Building Safety Bill

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 21st July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I rise on behalf of every leaseholder in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields who is living in an unsafe building, paying the price for the irresponsibility and incompetence of others, and feeling let down by the Government and this Bill, which is so late and so flawed. I stand here on behalf of those at the Riverside Quarter, the Swish building, the Filaments development, the Radial development, Hardwicks Square, Whitelands Park, Mill Court, Norstead Place and the rest of the 25 developments in Putney and Southfields in my constituency currently on the wrong side of the building safety scandal.

I stand here on behalf of those whose lives have already been ruined and those whose lives will be ruined in the future unless the Government get this Bill right. Dreams of home ownership have turned into an absolute nightmare. People are furious in my constituency, and I have met so many of them. The way in which the victims—and they are victims—have been treated is a disgrace. One block in Wandsworth that has unsafe cladding has been turned down by the building safety fund and each leaseholder is now facing a £37,000 bill for remediation for the cladding. What will this Bill do for them? Behind the speeches, briefings and legislative noise are millions of leaseholders trapped in unsafe homes, suffering unimaginable stress, anxiety and emotional anguish, and they still feel totally abandoned.

The building safety fund is a mess. Just 12p of every pound of that fund has been allocated. At this rate it will take until 2027 to allocate the fund, and meanwhile people are living in fear. I recently asked the Government how many applications they have received for the building safety fund. That is a simple question, and the answer was that

“it will not be possible to answer this question within the usual time period.”

They do not know how many applications have been received, yet applications are being serviced on a first come, first served basis.

This Bill is a step in the right direction, but it is very late and there need to be some serious changes. The Government need to take much more of a role. They need to take action to stop the ever-increasing waking watches, insurance premiums and service charges resulting from building safety mismanagement. There need to be no more costs and no building safety charge, which is in this Bill. There needs to be explicit legal protection to ensure that all leaseholders in unsafe buildings, regardless of height—no 18-metre rule—will not have to pay for their remedial works.

This Bill should not be so reliant on residents having to take up legal action to make their building safe. That is too high a barrier to result in the changes needed. There will be inequality and it will leave unsafe buildings staying unsafe. The building safety fund must be increased. Applications must be based on fire safety risk rather than be first come, first served, and they must be speeded up. As other Members have said, we must learn from the Government of Victoria and have a building works agency. My leaseholders should have a Bill that does not have a devastating effect on so many people’s lives and that makes future buildings safe.

Green Homes Grant Voucher Scheme

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2021 Westminster Hall

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Robertson; I think that I do so for the first time.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) on securing this hugely important debate, on his Committee’s leadership on this issue, and on keeping alive the idea and the ambition of the green homes grant. I hope that there will be many future conversations about it, and that this will not be the end of it; I hope that the green homes grant will not slip away silently without our learning from it.

I think there is also some cross-party agreement here, which I always welcome. There is agreement about the need for the scheme; a general welcoming of the scheme’s ambition; agreement about the need to learn from and improve on the scheme; and agreement about the need to bring it back in some form. I hope that this debate will contribute to its return.

Like other Members, several constituents have contacted me after trying and failing to get a green homes grant. One of them wanted to have improvements in tier two but not in tier one, so they really wanted to make a change to their house, which was very commendable, but they could not get into the scheme. And others, in trying to access it, had to go back three times for new quotes. Thankfully, they were very persistent—they really wanted to do this—but they still have not heard about their application, despite making it in early October. That shows some of the frustrations that have arisen, and that the scheme was set up with barriers inside it that stopped it from working. I will go on to say more about those barriers.

In total, 40% of UK carbon emissions come from UK households, with over half coming from heating and electricity. As the Committee on Climate Change has made clear, those emissions need to be reduced by 44% by 2030 if we are to meet the UK’s fifth carbon budget. As was said earlier, that is a huge challenge.

If we look at the 15,500 successful applicants to the scheme in the six months that it was running, and if we look at the 10 million owner-occupied homes that need to be retrofitted and brought up to environmental standards, we can see that at that rate it will take us 323 years to deliver the change we need. In a climate emergency, we simply do not have that time.

