 25
At a Glance
Hilary Benn raised concerns about leaseholders and cladding in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.
Key Requests to Government:
Mr. Benn urged the Government to extend the coverage of their fund to all types of buildings with unsafe cladding, arguing it is the only fair way forward and necessary for removing dangerous cladding entirely.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Mr. Benn highlighted the distress faced by leaseholders due to unsafe cladding, mentioning a case in Leeds where a waking watch costs £670 per month plus VAT for each flat-owner. He emphasised that these residents are burdened with significant expenses and fear losing their homes or going bankrupt despite being blameless in the situation.
Alison Thewliss
SNP
Glasgow Central
Alison Thewliss discussed the challenges faced by Scotland due to advice note 14, noting issues with mortgage lenders and surveyors refusing valuations without specific certification. She highlighted communication problems between UK and Scottish Governments and emphasised the need for a tailored solution for Scotland's unique circumstances.
Newton Abbot
Ms Morris highlighted the inadequacy of the current system for leaseholders dealing with cladding issues, particularly those related to ACM. She criticized the small pot of funds available and the complexity of the claims process, urging the Government to take over these claims and provide insurance solutions.
Bob Neill
Con
Bromley and Chislehurst
Residents in Bromley with ACM and HPL cladding are facing delays, costs for surveys, and waking watch fees. The situation is affecting their health due to the financial strain of £11,000 monthly expenses. Bob Neill requests clarity on remediation fund access and funding for interim safety measures. People at Northpoint are forking out £11,000 for every month that the conversations go on. They have to be brought to an end, and something must happen soon.
David Lammy
Lab
Tottenham
I have a building in the Tottenham Hale village with 432 people who cannot get a mortgage or re-mortgage. Is it entirely unacceptable that fire and building regulations are rightly the Government's responsibility? The Government should step in to support those individuals.
Derek Twigg
Lab
Widnes and Halewood
Mr. Twigg discussed the impact of cladding issues on a six-building residential complex called Decks in his constituency, which includes risks such as fire spread and structural collapse. He noted that remedying these issues would cost around £30,000 per household, leaving residents unable to sell or rent their homes due to negative equity.
Fleur Anderson
Lab
Putney
Leaseholders of 66 and 200 flats in two buildings have been told they need to fund recladding, which could cost tens of thousands per flat. This raises concerns about safety, fairness, and the emotional toll on residents.
Florence Eshalomi
Lab Co-op
Vauxhall and Camberwell Green
The MP highlighted the issue of leaseholders being unable to sell or re-mortgage their homes due to combustible cladding. She mentioned that only 10 out of 56 tower blocks in London have submitted plans for remediation costs, illustrating the fund's inefficiency and urging the Government to take urgent action.
Justin Madders
Lab
Ellesmere Port and Bromborough
The MP emphasized the importance of leadership and hope for leaseholders facing financial strain due to remediation costs. He pointed out that there is a lack of clarity regarding responsibility for waking watches and other types of cladding, leading to unnecessary expenses for innocent leaseholders.
Kevin Hollinrake
Con
Thirsk and Malton
Freeholders often lack the obligation or means to pay for remedial work, highlighting the need for developers or leaseholders to take responsibility, though many leaseholders cannot afford such costs.
Lucy Powell
Lab Co-op
Manchester Central
The Manchester Cladiators want to be at the heart of an ongoing dialogue with the Government to resolve issues affecting dozens of blocks in my constituency, urging an end to passing the buck between freeholders, insurers and the Government.
Lyn Brown
Lab
Birmingham Selly Oak
Ms. Brown expressed frustration over the lack of support her constituents are receiving regarding fire risk assessments, cladding reports, and financial strain from high costs and inability to re-mortgage or sell their properties. She urged for a full-length debate on this issue. Even if the Minister had another five minutes, that would not be enough to address all issues. Will the Government consider giving us a proper full-length debate in the main Chamber so we can better express ourselves?
Battersea
There are still several blocks with flammable ACM cladding. My constituents at Sesame Apartments in Battersea are living in a building that is wrapped in unsafe cladding, and the Minister should give definitive deadlines for when those private blocks will be made safe. Leaseholders do not believe that they are being listened to or heard by Ministers. Will the Minister commit to meeting leaseholders and some of my constituents so she can hear at first hand their concerns about their homes being wrapped in unsafe cladding?
