Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)
And amendment 7.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 11,997 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 12, page 13, line 23, at end insert— <em>“171CA Requirement to consult with a relevant local authority before a planned disposal in a designated rural area</em> (1) A private registered provider must provide the relevant local authority in a designated rural area with a report on social housing stock condition information on an annual basis. (2) A private registered provider must consult with the relevant local authority on options to regenerate social housing in the designated rural area before any decision to dispose of a property in the area has taken place. (3) For the purposes of this section, a designated rural area is defined as any area with a population density of no more than two persons per hectare and a population of 3,000 or fewer.” <em>This amendment seeks to ensure that the private registered provider and relevant local authority discuss appropriate solutions to the possible disposal of affordable housing in sensitive rural communities well before a disposal has taken place.</em>
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)
Amendment 4 seeks to ensure that registered providers and local authorities discuss solutions to possible disposal in sensitive rural communities well before that disposal has taken place. I will not rehearse the arguments that we had this morning about rural communities and the exceptions that they face, but I think the Minister will understand our concern that they should have as much protection as possible.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)
I thank the Minister for that reply. I hope that local authorities and housing providers are listening to this debate, and understand that the Government expect them to work in a collaborative manner for the best outcome for social tenants. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. <em>Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.</em> <em>Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.</em> Clause 13 Review of shared ownership and staircasing <em>Quest</em><em>i</em><em>on proposed</em>, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)
Clause 13 relates to the review of shared ownership and staircasing, which the Liberal Democrats support. However, new clause 41 refers to “a strategy for increasing opportunities for access to the shared ownership scheme”. It seems to me that it would be logical to carry out the review of shared ownership first, before committing to increasing shared ownership opportunities.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)
I will speak to amendment 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington. The amendment looks at the impact of rent arrears on a victim of domestic abuse and quite simply asks that that not be a consideration when bidding for a future social home. While on my feet, I will also talk about clause 14 in its totality. We Liberal Democrats welcome the amendments that the Government have tabled on domestic abuse, but will the Minister outline why the Government use only discretionary powers rather than mandatory powers, such as ground 7A, which is mandatory for antisocial behaviour?
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)
Given the Minister’s commitments and his eagerness to act himself, I will not press amendment 12 to a Division. <em>Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.</em> Clause 15 Consent requirements <em>Question proposed,</em> That the clause stand part of the Bill.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (Second sitting)
The new clause refers to identifying the local housing authority to which the notification could be made. In additional legislation, is it possible that H <span id="94" class="column-number" data-column-number="94"></span>could notify more than one local housing authority— if they had a local connection, say, in Liverpool and in Berkshire—to get them off the streets as soon as possible?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
What role will the Secretary of State’s Department play in the new national centre for information defence, and when will the Government update the House about the composition, roll-out and scalability of that new capability?
- Hansard source
Strengthening Community Resilience
Laying in three days’ supplies in the Northern Isles is what we do if we are confident that we are having a mild winter. Just four years ago, parts of Shetland were without electricity for six days, so resilience looks different in different parts of the country. To take the Minister back to his answer to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), the Government recently launched a consultation on critical undersea infrastructure, security and resilience, in which they seemed to see the answer as one of regulation and legislation. As the hon. Gentleman told the Minister, we need the capacity to effect repairs to undersea cables, and to do so without long delays, as currently occur. Will he take away that need and the experience of my constituents in recent years, who have suffered a number of digital outages as a consequence?
- Hansard source
Palestine and Gaza
Three hundred and forty children in Gaza have died since the ceasefire of last year—an average of almost one per day—nearly half of them near the yellow line; aid workers call it the kill zone. UNICEF tells me that 100% of children are showing signs of stress because of trauma, hunger and the risk of attack from every side— <span id="166" class="column-number" data-column-number="166"></span>from drones, which fire at them from above, and from unexploded ordinance below them. They face malnutrition, and have not had a formal education for three years. Whoever is elected today, what will the Foreign Secretary do to ensure that Palestinian children are protected, sustainable humanitarian aid gets in, the terms of the ceasefire are obeyed, education is provided, and Palestinians are given the chance to heal?
- Hansard source
West Bank: Illegal Settlements
Alongside the expansion of illegal settlements, as we have heard, there has been growing concern about violence perpetrated by extremist settlers against Palestinian communities in the west bank. Does the Secretary of State believe that the UK’s current response is sufficient, and what further steps is he prepared to take to hold those responsible to account?
- Hansard source
Foreign Interference in Democratic Processes
<Question HRSContentId="{E9D50990-9894-45BA-AD14-F52A199E7A69}">1. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{58B483D9-A194-4675-8754-2B5A23ABA5C7}">What recent discussions he has had with European allies on tackling foreign interference in democratic processes internationally.</QuestionText> </Question>
- Hansard source
Foreign Interference in Democratic Processes
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for those remarks, but with Russian-linked interference operations continuing to target democratic elections across Europe, does he feel that the current arrangements are sufficient? He will know that the European democracy shield is developing new structures to co-ordinate action against foreign interference and disinformation, so what discussions has he had with our European partners about ensuring that the UK is fully involved in those efforts, including the proposed European centre for democratic resilience, so that we can better identify and respond to Russian attempts to undermine democratic elections across Europe?
- Hansard source
Strengthening Community Resilience
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Let me place on record our thanks to the emergency services, volunteers and communities who respond to civil emergencies, be they storms, floods or wildfires. I welcome the announcement of the Be Ready campaign, and agree that every household that can be ready to look after itself should be ready to do so, for at least three days. During the first covid lockdown, I raised an eyebrow when my other half stockpiled enough bottled water to keep us going for weeks, but today he has been proved right, and I fear that I will never hear the end of it. The Security Minister rightly mentioned the importance of volunteers. I wonder if he has spoken to our Finnish allies, for example, to learn from their experience of establishing a formal civil volunteer reserve. Its members would receive non-military training, and could be called on in an emergency, just as community first responders can attend medical emergencies. As the Minister said, not everyone can stock up for three days. People relying on food banks, older people and people with mobility difficulties are often the least able to prepare and the most exposed. The priority services register can work well only if it is accurate, so what more can the Minister do to ensure that it is kept up to date? Can he say specifically what co-ordination is in place with the utility companies, so that information can be shared about their lists of vulnerable customers?<span id="195" class="column-number" data-column-number="195"></span> It is not just weather or climate change that we need to be prepared for; the number of nationally significant cyber-threats has doubled in the last year. The Liberal Democrats have called for a digital sovereignty strategy to ensure that critical national functions are powered by technology that the UK can control. Can the Minister update us on any progress being made on digital sovereignty?
- Hansard source
Council Housing
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for securing this debate. In my constituency of Horsham, the council stock was sold off long ago to Saxon Weald, a housing association, which does a pretty good job. For years, under a series of Tory administrations, there was little council interest in building any more, so I applaud the current Lib Dem-led council for its recent announcement of 22 new homes for social rent—that is a start, at least. <span id="93WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="93WH"></span>However, having the will is not enough; you also need the means. In this context, the Government’s main housing strategy—the standard method for allocating local targets—is having a destructive effect. It did not work for the Tory Government, and it is not working for Labour, either. A new Horsham district local plan is passing through the system right now, but it is simply not possible for an authority in an area such as mine to require the provision of large amounts of social housing—or, indeed, any. The subsidy system, based on section 106 taxes, does not generate nearly enough, and that means that councillors cannot set a guaranteed percentage of homes for social rent in the plan, even if they want to. Such a plan would be ruled unsound by the inspector because it is financially undeliverable. That is exactly what happened to me when I was cabinet member for planning a few years ago. Because Horsham ranks as a relatively affluent area, it is not in line for Government subsidies. Ironically, the locations that face the highest housing costs are precisely those least likely to get any Government investment support. We have a system designed to deliver cheap housing in areas that, on average, have more cheap housing. The Government obsession with counting permissions instead of actual real-life houses has directly undermined Horsham’s ability to deliver low-cost housing. Unfeasibly high targets force the council to accept developer proposals that are optimised for quantity not affordability. In reality, private developers are principally in control of choosing the sites; councils merely edit them. In an area like Horsham, where most of the district is farmland, the market drives developers to buy up green spaces on the edge of existing settlements. The result is a strong incentive for suburban house building, which by its nature tends to poorer affordability and wasteful land use. At the same time, we have a construction industry trapped in a boom-and-bust cycle. The absence of consistent local authority house building makes it much harder to bring in low-cost models, such as modern modular construction, because that depends on a continued reliable delivery pipeline. That is one reason why Legal & General, which bravely invested in this market, was forced to close its modular arm a few years ago. Whatever the Government decide to do, some further change of policy is necessary. I hope the Minister will be honest and realise that the current trajectory is not going to solve anyone’s problem in any reasonable length of time.