Last month, I held an all-party parliamentary group on sustainable resource roundtable with leaders from the energy and buildings industries, company leaders and other representatives, to get their views on the ending of the grant and what we can learn from it. They were incredibly disappointed at its closure and believe that we need it back as soon as possible, so there is willingness from the industry to see the scheme work in a future form. As has been said, demand was definitely there. More than 210,000 applications had been made to the scheme by the time of its closure, and I think there would have been even more if the application process had been easier.

There were certainly problems with the design of the scheme, but the overwhelming enthusiasm with which it was met by householders is very striking. That willingness to pay for home efficiency improvements, if it could be encouraged with some financial help in conjunction with Government schemes, should not be squandered now. We should press on.

Those in attendance at that meeting felt that ending the scheme after just six months of operation suggested an inconsistent approach to energy efficiency and a lack of faith in Government policy. In fact, the owner-occupied market may now be disincentivised as a result, which is why it is even more important that, as well as looking back to learn, we quickly move on and address people’s willingness to take this up.

It is absolutely critical that we act fast. Whatever comes next, we must, as a minimum, include the following. First, as has been said, the scheme must last a minimum of 10 years, to allow industry to develop the necessary skills, provide investor confidence and meet objectives over a sustained period. Those skills could be built up and delivered by local colleges such as mine, which would love to be part of the green jobs revolution that this could bring about. If the Government committed to a 10-year grant programme of home insulation and renewable energy improvements, suppliers could expand to meet that demand, knowing that there was time to invest.

Secondly, a future scheme must cover all homes. As well as social housing, the Government must support owner-occupied homes and private landlords in the energy efficiency transition. That will require the Government to implement and co-ordinate a range of concurrent schemes to suit the different markets. The Government must think big on this.

Thirdly, the scheme must be easy to access for my and all our constituents across the country. People are willing to access it, but they will put off by any barriers put in their way. If it is really difficult to access, the scheme will fail. It must be easy to access.

Fourthly, a future scheme must expand the accredited supplier base. Inviting a small number of companies to deliver the grant was a mistake, as they were overwhelmed by demand at a time when the number of people wanting to do DIY on their homes increased massively during lockdown. The British Board of Agrément accreditation service provides quality assurance for all the relevant building sectors: insulation, wall cladding, floors, heating, ventilation, walls and doors and roofing. All of those accredited suppliers need to be able to participate in the scheme.

Fifthly, a new cohort of inspectors must be created and trained. This was a limiting factor in the previous scheme. Grenfell sadly demonstrated just how dangerously unregulated the building industry has become. Creating a new body of locally based and easily accessible inspectors, who would also inspect the delivery of grant scheme installations, would provide the dual benefit of building safety and fraud avoidance.

Finally, it is vital that the Government work with the building industry right from the start of the scheme’s creation. They did not do that last time. It has been suggested that they could easily work with the industry through the Construction Leadership Council. They must also work with financial services, including mortgage companies, to ensure that the system is deliverable. This must include providing financial incentives to homeowners, for without the grant, decarbonising a home is very expensive. Some of my constituents in Putney received quotes, as required by the scheme, of up to £20,000 to properly decarbonise their home. Financial support needs to be made available to deliver that, and more financial support needs to be made available to people on low incomes. That could involve grants or personal tax relief, although that would not incentivise all households. We need to invest in public engagement to raise consumer awareness of the additional benefit of reducing heating bills.

I would like the Minister’s assurance that he will listen to the voices of the building industry, environmental groups and potential consumers—householders, lease- holders, landlords and local authorities—when designing whatever scheme comes next. We were all desperate for the green homes grant scheme to succeed and were desperately disappointed at its closure. We simply will not achieve net zero without green homes. COP26 will provide the perfect opportunity to announce a viable, long-term approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from homes. The Government must not miss this opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Monday 19th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the role of his Department in meeting the national target of net zero emissions by 2050.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Eddie Hughes)]

The simple answer to the hon. Lady’s question is that lots of discussions have been had. This Department works very closely with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to set us on the path to ensuring that all homes and buildings meet that national net zero target. As no doubt you know, Mr Speaker, this is part of the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan to build back greener post pandemic and ensure we achieve net zero emissions by 2050.

[Fleur Anderson [V]]

Heating the UK’s draughty homes makes up 14% of the country’s carbon emissions. Many of my constituents in Putney wanted to apply for the green homes grant, but cannot because it has been scrapped. The Labour Government set out the original plans for zero-carbon homes in 2006, which set a goal of achieving zero-carbon homes by 2016. Why was this ambition abandoned by this Government in 2016, why was the green homes grant scrapped this month by this Government and what will be replacing it?

[Eddie Hughes]

The green homes grant is of course a BEIS initiative, but I can tell the hon. Lady that although it was making encouraging progress—with over 96,000 applications, and 39,000 vouchers had been issued via the scheme—given the fact that it was not progressing quickly enough, we have taken stock and decided to reconsider our approach. Last month, the Secretary of State for BEIS announced £300 million of extra funding for green home upgrades through the local authority delivery element of the green homes grant scheme and the social housing decarbonisation fund. This brings the total spending on energy efficiency to £1.3 billion.

Holocaust Memorial Day 2021

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) [V]]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) and the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for securing today’s debate. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity, I join colleagues on both sides of the House in taking a moment to pause, despite all that is happening around us right now, and reflect on and remember the greatest crime in history.

I pay tribute to the work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Aegis Trust for their action on education and prevention in my constituency, across the country and around the world. We must never forget that we must use our power and responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure this never happens again. Unfortunately, and to our great shame, “never again” has become time and time again in the 76 years since the liberation of Auschwitz. At this very moment, as we have this debate, genocide and crimes against humanity are taking place all over the world, against the Uyghurs, the Rohingya, the Yazidis and more recently, the Tigrayan people in western Ethiopia. Genocide Watch now considers Ethiopia to be at genocide stage 9 out of 10: extermination.

Well-meaning words and statements will only get us so far, but as parliamentarians we must go further. What can we do? We can be assertive—braver at calling out genocides and crimes against humanity. Our second tool is accountability. We have to hold the Government to account on how they monitor, respond to and prevent atrocities. We can call for more training for our civil servants around the world to spot signs early and report them before atrocities take place.

We can also show political leadership. Our Executive need to lead from the front, and one thing they could be doing is reporting annually to Parliament on an at-risk register—a list of countries in relation to crimes against humanity, to stop them before they become genocide. We would do well to follow the example of the United States in that regard. In 2018, Congress passed the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act, which called for a government-wide atrocity prevention strategy. We should look into that.

On our language, we must set our own house in order to combat antisemitism and discriminatory and dehumanising language in everything we say. We should increase our offer of sanctuary for victims of terror and for child refugees from around the world. I invite all Members to join the all-party parliamentary group on prevention of genocide. On this Holocaust Memorial Day, we remember the 6 million Jews and other victims of Nazi persecution, and we say that genocide does not start with genocide; it starts with the denial of rights. I say “Never again”.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

To present this appalling Bill to the House once was outrageous, showing contempt for our European friends and neighbours, trampling all over international law and riding roughshod over devolution. To push it through for a second time, deliberately putting back in place all the same flaws as before, is therefore simply shameless, but that is exactly what the Government are attempting to do today by way of these motions to disagree. The Government simply are not listening to some of the most serious, widespread and weighty criticism that any Government Bill has received in recent times, and they certainly are not listening to the devolved Governments and Parliaments. Every single one of the reasons for rejecting this Bill previously remain equally valid now as reasons for opposing these Government motions.

Like others, I will focus on the amendments that relate to international law and to devolution. On the former, the House of Lords did what had to be done by taking out the clear breach of international law and the attack on the rule of law that part 5 represented. It bears repeating again that the Government are expressly asking us to pass legislation in breach of an agreement they signed just months ago with a counterpart they are still negotiating with. That is simply astonishing, and we cannot let it be spoken about as if this is no big deal or in any way normal. Proceeding in this way represents a

“very real and direct threat to the rule of law, which includes the country’s obligations under public international law.”

These are not my words, but those of the Law Society and the Bar Council. When these provisions were first introduced, it seemed simply a totally cack-handed and counterproductive negotiating tactic, but, embarrassingly, here they are still pursuing this reckless possibility and offering up the removal of these clauses as part of negotiations on the future relationship changes nothing. It simply confirms that the Government are happy to threaten to go back on their word as a means of trying to get their own way. What an astonishing way for any Government to behave.

On devolution, all the House of Lords did was to water down the clear, obvious and extensive power grab on devolution. It did this through some modest obligations around consultation and giving the common frameworks process priority over ministerial diktat. It ditched the reservations of state aid and powers to bypass devolved Governments and devolved public spending. It provided greater scope for divergence on environmental, social and other grounds. None of that should be controversial, but, again, shamefully, the Government are seeking to restore the power grab to its fullest extent. Doing so undermines the possibility of policy divergence and the opportunities for the devolved Governments to deliver policies that protect and advance the interests of their citizens, and it restores the grim prospect of a race to the bottom. These Government motions are anti-devolution and they are anti-democratic. Again, they should be rejected.

In conclusion, let us be clear about what these proceedings tell us about the UK Government and the UK constitution. They tell us that Governments can, and that this one will, rip up international agreements signed just months ago. They tell us that power devolved is as exactly as was promised: power retained, with the devolved settlement to be amended or deleted at the will of the UK Government. Finally, with the UK out of the EU, the human rights regime under review, judicial oversight under attack, the second Chamber in reality toothless, this Chamber a rubber stamp for the Government, and devolution undermined, we say that the checks and balances on the UK Government have never, ever been weaker. In short, the Bill shows us that the UK’s political system and constitution are not fit for purpose, and that the sooner we are out of it, the better.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald).

We are in the middle of a public health emergency and an economic crisis, yet as always the Government are doing their assignment the night before it is due, or maybe later. Now is the time for competence and consensus, so the country can move on and recover. Instead, the Government have introduced legislation that knowingly and openly breaks international law, and will frustrate the process of getting a deal further still. It is unnecessary, it undermines the rule of law, it undermines devolution, it is internationally damaging to our reputation and it threatens to undermine the Good Friday agreement.

I have had 80 constituents write to me ahead of the debate expressing their disgust at what this deal is attempting to do and urging me to support the amendments made in the other place. They are representative of constituents across Putney, across London and across the country. It is not just my local constituents who were left bemused by the first publication of the Bill. President-elect Joe Biden made it crystal clear that the Good Friday peace agreement in Northern Ireland cannot become a casualty of Brexit. He has made it clear that a future trade deal hinges on that. The Bill will end up undermining trust in us as a country.

I therefore urge colleagues to accept Lords amendments to part 5 of the Bill. For those of us who still believe in the rule of law, the amendments are crucial. As the motion from the convenor of the Cross-Bench peers, Lord Judge, stated:

“Part 5 of the bill…would undermine the rule of law and damage the reputation of the United Kingdom.”

He said that by supporting it, Parliament, which is responsible for making the laws and expects people to obey the laws it makes, would be knowingly granting power to the Executive to break the law.

The strength of feeling on this from the learned and noble peers in the other place cannot be ignored. In Committee, Members in the other place voted by 433 to 165 to remove clause 42. That vote was the largest in terms of turnout since remote voting was introduced in the other place and the third largest since the House was reformed in 1999. How can we ignore the disappointment and anger in the other place? How can the Government expect the public to follow lockdown restrictions or China to respect the Sino-British joint declaration, when they grant themselves a mandate to break the law? States and citizens alike are going to rightly think that it is one rule for them and another for us.