Matthew Offord
Con
Hendon
In Colindale, 1,087 developments have properties purchased after building regulations were signed off in 2017, now facing unaffordable remedial bills as freeholders do not have an obligation to mitigate the problems. Some of my constituents purchased properties under Help to Buy, so the Government certainly have a claim in this. How much of that responsibility will fall on the Treasury?
Greenwich and Woolwich
In Greenwich, more than 20 privately owned buildings with ACM cladding are yet to be remediated despite the Government's target. Matthew Pennycook highlights that developers have been reluctant to cover costs for some leaseholders while others face legal disputes and inability to sell homes due to EWS1 guidance issues.
Meg Hillier
Lab Co-op
Hackney South and Shoreditch
Ms Hillier focused on the financial burden placed on leaseholders due to cladding removal costs, including increased mortgage payments and difficulties in securing loans or selling properties. She called for immediate action to address these issues, such as providing a certificate of safety for residents. Asked Ruth Cadbury if the taxpayer should foot the bill for dodgy developers who will not step up, highlighting unfair costs to leaseholders. The delay in getting data suggests a lack of expertise. My housing association is assessing buildings based on risk, leaving many people in less risky buildings unable to get the necessary paperwork for a mortgage. Our residents need some assurance and action so they know that they will not have to wait years for the issue to be resolved. Can she give our constituents any comfort today?
Paul Blomfield
Lab
Sheffield Central
After raising concerns about HPL cladding with the Secretary of State, no response was received after two months and a promise on 20 January has not been kept. Will the Minister give us some assurance about when the work will conclude?
Rushanara Ali
Lab
Bethnal Green and Stepney
Two years after Grenfell tragedy, my constituency needs Government funding ahead of the Budget statement for essential works on high-rise blocks to prevent further tragedies or fatalities.
Ruth Cadbury
Lab
Brentford and Isleworth
Residents in a new block face difficulties selling their flats due to mortgage issues, while those in the Paragon development have been living with exposed scaffolding for months. A large development's cladding is also dubious, leading to fear among leaseholders and social rent tenants. The issues were raised and recommendations made at the inquests into both the Lakanal House fire and the fire in Southampton. Grenfell would not have happened had the recommended building standards been put place.
Sam Tarry
Lab
Ilford South
We need to hear more not just about platitudes, but about concrete actions. Some of my constituents have mental health issues and problems planning their futures due to freeholders essentially having them over a barrel.
Sarah Jones
Lab
Croydon West
Mrs Jones highlighted the ongoing issues faced by leaseholders due to cladding, stressing that their lives have been turned upside down despite bearing no fault for these problems. She expressed concern over the lack of progress in remediation efforts and the failure to name block owners who haven't put plans in place to remove dangerous cladding as promised. Mrs Jones also raised issues related to the £200 million fund, questioning its effectiveness and limitations due to state aid rules.
Shabana Mahmood
Lab
Birmingham Ladywood
Ms. Mahmood highlighted the financial burden on residents of Islington Gates development in her constituency, who face a total remedial work cost of £1.5 million and an estimated cladding removal bill of £40,000 to £50,000 per leaseholder. She also pointed out that insurance premiums have increased fivefold due to the risks involved, causing severe stress for residents who cannot sell or re-mortgage their properties.
Stephen Timms
Lab
East Ham
Residents of Lumiere building in Manor Park face ACM cladding and other dangerous types on different sides, questioning why Government funding can only help with one part but not others.
Steve Reed
Lab Co-op
Streatham and Croydon North
Residents of Radnor House in Croydon North face massive bills they cannot afford due to wooden cladding not covered by the ACM fund, feeling penalised instead of receiving real help from the Government.
Tan Dhesi
Lab
Slough
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this immensely important debate, highlighting blocks such as the Lexington and Rivington apartment blocks with dangerous cladding or lacking effective firebreaks, causing financial distress and insecurity for residents.
Tom Hunt
Lab
Ipswich
Mr. Hunt echoed the concerns of his constituents affected by high pressure laminate cladding, requesting that the £200 million fund for ACM cladding be extended to help those impacted. He highlighted poor communication from block management companies and asked the Government to ensure fairness in treatment.
