Grenfell Tower Inquiry

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, which shows how the damage caused by the organisations that cladded those buildings and their systemic failures have had a real impact. That is why, since we were elected in July, my No. 1 focus has been trying to make sure that those buildings are safe and that remediation takes place. Seven years on is far too long for those buildings to still be unsafe, and later in my speech I will come on to some of the issues we are trying to resolve, including the people who are paying exorbitant insurance rates at this time.

Seven years on from the Grenfell Tower tragedy, thousands of people across the country still live in homes with unsafe cladding. The toll that this has placed on thousands of people is, I know, intolerable, with the financial worries, the impact on mental health and the lives put on hold. People have been unable to plan their futures, and may fear going to sleep in case something happens in the night, as it did in June 2017. This is a scandal. It permeates every aspect of the lives of those who live in unsafe buildings—buildings bought or rented in good faith—and it is completely unacceptable.

People must be and must feel safe in their homes, and we are taking a major step towards that with the statement laid in the House today. Our remediation acceleration plan sets out our ambitious measures to fix buildings faster, identify those still at risk and ensure that residents are supported through the remediation process. We are committed to getting homes fixed faster through the remediation acceleration plan. We aim to do that remediation by 2029 at the latest on all residential buildings of 18 metres or over with unsafe cladding, through a Government-funded scheme. By the end of 2029, every residential building of 11 metres or over with unsafe cladding will either have been remediated or have a date for completion, or the landlord will be liable for severe penalties.

We will introduce new legal obligations on landlords to remediate unsafe cladding, with severe penalties, including sanctions for inaction. We are backing this up with new funding and new guidance for regulators to drive remediation forward. We have a plan to tackle the remediation needed in the social sector to support social landlords to ensure that their stock is safe. The building safety levy and developers’ repayment of Government funds will ensure that the cost of fixing these buildings does not fall on the taxpayer. Above all, we will take measures to protect residents and leaseholders, who are the innocent parties in this, during remediation. This is our plan, and the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley, will be able to share more of its details at the end of this debate.

Developers must play their part in accelerating remediation. They have already committed to fix or pay to fix unsafe buildings at an estimated cost of more than £3.4 billion, but progress has been too slow. Works have started in fewer than half of developers’ buildings known to be unsafe. That is why we have agreed a new joint plan with developers to accelerate remediation and improve the experience of residents, which we are publishing today. For the first time, developers are committing to achieve ambitious stretch targets to assess all their buildings by July 2025, and to start or complete remedial works on all their unsafe buildings by July 2027. To meet these stretch targets, developers will need to more than double the pace at which they have been assessing buildings and starting remediation work so far this year. Already more than 25 developers have signed up to the plan, bringing more than 95% of the buildings that developers need to remediate into scope, which is encouraging.

We are often reminded just how crucial decisive action to replace unsafe cladding is. Just last week, a fire at the Quadrangle building in Greater Manchester, a building that was remediated in 2021 through the ACM private sector cladding remediation fund, thankfully did not turn into an emergency situation. If the building had not been remediated, that situation could have been much more serious. To keep residents safe in their homes until remediation work has been carried out, we are extending the waking watch replacement fund until the spring of 2026. I will confirm the long-term plans at the end of the next spending review.

Too many leaseholders in buildings that need remediation face unaffordable insurance premiums, and this cannot continue. I can confirm that from today we will start working with insurers to consider whether, for the duration of the remediation programmes, the Government might support industry to reduce fire-related liabilities to lower the high insurance bills that leaseholders face. As part of our commitment to minimising unfair costs to leaseholders, I can also announce that we are tackling the problem of the unfair charges from those managing buildings insurance, and we have launched a consultation on that today.

I want the message to go out loud and clear that we expect the industry and those who build and maintain our homes to lead the way in creating a culture that puts the safety of residents first. Money is available to make buildings safe, but, incredibly, some landlords are still failing to act. Through their inaction, they are preventing homes from being made safe. It is outstandingly neglectful and a dereliction of responsibility. We will not stand for this any longer.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)]

The Secretary of State may be aware that my constituency has the highest number of high-rise buildings in the entire country. My constituents want reassurance on whether the scope of penalties and sanctions for landlords that do not comply and do not follow the remediation acceleration plan will include preventing them from expanding their portfolios and continuing to build in the manner they are, thus ensuring accountability and that the harms they have caused are not reproduced.

[Angela Rayner]

I have been very clear with developers by asking why somebody would want to purchase a home from a developer that is not seen to be taking action on remediation. That is why we have got many of them round the table to sign up to this acceleration plan. I do believe that they want to remediate this problem. It has been too long and things need to change. We are clear that there will be consequences for landlords for failing to act. With the support of Parliament, we will put in place legislation to ensure that they do.

The London borough of Tower Hamlets recently became the first local authority in England to successfully obtain a remediation order, and I expect to see many more in the future. To ensure that regulators can act, we will provide £33 million in the next financial year to local authorities, fire and rescue authorities and the Building Safety Regulator, so that they can tackle hundreds of cases per year. We will provide a further £5 million to the recovery strategy unit to increase its capacity to act. Let me be clear that this includes, where necessary, pursuing landlords in the courts. The industry must act now to fix the thousands of unsafe buildings that must be made safe. It must take seriously its obligations to remediate buildings and to design, construct and maintain buildings safely.

If you own an unsafe building or you are a landlord who is not fixing a building, this Government will make sure that you do, and we will propose legislation to ensure that you do. There can be no more delay, no more excuses and no more obstruction. To make the change that this Government and the Grenfell inquiry demand, we must build effective services that command public trust and confidence, and that are fit for the 21st century. Those who flout their responsibilities will have nowhere to hide. We will take direct action to hold to account those who are failing to meet their obligations. That is why we have committed to a system-wide reform of the construction products regulatory regime, and why we will consult on robust sanctions, penalties and liabilities against manufacturers.

I can update the House that we have made good on our pledge to write to organisations identified by the inquiry for their part in this tragedy. Organisations will hold different levels of responsibility, but I can announce that we will publish guidance early next year to support the first set of decisions that will stop the most appalling companies from being awarded Government contracts.

As I have said, the system itself needs reform. Statutory guidance on building regulations covering fire safety and building design is now subject to continuous review by the Building Safety Regulator, but I want to go further. I can announce today that I have asked the regulator to undertake that a fundamental review of the building safety regulations guidance will be produced, updated and communicated to the construction industry, because we must get this right.

Employment Rights Bill

Apsana Begum Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)]

I rise to speak as a proud trade unionist. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Too many people are in jobs that offer little or no security. My constituency casework has highlighted the reality of insecure work in the UK and has exposed the inadequacy of the law around worker protections. The rise of in-work poverty, workplace precarity, zero-hours contracts, bogus self-employment and contracting out puts workers at risk. We know that women and black, Asian and minority ethnic workers continue to face the disproportionate burden of working in insecure jobs with fewer rights and ongoing pay gaps.

After years of attacks on workers’ rights and hostility towards trade unions, it is a pleasure to welcome the Employment Rights Bill, which is without doubt a significant step forward for workers. I am particularly pleased to see the ballot thresholds from the Trade Union Act 2016 done away with, and to see the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, which trade unions have criticised as being undemocratic, unworkable and illegal.

I have long been concerned that current laws are already restricting the rights of workers to join and participate in trade unions and may breach international labour standards. Many of us would have liked to see the Bill completely ending fire and rehire and zero-hours contracts once and for all. I also understand that some unions are concerned about the rules allowing workers to have access to trade unions. They argue that the single best way to ensure that work pays more fairly is by expanding collective bargaining. I remain committed to strengthening trade union rights across the board.

I listened carefully to the Deputy Prime Minister, who rightly raised the plight of carers and parents in relation to employment rights. I would also like to raise the plight of survivors of domestic abuse and violence. The statutory guidance on the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 reminds us how pivotal the role and actions of an employer can be in the life of a survivor, who might only speak to managers and colleagues outside the home, as I know only too well as a survivor of ongoing abuse and harassment and having spoken to countless survivors. Employers should have a duty of care towards employees who are experiencing domestic abuse. I believe that the Bill could be further strengthened by bringing into scope the experiences of survivors of domestic abuse in the workplace. We should look at provisions such as flexible working and paid leave in that regard.

A thriving and just economy cannot be created without the full involvement and empowerment of the workforce. The Bill is an opportunity to lay the groundwork for a future in which workers can defend their pay, dignity and working conditions.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)]

I welcome this Bill with warmth. It will ban section 21 no-fault evictions for new and existing tenancies and introduce a number of standards for the private rented sector, including—crucially—Awaab’s law. There is no doubt that the no-fault eviction ban is testament to the work of campaigners all over the country, and it has the potential to drastically improve the situation facing private renters.

I would like to probe a little bit more about the balance in the Bill, especially regarding the extended possession grounds for landlords to reclaim their properties. Many of us would like to see the new eviction grounds being more favourable to tenants. Will the Minister elaborate on the evidence that landlords will be expected to provide to prove that they are genuinely moving in or selling, so that the provision is not abused?

It is welcome to see that the Bill will make it illegal for landlords to discriminate against tenants in receipt of benefits or with children. My constituents would also have liked to see the Bill end the immigration right-to-rent rules, which are part of the disgraceful hostile environment. Those rules force landlords and agents to check tenants’ immigration status, disproportionately impacting people of colour.

One might argue that the level of rent itself is the most discriminatory factor. The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), and others have mentioned that the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that an effective measure to stop renters being evicted would be rent controls. All too often a 20% rent hike is simply a no-fault eviction under a different name.

The availability of housing that people can actually afford is key. It is not just that affordable homes are in short supply; they are also, in fact, not affordable. In east London we know that well. People are also concerned about gentrification. It is my strong view, and that of many constituents who have contacted me over the years, that development should be focused on solving the existing housing crisis and driven in the interests of local people. We really need investment in our communities. We need a mass house building programme.

We need to be honest about what the private sector can deliver. It makes little sense, if the housing crisis is to be effectively tackled, that for every affordable home —which is not, in fact, affordable—two, three or even more luxury flats continue to be built. Building a new generation of social housing, and particularly council housing, is the only true long-term solution to the housing crisis.

Campaigners and tenants’ unions have rightly welcomed the Bill. It is an important positive step, and I look forward to engaging with it constructively during its journey through the Commons, because housing is a right, not a commodity.

Tackling Islamophobia

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

As I have raised in this House multiple times, I have received Islamophobic abuse since being elected. For example, just this week I posted on social media a video of my comments about migrant survivors of domestic abuse during the debate on the Victims and Prisoners Bill. I will not read the worst responses I received, which contain swearing, but here are some of the others:

“You was given a job in England UK to help England, all you care about is your own, feel free to leave at any point. What about all the immigrants raping our children you deluded fool.”

“Ban all Muslim MPs. They represent Muslims not the native. Their Loyalty is to their own.”

“This is not Islamabad!”

“Deport.”

“You are a traitor and will be prosecuted in 2028.”

“If England doesn’t kick you and every other ungrateful foreign beggar out very soon there will be no England anymore.”

“You’ll be much happier in a Muslim country Begum.”

“People like you should be expelled from parliament. The only people you represent are foreign nationals.”

“That’s the problem with Islam. Women are treated as second class by the men. You need to recognise the truth about this primitive religion.”

“Muslims don’t have beautiful clothes, only ugly headscarves! There is no invention, only destruction!”

I want to make it clear to the House that those are just examples of the regular, almost daily abuse that I have had to learn to cope with, and they are from just my most recent social media post. I also receive threats online, via voicemail and email, and by letter. The situation is escalating, exacerbated by those trying to capitalise on current events by spreading their hate and division, and I now face a heightened and very serious risk to my safety.

It is important to recognise that what I am experiencing as the first hijab-wearing MP reflects a growing current within society. The data shows that Muslims are the largest target of religiously motivated hate crimes. Following the 7 October Hamas attacks, which resulted in around 1,200 Israeli deaths, including those of civilians and children, and the subsequent Israeli military assault, which has killed more than 20,000 Palestinians, including civilians and children, hate crime against both Jews and Muslims has risen dramatically in Europe. In the UK, Tell MAMA has reported a 600% increase in attacks on Muslims, including attacks and hostility against individuals and mosques, with children targeted at school, death threats and physical attacks.

Islamophobic hate crimes not only affect the victim but send reverberations through communities, as they reinforce established patterns of bias, prejudice and discrimination. Islam and Muslims have increasingly been seen as culturally dangerous and threatening to the British way of life. We are constantly scapegoated and misrepresented, and labelled both deviant and evil. Being called a supporter of terrorism or a terrorist, or being held responsible as a group for terrorism, is a common theme. The reality is that Islamophobia is widespread and relates to whole structures of discrimination. The socioeconomic discrimination and inequality that Muslims face makes us the most economically disadvantaged faith group in the UK.

At the same time, Muslims face institutional discrimination. For some time it has been widely understood, including by the United Nations, that approaches to counter-terrorism are modelled on Islamophobic stereotypes, policies and political structures, but Government documents leaked in November 2023 revealed that officials had drawn up controversial proposals to broaden the definition of extremism even further, to include organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain—yet this Government will not even recognise Islamophobia. When Muslims are the target of hate, the Government are silent. They allow social media to perpetuate narratives of terrorism about Muslims, while failing to call out those who misrepresent and generalise about Muslims. More than that, they recklessly stoke the hate by peddling their so-called culture wars against the British people, pandering to a culture that tells people it is acceptable to discriminate against, to persecute and to abuse Muslims.

Across Europe, the situation is alarming, with the threat of the far right on the rise, including the re-emergence of far-right parties and politicians such as Geert Wilders. Whether in India, France, China or Iran, I believe it should be up to women to choose what they wear. No state and no man should have the right to overrule that. This September marked a year since the murder of Mahsa Amini in Iran. When she was murdered, the Prime Minister was right to describe the Iranian regime’s attacks on women protesting for their right to not wear the hijab as abhorrent, but the Government are silent about the outlawing of Muslim women’s right to wear the abaya in France. And where is the Government’s outrage at the fact that government offices across Europe can now ban employees from wearing religious symbols such as headscarves in the interests of so-called neutrality, after a court was asked to rule on the case of a Muslim employee in Belgium who was told that she could not wear a headscarf at work? I am concerned and alarmed by that, because it could exacerbate the marginalisation of Muslims at a time when Islamophobia is already on the rise.

The constituency that I represent has a long and proud history of migration and anti-racism, whether that was our Jewish communities and allies opposing fascists at the battle of Cable Street in 1936 or our Bangladeshi communities leading the anti-fascist mobilisation in 1978 after the murder of Altab Ali. We are one of the most culturally diverse areas in the UK, and we are damned proud of it. We will always stand together, multiracial, of all faiths and none, against division and intolerance.

Leaseholders and Managing Agents

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

In the interest of time, I will keep my remarks short and go straight into an example.

In the first quarter of 2022, one of my constituents paid just under a whopping £1,000 in electricity bills for a one-bedroom flat. She is obviously extremely concerned about how she will afford her bills when the energy price cap rises again in April. The electricity account is held by the freeholder of the building, which is a private company, and it is a commercial account. My constituent, who is a leaseholder, wishes to change her account type—indeed, she says that the majority of the units are residential anyway—but she is facing difficulties.

In particular, the energy provider has said it cannot have direct relationships with the leaseholders unless individual meters are installed. The managing agent has confirmed that the cost of installing individual meters would be passed on to the leaseholders and would be around £1,000 or £2,000. However, building-wide energy efficiency improvements are generally understood to be the freeholder’s responsibility. As a leaseholder, my constituent can make some energy efficiency improvements to her home, but at the very least she needs permission from the freeholder for major works.

Again, the leaseholder is trapped in this bureaucratic quagmire between an opaque rock and an even more oppressive hard place, thwarted by complex buck-passing that ends up with them being financially liable or financially disadvantaged, without rights or agency. That is because, essentially, a residential building of leaseholders is run almost entirely at the landlord’s discretion. I understand that leaseholders can dispute decisions and costs, which can amount to millions of pounds, but they will never get their legal costs paid, even if they are successful. On the other hand, the landlord almost always gets their legal costs paid as administrative charges under the lease. I repeat that the system does not work for residents.

Appointed managing agents have failed significantly, over and over again, to point out building defects in new blocks of flats. The truth is that there is a clear commercial incentive for building defects not to be highlighted. Indeed, if one were cynical, one might believe that a prime task of a developer-appointed manager is to ensure that the defects of a building are not revealed within the timescale of the warranty, after which date the cost can be placed on leaseholders’ shoulders.

In my constituency of Poplar and Limehouse, people view the Westferry Printworks debacle and the history of controversy as illustrating systemic priorities that lie in serving billionaires rather than the interests of local people. I appeal to the Government to put local people in need at the heart of their planning and housing agenda, and once and for all to end the scandal of leasehold for millions who have bought their home but do not feel like they own it.

Private Rented Sector Housing

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) on securing this debate and on a very powerful speech, setting out the conditions as he sees them in his own constituency.

I have the largest private rented sector in Britain in my borough, including some of the most high-end private accommodation it is possible to find—the luxury penthouses, the oligarch properties—but also some of the worst conditions. I am going to make three points of slightly different lengths, but my first is to beware the tyranny of the average. I urge the Minister to reflect on that point, because we know that over the decades there has been a steady overall improvement in the condition of property, including in the private rented sector. However, beneath that, we have a huge and arguably growing problem that is concentrated in particular sectors.

That problem was very well set out in Julie Rugg’s report three years or so ago, in which she looked at the sub-markets in the private rented sector. She rightly reflected on the fact that there are particular groups of people without power, including purchasing power—those who are dependent on housing benefit to rent their property—but also other kinds of power: those who do not have settled immigration status; those who have been homeless; the very young; the students; the old; and, in particular, those with disabilities. When the Minister responds and whenever we talk about this issue, it needs to be properly reflected that there is not a single sector, even allowing for geographical variations.

Secondly, I will touch briefly on the issue of enforcement. Although we will rightly hear from a number of colleagues, including the Front Benchers, about the need to move ahead with the overdue legislation to strengthen renters’ rights, those rights will mean very little unless we are sure that we have enforcement capacity—two kinds of enforcement capacity, in particular.

The first is the enforcement carried out by local authorities, particularly through their environmental health departments. Although I do not have time to reflect on this at length, we know from the work of the National Residential Landlords Association, and my own series of freedom of information inquiries to local authorities over the course of the past 10 years, that most local authorities do not enforce, or do so informally. Some of that informal enforcement will be fine, but it is untrackable—it is not monitored.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what is needed is a centralised national landlord register that ensures accountability, so that tenants know before moving in whether their landlords have been compliant, especially in relation to health and safety?

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Before the hon. Lady continues, it might be helpful to say that she is rushing, but she does not need to: every speaker can have six or seven minutes if they want, rather than four or five.

Building Safety Bill

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 19th January 2022 Commons Chamber

In looking to the future—we recognise that the new regulator will have to move in a considered way, and it is important that the highest-risk buildings are considered first—we believe that, eventually, there ought to be a requirement to consider extending the scope of regulation. Where a building has within it vulnerable people, who will take longer to get out of the building in the event of a fire, or where the means of access and egress are limited—as in the proposal to build a 50-storey tower block with one means of fire escape, which fortunately was withdrawn the other day from a local planning committee—that factor ought to be taken into account when extending the scope of the new regulatory regime to other buildings in the future. Again, we are not saying it has to be done today or tomorrow; we are merely saying that that issue should inform future decisions about extending the scope of the new and important building safety regulatory regime. I would hope that the Government will eventually give approval to those approaches, if not today. We will not push the amendments to a vote, but at least we have put the issue back on the agenda for future consideration.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 73, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), and amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). The Bill renames “private approved inspectors” “building control approvers”. Not just amendment 73 has touched on the issue; other Members have done that through other new clauses and amendments. I wish to express my support for the Fire Brigades Union’s opposition to those private inspectors, which, as it argues, undermine professional local authority building control and weaken building safety regulation.