This is about Britain’s reputation, not Brexit. Do we want to be a trustworthy nation that stands by its commitments? Do we want to be able to strike good trade deals with other countries? As we deal with the economic damage inflicted by the pandemic, we need to be winning international friends and not alienating them. Brexit has actually done enough damage already. In my own constituency, businesses have already had to close and jobs have already been lost. Let us not compound that by not accepting the Lords amendments this evening. I welcome the Lords amendments and I urge colleagues, for Britain’s sake, to support the Lords amendments to part 5 of the Bill.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I rise to speak in support of the Government and against the Lords amendments. I do so as somebody who campaigned and voted in the referendum for the United Kingdom to remain in the European Union. I believe passionately that a close, positive relationship with our friends and allies is very important to us and very important to them for the future.

However, it seems to me that, in addressing these issues tonight, we need to be enormously pragmatic. Those of us on the Government Benches, when we fought an election and accepted that our plan was to acknowledge the decision of the British people and to put it into effect, accepted the responsibility to make the decisions that would enable that to happen. Taking the stand that the Government are on this matter this evening is, in my view, a crucial step on that journey.

Arcadia and Debenhams: Business Support and Job Retention

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

That is a really important issue, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that these businesses want people to trade. At the moment, both Arcadia and Debenhams have said that they will accept vouchers, and I encourage anybody who is shopping at either store to use their credit card if they are spending more than £100, because then the Consumer Credit Act 1974 kicks in. At this moment, vouchers are accepted.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Will the Minister accept that although Putney high street is very much loved and the centre of our local community, people are concerned about the fact that covid is accelerating the number of shops that are going? Will he consider a reform of the business rates, and of the meanwhile use rules, so that we can have more community activities in our shops on the high street?

[Paul Scully]

There is a really good community in Putney—I was there a few months ago at the business improvement district—and the more we can strip away through encouraging innovation through meanwhile use provisions, the better. I have spoken about the fundamental review of business rates, and it is important that we look at the whole thing.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that discussions continue. He and I have had those discussions as well. But he makes the point that this is a business Bill, and I hope that every Member, like him, will support it on Third Reading.

We have taken these powers to ensure that, in the event that we do not reach an agreement with our EU friends on how to implement the protocol, we are able to deliver on promises in our manifesto and in the Command Paper. This is a legal safety net that clarifies our position on the Northern Ireland protocol, protecting our Union, businesses and jobs.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

The Irish Foreign Minister said recently that this Bill undermines the EU withdrawal legislation, has damaged trust between the Irish and UK negotiating teams, and is damaging Britain’s reputation globally. Does that give the Secretary of State any cause for concern?

[Alok Sharma]

This has been debated over the long passage of the Bill in this House. As the hon. Lady and other Members will know, we introduced an amendment in Committee that provides a break-glass mechanism that ensures that the safety net will come into force only if a motion in this House is passed with a requirement for a take-note debate in the other place. I hope that will allow her to vote for the Bill on Third Reading.

End of Eviction Moratorium

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

My hon. Friend will know that anybody who has been a regular member of Her Majesty’s armed forces will receive priority treatment from local authorities with regard to housing and housing need. I certainly commend the work of Help 4 Homeless Veterans, led by its chief executive officer, Mr Steven Bentham-Bates, in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I wish them, and him, more power to their elbow.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

In my constituency, the number of universal credit and jobseekers allowance claimants has more than doubled since the lockdown. Almost a third of employees have been furloughed and a third of households in Putney are rented privately. With the evictions ban ending last weekend, the ending of furlough coming up very soon, and yesterday’s announcement of six months’ more restrictions, does the Minister agree that this is the perfect storm? Will he now end section 21 no-fault evictions?

[Christopher Pincher]

The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), has, with his Department, increased welfare spending by £9.3 billion since this crisis began. That is helping millions of people who, through no fault of their own, are in need of universal credit. The Chancellor has introduced the job retention scheme and the furlough scheme, which has resulted in our spending something like £35 billion to help 9 million people, so we have taken very tangible steps to help people through this difficulty. We will continue to keep all our policies under review as the epidemic develops. It has some way to go yet, and we shall be watching and reacting as appropriate.

Flammable Cladding Removal

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I urge the Minister to use his powers and his position to look at these issues in the round, so that he can sleep at night and feel comfortable that he has done everything to protect people. Ultimately, we have a duty of care and responsibility to our citizens, and I hope that he will do all he can to address these points today.

My own local authority has 49 ACM-clad high-rise blocks, which is one of the highest figures in the country. I have had representations from many of my constituents over the past few years. It been years now, and the leaseholders have had to pay for the fire safety wardens. They were originally told that this would take a few months, but it has been years. They are worried about their safety and there is no end in sight for the work being completed. It has been done for some blocks but not for others.

A number of people have been told that the housing providers will not be able to provide the fire service reports. I hope that the Minister can give me some clarity on the need for transparency here, because whether they are private developers who own the freehold or housing associations, they should provide the fire safety reports. Without them, it is difficult for our residents to know how much they will have to pay if there is no Government funding, or to make plans for their future.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Do you agree that many of my constituents in the Riverside Quarter, the Swish Building and the Argento Tower are facing this same limbo and have no end in sight? The fund needs to be given out more quickly and transparently. Would you agree that the Minister is not doing enough to explain about these funds and when they will be made available for residents?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Would the hon. Lady mind saying, “Would the hon. Lady agree” rather than “Would you agree”?

Leaseholders and Cladding

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and all those from across the country who have spoken in the debate to show what strength of feeling there is. I want to join them, to represent my many constituents who feel just as strongly. Their lives are a misery because of the situation—surely an unforeseen result from a fund that is meant to save lives and to be a good thing for people across the country. Actually it has led to dreadful circumstances for residents.

To add to the stories we have heard, I will mention the leaseholders of 66 and 200 flats respectively at two buildings in my constituency—the Swish building and the Riverside Quarter. They have been told by their freeholder that the cladding and other fire safety measures in the building—the cladding is either not ACM, or it is a mixture between ACM and HPL—do not now meet the standard that the Government regard as adequate for the issue of a fire safety certificate, and that recladding is needed. To their horror, they have been told that they need to foot the bill for the work, which comes to tens of thousands of pounds. They have not been told exactly how much the cost is, but they believe it is between £50,000 and £80,000 per flat.

That raises a few issues, the first of which is safety. If the current cladding does not meet the safety requirements for a safety certificate, are the blocks safe? As we have heard today, different blocks are being treated differently. The fire regulations are not up to scratch. Another issue is fairness. To make leaseholders foot the bill is outrageous. They are not multi-million pound landlords, by any stretch. They are normal people trying to live their lives, and they do not have £50,000 lying around. The situation is taking a huge emotional toll.

[Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the unfair cost to leaseholders, which we have all highlighted. Does she agree that, as the taxpayer could ultimately foot the bill, we should make sure that dodgy developers, or those who will not step up to the mark, do not get away with a situation where the taxpayer bails people out just because they will not pay?

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely agree. There has to be a way to make the fund easy to use and urgently accessible, so that it is not held up for a long time in red tape, and the right people have to foot the bill. I argue that the Government need to extend the cladding fund to all types of unsafe cladding. That is what it is there for.

As to the emotional toll, one person said:

“The net result for me is that I will lose my home, as I cannot sell it, or raise a mortgage to finance repairs because it is unsellable and I am unemployed, and therefore will lose my lease.”

He will become homeless as a result. Another resident told me that his flat is unsaleable and effectively worthless. It was bought in 2004 in good faith in the belief that it was a safe home. The fact that it is now considered to have the problems in question is not of his making:

“We cannot afford to pay a sum of this size on top of the existing service charge”.

In summary, I am as shocked as everyone else here. I hope that the Minister will urgently tell us some good news. Three years after Grenfell, my constituents are being asked to fork out huge sums of money for a building that ultimately they do not own—a point that relates back to the leaseholder crisis. No leaseholder should have to pay for the work in question, or experience such huge stress and uncertainty. An urgent response is needed. I join those who are asking for the cladding fund to be urgently extended to all forms of unsafe cladding.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

I thank Members for their collective discipline in time management, which has given us just over half an hour for the Front-Bench speakers.