Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we need to ensure that we have the skilled workforce this situation requires. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, alongside other Departments, has put more investment into ensuring we have the people in post, and we will continue with that piece of work. We also launched a national identification drive to understand the scale of the problem.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)]

I commend the Secretary of State for the Bill, the work she has done and the statement she just made. In my constituency, the local authority has been very good and effective at dealing with dangerous cladding—it did so immediately, which is to its credit, and that is basically the story across the whole country—but the private sector is less like that. In my constituency, a number of places including Drayton Park and Highbury Gardens among others have now had years with unsafe cladding, with people facing massive insurance costs and, as she rightly said, the inability to move on with their lives. Can the Government take over responsibility, ensure the work is done, charge it to the perpetrators of the problem and, above all, ensure there is compensation for residents for the massive insurance costs they have faced over the last few years?

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He is right to highlight the devastating impact on communities. The Bill will I hope go some way towards doing the things he wants to see for his constituents. Anyone who has deliberately failed to mitigate or remediate buildings that are over 11 metres will face tougher consequences as a result of the Bill, including fines of up to £500,000 and, where needed, criminal prosecution.

Since we launched the national identification drive to understand the scale of the problem, over 200,000 building records have been reviewed. That is significantly improving our understanding of the affected building stock and enabling remediation activity to be targeted more effectively. To drive the pace of remediation work, we also gave social housing providers equal access to Government funding schemes for the first time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

I wish we did not have to be here debating this Bill today—first and foremost because we are doing so largely due to the Grenfell Tower fire, more than nine years ago. It is right that we again remember the 72 who lost their lives in an entirely avoidable fire, and recognise the suffering that the bereaved, survivors and Grenfell community in my constituency continue to endure.

I place on record my thanks to the Prime Minister for his commitment, at Prime Minister’s questions two weeks ago, to work with me every day for justice for the victims. I also thank the Secretary of State for her determination to find solutions across Government that will implement the Grenfell inquiry recommendations and make necessary changes to how our state functions, including on building safety. Our hope and expectation is that those responsible will face the full force of the law by May next year, when the Crown Prosecution Service makes its charging decisions on the 20 organisations and 54 individuals passed to it by the Metropolitan police. While we wait, almost 10 years on, for justice through criminal accountability, we must also pursue justice through meaningful change in policies, laws and culture. That is how I approach the Bill.

The second reason I wish we were not here is that I believe many of the provisions in the Bill should have been enacted a long time ago and, at very least, should have been part of the Building Safety Act 2022. How is it that, in a similar timeframe since Grenfell, the state of Victoria in Australia has completed works on 99% of the 1,600 buildings that needed remediation, while we have completed only 39% of 4,724 identified buildings? More have not even been assessed, which is something the Bill tries to address. In 2020, Victoria passed a law setting up a group that assessed all buildings over three storeys, identified those at risk using a common state-prescribed standard and then paid for the work via an up-front fund, in part capitalised by developer contributions.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

What the hon. Member is saying is excellent. Does he accept that there is a cultural issue here? The dangerous cladding on Grenfell, as in many other places, was dismissed as being unimportant because the people living there were often poor, working-class families, and they were simply not cared about. I hope that the Bill will change that culture, as well as bringing safety to an awful lot of people.

[Joe Powell]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Residents who raised concerns were ignored, and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea made a decision to cut costs that resulted in the contract that ended up being a major contributory factor in what happened. I have not had the chance to say this on the record, but I am pleased that one of the individuals involved in that is no longer at the Barnet tenant management organisation. That decision was wrong, and it has been corrected. I am glad that that has been done.

In short, in Victoria the government stepped in and put homeowners and residents first. In this country, the previous Government took a market-based approach that has comprehensively failed to deliver remediation in a timely way. Why? It is because, for too long, the British state has been too passive in the face of this problem, relying on private developers to come up with the answers while millions of people suffer the consequences. The British state’s response to the cladding scandal has exposed many of the weaknesses that this Government want to fix: unaccountable power, opaque ownership and a shirking of responsibility; penny-wise cost cutting that stores up massive costs in the future; and a lack of public control over the basics of life, including housing.

I hope that the Bill will contribute to that effort by creating more jeopardy for those delaying remediation and more options to finally fix every building that needs it, but the work to make buildings safe must continue even while we debate the Bill. Existing powers such as remediation orders and remediation contribution orders can be useful tools if Ministers provide a hands-on grip on the crisis by co-ordinating local remediation plans, creating national standards and ensuring that tomorrow’s Budget continues to fund the Department to get the work moving now. We need belatedly to shift to a “fix first and fast” model based on risk, as the Secretary of State said, leveraging all existing avenues to get work started.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I certainly support my hon. Friend’s plea. I will come to the issue of the independence of building inspectors, which is very important.

Let me return to standards. The building regulations are the standard that the Government have set; they are needed for newly built homes to be safe, so the same standard therefore has to apply to the homes that people already live in. I have visited high-rise apartments in London and elsewhere, and seen them covered in scaffolding and being remediated under the developer scheme, but many of them are being left with so much cladding breaching building regulations and fire safety standards that residents cannot get insurance.

It is the insurance that really gives the game away. If the building really was safe, why would the insurance premiums be so high? We have increases in insurance costs of 56% and higher. For that reason, many owners cannot sell or get a new mortgage, so they sink into negative equity and become mortgage prisoners in their own home.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Member is making a very important point. Does he agree that the high insurance costs are in no way caused by any action taken by the residents who are forced to pay them? In all honesty, they deserve compensation.

[Gideon Amos]

Absolutely. The right hon. Gentleman almost read the next line of my speech—I do not know how he did that from his seat over there.

Leaseholders and residents should not have to pay a penny for defects that were not their fault. Thousands of pounds extra in insurance are being paid by completely innocent homeowners to compensate for a safety standard that, while of course is better than nothing, is quite frankly not the standard that it should be—and that is after remediation to the standard has been carried out through this Bill. Meeting the established building regulations standard would perhaps cost more, but why should residents be condemned to live in buildings remediated to a lesser standard than the one that we consider safe for new homes?

The profit motive needs to be expunged from building inspector services generally, and the Bill fails to do that. We need to remove commercial interests from building inspectors and fire risk assessors by placing them all under a publicly controlled, non-profit making authority. There is still no statutory certification requirement for a competent person to become a fire risk assessor. When will those measures be brought forward, as has been promised in previous legislation?

The second big omission is that this Bill provides no more funding for those in buildings under 11 metres in height now that the funding window has closed. While medium-rise buildings come more firmly into scope, which is welcome, why should any residents be forced to pay to put right bad practice that was not their fault? Leaseholders in Taunton and Wellington and across the country are already paying ground rents that are too high to absentee landlords for nothing in return, as abolishing residential leasehold seems to recede further and further into the future.

The Bill fails to give residents the right to see their building’s fire risk assessment and to give local authorities the resources to deliver the new enforcement duties. It also fails to commit the Government to making manufacturers—those that make unsafe products that cause fire—pay. That leaves the onus on others to pursue them through slow and costly court action. It is our position that, in those ways, the Bill fails to fully implement the Grenfell Tower inquiry recommendations. Finally, there is no deadline in the Bill by which all the defects revealed by Grenfell across the tall buildings estate will be put right.

The fire safety of all homes needs to meet the standard that we require for new homes. Existing residents are no less worthy of that than the residents of future homes, who will benefit from the building regulations standard. The commercial interests that ran rife in building safety inspections in the lead-up to Grenfell need to be rooted out once and for all, and residents and leaseholders must not be expected to pay a penny towards repairing a crisis they are completely innocent of causing. We must make homes fully safe under building regulations revised for that purpose; make oversight and inspection independent, not profit-dependent; hold developers and manufacturers to account by pursuing them for the costs; protect leaseholders, including those in buildings under 11 metres; and put residents at the heart of remediation, so that they can see the assessments of their homes and have a real, statutory deadline. That is the Bill that the House needed to see today, and it is the Bill we will work hard to shape through its remaining stages.