Amendment 1 is about the Building Safety Regulator. Again, I share the alarm expressed by the Fire Brigades Union that the Building Safety Regulator would be permitted to seek private sector involvement if the fire authority cannot assist. Surely it is obvious why private firms cannot be given licence to sign off on fire safety matters relating to higher-risk buildings. Fire safety is a matter for professional firefighters, not profiteers, and it is not clear how the new Building Regulations Advisory Committee will be constituted. I would be grateful if the Minister could say more about that.

Many of us would like to see the Government re-establish a statutory fire safety advisory body, with guaranteed representation for trade unions and residents. As the Bill progresses, I would like to see legislation and provision that apply to all residential buildings above 11 metres in height, an idea that has been echoed by Members of all parties. Any new regime should apply to other multi-occupancy institutional or residential buildings, which was also touched on in various amendments.

It would be helpful to hear from the Minister whether the Government have any plans to introduce a threshold height at which two staircases are required in order to provide means of both resident escape and firefighter entry. As he will no doubt be aware, concerns were raised that the plans for Ballymore’s proposed 51-storey development in Cuba Street in my constituency included only a single fire escape for a building that would have been two and half times the height of Grenfell tower.

Elsewhere in my constituency, the recent fire at Ballymore’s New Providence Wharf, where the fire spread between multiple floors and the ventilation system failed, led to smoke spreading throughout the building. That demonstrates the potential shortcomings of relying on stay put evacuation policies, so it would be helpful to know whether the Government have any plans to commit to addressing that in the Bill.

[Andy Slaughter]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she has done to draw wider attention to the Ballymore application, and indeed it has now been withdrawn. That is happening everywhere, however: on the border of my constituency, one over 50-storey block is already under construction and three others are in planning with, again, one staircase each. It is ridiculous to say that the stay put policy is the answer to that, because post Grenfell, people will not stay put and we understand exactly why.

[Apsana Begum]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point strongly. I share his concern that there is too much of a free pass in that situation and such buildings should just not be allowed to be presented. On his point, the Cuba Street development has been withdrawn for now, but it is only paused. It will come back and there is no guarantee that all the problems will be addressed, so it would be helpful to know whether the Government have any plans to address that issue and, if not, whether they will commit to a national independent review of stay put policies, particularly given that the Cuba Street proposal was allowed under existing building regulations.

At present, there are insufficient fire safety inspectors after decades of cuts and increased workloads. It is urgent that the fire and rescue service is properly funded and resourced, because people have a right to be safe in their own homes. The Bill is a small step forward, but it does not resolve the overall building safety crisis across the UK. In the words of the Fire Brigades Union, it is at best

“a sticking plaster over a gaping wound unless the whole regime rebuild around need rather than profit.”

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

I rise to speak in support of new clauses 1, 2, 15, 16 and 23. The events at Grenfell Tower were devastating, with the tragic loss of 72 lives, which shocked us all. Words will never adequately describe the pain felt by the families and friends of the victims. Later, though, as light was shed on the extensive preventable failings that led to the disaster, justifiable anger followed.

I am glad to see the Bill progress through this place, but it should not have taken almost five years. I welcome the Secretary of State’s recent announcement that leaseholders in England will not face the astronomical costs of remediating unsafe cladding. I am pleased that the Government have taken a moral stance on the issue.

Unfortunately, there are still gaps that must be plugged, and I hope that the Minister’s promise of statutory protection against all building safety defects will materialise. For my constituents, I hope that the Government will engage in a constructive dialogue with the Scottish Government to ensure that leaseholder protection can be extended across the UK fully funded.

There is still a glaring lack of clarity and the Government must facilitate funding being available across the devolved Administrations to achieve an equal standing. Although much of the Bill has limited territorial extent, there are some key areas that apply across the UK and in Scotland, such as the testing and inspection of construction products.

Early last year, it was announced that the independent panel on the safety of construction materials would review the testing system and how it can be strengthened so that product safety confidence can be restored. The industry is still awaiting the report’s publication, which prompts the question of how we can fully scrutinise the Bill’s measures without knowing what the review found. Can the Minister provide a definitive date for when it will be available? Will he also provide an update on the establishment of a national regulator for construction products?

As it stands, there are a limited number of private product testing companies, and fewer still of the accredited bodies’ testing sites, which means limited access to the furnaces that are used to test all combustible building materials and products. Subsequently, there are huge delays in products moving through the testing system.

Some companies are reporting delays of up to six months to test their products. The accredited sites are managed by private sector companies, and as demand increases and supply decreases, the price set by those bodies climbs. Concerns have been raised that that model incentivises the maximising of profit over the quality of testing.

The Government must also be cautious not to create widespread quality disparity between existing buildings and new ones of any height. While preservation of life is of course the most key consideration, the lifespan of buildings must be protected too. Buildings such as schools, hospitals and care homes, which hon. Members have mentioned, should have a mandatory requirement for sprinklers. By making such buildings as safe and resilient as possible, human life is protected, yes, but many other things too. Schools are pillars of the community. Where do those students go to learn if their school burns down, or for a hospital, where do the patients go? What delays will essential services suffer?

The Bill is a mammoth piece of legislation and it is easy to look at each single part in turn to make it digestible, but a key finding in Dame Judith Hackitt’s review was that there needs to be a holistic, whole-building approach to fire safety. We ought to apply that principle here and take a whole-Bill approach, to truly understand how it will work in practice.

Residential Leaseholders and Interim Fire Safety Costs

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Wednesday 10th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on bringing this important debate.

As the cladding scandal rolls on, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Government are not concerned enough with the physical safety or financial security of my constituents who are living every single day in unsafe housing. The Government’s position on the waking watch measures are just one example of that. Committing to the use of waking watches, as the National Fire Chiefs Council suggests, would mean committing to temporary measures that would go on indefinitely. In its written submission to the Public Bill Committee on the Fire Safety Bill, the Fire Brigades Union stated that it was unable to support the use of waking watches in that way, for fear that it would become

“a de facto permanent state of affairs.”

Temporary measures such as those have been in place since the Grenfell Tower tragedy in 2017. The word “temporary” is losing its meaning and I would be grateful if the Minister would address that in his response, because constituents are now faced with bankruptcy, with the cost of waking watches placed at their door.

The other matter I would like to raise is the overwhelming financial burden being placed on leaseholders who are also legally freeholders. I draw on the example of the Limehouse West estate in my constituency, to bring the matter to the Minister’s attention. Limehouse West was owned by the Canal & River Trust until November 2019, when about 60% of the leaseholders got together to buy the freehold. They did that for a number of reasons. They wanted to take charge of their estate, as the Canal & River Trust was extremely slow to respond and do anything around the estate, and my constituents did not want to pay the ground rent.

In the context of the ongoing cladding scandal, for those constituents, being their own freeholders included some benefits. There was no risk of the Canal & River Trust choosing wildly expensive or unnecessary remedial works and then saddling leaseholders with costs, or the Canal & River Trust doing nothing for years and the flats staying almost unsellable while waiting for the EWS1 certificates.

Many of my constituents on that estate are both freeholder and leaseholder. The Government say that leaseholders should not have to pay a penny. Who pays for any cladding and remediation works at Limehouse West and similar estates in my constituency, including for interim measures? If it is the freeholders, 60% of my constituents on that estate will bear the cost of the work that will benefit all of them, without any means of recovering those costs. Many of my constituents who are freeholders-leaseholders feel that it is very unfair. If it is the original developers who should pay, there is the difficult legal problem of making this happen. In the case of the estate, the developer is the absolutely awful Bellway, which tells me that it will not pay for something that was completed over 20 years ago.

I would be grateful if the Minister could help distinguish where leaseholders are also freeholders in response to the costs of interim measures and the wider costs of remediation works. Does he believe there should be parity between the burden placed on freeholders-leaseholders and leaseholders only where the freehold has been bought out by a party that is not related to the original developer in any way? I really believe that the building industry should have to take a greater burden, but in the absence of that, it would be great to get clarification from the Minister.

Coronavirus: Supporting Businesses and Individuals

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) [V]]

Before the pandemic, a decade of austerity left far too many trapped in low-paid, insecure work and consistently failed by the social security system. The failing economic system has been further exposed throughout the coronavirus pandemic, which produced a policy that led to 3 million people being left out of economic support. That is simply unacceptable.

We are at a critical juncture in the pandemic and the Government’s stop-start approach has meant that many businesses are now being forced to make tough decisions about their future. In my constituency, Chrisp Street market, Watney market and surrounding businesses are key to our local economy. Indeed, given the close proximity in which they operate, their sustainability is tied together. Despite that, market traders were slow to receive any support from the Government in the last financial year. To make matters worse, many small and independent businesses could not access grants and relief measures because of the premises criterion, whereby because they did not pay business relief directly, they were left out of support. It took months for the Government to begin to address that.

Conservative Members are quick to claim that every single business has had some form of support in the pandemic, but that is simply not true, and too many have spent 2020 in turmoil. Perhaps the Minister can today outline how markets, traders and small independent businesses will be supported towards long-term and sustainable economic recovery.

Economic measures are vital for businesses, but they are also vital to protect individuals. Under this Government, in the pandemic, unemployment is spiralling out of control. Just today, Office for National Statistics figures confirmed yet again that the economic impact of the pandemic continues to feed on inequality, with people living in more deprived areas experiencing mortality rates more than double those in less deprived areas. Unemployment is higher among ethnic minority communities: 13.8% among black people compared with 4.5% among their white counterparts; and 10.6% for ethnic minority women.

If the Government’s economic support measures are sufficient, why are there such glaring disparities in pandemic unemployment? If the economic measures are so satisfactory, why does there need to be 18 food banks—18—in my borough, trying to keep households afloat with the bare necessities? The answer is simple. The Government’s support measures are insufficient, unfair and inconsistent. At this critical juncture, the Government must do better.

Unsafe Cladding: Protecting Tenants and Leaseholders

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) [V]]

The topic of this debate is an incredibly pressing one, and I am glad to have the opportunity to speak because it affects so many of my constituents. The ongoing scandal surrounding the replacement of cladding has two main components to which I would like to draw attention by using an example in Poplar and Limehouse: building safety and remedial costs.

New Providence Wharf in my constituency is a development owned by Ballymore housing. The building is covered in ACM cladding—the same sort of flammable cladding that was wrapped around Grenfell Tower. Representatives of the residents’ association at New Providence Wharf have been in touch with me for some time now, but the most recent update I had from them is perhaps the most shocking. Currently living surrounded by flammable cladding, these constituents have told me that remedial work on the building has now been pushed back to May. Those who bought properties in developments such as New Providence Wharf in good faith now find themselves in a nightmare scenario. These leaseholders bought a property under the reasonable assumption that it was safe to live in, but not only are they now struggling to sell or remortgage their homes, they have been left stranded, having to foot the bill for remedial works.

The recent update I have received about New Providence Wharf is that the remediation costs are set to be between £12.5 million and £25 million. These are astronomical figures to fall on the shoulders of those living in the development. With only £5,000 offered by Ballymore, this could mean that each leaseholder would have to pay up to £50,000 in remedial costs. How can this possibly go on?



That is just one example from my constituency of the effects that this scandal is having on so many people’s lives. Residents in dangerous developments right across my constituency are not being supported by their building owners. At New Festival Quarter, leaseholders are being left in the dark about how safe their building is; at Indescon Square, residents have been charged hundreds of thousands of pounds by Galliard Homes for the cost of inspection works; and at New Atlas Wharf—constructed by Britain’s most profitable housebuilder, Persimmon—residents are facing costs of up to £66,000 per flat. But, of course, in this whole debacle buck passing has been the order of the day. The unsafe conditions that such residents are living in will only be made worse by the trajectory of outsourcing and deregulation that the Government continue to follow as they attempt to avoid culpability for the poor housing conditions that so many in this country face.

It is a disgrace that anyone should be living in the same cladding that we all saw burning on Grenfell Tower. Safe housing should not be a privilege for the few; it should be a basic right. The Government need to front up to the mistakes made in the past and work quickly to undo them. The onus must not in any way fall on those currently living in flammable buildings through no fault of their own.