Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

Debate between James Naish and Angela Rayner

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend’s intervention shows that the remediation Bill is crucial to us meeting our ongoing challenges with the remediation acceleration plan. The relevant Minister will be happy to meet her to go through the specifics relating to fire safety and the regulations on that.

The Bill will help us complete the task of identifying all remaining buildings that require remediation. It will introduce a register of 11 to 18-metre buildings, giving Government a complete record for the first time of all medium-rise buildings in England. It will also mandate how external wall assessments are carried out, to ensure a nationally consistent approach to remediation. Also, for the first time, the Bill makes it indisputable that responsible entities have to remediate building safety defects with urgency through a new legal duty to remediate. They must take action now or risk severe consequences, including criminal charges where appropriate.

It is unacceptable that enforcement is too slow and penalties are too weak to compel those responsible to act. We will give regulators the tools that they need, including the ability to issue escalating financial penalties, and to pursue criminal prosecution in the worst cases. From now on, no building and no resident will be left behind. Our new remediation backstop will allow public bodies to step in and carry out remediation work themselves. That will mean that residents have a route to remediation, even when the responsible entity is determined to ignore its duty to keep residents safe.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

Exactly 12 months ago, I met the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), alongside the mum and brother of Amanda Walker. Amanda sadly took her own life as a result of the cladding scandal, which consumed her completely. Before her death, she gave evidence to the other place, seeking five changes, included closure of the loopholes that leave non-qualifying and enfranchised leaseholders exposed, and an industry-funded remediation scheme. I know the Secretary of State is aware of Amanda’s case. Will she consider Amanda’s asks as the Bill continues through this place?

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that case and the incredible work that the family have done. Today, I wrote to Amanda’s mother, who has been tremendous in making sure that some of the measures in this Bill were included. It is a devastating case.

Our measures will be backed by tough sanctions, including provisions for cost recovery and the sale of responsible parties’ interests in the building, so that they cannot benefit. We will also bring an end to indefinite decamps, in which residents are evacuated from their home and given no assurances about when they can return. We will empower residents to make sure that their buildings are safe, even when the responsible entity is absent, neglectful or insolvent.

The Bill is not just about getting the work done, but about making sure that the cost of the remediation work is borne by those who are responsible for the building safety crisis. That brings me on to construction product manufacturers who produced unsafe cladding, released it on to the market, and have yet to meaningfully contribute towards the remediation work. As well as being unjust, that puts additional financial pressure on those who are getting on with doing the work. The Bill will fix long-standing gaps in the law: developers, contractors and others who have paid to make buildings safe will be able to properly pursue manufacturers, rather than being blocked by technical legal barriers.

That is not all. I intend to table amendments, as the Bill passes through Parliament, that go further on construction product redress. Through the Bill, for the first time, we will require relevant construction product manufacturers to contribute towards remediation costs that are met by the taxpayer. It is not right that taxpayers should shoulder the burden on their behalf.

At the heart of everything that we do to make buildings safe are the residents and leaseholders who bear absolutely no responsibility for the building safety crisis, but who feel its most acute consequences. The most important thing that we can do for residents is remediate their homes as quickly as possible, to ensure that they are safe. This is not just a safety crisis; for many leaseholders, the presence of unsafe cladding on their home has had a terrible financial toll. Although the Building Safety Act 2022 protects the majority of leaseholders from substantial building safety costs, there are some groups who remain excluded, and who are exposed to remediation bills. Some are forced to pay higher insurance premiums until their buildings are made safe. As a member of this Government, who are committed to lowering the cost of living, I am not prepared to let that continue, so I can announce that the Government will go further than ever to shield leaseholders from the financial burden of this crisis. I am pleased to announce that this Government will commit grant funding towards the remediation of high-risk, high-cost internal fire safety defects in eligible collectively owned and enfranchised buildings. Those buildings do not benefit from existing protections because there is no separate freeholder to carry the cost. The funding will narrow the gap between leaseholders in such buildings and those already protected from remediation costs under the Building Safety Act, giving them greater certainty and support in making their home safe.

Local Government Reorganisation

Debate between James Naish and Angela Rayner

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I think it is fair to say that there is a very strong argument and rationale for it. I will make sure that the review happens speedily and that we can give those reassurances as part of the process after the review.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I have repeatedly argued with colleagues that LGR is extremely complex but extremely important. It therefore did not need to be a term-one priority for this Government, and I remain of that view, because for me our councils should be building council houses, tackling homelessness, strengthening trade standards and regenerating high streets, not focusing on administrative structures. Assuming that LGR still goes ahead in some form—I advise the Secretary of State to think deeply about that—will she please explain how the views of Rushcliffe and Nottinghamshire residents, many of whom felt ignored through the last process, will be fully considered in this new approach?

[Angela Rayner]

Again, we will ensure within the review that people are engaged in the process. I say to my hon. Friend that local government reform is challenging and complex, but the aim for me is to deliver better services for local people. That means building the homes that we desperately need and renewing our high streets, which this Government are taking forward. We can deliver better services, we can reorganise and we can do better. I believe that working with local leaders is the way forward to deliver for the people of this country. I am committed to local government reform, and I want to make sure that we get it right. That is why I have made the decision to have the review.