- Hansard source
West Bank: Illegal Settlements
The Government have declared the occupation unlawful, and their measures on settlements depend on reliable evidence of what is happening on the ground. In April, the Foreign Office unit that tracked potential breaches of international law by Israel was closed because of cuts, with the work said to pass to a “different team”. Which team now does that work, and how many officials does it have?
- Hansard source
Council Housing
The hon. Gentleman is giving an impassioned speech about Poole that is really resonating with me as the MP for Chichester, because I see in my constituency large-scale developments delivering four and five-bedroom luxury houses that are not affordable for most people. Does he agree that middle-income earners are particularly affected? A lot of our frontline service workers cannot afford private rents, but earn too much to be eligible for social housing. That is why we need to see a number of social homes across the whole country that the Government will deliver, so that developers cannot renege on their commitments to deliver the homes that we are asking for.
- Hansard source
Council Housing
An issue we have seen in my constituency is developers citing viability assessments to try to renege on the commitments that they originally outlined to deliver social and affordable homes. They would rather pay something called a commuted sum—in effect a fine—that does not actually help to deliver social homes at scale. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister should look at the way the commuted sum is assessed so that we do not lose the opportunity for social homes to be delivered?
- Hansard source
Electronic Monitoring of Offenders
Over 5,000 offenders went unmonitored in the first half of this year due to serious delays in the tagging system, and in the year to March, an average of 300 people per week were released from prison with no fixed address, making it incredibly difficult to ensure that offenders are tagged and then managed in the community. That adds to the strain on both the Probation Service and the police, who are using scarce resources to manage an increasingly large caseload and keep victims safe. The Government have repeatedly promised that they will not jeopardise public safety, but many victims following the stories over the weekend, especially after Mark Rowley’s comments, will struggle to believe them. Will the Government listen to the calls of the Victims’ Commissioner to tag individuals at the gate and roll that out to every prison by January? We also welcomed the Government’s announcement to introduce restriction zones for offenders, which limits the movement for perpetrators rather than victims, but the effectiveness of those zones will require offenders to be properly monitored and any breaches to be addressed without delay. Is the Minister confident that there are enough resources to operate restriction zones effectively, and when will we see a national roll-out of this important measure?
- Hansard source
Strengthening Community Resilience
I very much welcome the Be Ready campaign today. This Government have been pushing for devolved responsibilities, particularly at the mayoral level, but in his statement today, the Minister made no mention of the vital role that local authorities can play. Could the Minister expand on the role of local authorities in community resilience and preparedness?
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (First sitting)
I wish to draw the Committee’s attention to my registered interest as a social landlord.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (First sitting)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I rise to support the clause. For Liberal Democrats, this is the most important and significant clause in the Bill, as it constrains the selling off of council houses. It is concerning that the Conservatives have tabled an amendment that would essentially reverse it. With 1.32 million people on the housing waiting list and 177,000 children in temporary accommodation, the last thing that we need is to continue the gradual loss of social housing. There has been a net loss of 2 million social homes since the introduction of right to buy. If that does not show that we cannot fill the bath with the plug taken out, nothing does. We stand squarely in support of the clause, although we would go further and give local authorities the ability and power to suspend right to buy completely if that is right for their area so that they can rebuild their stock of council housing and social rent homes.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (First sitting)
I rise to speak to our Liberal Democrat amendments. New clause 2 would provide local authorities with the power to suspend right to buy in an area completely and bring it to an end. Perhaps for the first and last time, I agree 100% with the hon. Member for Orpington, completely and wholeheartedly; he said that local areas are best placed to decide what is right for them on council housing provision and council housing stock. That is why we would give local authorities the ability to say that they have lost enough council housing. Some 2 million council homes were lost to right to buy and 4 million social homes have been lost altogether. Enough is enough. Local communities should have the right to decide whether they want to continue to see the loss of council homes in their area.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (First sitting)
If we have a system where 4 million homes have been lost and 1.3 million people are on the council waiting list, something has gone radically wrong. We need a different approach.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (First sitting)
From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman is asking me to give way, but I have not yet answered his initial question. Yes, we need to find ways to help people into home ownership. That is vital and fundamental to a thriving society. We need to build more homes. We need to provide more and better <span id="19" class="column-number" data-column-number="19"></span>shared ownership arrangements, as the current arrangements are not working. We need to help people on to the housing ladder. That does not mean we need to erode and diminish our social housing stock.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (First sitting)
Let me give way to a Government Member this time.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (First sitting)
The hon. Member is quite right. Not only that, but local authorities end up paying over the odds for placing families in temporary accommodation, sometimes in homes that were built as council houses to provide for those families in the first place. Now they are being sublet, sometimes multiple times, to provide that housing.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (First sitting)
I am somewhat surprised that the Opposition spokesperson has entered into the realm of social housing supply, given the record of the previous Conservative Government. Of course, we need to increase supply as well as saving the stock that has been built with public funds—taxpayer’s money—for the community, rather than giving over discounts, sometimes to the extent of a £70,000 or £80,000 transfer of cash, from the taxpayer into the hands of individual property owners for no good reason. We need to increase supply. That is why the Liberal Democrats have a target to build 150,000 social rent homes per year. I do not know the hon. Gentleman’s <span id="20" class="column-number" data-column-number="20"></span>party’s target for the delivery of social housing—they did not build many when they were in government. We need to give local authorities the power and flexibility to decide for themselves whether it is right to continue with right to buy in their areas. If we believe in local communities and local democracy, we should give them the ability to say that right to buy and the loss of more council housing stock is no longer right for their area. I commend new clause 2 to the Committee and urge all Committee members to vote for it.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (First sitting)
I will speak to amendments 5, 6, 1 and 8. Amendment 5 would extend the notification of proposed sale to cover the Regulator of Social Housing. Amendment 6 would extend the timescales of notice from four to eight weeks. I note that, since we tabled the amendment, the Government have come up with their own amendment to extend the timescales; they have obviously been reading everything we table closely. I am glad that we are already having an impact on the Bill and I will be happy to press the amendment to a vote if necessary, to ensure that the Government succeed in getting the change in timescale that they clearly want. Otherwise, depending on the order of voting—I still sometimes have a problem following that—I am sure that one or the other will fulfil the same purpose. Amendment 1 would require the Regulator of Social Housing to receive a copy of the notice. Amendment 8 is effectively a stop-the-clock amendment, whereby, if negotiations are ongoing for the acquisition of a social home by a local authority, the time period would be extended by a further four weeks. I recognise that the amendment refers to the four-week period in the Bill, which may be extended to eight weeks through other amendments. However, the principle of allowing an extension of time when negotiations are ongoing is significant, and something that the Local Government Association would support. Although I will not push amendment 8 to a vote, it would be helpful if the Minister considered whether an extension could be provided where negotiations are ongoing, so that there is a real chance for the purchase of that property to be completed and for the local authority to succeed in that endeavour.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (First sitting)
If we are after transparency, I have difficulty with the Minister’s basing his argument on the massive cost of putting something on a website. I understand that it is a tradition of this place that the Government resist all amendments that come from all quarters other than their own, but this seems to be taking things to an illogical conclusion.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (First sitting)
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 12, page 12, line 5, at end insert— <em>“171AA Right of first refusal: local housing authorities</em> (1) This section applies where— (a) a sale notice has been given under section 171A in relation to a dwelling, and (b) the dwelling— (i) is let at social rent, or (ii) was previously transferred from a local housing authority. (2) During the period specified in section 171A(3), the local housing authority for the area in which the dwelling is situated may make an offer to acquire the dwelling. (3) Where an offer is made under subsection (2), the private registered provider must dispose of the dwelling to the local housing authority at existing use value for social housing. (4) A dwelling acquired under this section must be retained as social housing within the meaning of Part 2 of this Act. (5) Any dispute as to the existing use value for social housing shall be determined by an independent valuer appointed by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. (6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the operation of this section.” <em>This amendment gives local housing authorities a right of first refusal to acquire social rent dwellings and dwellings previously transferred from local authorities at existing use value for social housing.</em>
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (First sitting)
I will be brief. Amendment 2 would give local housing authorities right of first refusal to acquire social rent dwellings and dwellings previously transferred from local authorities at existing use value for social housing. The acquisition of those properties at existing use value for social housing, rather than at market value or existing use value, is significant, because obviously the existing use value for social housing is lower. It is important that local authorities have the <span id="45" class="column-number" data-column-number="45"></span>ability to acquire homes that are being disposed of, so that the net reduction in social housing is not increased. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
- Hansard source
Social Housing Bill (First sitting)
I appreciate the Minister’s response. The amendments are genuinely intended to provide councils with the ability to acquire stock rather than see it lost from the social housing sector. This is a particularly important area and, I believe, an important amendment. I understand the risks of reclassification on to the public sector balance sheet. I wonder whether the Minister would be willing to publish the advice he has received on that, because the sector will want to understand why first refusal cannot be given to local authorities.