Government Response
Esther McVey
Government Response
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) for bringing this issue to Westminster Hall, and all the Members who have attended. This debate has shown MPs at their very best, bringing issues, cases, concerns and dilemmas to the Chamber and expressing what needs to be said here on behalf of their constituents. Members on both sides of the House want to be here to voice those concerns. We all know that this issue causes much stress and anguish to residents. How do we support everybody? People can appreciate that issues are evolving as time goes on. We also understand that it is not the fault of the leaseholders who bought their homes that things have happened. We all understand that anybody could be one of those leaseholders; this is happening to so many. I praise what MPs are doing today in bringing this issue forward.
That is a very well made point. In January, the Secretary of State said that we are currently considering options with the Treasury on the support that can go to leaseholders. Those are obviously ongoing conversations and negotiations, and I can go no further than that today.
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. As I said, MPs from both side of the House are raising these issues. The fire risk of tall buildings with cladding was brought to everybody's attention after the terrible tragedy of Grenfell Tower. It had not been brought to people's attention before.
The Government took immediate action straight after the report. The actions that we took included a comprehensive independent review of building safety, chaired by Dame Judith Hackitt, and we have accepted all the recommendations of her independent review. We will continue to bring forward legislation to deliver an enhanced safety regime for high-rise residential buildings. As we announced last month, we will begin immediately to establish the new building safety regulator—initially in shadow form, pending legislation—which Dame Judith will chair, to oversee the transition to the new regime.
I started my speech with the Secretary of State's remarks about what we are doing, the actions that we have taken, and how we will deliver going forward. I want to ensure that people understand the rigorous work of the expert panel and the advice that we are taking from it. That work is checked and verified, and we are taking it forward at the right pace. Of course, we are here to discuss those issues, which are being dealt with—negotiations are ongoing. What the issue absolutely impresses upon us is how important it is that things are done as quickly and as thoroughly as possible.
I will take that message back to the Department and see what happened with the correspondence from the Secretary of State. I know that the Department replied to the letter from the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) on 6 February, so if she has not already got it, it will be with her shortly.
I will go through exactly what we have done and how we have done it, and note the significant steps that we have taken, including the provision of £600 million to support people and the further work led by an expert panel. We have accepted all the recommendations from the independent review, and are going forward at a rigorous pace, which we can do, obviously, once we have had all those negotiations with the Treasury.
In December 2018, we banned the use of combustible materials in external walls of new high-rise buildings and, after implementing the ban, we checked its effectiveness. In January, we launched a consultation on the ban, which went further and asked whether the limit should be lowered from 18 metres to 11 metres. The Government also announced the fire safety Bill, and the associated regulatory changes, to deliver the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry phase 1 report.
The hon. Lady makes a good point. We need more time to discuss the matter—this is only a 90-minute debate—and the number of hon. Members who are here shows that. Not only should we have that debate, but we should come together to raise those points and work in a constructive fashion. The hon. Lady is quite right; 90 minutes is not long enough. We also need to, and we will, write back to the hon. Members present, because I cannot give a comprehensive response to everybody in the time that I have.
The Department has met leaseholders, and we have received and replied to letters from leaseholders. The hon. Lady is right: we have to have a bigger consultation and ensure that we meet leaseholders. Yesterday, Lord Younger met a group, some of whom are in the Public Gallery. It is imperative that we hear from the people who are most affected, and I absolutely agree that we should.
Time is short—the right hon. Member for Leeds Central might like a minute or so at the end—but I will take any further interventions.
It is absolutely imperative that we have people with the right skills who are able to do the job straightaway.
The Government took the unprecedented step of bringing forward £600 million to support the people whom the expert panel said were in the most dangerous buildings with ACM cladding. I started my speech with the words of the Secretary of State, who spoke about how we can ensure that we have the right support at the right place and at the right time. From the very start, we have taken the advice of experts in the field to ensure that we are supporting the leaseholders.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About Westminster Hall Debates
Westminster Hall debates are a chance for MPs to raise important issues affecting their constituents and get a response from a government minister. Unlike Prime Minister's Questions, these debates are more in-depth and collaborative. The MP who secured the debate speaks first, other MPs can contribute, and a minister responds with the government's position.