Building Safety and Resilience

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mike Amesbury (Runcorn and Helsby) (Lab)]

I congratulate the new hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) on a brilliant maiden speech—it was quite emotional at the end there—and all hon. Members who have made maiden speeches today. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) is still a young lad now, but he was an even younger lad when I had the displeasure of campaigning with him in Burnley—he had shorts on, but he still managed to win. It is great to see him in his place and it was a pleasure to listen to his maiden speech.

This debate is obviously about a very serious matter. My thoughts, and the thoughts of everyone in the Chamber, are with the 72 people—men, women and children—who lost their lives in the Grenfell fire over seven years ago. It was an appalling event and the survivors and the community are yet to see justice. That might mean criminal prosecutions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) rightfully highlighted—I know he is urging for that to happen at pace, as he did yesterday during Justice questions—or, in regard to the broader building safety crisis, ensuring that buildings are made safe at pace.

Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s phase 2 Grenfell report and recommendations make for difficult reading. In fact, digesting them will make us angry. We all have to channel that anger, collectively and responsibly, to ensure that the victims of Grenfell and previous fires, such as Lakanal and in Kirby, are responded to by the body politic and the new Government—my good colleagues and hon. Friends now on the Front Bench. Just think about this: each and every one of those 72 people who lost their lives should still be with us today, enjoying the life that we enjoy and having the frustrations that we have.

As the report says, the event was entirely preventable. It was entirely predictable. But the lessons from history, whether that be Lakanal or the earlier fire in Kirby, were not learned. They were not acted upon by successive Governments of all political persuasions or by industry. I will not name the companies referred to in the report for obvious reasons to do with the court case. Government, product manufacturers—you name it, Grenfell was the result of organisations and individuals, as the report says, being systematically dishonest. Dishonesty was hardwired into the construction and building industry, putting profit before people’s lives.

We cannot escape the fact that this was a political decision, driven by ideology. The coalition Government are referenced in the report: their time in office was basically a bonfire of red tape. It was deregulation—build them high, build them cheap and refurbish them cheap—and the consequences are all too clear. Indeed, residents of Grenfell alerted the council of the day, regulators and the powers that be that this was an accident waiting to happen, and it did happen, with all those consequences for all to see.

Of course, some of this has continued. We have had companies gaming tests of products that were put on high-rises—products that should never have been there. Let us be frank: those products are solidified petrol. Thousands of them were put on high-rises up and down the country—high-rises insulated by solidified petrol. This country is quite unique in the fact that it greenlighted those products through deregulation. It is no coincidence that we had fires such as Lakanal and Grenfell.

[Marie Goldman]

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the gaming of the system and the tests. Was he as appalled as I was to read about the way in which those tests were gamed? It is said that those products, which were designed not to burn, failed the tests, so the companies went back a second time. One of the issues with the tests was that the temperature had to not rise too much, so the companies insulated the temperature gauges rather than admit that they had a product that ultimately was not fit for the purpose they were trying to sell it for. Is he appalled as I am that that practice was allowed to happen, and does he agree that the testing houses need to shoulder some responsibility for the fact that it was allowed to happen?

[Mike Amesbury]

Absolutely I am appalled, and as I have said, those products are still with us. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane) will refer to a recent incident in Dagenham where they were trying to remediate the problem.

[Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)]

In September 2020, an external wall survey revealed that the cladding on the Spectrum building in my constituency was not compliant with building regulations. Works to remediate that building were not actioned until three years later, in July 2023. The building was then engulfed by flames a few short weeks ago, with only 20% of the remediation works still outstanding. Does my hon. Friend agree that urgent steps are needed to massively scale up the process of remediation?

[Mike Amesbury]

I agree with my hon. Friend. She has demonstrated how alive and kicking this issue is, and the need for the new Government—who have not been in power very long; less than 10 weeks now—to step up and step in on the issue of regulation and remediation. I know that they will do just that.

Because of campaigners—whether it is Grenfell United, the all-party parliamentary groups on fire safety and on leasehold, the cladding action groups, or hon. Members in this place—we now have stronger regulation in the form of the Building Safety Act. As the new shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), has said, there was considerable cross-party work over that period of time, and I was the shadow housing and planning Minister throughout that 13-week process. We certainly have a stronger regulation framework now to remediate those buildings, and as the Minister mentioned, a considerable amount of money has been committed—billions of pounds—but the Act undoubtedly has some holes.

Remediation is not done at pace—it is incredibly slow—and it is cladding-centric, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), which means it does not cover the broader fire safety issues that it should cover. The new Labour Government and the ministerial team have quickly discovered—they are crystal clear about this—that the remediation process is incredibly slow, and they are going to turbocharge it. Seven years on from Grenfell, only 29% of buildings have been fully remediated. I think the Minister mentioned that up to 7,000 buildings have been identified, so the task in hand is incredible. It is alarming, but following the Grenfell inquiry phase 2 report, I know that we will step up and move things on at pace.

Members have mentioned insurance premiums. I find it somewhat bizarre that in a number of remediated buildings the insurance premiums are going up. The shadow Minister referred to that. How can that be? If something is safer, surely the risk has gone down. I think there are some fundamental questions to ask there. There are certainly issues about commissions being passed on to management agents and freeholders, and a plethora of other things are causing insurance premiums to go up.

Ministers certainly need to ensure that there is intervention on things being passed on in service charges, such as insurance, so that we can bring down costs. It may be that we should have a similar model to that for flooding. With Flood Re, the Government have become an underwriter to help bring costs down. I am not going to get overly party political, but interventions by the previous Government did not work, so collectively we have to move things forward.

There is a plethora of issues. We have talked about insurance, and the previous Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who is not in his place at the moment, referred to issues with mortgages. He also mentioned the lack of parity in funding between social housing providers or housing associations and the private sector. Again, that needs to be addressed by the Government. There is a lot of money out there, and a lot of people with responsibility for this mess need to pay.

Some leaseholders in buildings such as the Decks in my constituency are beyond the scope of the Building Safety Act. They do not have protections, but are what are called the excluded leaseholders. Yet if those individual flats are not remediated, it means the whole block is not remediated. It also means that many are facing bankruptcy and cannot sell on. Again, there is a bit more homework to be done at pace by the new Government to ensure that there is justice for leaseholders, who are innocent in this whole toxic mess.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater mentioned one of the key recommendations in the phase 2 report about the regulator, and I will conclude on this point. At the moment, the Building Safety Regulator is in the Health and Safety Executive and, as he said, I am not convinced it is resourced as it should be. That adds to the mix of confusion around accountability, as does the fact that there are several pots—four or five different pots—of finance. We need one single regulator, accountable to a Minister, to get a grip and provide the drive to remediate such buildings at pace.

Finally, justice is certainly about ensuring that all those buildings up and down the country are safe, but it is also about ensuring that those responsible for this—those responsible for Grenfell—are brought to account through criminal prosecutions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

The right hon. Lady has put that on the record. It speaks to my earlier point about the importance of political will in this space. If we just wait for something to happen, we are not going to see it. There needs to be political grip at the national and local level, and we will certainly play our role in that. On her point about what her constituents lived with, she would have been sitting on the Opposition Front Bench seven years ago—I was behind her—when everybody said, “Never again. What action can we take? No job is too big or small.” But that is not what happened. It was a huge broken promise to the British people—her constituents and beyond.

[Mike Amesbury]

On the point about political will, the leasehold system is unfortunately still alive and kicking. I know that many of us look forward to seeing that feudal system kicked into the history books via oncoming legislation. It seems that service charges have become a cash cow for some interesting characters in the industry. What will the Minister and his team do to ensure that we move things forward, and that commonhold is the de facto tenancy in this country for flats?

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend heard what I said about leasehold, and what we said in the manifesto that we both stood on. I will get to service charges shortly, because both he and our hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) made that point very well. I think they will be glad to hear what I have to say.

Let me deal first, though, with prosecutions, referring particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell). He has the closest stake in this issue, and spoke today with incredible passion. I know that he will be an outstanding advocate for his community, and I am sure that he will bring forward a lot of his frustrations about the pace of change. I think that point was well made. He has made multiple times the point about prosecutions. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out in his recent statement to the House, those affected have waited too long for justice, and those responsible must be held accountable. As the Met police have said, this will take time. It is one of the largest and most complex investigations that they have ever had to conduct, with 180 officers and staff dedicated to it. We fully support the Met and the Crown Prosecution Service as they carry out their investigations. They must be given space to do that.