- Hansard source
Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill
As we remember the 72 victims of Grenfell and the many who are still waiting for justice, I know the Secretary of State and Members from across the whole House share the same commitment to do right by them, to ensure such a calamity never happens again, and to do better for all the leaseholders and residents living with unsafe cladding through no fault of their own. We need a Bill that will, once and for all, make people’s homes not just safer but as safe as their residents have a right to expect them to be. The Liberal Democrats remain committed to getting the removal of unsafe cladding urgently and by a statutory deadline, to getting remediation to the right safety standard—the one that building regulations were uprated to post-Grenfell—and to residents not having to pay a penny towards fixing a crisis not of their own making. We will look at the amendments that have just been outlined, and we look forward studying them when they come forward. Sadly, as the Bill stands it does none of those things and, because of that, it is substandard and needs radical improvement. On the plus side, let me be clear about the positive aspects of the Bill that we support. We support the legal duty for responsible entities to remediate, including the important extension of the duty in relation to buildings of 11 to 18 metres in height. We support the stronger intervention powers for housing authorities and the regulator against the blockers, such as through remediation management orders. We support making it easier to bring claims against cladding manufacturers, and we support requirements to have fire risk assessments of external walls and associated registers.<span id="230" class="column-number" data-column-number="230"></span> For those reasons, we have not gone as far as tabling a fatal amendment, despite the very serious flaws, as we see them. It would be wrong to deny support to any leaseholders or residents who without this Bill would get less help, but I call on the Government to consider seriously the degree to which the Bill is lacking. While I do not doubt the sincerity of the Secretary of State or the Bill, the Government need to think harder and bring forward amendments that are urgently needed to strengthen the Bill. In the stages that follow Second Reading, we will be suggesting and proposing changes, and working with the Government as constructively as we can to get the improvements that we believe are necessary. Where does the Bill fall short? First and foremost, it enshrines into law the discredited publicly available specification 9980—PAS 9980—approach. As shown in clause 44, that will allow cladding of “tolerable” risk of combustion to remain on homes after they have been remediated. One may expect “tolerable” risk to be no more than the level of risk allowed in new buildings under the building regulations, as tightened up after Grenfell, but as the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) has already alluded to, it is not that standard. In this Bill, remediation will be only to a standard that a fire risk assessor decides is “tolerable”. We are talking about fire risk assessors paid by building owners, who are more likely than not to have commercial interests in doing as few works as possible to their building. While I am sure that most assessors are reliable professionals, given that the Grenfell inquiry report chaired by judge Sir Martin Moore-Bick cited “commercial interests” in this area of work as one of the contributory factors to the fire, is retaining commercial interests in the system of fire risk assessment, assessors and building inspectors a risk worth taking?
- Hansard source
Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill
The hon. Member is very kind—I am sure my experience is as great as many other Members of the House. I am coming to what we believe would be a preferable standard. Our approach is that these issues of “commercial interests” should be expunged from the Bill, and that the tolerability approach should be removed. We believe that existing homes and buildings should be remediated to meet the standard of fire safety required in the building regulations that were uprated in 2018, after Grenfell.
- Hansard source
Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill
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.
- Hansard source
Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill
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?<span id="232" class="column-number" data-column-number="232"></span> 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.
- Hansard source
Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill
The right hon. Gentleman is making a typically cogent, sensible speech. Is not the logical conclusion of what he is driving at that buildings should be remediated to a standard such that they can be insured at reasonable levels and will get mortgages, and that that is the building regulation standard we require for new buildings?
- Hansard source
Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill
<em>indicated dissent.</em>