Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

Matt Rodda Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her drive and determination on this very important matter. Will she give the House a little more detail relating to that group of residents and, in particular, those who face issues with dangerous materials inside their property, such as wood, which have led to a potential fire safety problem?

[Angela Rayner]

Again, I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Hopefully, what I have said today goes some way to reassuring those who have raised that issue with us. Since my return to Government, my noble Friend Baroness Blake, who is watching the debate, and I have met End Our Cladding Scandal. We have heard the requests of its members and other leaseholders to expand the leaseholder protections in the Building Safety Act. We have also heard from those who bought their first home, only to find it was a non-qualifying lease. The Government will investigate whether we can extend the protection to any leaseholder who owns a lease on their only or principal home.

We have also heard those who have spoken about the plight of those with small portfolios who were excluded from protection. As the Bill passes through Parliament, I will table amendments to expand the protection from three to six properties. In our manifesto, we committed to reviewing how to better protect leaseholders from costs. These actions show that we are a Government who are committed to keeping our promises.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

Could I pay my own tribute to the whole Grenfell family? I think we all remember quite vividly the moment when we heard on the news about this absolutely and utterly appalling disaster. Our hearts go out to all those who were affected and their families, particularly at this time when so many people must be thinking about the anniversary next year as well. It was quite clear, as other hon. Members have said, that this was a complete and utter failure of regulation, and I am so pleased that the Bill is tackling that.

As other Members have said, cladding is an issue around the whole country, and I will address some matters in my constituency, but first, I thank the Secretary of State and the ministerial team for their drive and ambition on this important matter after some years of what, sadly, can only be described as drift under the last Government. I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill, and in particular some of its key elements and points. It creates greater certainty, which is long overdue. It gives regulators the powers they need. It makes companies that made unsafe products contribute towards remediation—that is such an important point, as other Members have said. Most of all, it ensures that residents have a route to remediation, which is utterly important.

I am conscious of time as some other Member wish to speak, so I would like to turn to Reading. There are serious concerns locally, like those we have heard from Members describing the situations in their own constituencies. Our town has grown and changed dramatically within my lifetime, from being a county town made up of Victorian terraces and many brick buildings to now having a large number of taller buildings, many of which are blocks of flats. Obviously, the recent crisis has a huge implication for our community and for other towns across the county of Berkshire.

At the time of the Grenfell disaster, I remember receiving a briefing from the Royal Berkshire fire and rescue service, and I can only say that it had an utterly chilling effect on those who listened to it—on myself, local councillors and others. The situation they described was one of a service trying to cope with serious concerns and issues across a large English county. For example, as Members have described, they mentioned the problem of cladding on many buildings—a number of them below 11 metres—as well as related issues such as poor compartmentalisation. I remember them talking about blocks in Slough where builders had unwittingly drilled holes through walls that were meant to prevent fire. In Reading, some blocks had very serious problems with compartmentalisation. There were a whole series of issues with dangerous wooden cladding, dangerous wooden fittings in foyers or doors that were not fire-safe at all—and all of this existed in just one county. Fire and rescue service staff and local authority staff were enormously pressed to deal with it.

I remember listening to the accounts of waking watches being set up and thinking how terrifying it must have been to live in one of the blocks that were affected, just after Grenfell, when people were very aware of the disaster and horror that had happened not far away, in London. Those people had to live through a waking watch every single night. They were not able to have a whole range of items, and they could not cook certain types of food because of the fire risks from frying and other common forms of cooking. This was a huge issue for our community, particularly in the town centre and nearby areas. Many building owners were extremely responsible and acted as quickly as they could, despite the supply problems, the lack of skilled tradespeople, problems with putting up scaffolding and the pandemic that followed. I pay tribute to a number of housing associations that acted very quickly.

Luckily, all the council housing in Reading was not affected because it was not built using cladding; the council had taken a very robust approach to that. However, there were a number of problems with private blocks that were either rented or leasehold, and some of those issues have continued right up to the present day; there have been local media reports on ITV and the BBC that have highlighted some of the problems. Like other Members—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) put it very well—I have constituents who bought flats in blocks with cladding and were then trapped in them. They were struggling to sleep, and they lived in complete stress. Sometimes, I think it is fair to say that they had moments of terror living in these flats where they clearly were at great risk. They could not get the work done, and they were facing huge financial costs, which has been a problem across the whole country. I am so pleased that the current Government have gripped this and want to tackle it and to introduce some reassurance and routes to remediation at a much greater pace.

I would like to press the Minister on the point about flats under 11 metres, and I hope she will be able to respond to this when she winds up the debate. It is great to hear about the fund for flats under 11 metres—there will be a number of these in many medium-sized towns—but there are other non-cladding-based fire safety issues in exactly this type of block. That includes the issues I mentioned, such as dangerous wooden items in the foyer of a large block in Reading, and wooden balconies; in one case, a building had wooden balconies next to an underground car park, which was then discovered to be a huge fire risk. Some of these risks are in blocks under 11 metres, which may not be covered by the fund. Could the Minister elaborate on the nature of the fund, to provide further reassurance to residents?

Could the Minister also look into the wider issue of fire safety in buildings under 11 metres? As will be the case in many constituencies, we have a significant number of older blocks that are under 11 metres and might date back to the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s. They may not have dangerous cladding, but there might be issues with fire safety doors, evacuation procedures and a whole series of things. Because of the large number of these flats, residents will be concerned about the capacity of local authorities or the fire service to investigate. If the Minister could provide more information on that point, it would be very reassuring to residents in Reading and other similar towns.

I am conscious of time, so I will conclude by wholeheartedly welcoming the Bill. It is a huge step forward, and I really welcome the drive and thrust of activity from the Department on this matter. I am sure that the whole House will once again want to offer their thoughts to the families of the Grenfell community. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister.