PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Grenfell Tower Inquiry - 2 December 2024 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Grenfell Tower Inquiry phase 2 report.

We will never forget the 72 lives lost as a result of that fateful night seven years ago, or the family, friends and neighbours they left behind—some of whom are with us today in the Public Gallery. I know that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to them. It is thanks to their awe-inspiring tenacity that we have got to where we are today. Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report laid bare the truth of what happened. That day of truth must now lead to a day of justice. They have waited too long for both, and justice delayed is justice denied. There must be full accountability for the failures that led to the biggest loss of life in a residential fire since the second world war. The Metropolitan police will continue to have our full support as they carry out their independent investigation.

What we do know from Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report is that this tragedy was entirely avoidable. The bereaved survivors and the immediate community will have to live the rest of their days with the knowledge that they and those dearest to them were so comprehensively failed. The report makes for the most shocking reading, shining a light on the systemic failures over decades. Those who manufactured and sold building products; the British state; the local council; the tenant management organisation; the London Fire Brigade—every single institution failed to recognise and protect the residents of Grenfell. Reading the report, I was disgusted by the extent to which profits were put before people and by the systemic dishonesty of some of the manufacturers, which had catastrophic results. The families were not listened to—everyone dismissed their concerns.

The No. 1 priority of any Government is to keep their citizens safe. On the day that the report was published, the Prime Minister apologised to the families on behalf of the British state for the catalogue of failures that led to the disaster. He committed to respond to all 58 of the inquiry’s recommendations within six months. To the bereaved families, the survivors, those in the immediate community and those who are with us in the Chamber today, I reiterate that apology and that commitment. As the Prime Minister said, bigger change is needed. We need system change—reform of a system that is not delivering the safe homes it should deliver—but where we can start to make immediate change, I will not wait, and neither will the Government. We are boosting the collective efforts to make homes safe, expecting leadership and action from industry, enforcing against landlords where necessary, and providing support so that leaseholders and residents can get on with their lives.

First, I commend the Deputy Prime Minister on her words—they are the words of us all in this House. We welcome those words and the constructive way in which they have been implemented today.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that action will be taken to hold to account those companies that are guilty? Secondly, when it comes to the findings of this report, will the Deputy Prime Minister share with the devolved Administrations everything that is being put in place? There are lessons to be learned everywhere. To the Deputy Prime Minister’s left and right are two of her Ministers, the hon. Members for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) and for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), who have conveyed that commitment in the past. It would be good to have it on the record from the Deputy Prime Minister.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I was speaking to families of the bereaved earlier, and I made sure to reiterate that, while this Chamber might not be full, I think I speak on behalf of the whole House when I talk about making sure we continue to learn the lessons of Grenfell. As for working with the devolved Administrations to learn those lessons, that is absolutely important. We have seen other fires internationally, across Europe—some of the survivors and the families have told me this. It is not just here, but abroad too, that people are in this situation, and we need to make sure that we continue to keep our residents safe here.

I can announce today that we have published our response to the emergency evacuation information sharing plus consultation, which provides details of our new residential personal emergency evacuation plans policy to improve the fire safety and evacuation of disabled and vulnerable residents in high-rise and high-risk residential buildings. Under those proposals, residents with disabilities or impairments will be entitled to an assessment to identify necessary equipment and adjustments to aid their fire safety and evacuation. Fire and rescue services will also receive information on vulnerable residents, in case they need to support their evacuation. We have committed to funding next year to begin this important work by supporting social housing providers to deliver residential PEEPs for their tenants. Future years funding will be confirmed at the upcoming spending review, and statutory guidance has been updated to provide for evacuation alert systems in all new blocks of flats over 18 metres. This means that, with our most recent move to provide sprinklers in all new care homes—strengthening protections for some of the most vulnerable—we have now addressed all of the recommendations made by the Grenfell inquiry to the Government in its phase 1 report.

The Prime Minister and I, and the rest of this Government, are determined that industry will deliver real change. As the Government, our role is to ensure that that change is delivered—a generational shift in the safety and quality of housing for everyone in this country. We now need leadership from industry to step up the pace on cultural change across the construction sector, but more crucially, we need a cultural shift that is about empowering people so that we put people and safety first, not profits. That is what needs to change. It is in that spirit, inspired by the Grenfell community’s incredible strength and tireless campaigning, that we will continue to push industry to deliver the necessary changes. Let me be crystal clear: we will be holding industry to account as closely as we need to. I know that Members across this House share my desire that this report be a catalyst for change.

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way on the point about industry’s responsibility. It is right that social housing tenants and leaseholders should not have to bear the burden of rectifying these buildings. Individual developers and the development industry have been financially held to account, at least to a significant degree, but the one part of industry that has got completely away with it so far is the product manufacturers. So far, they have not been asked to pay anything towards rectifying the buildings, and as the Grenfell inquiry showed, they are responsible for a lot of the problems. Will my right hon. Friend indicate what consideration is being given to a scheme to make sure the product manufacturers pay their fair share of the costs?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are continuing to see what measures we can take, and I have taken nothing off the table. I am working with my officials to make sure that those who are responsible are the ones who pay, not taxpayers.

Important progress has been made since 2017. Fire and rescue services are better trained and better prepared for large-scale emergencies, improvements have been made to local authority building enforcement, and a poor culture among tenant housing associations is being tackled through regulation. However, we must go further. If you speak to those who live in unsafe buildings, it does not feel like there has been progress—it does not feel like progress to them. They still feel trapped, powerless in the face of a system that is not designed for them, so this Government are acting.

As my right hon. Friend has just said, many of my constituents feel very trapped, so I welcome the acceleration of action. However, does she have any timeframe—or will her Department be working up a timeframe—for when that action will have an impact on constituents? Some of mine will be facing bankruptcy because of the challenges they have been facing. I should declare for the record that I am a leaseholder.

The absolute deadline we have put forward as part of our remediation acceleration plan is 2029, but we want to go much further. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), and I have met with developers and others, and we continue to push really hard on this issue—it has been one of our No. 1 focuses.

I commend the Deputy Prime Minister on the way she is introducing this debate. There is another group of people who I do not think have been properly considered yet: those who have lost their property, or could not remortgage it or sell it at the market rate, because they had cladding issues. My constituent Crawford Wilson invested his life savings in a property, unaware at the time that it had cladding problems. This meant that he could not secure a remortgage and could not sell it for anything like the market value. It was finally repossessed, and he lost hundreds of thousands of pounds as a result. What advice could the Deputy Prime Minister offer my constituent, and what is she going to do to try to ensure that that situation is put right?

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, which shows how the damage caused by the organisations that cladded those buildings and their systemic failures have had a real impact. That is why, since we were elected in July, my No. 1 focus has been trying to make sure that those buildings are safe and that remediation takes place. Seven years on is far too long for those buildings to still be unsafe, and later in my speech I will come on to some of the issues we are trying to resolve, including the people who are paying exorbitant insurance rates at this time.

Seven years on from the Grenfell Tower tragedy, thousands of people across the country still live in homes with unsafe cladding. The toll that this has placed on thousands of people is, I know, intolerable, with the financial worries, the impact on mental health and the lives put on hold. People have been unable to plan their futures, and may fear going to sleep in case something happens in the night, as it did in June 2017. This is a scandal. It permeates every aspect of the lives of those who live in unsafe buildings—buildings bought or rented in good faith—and it is completely unacceptable.

People must be and must feel safe in their homes, and we are taking a major step towards that with the statement laid in the House today. Our remediation acceleration plan sets out our ambitious measures to fix buildings faster, identify those still at risk and ensure that residents are supported through the remediation process. We are committed to getting homes fixed faster through the remediation acceleration plan. We aim to do that remediation by 2029 at the latest on all residential buildings of 18 metres or over with unsafe cladding, through a Government-funded scheme. By the end of 2029, every residential building of 11 metres or over with unsafe cladding will either have been remediated or have a date for completion, or the landlord will be liable for severe penalties.

We will introduce new legal obligations on landlords to remediate unsafe cladding, with severe penalties, including sanctions for inaction. We are backing this up with new funding and new guidance for regulators to drive remediation forward. We have a plan to tackle the remediation needed in the social sector to support social landlords to ensure that their stock is safe. The building safety levy and developers’ repayment of Government funds will ensure that the cost of fixing these buildings does not fall on the taxpayer. Above all, we will take measures to protect residents and leaseholders, who are the innocent parties in this, during remediation. This is our plan, and the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley, will be able to share more of its details at the end of this debate.

Developers must play their part in accelerating remediation. They have already committed to fix or pay to fix unsafe buildings at an estimated cost of more than £3.4 billion, but progress has been too slow. Works have started in fewer than half of developers’ buildings known to be unsafe. That is why we have agreed a new joint plan with developers to accelerate remediation and improve the experience of residents, which we are publishing today. For the first time, developers are committing to achieve ambitious stretch targets to assess all their buildings by July 2025, and to start or complete remedial works on all their unsafe buildings by July 2027. To meet these stretch targets, developers will need to more than double the pace at which they have been assessing buildings and starting remediation work so far this year. Already more than 25 developers have signed up to the plan, bringing more than 95% of the buildings that developers need to remediate into scope, which is encouraging.

We are often reminded just how crucial decisive action to replace unsafe cladding is. Just last week, a fire at the Quadrangle building in Greater Manchester, a building that was remediated in 2021 through the ACM private sector cladding remediation fund, thankfully did not turn into an emergency situation. If the building had not been remediated, that situation could have been much more serious. To keep residents safe in their homes until remediation work has been carried out, we are extending the waking watch replacement fund until the spring of 2026. I will confirm the long-term plans at the end of the next spending review.

Too many leaseholders in buildings that need remediation face unaffordable insurance premiums, and this cannot continue. I can confirm that from today we will start working with insurers to consider whether, for the duration of the remediation programmes, the Government might support industry to reduce fire-related liabilities to lower the high insurance bills that leaseholders face. As part of our commitment to minimising unfair costs to leaseholders, I can also announce that we are tackling the problem of the unfair charges from those managing buildings insurance, and we have launched a consultation on that today.

I want the message to go out loud and clear that we expect the industry and those who build and maintain our homes to lead the way in creating a culture that puts the safety of residents first. Money is available to make buildings safe, but, incredibly, some landlords are still failing to act. Through their inaction, they are preventing homes from being made safe. It is outstandingly neglectful and a dereliction of responsibility. We will not stand for this any longer.

The Secretary of State may be aware that my constituency has the highest number of high-rise buildings in the entire country. My constituents want reassurance on whether the scope of penalties and sanctions for landlords that do not comply and do not follow the remediation acceleration plan will include preventing them from expanding their portfolios and continuing to build in the manner they are, thus ensuring accountability and that the harms they have caused are not reproduced.

I have been very clear with developers by asking why somebody would want to purchase a home from a developer that is not seen to be taking action on remediation. That is why we have got many of them round the table to sign up to this acceleration plan. I do believe that they want to remediate this problem. It has been too long and things need to change. We are clear that there will be consequences for landlords for failing to act. With the support of Parliament, we will put in place legislation to ensure that they do.

The London borough of Tower Hamlets recently became the first local authority in England to successfully obtain a remediation order, and I expect to see many more in the future. To ensure that regulators can act, we will provide £33 million in the next financial year to local authorities, fire and rescue authorities and the Building Safety Regulator, so that they can tackle hundreds of cases per year. We will provide a further £5 million to the recovery strategy unit to increase its capacity to act. Let me be clear that this includes, where necessary, pursuing landlords in the courts. The industry must act now to fix the thousands of unsafe buildings that must be made safe. It must take seriously its obligations to remediate buildings and to design, construct and maintain buildings safely.

If you own an unsafe building or you are a landlord who is not fixing a building, this Government will make sure that you do, and we will propose legislation to ensure that you do. There can be no more delay, no more excuses and no more obstruction. To make the change that this Government and the Grenfell inquiry demand, we must build effective services that command public trust and confidence, and that are fit for the 21st century. Those who flout their responsibilities will have nowhere to hide. We will take direct action to hold to account those who are failing to meet their obligations. That is why we have committed to a system-wide reform of the construction products regulatory regime, and why we will consult on robust sanctions, penalties and liabilities against manufacturers.

I can update the House that we have made good on our pledge to write to organisations identified by the inquiry for their part in this tragedy. Organisations will hold different levels of responsibility, but I can announce that we will publish guidance early next year to support the first set of decisions that will stop the most appalling companies from being awarded Government contracts.

As I have said, the system itself needs reform. Statutory guidance on building regulations covering fire safety and building design is now subject to continuous review by the Building Safety Regulator, but I want to go further. I can announce today that I have asked the regulator to undertake that a fundamental review of the building safety regulations guidance will be produced, updated and communicated to the construction industry, because we must get this right.

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way once again. To go back to the issue of the product manufacturers, I am really pleased to hear what she says about Government contracts for the worst offenders, but will she consider giving guidance to local authorities and other public bodies, such as the NHS, to make sure that they are also aware of the need not to award contracts to these companies?

Yes, I am happy to look at that issue. The spirit I am trying to get across is that we have to have a cultural shift, and everyone has to play their part in ensuring that that happens. I am willing to look at anything the Government can do to make it happen.

The Secretary of State is making an excellent speech, and I wholeheartedly welcome the measures she has announced. In my constituency, one challenge is that, sadly, there have been some poor examples of workmanship—or workpersonship —and some sloppy building that has opened up residents to a risk of fire: poorly built compartmentalisation, fire safety walls not built properly, gaps, the use of wood where wood should not have been used—that sort of risk. Will she ask her officials to look into such matters, and for better guidance to be provided?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Cladding is one element of what many tenants face with unsafe buildings, and we are looking at how we can strengthen measures to ensure that action is taken. Some local authorities have already started to take enforcement action, and I have pushed hard to ensure that we continue to do that. If a building is unsafe, people should not have to live in it, and it should be dealt with as quickly as possible.

We are bringing local authority leaders and Ministers together through the new leaders’ council to work through these issues. I thank them all for their engagement today, including our mayors. The resilience review announced in July will continue to bring together the devolved Governments, local leaders and experts to consider where things are working well and where there could be improvements, to ensure that the UK is prepared for the risks we face. We must work with those in industry to ensure that buildings are safe, to raise professional standards, and to create a culture that puts the safety of residents first.

Fire and rescue services need to do more to develop high quality leadership, and support learning and professional excellence. We are carefully considering the inquiry’s recommendation to establish a college of fire and rescue. We expect all firefighters to have access to the vital education and training they need to save lives, and to be the best they can be. Culture and integrity in fire and rescue services are vital. Poor culture, a lack of integrity and bad practice can risk public safety, as was highlighted by the Grenfell inquiry. That is unacceptable and a culture change must begin immediately.

Our response to the Grenfell inquiry report must be a watershed moment not just for safety and quality, but for a new vision of housing that gives every resident a voice and the respect that they deserve—a change in culture that truly empowers people. As I said earlier, the failure to do that with Grenfell residents, who repeatedly raised concerns and were repeatedly ignored, stands out starkly. Everyone deserves a warm, decent home. They also have the right to be treated with dignity, and to have access to redress when things go wrong. That includes the millions of people living in social housing, which is why we have introduced a stronger set of consumer standards that applies to all registered social landlords. Routine inspections of large landlords have already started, and the Regulator of Social Housing has published the first set of judgments.

Many landlords must do more to improve the quality of their buildings and communicate better with their tenants. When it comes to quality and tackling unacceptable housing conditions, we will legislate to introduce Awaab’s law in the social rented sector as soon as possible, setting a requirement for landlords to investigate and repair serious hazards with specific timeframes. We will also extend Awaab’s law to the private rented sector through the Renters’ Rights Bill. We will bring forward regulations to set standards for the competence and conduct of staff in the sector, and enable residents to request information about their landlords through new access requirements that will apply to housing associations. We will monitor the new regime and its effectiveness closely.

While we are doing more to raise the bar for social landlords, we are also empowering tenants and giving them a seat at the table, relaunching our communications campaign on how people can raise complaints, and extending that work so that all residents know their rights and can hold their landlords to account. To hear at first hand what matters most to social tenants, this week my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Housing and Planning will join our relaunched social housing residents panel. Changing the culture in our social housing system will take time, but those are important first steps.

In conclusion, the reforms I have set out are about much more than new regulation and legislation. Indeed, the Grenfell inquiry made it clear that those things alone are not enough, and that nothing less than a shift in culture that puts people and safety first, not profits, will do if we are to turn the page on the shocking failures exposed by the Grenfell report. Accelerating the pace of remediation and empowering tenants are important steps in the right direction, because no matter who someone is or where they live, a good life starts with a safe, secure, decent home and a strong community. We owe it to the Grenfell community, and everything they stand for and have fought for, to make sure that everyone can count on that. To the Grenfell community I say this: we will continue to work with you to build a fitting and lasting memorial. This Government will support you now and always, in memory of the loved ones who were lost so tragically.

The Grenfell Tower fire was an unthinkable tragedy that claimed 72 lives. It is one of the few moments in life when we all remember exactly where we were when it happened. Our thoughts are with those who lost loved ones, the survivors who endured unimaginable trauma, and all those who were affected by that devastating night. The state failed them in its duty to protect, and we must ensure that such failures are never repeated. We will work collaboratively with the Secretary of State and the wider Government in the interests of everyone directly and indirectly affected by this tragedy, and I very much welcome today’s announcement about the acceleration of remediation.

Following the tragedy, the Conservative Government took decisive action to uncover the truth, initiating a public inquiry to learn lessons and implement changes to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again. The right hon. Lady may remember that we served briefly together on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee which, under the extremely capable leadership of the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), led much of the thinking and debate following the tragedy. We successfully campaigned for a banning of combustible materials on the outside of new buildings over 18 metres, and for a Government remediation fund for existing buildings. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) who was the first to properly grasp that nettle as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Chancellor, and Prime Minister. More than £5.1 billion has since been allocated for building remediation, and we have acted to strengthen regulations and implement recommendations from the inquiry’s phase 1 report.

I also pay tribute to the right hon. Lady’s predecessor, the former Member for Surrey Heath, for his work in this area, not least the establishment of the building safety levy, which is the source from which much of the funds will flow. However, publication of the phase 2 report in September 2024 revealed the scale of failures that occurred over decades and across multiple sectors, making clear that much more remains to be done, as the right hon. Lady set out. Even those of us who have followed the inquiry closely find the report truly shocking to read. The phase 2 report, chaired by Sir Martin Moore-Bick and supported by panel members Ali Akbor OBE and Thouria Istephan, makes 58 recommendations to improve fire safety and address systemic issues within the construction industry. Crucially, the report concluded that the Grenfell Tower fire was the result of decades of failures by Government, regulatory bodies and the construction industry to act on the known dangers of using combustible materials in high-rise buildings.

One of the most alarming findings was the role of systemic dishonesty in the construction industry. Companies engaged in deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate safety testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market. For instance, the insulation product Celotex RS5000, used on Grenfell Tower, was found to have been sold using manipulated test results—incredibly, with the Building Research Establishment complicit in those practices.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the work of the Select Committee. On product safety and product testing, what the Hackitt report, as well as the Select Committee, found was the extent to which product manufacturers were going from one testing place to another until they found one that agreed that their product was safe. Products often failed the tests, but those failures were never in the public domain. Does he think that there ought to be a change of process, so that when a product fails in one testing place, that failure is made known publicly?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, as I did during much of our work on the Select Committee. One of Martin Moore-Bick’s recommendations was exactly that: that all test results should be published, not just the ones that support the safety of the product. That would go a long way towards ensuring that the true safety of the products is established.

The BRE findings highlight a shocking betrayal of trust, and a callous disregard for public safety, driven by financial gain. The report also identified severe leadership and management failings within the London Fire Brigade. It described a chronic lack of effective management, an undue focus on processes, and a complacency among senior officers regarding the brigade’s operational efficiency. Those weaknesses hindered the brigade’s ability to respond effectively to the crisis, and underscored the need for systemic reform and improved leadership in fire services.

To address those failings, the phase 2 report made far-reaching recommendations, including the establishment of a single construction regulator; centralising fire safety responsibilities under one Secretary of State, to end fragmentation across Departments; regular updates to approved document B, to keep fire safety regulations current; and the creation of a chief construction adviser and a college of fire and rescue to ensure high standards in fire safety training and practices. We fully support those recommendations and urge the Government to implement them swiftly and effectively. We will scrutinise their progress to ensure that the necessary reforms are delivered without delay.

Some have questioned the pace of the remediation efforts. I think the Secretary of State was right to do so. I emphasise that the remediation efforts prioritised the highest-risk buildings, and by July 2024, 98% of high-rise buildings with the most dangerous, Grenfell-style ACM cladding had either completed or started work. On the remaining buildings, enforcement action is being taken against non-compliant owners. The complexity of the buildings and legal disputes over responsibility have caused delays. Nevertheless, all building owners must step up, take responsibility, and act swiftly to address the issues, or face the consequences of their inaction. It is important to note that the building regulations regime was established under the Building Act 1984, and fire safety reforms were introduced by other Governments in previous decades, as the Secretary of State acknowledged.

From 2010, the coalition Government sought to remove unnecessary bureaucracy, but fire safety and building safety were explicitly excluded from those reviews. The inquiry acknowledged that key safety regulations, including the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 were excluded from deregulation initiatives. Under our leadership, safety was never treated as red tape. Nevertheless, as the report confirms, mistakes were made by Ministers and officials on our watch. The frequency of changes under Governments of different political stripes, and the frequency of changes in housing Ministers and Secretaries of State, would not have helped. I hope that Parliament may learn that lesson for the future. Since 2017, the Conservatives in Government led comprehensive reforms of building compliance and fire safety. Measures introduced include the Fire Safety Act 2021 and the Building Safety Act 2022, which created the Building Safety Regulator to oversee stricter compliance with standards.

One issue that arose at an early stage, about a year after the tragedy at Grenfell, was the need for fire safety surveyors. These people are experts and take about three years to train. In retrospect, does the hon. Gentleman not think that a lesson for future Governments of any colour is to look at such issues at an early stage, because we still have a shortage of those people now in 2024?

I agree. Mistakes were made—there is no doubt about it. As the phase 2 report recommends, there should be greater oversight and regulation of people who proclaim themselves to be experts in these fields. I agree with the hon. Lady’s points.

Accountability must remain a cornerstone of our response. Those who knowingly cut corners on safety to maximise profits must face justice. We call on the Metropolitan police and the Crown Prosecution Service to pursue criminal charges against those responsible, be it through a deliberate act, a willingness to look the other way, or gross incompetence. Companies implicated in such wrongdoing should not receive future public contracts. Let us be clear: this was not the responsibility of any single Government, Minister or official. As the report sets out in its opening paragraphs, failures occurred over decades, involving Administrations of all political colours. We must approach these difficult questions with the honesty and determination that they deserve, ensuring that we learn the lessons of the past to protect lives in the future.

While we have made significant progress, the journey is far from over. As we look to the future, we must acknowledge the hard questions raised by the report about past governance. Those failures occurred over decades, involving Administrations led by Labour, the coalition Government, and Conservative Governments. This was a systemic failure, which requires an open and honest response. Our party’s record demonstrates our commitment to making things right. We took swift action after the tragedy to establish the public inquiry, launch the independent review of building regulations and fire safety, and allocate significant resources to remove unsafe cladding from high-risk buildings. The Fire Safety Act 2021 implemented recommendations from phase 1 of the Grenfell inquiry, and the Building Safety Act 2022 overhauled existing regulations, setting up the Building Safety Regulator to oversee stringent compliance measures.

Bournemouth East constituents, such as Katie from Queen’s Park in Charminster, have been in touch, horrified about the Grenfell Tower tragedy and desperate for a turning point. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to reach such a turning point? We need justice for those who were let down by the last Government. Does he also agree that we need to get rid of the social housing stigma, which has made so many people in social housing feel like they live in shame?

There are so many lessons that I hope will be learned across the House. The report is clear that there has been failure by Governments of all stripes over the years, in terms of both building safety and social housing. With the Regulator of Social Housing and the new fire safety regulatory regime, it is hugely important that we turn the page, but I do not think that we will win back the trust of the people affected by this scandal, or by the cladding scandal in other areas, until we have made progress, completed the remediation, and put in place a regime that is seen to be working and bringing about the cultural change to which the Secretary of State referred. It is hugely important that we make that progress.

The actions that we have taken have made strides towards addressing safety concerns, but we recognise that more is needed. I welcome the Labour Government’s pledge to respond to all 58 recommendations within six months and to provide annual progress updates to Parliament. This is a critical moment for accountability and reform, and we stand ready to support all proportionate and necessary measures to protect public safety. Does the Secretary of State agree with the recommendation of a single construction regulator, with one Secretary of State holding end-to-end responsibility, and will that be her? Does she also agree with the point raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East about product manufacturers being held responsible for remediation costs, too? It is her stated policy to continue the use of the CE marking scheme for construction products in the UK, but those standards were set in 2015, three years prior to the post-Grenfell standards revision in the UK. How will she ensure that all products sold in the UK meet the post-2018 UK standard? That issue has been raised on the Floor of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who is next to me on the Opposition Front Bench.

I recently met campaigners, including Steve Day, who raise the case of the 1.7 million leaseholders who do not currently qualify for the Building Safety Act 2022 protections and who still suffer from higher insurance premiums, higher mortgage rates and an inability to sell their homes. Will the Secretary of State meet him and others to see what additional measures need to be taken? Can she share with the House when announcements will be made on the future memorial on the site? Indeed, can the renovation of properties in the Grenfell community be accelerated? Can we get a target for when that will be completed? Accountability must be at the heart of the response, and those who knowingly cut corners on building safety must face justice.

Grenfell was a tragedy of unprecedented scale, but it must serve as a turning point. We owe it to those who lost their lives, to the survivors and to the public to ensure that their legacy is one of justice, reform and safety. Let us move forward with determination to build a safer future for all.

It is now more than seven and a half years since 72 people lost their lives at Grenfell Tower in my constituency in north Kensington. It was a greater loss of life than any terrorist attack in London’s history. That is seven and a half years of no justice, and seven and a half years of no meaningful change. It was a tragedy that was entirely preventable, and entirely foreseen. To our shame as a country, and as the recent fire in Dagenham showed, it could happen again today.

As the Grenfell inquiry sets out, the fire occurred because individuals and organisations were systematically dishonest, put profit before lives and were part of a system and culture that too often denies agency and power to those living in social housing in this country. I pay tribute to the next of kin, bereaved, survivors and our community, many of whom have joined us here today, for their resilience and strength in continuing to fight for truth, justice and change. I know that with each hearing, each story, each Government announcement and each new promise of change, they are forced to relive the horrific events of that night, and I know that today will be painful, too. Their voices must remain at the heart of this Government’s response and of all future decisions about Grenfell. I hope I speak for the whole House when I say to them that justice will only truly be served when there are criminal prosecutions and those responsible pay the price.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s apology on 4 September on behalf of the British state, and I thank Sir Martin Moore-Bick and the whole inquiry team. The report is an important step in uncovering the truth of what happened that night, who was responsible and what must be done to ensure that such a tragedy is never repeated, but the path to justice is long and we are far from the end. In recent meetings with the then Minister for Courts and Legal Services, my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander) and the Metropolitan police, I have been clear that our community is watching and waiting. I urge all involved to remain focused on expediting the process as much as possible.

I fully understand the frustration that it has taken this long. On 24 June 2017, then Ministers Alok Sharma and Nick Hurd wrote to bereaved families. They said:

“The inquiry will not delay the conclusion of the Police inquiry…If criminal proceedings result from these investigations…we would not expect them to be delayed by the establishment of the public inquiry.”

That has clearly not come to pass. Justice has been delayed, but it must not be denied. While we wait for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to complete their work, there are actions that must be taken now. Companies identified in the report, such as Arconic, Rydon, Kingspan and Celotex, must be excluded from public contracts while criminal investigations are ongoing. I thank the Secretary of State for her commitment to that, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) that local authorities across the country should be encouraged to follow suit.

Justice is about more than contracts and criminal charges, and it goes beyond Grenfell. Across the country, up to a million people are still stuck in unsafe buildings. They are victims of the building safety crisis. The National Audit Office has just reported that, on current trends, it will take until at least 2037 before the last unsafe building is remediated, at a cost of £16.6 billion. I therefore welcome the Government’s announcement today that they will speed up the remediation work, that developers will be forced to double the pace of fixing the crisis and that building owners who sit on their hands will be subject to severe penalties. That is right, because while residents wait, they also pay the costs.

In a block of flats in Earl’s Court, just two miles south of Grenfell, a recent fire inspection found flammable rendering. The insurance premium has gone up from £15,000 a year to £375,000 a year, meaning an extra £400 a month in service charges for leaseholders. While leaseholders face this increasing cost of living crisis, and the fear of living in buildings that are unsafe, the insurance industry has so far failed to tackle the problem. The Association of British Insurers committed to bringing down costs, but the experience of my constituents shows that it is not working. I am delighted that the Government have committed to working with insurers to consider urgently how bills can be reduced during remediation programmes. That cannot come soon enough. I know that Members from across the House will have their own horror stories of leaseholders who cannot sell and cannot move on with their lives, who are caught in the middle between freeholders, developers, managing agents and all levels of government. My test of this Government’s plan and whether it will be deemed a success is whether it brings this merry-go-round of buck-passing to an end.

I know that the Government are also considering their formal response to the inquiry, including ending the chaotic and fragmented regulatory system. Accountability for building regulations should be streamlined under a single Secretary of State. We need one regulator—a high-quality, well-resourced public body reporting directly to that Secretary of State—and we need robust product regulation. Currently, only a third of construction products are regulated. Instead, all construction products should be subject to regulations to ensure safety and public trust.

This inquiry is just one of many recent high-profile public inquiries into state injustices, whether that is Hillsborough, the Post Office, Windrush, infected blood or LGBT veterans. I welcome the Government’s resolve to righting the wrongs of the past and tackling the injustices that the previous Government largely failed to budget for. Time and again, we have seen a pattern of inaction and too many lifesaving recommendations from public inquiries and inquests ignored by corporate bodies and Departments, and that failure to act has had fatal consequences. Had the coroner’s regulations following the Lakanal House fire, which claimed six lives, been implemented, it is likely that the Grenfell Tower tragedy would have been prevented.

The previous Government dragged their feet on implementing personal emergency evacuation plans for disabled people in phase 1, so I welcome the Government’s announcement today on the next steps to protect disabled tenants. Such examples have convinced me that we must consider an independent oversight body, answerable to Parliament, to track the implementation of inquiry recommendations and prevent avoidable deaths. I welcome the commitment to passing the Hillsborough law duty of candour to ensure that public authorities and officials act in the public interest, with openness, honesty and transparency about their actions, decisions and failings.

Nowhere is the need for candour and oversight more evident than with the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which failed residents in the years leading up to the Grenfell fire, on the night of the tragedy and in its aftermath. The inquiry determined that RBKC bears

“considerable responsibility for the dangerous condition of the building”,

highlighted a

“persistent indifference to fire safety”,

and found that RBKC’s response was

“muddled, slow, indecisive and piecemeal”,

with it

“ill-equipped to deal with a serious emergency”,

exposing a complete failure to protect and serve the community for whom it was entrusted to care. Even today, many north Kensington residents still rely on community groups for essential support and services. In stark contrast to the failures of RBKC, the community acted decisively and heroically on the night of the fire and in its immediate aftermath. I am proud of how our community responded to the fire and continues to support residents across north Kensington.

But this is not just about one council; it is about a culture of neglect and disrespect that impacts millions of people living in social housing across the country. Some 60% of my casework in Kensington and Bayswater relates to slow repairs, damp, mould, overcrowding and poor communication from landlords. On Saturday, I visited a council estate close to Grenfell and spoke to many residents, including a woman who has been in temporary accommodation for 19 years out of the borough and who has had to chase relentlessly to get her move back home, and a resident with an extractor fan that has been broken for years, despite multiple surveyors coming to assess the job.

I thank my hon. Friend for making such a powerful speech on behalf of his constituents. What he has described reflects all our inboxes. Does he agree that to address residents’, tenants’ and leaseholders’ concerns in a timely manner with good customer care does not cost any money?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The waste of councils’ and housing associations’ precious resources and the waste of people’s time in taking time off work and disrupting their lives to deal with the inefficiency and repairs is something that we have to fix. I am really hopeful that incoming legislation such as Awaab’s law will help with that.

The case study from Saturday is a good example. A constituent is forced to open the windows to prevent mould coming into her home, which means that she has paid thousands extra in energy bills over the past few years while she waits for the council to fix the fan. On the Lancaster West estate, where Grenfell is located, there are concerns that the promise from all levels of government for a modern 21st-century social housing estate will not be fulfilled.

It is essential that RBKC, residents and Ministers agree a plan to complete the refurbishment with transparency and accountability on budgets and timelines, because those residents have been living on a building site for far too long. It is not enough just to talk about change. Until the tenants of RBKC and the housing associations in my constituency are treated with respect and have access to what they are entitled to as a right, they will lack trust in the institutions that are meant to serve them. Just last week, the regulator found one of our major housing associations, Notting Hill Genesis, to be non-compliant after an inspection revealed governance failings and poor health and safety outcomes for tenants.

I do not want just to criticise; I want to help RBKC and our housing associations to find solutions. In the new year, we will be launching a new campaign on social housing quality in Kensington and Bayswater, because I want our community to be a trailblazer on how to implement Awaab’s law on damp and mould, how to enforce the new decent homes standard and how to break people out of the doom cycle of endless emails, phone calls, missed appointments and subcontractors even to get simple repairs done. If we cannot get it right in Kensington and Bayswater given Grenfell, given our amazing community organisations and given that we are on the frontline of the nation’s housing crisis, what hope does the rest of the country have? Central to the campaign will be the voice of tenants. I extend an open invitation to anyone who can help to join our campaign and make a practical difference for the community.

It has been over seven years since the bereaved, the survivors and the local community endured a tragedy that changed their lives forever. I will continue to advocate in this place for truth, justice and lasting change, and for Grenfell bereaved and survivors to be heard. Their dignity and resilience have held up a mirror to us as a nation, forcing us to confront a fundamental question: do we truly give everyone an equal voice in how this country is run?

The opportunity is for the Government—a mission-led Government—to focus on service and give people a real say in decisions that affect them. We cannot afford to continue with nearly a million people sleeping in unsafe buildings. We cannot afford another Grenfell Tower. True justice means criminal charges for those responsible, a complete culture change with respect for every tenant, and every child in the country growing up in a safe and decent home. That must be the legacy of Grenfell.

Like Members across the House, Liberal Democrats stand firmly with the many bereaved and their immediate community of family, friends and neighbours as they mourn the 72, including children, who tragically lost their lives in June 2017. In this debate, surely one thing matters more than anything: that their memory must be respected. But, as Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s phase 2 report on the underlying cause of the fire graphically lays bare, they were cruelly let down by the systems, companies, Governments and government bodies that should have protected them.

We welcome the Government’s commitment to address all the recommendations in the report, and the Prime Minister’s promise in response to the phase 2 report to take the necessary steps to speed up the rate at which unsafe cladding is removed from buildings and to ensure that tenants and their leaseholders can never again be ignored. However, the National Audit Office has said that the pace of remediation work is behind where it should be and called for the onus to be placed on developers to pay for the work. Although the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s figures show that works have begun in 44% of buildings with unsafe cladding, it is deeply worrying, seven years on, that 66% are waiting and that thousands of people in the UK are still living in buildings with dangerous cladding. I therefore welcome the Government’s announcements about accelerating progress.

As the National Housing Federation has pointed out, 90% of Government funding for the work so far has been received by private building owners, but many have passed the costs of remediation work on to tenants and leaseholders, putting many, quite unfairly, in serious financial peril. Leaseholders have struggled under the cladding crisis, buying properties they believed met safety standards, which they realise now do not, and suffering from huge increases in insurance premiums, as we have heard. We therefore call for the removal of all such dangerous cladding as soon as possible without tenants and leaseholders—including non-qualifying leaseholders —having to pay. After all, they placed their trust in the private companies and regulatory bodies that let them down, so they should not have to pay a penny towards that work. As the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said, product manufacturers surely should be paying.

The whole picture points to the need to create a legally enforceable order to remediate premises so that they are safe on pain of criminal sanction. I welcome what the Deputy Prime Minister said about that a few moments ago. Seven years on from this scandal, it is time for justice both for the victims and all those living with potentially unsafe cladding.

The inquiry report clearly establishes lessons to be learned for every authority in the land. The “pathway to disaster”, as Sir Martin called it, is chilling. It is incumbent on all of us in the House and everyone connected with the built environment and fire safety, not least those in my own professions—as an architect and town planner, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—to ensure that change happens and to take forward the report’s recommendations. The Architects Registration Board, working with the Royal Institute of British Architects, has a duty under the Building Safety Act 2022 to monitor the training and development that architects complete throughout their careers. The Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that this year it is mandatory for all architects to complete training in fire safety.

But there is one factor that comes through in the fateful chain of events that led to the fire in 2017, and it is one that had a devastating effect on the lives of so many: the promotion of gaining commercial advantage at the expense of building and fire safety. The inquiry said that the Building Research Establishment—originally a public body but privatised in the ’90s—exhibited in its testing of dangerous cladding

“a desire to accommodate existing customers and to retain its status within the industry at the expense of maintaining the rigour of its processes and considerations of public safety.”

The inquiry reports says that the supplier companies

“engaged in deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate the testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market. In the case of the principal insulation product used on Grenfell Tower, Celotex RS5000, the Building Research Establishment…was complicit in that strategy.”

Since the privatisation of building inspectors in the 1980s—a move with which even the most commercially minded partners at the practice I worked in a few years later strongly disagreed—they have also faltered as a result of commercial pressures, with a resultant unacceptable blurring of responsibilities. Sir Martin’s report concludes that the privatised inspector NHBC

“failed to ensure that its building control function remained essentially regulatory and free of commercial pressures. It was unwilling to upset its…customers”.

The report goes on:

“We have concluded that the conflict between the regulatory function of building control and the pressures of commercial interests prevents a system of that kind from effectively serving the public interest.”

It is also clear that NHBC practices exposed what remains of local authority building control to similarly unscrupulous competition, and has driven down standards there as a result.

I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful speech. Does he agree that a lot of problems have arisen from the poor funding of local authorities, where building control services have been severely undermined?

I very much agree. It is clear from my time in the profession that the exposure of local authority building control to private competition, with which it is difficult to compete, has led to a race to the bottom. In fact, hon. Members should not take my word for it; expert witness Professor Luke Bisby summed it up:

“A culture shift in building control had gradually occurred, from one of building control actors ‘policing’ developers to one of them ‘working with clients’ under commercial duress. This resulted in a ‘race to the bottom’”.

Liberal Democrats therefore strongly support the recommendation for the Government to consider whether it is in the public interest for building control functions to be performed by those who have a commercial interest in the process. We would go further and say that the evidence to the inquiry is such that commercial interests cannot be in the public interest, and that both the Building Research Establishment and building inspectors should be brought back under public control. We also urge social housing providers to pay particular attention to their new requirements under the Social Housing Act (Regulation) 2023, and to the need for better inspection and timely remediation of defects.

We also strongly endorse the need for a recognised profession of fire engineer. It is important, too, that our local fire services are properly funded. I was concerned about the reduction in the number of appliances at Taunton fire station, and I have written to the Treasury on behalf of the Devon and Somerset fire and rescue authority, asking the Government for flexibility in funding and tax-raising powers. It is vital that no further reduction of appliances at stations such as mine go ahead.

We support all 58 recommendations in the report, whether for local authorities, the fire brigade, tenant management organisations or local authorities, or on personal emergency evacuation plans being put in place —it is good to see the Government establishing that today—or indeed for the Government themselves. Since what has turned out to be the fatal folly of promoting commercial interest above building and fire safety in the decades from the ’80s and ’90s, Governments of all persuasions have let down some of our most vulnerable citizens. The situation has been reviewed many times over the years by Governments of all stripes. It is now time to put safety once again before profit.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) on outlining the concerns of his constituents. In the short four-and-a-half months that he has been here, championing their cause has been central to his role as an MP.

This evening a number of colleagues will touch on the technicalities outlined in the report. I want to focus my remarks on the survivors and victims of Grenfell. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), said that we all remember where we were on 14 June 2017. I remember very well where I was, because my son was just a week old—he was born on 7 June. As a new mum, though a second-time one, I was sitting up nursing him through the night. I remember my husband coming into the room and asking “What are you watching? Why’ve you still got the TV on? What film is this?” It was not a film; it was real life. I sat there during the night, which many Members probably did as well, just watching that fire. Remembering back to that scene, things were dropping that we might have thought were items, but they were people. Today’s debate has to be about the victims of Grenfell, their families and the 72 people who died.

In May 2023, I went to the Serpentine gallery to watch a short film produced by Steve McQueen. It is a 24-minute film that follows a drone or a helicopter coming in from way out near Heathrow. It is an aerial shot, and quite silent—at first, you can hear the sirens and the noise in the background, but as it gets closer and closer to Grenfell Tower, there is just silence. That aerial shot gives a good overview of just a tall, charred building. As the helicopter goes around the building, you can see inside—the debris, the remnants and the forensic cases. But what is glaringly obvious in that film is blackness. You can almost smell the burning as you watch the film. I challenge anyone who has not seen it to try to watch that film.

I think about the families and the victims, and their long battle for justice. We are now going into the eighth year. This is a fight that they should never have had to endure in the first place. We as a House must have the courage to deliver a fairer society for them—one where the pain they feel can never be inflicted on anyone again. I cannot imagine the anger they feel at the deep failures outlined in the phase 2 report. It outlines over a decade of missed opportunities to identify the risks associated with combustible cladding. The shadow Secretary of State quoted it, as did the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), and I will quote again. There were “deliberate and sustained strategies” from cladding providers

“to manipulate the testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market.”

Shame on them. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

That was compounded by a complete failure of oversight within the Government at every level, and the local council, which ignored residents who raised those safety concerns. The Grenfell disaster represents nothing less than a catastrophic failure of the duty to provide people with even the most basic level of safety. Yet here we are, more than seven years down the line, and those responsible for this tragedy have still not been brought to justice.

As a slap in the face, thousands of people up and down the country still go to bed every night knowing that their building is wrapped in this unsafe cladding. Can you imagine the mental toll? We asked those same people to sleep in their homes and not leave during the covid pandemic, knowing full well that if their building went up in flames, they could not escape. Many of those people are my constituents in Vauxhall and Camberwell Green. Like many other Members of this House, I have had conversations with constituents who are caught up in the cladding scandal through no fault of their own, with the ripple effects of this crisis ruining their lives to this day. We must solve this as a national emergency.

I was shocked that the National Audit Office said that we could not expect an end to the remediation until 2035, which would be 18 years after Grenfell. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to step up the pace and finally set a deadline of 2029 for the completion of the remediation. I also welcome the fact that the Government adopted measures to improve fire safety standards on 2 September, and that they have promised the House that they will address the recommendations of the phase 2 report within six months of its release. As Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I look forward to that, and will be holding Ministers to account. However, as important as those steps are, we cannot pretend that these announcements do enough—they do not address the systematic failures that led to the Grenfell disaster.

I urge Members to read part 4 of the report, if they have not already done so. It outlines how residents felt that the tenant management organisation was an uncaring and bullying overlord that belittled them, marginalised them and regarded them as a nuisance. That behaviour is something that I saw growing up on a council estate, and it may feel familiar to others who grew up in social housing: we know the stigma we faced and the assumptions made about us; we know the disdain we faced from housing providers; we know how often we are ignored, despite knowing our communities better. I take on the challenge raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater in putting the question of how we address the systematic culture back to the Government. Like I said, it does not cost anything for someone to respect their constituents or customers.

We must not ignore how this systematic discrimination against people and treating them as a box-ticking exercise leads to tragedies such as Grenfell. While there are no recommendations on the TMO and tenant relationship in this report, I urge Ministers to look closely at how such relationships work, and at how we can swing the pendulum back to ensure that tenants are listened to.

While it is not mentioned in this report, we must acknowledge that those killed in the fire were disproportionately from black and minority ethnic communities, which suffer from racism and the hostile environment. I want to speak specifically about disabled people, too; they were failed by a basic lack of safety provisions at Grenfell. They have also been failed by delays to the implementation of personal evacuation plans, which leaves disabled people with no clear escape route in a fire, unable to evacuate with everybody else—left to simply hope, pray and wish that the fire does not reach them. I first raised the issue back in 2022 with the then Prime Minister, and nothing has changed since then. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment today to deeper information sharing between the authorities and emergency services on the requirements of disabled residents. However, I am concerned that Ministers are falling short on four of the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry. I will be following this up with the Department.

These are people who were never listened to back in 2017, and they are not being heard now. They could not hold their local authority to account when their problems were not dealt with, and some of them still cannot do that today. I urge the Government to act on the findings of the phase 2 report in full, but they must go further to address the inequalities at the heart of the Grenfell fire disaster.

It is more than seven years since 72 people lost their lives. If we are honest as a House, the problems faced by Grenfell victims are still faced by people up and down the country today. This will be fixed only if the Government look beyond targets to address the toxic culture in our housing sector that Grenfell so tragically exposed. This work demands a lot from all of us, but we can and must ensure it never happens again.

I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), who both spoke very movingly on behalf of the victims of this tragedy who want to see justice done. I venture to suggest that what they want above everything is to know that nothing like this will ever happen again—that whatever happened that night, there will be some glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel and that some good will come of it.

I praise the Secretary of State for recognising that it is the system itself that needs the most fundamental reform, and that the failures of individuals—whatever incentives existed and whatever conflicts were unresolved—were system failures. The cultural shift will come about as a result of a systemic review—a system change.

Hon. Members might well ask why I am taking an interest in this debate. I do not think I represent any community in a high-rise building with cladding problems in leafy Essex. The only interest I have to declare is that it turned out that my late mother was living in a block with unsafe cladding, so, to a very limited and minor extent, my family are suffering the loss of being unable to sell her flat. That is very small beer, but I put that down as an interest I should declare.

I have long taken an interest in safety management systems—ever since I was shadow Secretary of State for Transport at the time of the Ladbroke Grove disaster, when I took an interest in what was being submitted to the inquiry and made a submission of my own, recommending that there should be a systemic approach to the safety system. That resulted in the formation of the rail accident investigation branch of the Department for Transport, with the result that no public inquiry into a rail accident has ever taken place again.

Similarly, as Chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, I took a close interest in patient safety because we received the reports from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. We had Mid Staffordshire and all the maternity scandals, and we had public inquiry after public inquiry, until somebody suggested that there should be an investigation body accountable and answerable to the Secretary of State to look at why things go wrong in patient care and investigate the causes of incidents—without blame, incidentally—to find out what went wrong in order to make recommendations and put it right. Those are the lessons drawn from all the effective safety regimes in other industries, which should perhaps be applied in this case.

I co-authored a submission to the Grenfell inquiry with three others. The first was former Labour Housing and Fire Minister Nick Raynsford, who, at the time, was chairman of the Construction Industry Council approved inspector’s register—CICAIR—which relates to the private sector building control surveyors the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) spoke about. I will come on to that conflict, which the hon. Gentleman is very concerned about.

Another co-author was Kevin Savage, a leading figure in the building control profession; he happens to be a constituent of mine, but that was a coincidence. The third was Keith Conradi, the former chief investigator of the air accidents investigation branch of the Department for Transport—who, as it happens, became the first chief investigator for the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, which, as a result of the inquiry conducted by my Committee, is now a statutory body. He helped set that body up; he is now retired. He helped with the submission.

Keith Conradi in particular enabled us to understand building safety management as a safety management system. The events leading to the Grenfell disaster were not just the random failings or crimes of individuals. Where there is culpability, prosecutions must certainly follow, but that is not the main point. Grenfell and previous fires, such as Lakanal House, demonstrated that there was a comprehensive failure of the safety system that should exist to keep buildings as safe as possible.

We made our submission in September 2021. After seven years—a disadvantage of public inquiries is that they take a very long time—I was disappointed that the inquiry did not really find time to engage with our recommendations. It did publish our submission, but from the recommendations, I think it is fair to say that a number of issues have been handed back to the Department to be resolved. Paragraph 113.58, entitled “Implementing change”, simply suggests that the London Fire Brigade should

“establish effective standing arrangements for collecting, considering and effectively implementing lessons learned from previous incidents”.

That is an odd recommendation when we think about it, because the London Fire Brigade was itself very, very severely criticised in the report. That it should be left responsible for marking its own homework and making recommendations about itself underlines that the lacuna in the recommendations is the lack of an investigation body. There were two other paragraphs about building control that I shall come to: paragraphs 113.37 and 113.38. Those were our two urgent priorities to be addressed in our submission.

By the way, I am very grateful to the Minister for accepting our request for a meeting, which the Prime Minister promised on the Floor of the House when he announced the outcome of the inquiry. We had a very good meeting with the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention. I think she was taken with our recommendations but I think that they fall to the Minister’s Department, so I look forward to meeting him later this week.

The delays in addressing the fire safety issues that pertain to the Grenfell tragedy are having significant consequences for those who reside in buildings that are not being remediated in a timely fashion, particularly in my constituency. For example, the residents of Johnston Court have faced more than four years of uncertainty following a B2 rating, and the progress of remediation has stalled due to disputes between the developer and freeholder. The deadlock has left residents unable to sell, remortgage or feel safe in their homes, so we need faster action and accountability from all parties involved. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government’s actions and interventions will be critical to ensure that disputes do not keep delaying this urgently needed work, and that, as he is discussing, this is fundamentally about leadership?

I am very happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman and to welcome the Secretary of State’s announcements today about accelerating all of this and ensuring that action is taken much more quickly. I hope that that will result in much quicker action for his constituents.

I was addressing the first major recommendation in our submission to the inquiry, which is that there should be established an independent building safety investigation branch of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, reporting directly to the Secretary of State. That removes any possible conflict that investigations have with any other part of the system. The idea that the Health and Safety Executive or the new Building Safety Regulator should be conducting investigations is absolutely fine, but we can never guarantee that they will not come across a failing of their own and be conflicted in that investigation. The public will not have confidence in any investigation that they conduct unless there is an independent investigation that looks at all the elements of the system. The Hackitt review rather overlooked this issue. It failed to underline how future fire incidents would be investigated. This is a gap that is still to be addressed.

The current system of resort to public inquiries, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green confirmed, takes far too long. I feel for those who were caught up in the tragedy directly. They have waited far too long. An air accident investigation rarely takes more than a few months because the capability exists. In the Grenfell case, the Housing Ombudsman still felt that

“residents’ complaints were dismissed and devalued.”

I think the inquiry was overwhelmed with so much material and so many different elements. In a way, its terms of reference were too wide to be able to capably come up with a comprehensive set of safety system recommendations.

It is also notable that although there was an inquiry into the Lakanal House fire, we had another inquiry into Grenfell. Public inquiries do not seem to resolve problems. A building safety investigation branch would transform that. It would operate independently, modelled on similar bodies for air, marine and rail. These bodies have proven their worth in both the rail and aviation. No public inquiry has taken place into an aviation accident since 1972 and there has not been a public inquiry into a rail accident since the Ladbroke Grove inquiry, because people have confidence in the new independent arrangements. They conduct rapid investigations. They focus not on blame, but on understanding failures and issuing binding recommendations for the future.

The hon. Gentleman has spent a lot of time in this House thinking about how systems work. Does he not think that there is now an argument for the Government to have a proper review process of all coroners’ recommendations and all public and other inquiry recommendations, so they do not just get responded to in the moment and then not followed up in the months and years that follow?

I am sure that may be a very good suggestion, but the point I am making is that we need an apex to our safety system. Whatever else the Government do to remediate the safety system as it exists at the moment, they need an independent safety investigator as the apex of the system, which is like a guardian angel over the whole system. The hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater said there should be—I think I quote him correctly—an independent oversight body. Well, this is the body he seeks. It would be constantly looking for risks in the system, not just investigating accidents, and following up directly with the Secretary of State to say, “This has not been done.”

Crucially, the independence of the bodies is what commands public confidence. They also provide a very significant capability that no other regulator can do—a safety investigation body is not a regulator, of course. They provide a legal safe space where anybody can go and say anything without fear or favour. Witnesses have protection and, if necessary, anonymity, so they can openly speak without fear of retribution of being sued or the words they give in evidence being used against them in court. This creates a culture of openness that accelerates the learning process while maintaining accountability.

The introduction of a BSIB would not trespass on any other part of the safety system, such as the HSE or the Building Safety Regulator. It is an essential additional capability which needs to exist, otherwise we do not have that ultimate check over the whole system. Regulators, if necessary, can still run their investigations, as I was saying before. The safe space in the safety investigator does not protect anyone from legal culpability, as we saw when the air accidents investigation branch investigated the Shoreham air crash. It passed a file to the police, because it believed there had been negligence. The pilot was prosecuted. The safe space does not protect someone from wrongdoing.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will give way once more, but I have rather a lot to say and I do not want to take up too much time.

The fundamental difference between an air accident investigation and a public inquiry is that as culpability is identified it is then passed on for action. This lies at the heart of the problem, which is the slow pace of bringing about justice. An extended period for a public inquiry has prevented and inhibited the delivery of justice for the people of Grenfell. Does the hon. Gentleman—

I have got the point. The problem with a public inquiry is that it starts from ground zero. It assembles a group of people who may be expert, but most of the lawyers will not be expert and will have to learn everything from scratch. The advantage of a standing capability is that there are experts who are permanently employed and who really understand everything about building safety, as it would be in this case. There would be human factors analysts, structural engineers, architects—key people with key skills, fully knowledgeable about the safety system that exists. They would start immediately after a tragedy, and they would conclude much more quickly on the basis of much better expertise.

I had hoped that the inquiry would adopt this recommendation, as did the Cullen inquiry into Ladbroke Grove, and also the inquiry into offshore safety following the Piper Alpha disaster. It now falls to the Government and Parliament to get this right.

The second recommendation in our submission is for a comprehensive reform of building control. Building control is the inspection system which should ensure that building regulations are followed, but Grenfell demonstrated its failure. I accept that there has already been some reform here since we wrote our submission. Much has been said, as we heard earlier, about how private sector building inspectors are endemically conflicted because they are appointed and paid by constructors and others, but that misses a horrible truth about the Grenfell case. Ironically, it was the building control function of a local authority, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, that failed so disastrously in Grenfell’s case. Despite that, everyone’s emphasis still seems to be more focused on restricting private sector involvement than on reform of the whole building control sector.

My hon. Friend is making an important speech. One of the facts that the phase 2 report has established is that the system is too fragmented, and needs to be brought together under a single construction regulator, as he recommends. Does he envisage the functions that he has described, involving investigations of incidents, not falling to the responsibility of that regulator?

No, because a regulator is a part of the system, whereas a safety investigation body stands above the system. It is very simple. If you are a regulator, you are a participant. You are capable of making mistakes, and you need to be independently investigated, or checked, to confirm that you are not breaching rules, or failing in some way—through no fault of your own, perhaps. Everyone makes mistakes. Most bad things happen because of human error, not because of bad people doing bad things.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so many times. Is it not the case that when you set profit-making companies against local authorities, you end up with a race to the bottom, across the board? Is that not the evidence from the inquiry? I had cause to look at the report of the original debate, in the 1980s, about bringing in private inspectors. A less than entirely left-wing organisation, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, said that it was opposed to building control being taken away from local authorities.

I am not in favour of taking building control away from local authorities, but if we go down the route recommended by the hon. Gentleman, we will not succeed in making buildings safer, not least because of the shortage of capacity in the sector. If it is decided that there cannot be any private sector building control surveyors, there will be even less capacity, and remediating all this will take even longer.

An approach that relies entirely on local government or a state body of building control risks worsening a situation that we are already experiencing. The building control workforce is ageing, and recruitment struggles to keep up with demand. Restricting private sector competition would exacerbate these problems, driving skilled professionals not back into local authorities—because they cannot afford them—but into consultancy roles in which they would be working for the construction companies directly, not inspecting what those companies are doing. Rather than narrowing the pool of inspectors, we should be raising the standards of building control across the board.

Private sector approved inspectors were already subject to a strict licensing regime through the Construction Industry Council approved inspectors register, with a code of conduct, regular auditing and a complaints process. Moreover, the local authority, not the private sector building control sector, was responsible for the problem at Grenfell. Our recommendation suggests a fully integrated building control service involving both local authorities and registered building control approvers working to common standards within a framework designed to promote continuous improvement. That, I think, is the right answer. To deal with high-rise blocks, multidisciplinary teams would be set up to perform the building control function, recruited on the basis of proven skills and experience from both public and private sectors on a level playing field without the choice being biased in favour of the former. That, I submit, should be the Government’s objective.

We welcome the steps taken to require all building inspectors, whether working for local authorities or registered building control approvers, to be individually registered by the BSR, but further steps can and should be taken to drive up standards and to maximise much-needed capacity. However, recommendations 113.37 and 113.38 in the final report of the inquiry could undermine this process. Implicit in recommendation 113.37 is the assumption that it is inappropriate for private sector commercial organisations to be involved in building control work at all, although no evidence is advanced to support that assumption. It is an assumption that many people make, but there is no evidential basis for it. Recommendation 113.37 proposes that there should be a panel to consider the matter, which I hope will happen, but if it decided to ban private sector building control, that would seriously aggravate the capacity problem.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will certainly give way, because this is a crucial point.

I simply wanted to ask for a clarification. Surely the issue, which was raised earlier, is that there is a conflict of interests when you are paying to have your product assessed. As we know from Sir Martin’s report, there was a cover-up of testing results. If you accept that, how do you get around the “conflict of interests” issue?

I will be as quick as I can, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am extremely grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question, because that was a failure of regulation. The crucial point is this. In other safety-critical industries, such as the civil aviation, rail and marine sectors, there is no ban on the private sector being selected to perform inspections. Employees of airlines, of aircraft manufacturers and of aircraft engine manufacturers perform the inspections, but they are independently regulated, overseen and certified by the Civil Aviation Authority. The fact that they are employed by the airlines or by commercial interests does not make them incapable of objective judgment. The whole aviation sector flies incredibly safely on the basis of aircraft being inspected not by Government inspectors or public employees, but by the private sector.

My experience in the aviation industry includes overseeing and being part of the record-keeping process for inspections. Does the hon. Member agree that the requirement to record and store all successful and unsuccessful testing results would resolve some of the issues that we saw in the Grenfell disaster, where unsuccessful test results were hidden and not made accessible to the public?

I completely agree. The record keeping of airlines, air engine manufacturers and aircraft maintenance companies has to be absolutely meticulous. It is inspected by the CAA, but the information originally comes from inspections conducted by people who are employed by the private sector. I think the hon. Gentleman agrees that we need to tackle the regulation, not indulge in shorthand for saying that anybody making a profit must be guilty. I abhor the idea of people making a profit at the expense of safety, but that is not what happens in other industries.

The success of independent accident investigation and safety investigation branches in other sectors speaks for itself. Aviation and rail safety has much fuller public confidence and a lower accident rate under such models, delivering safety improvements faster, more effectively and at lower cost than traditional public inquiries. Reforming building control would ensure that all inspectorates operate under consistent and rigorous oversight, regardless of whether they are in the public or private sectors.

Our proposals are not just about learning from the Grenfell tragedy, but about preventing the next disaster. The inquiry shows the systemic failures in building safety and regulation that led to an avoidable tragedy. I regret to have to warn the House that if we do not get this right, and do not finish working on what the inquiry has presented to us and fill in the gaps, there will one day be another Grenfell, just as Grenfell was a repeat of earlier safety failures. We have an obligation to get this right finally for the Grenfell community, for the memory of those who died and for future communities. The Government now have the opportunity to follow up the inquiry, to build on its findings and to put in place institutional arrangements that will embed learning and safety improvement in residential building management in a comprehensive safety system that matches those of other safety-critical industries.

Seven and a half years on from the Grenfell Tower fire, it often feels that we are no further forward than the last debate, silent walk or stage of the inquiry. There have been no prosecutions, no accountability and insufficient movement on remediation of buildings, including those with flammable cladding.

In the last seven years, a lot has happened—the Windrush scandal, Brexit, four changes of Prime Minister, a new monarch and a global pandemic—but little has changed for the families and survivors of Grenfell Tower. They are still waiting for justice and for answers, and their trauma endures. That trauma, which each of the survivors bears, is incomprehensible to those of us who have never experienced such a horrific event in our lives. Children who lived in the tower have said that candles and bonfires trigger their fears, and they worry about the safety of even ordinary electrical items in their home. Those worries should be far from a child’s mind but, unfortunately, they are ever present and lasting. We are simply not doing enough to prevent this tragedy from happening again. That in itself is retraumatising to those who know at first hand how devastating a fire in a tower block can be.

The Fire Safety Act 2021, the Building Safety Act 2022 and the appointment of the Building Safety Regulator were all steps taken by the previous Government in response to phase 1 of the Grenfell inquiry, but gaping holes in safety regulations still remain. Phase 2 of the inquiry asked for a more cohesive approach. It points to the confusing situation of multiple Government Departments holding responsibility for fire safety, and to the need for a unified response to regulation under a single construction regulator. In order to learn from mistakes, we cannot allow another situation in which warnings are missed, accountability falls through the cracks and responsibility is denied or passed on. However, although the phase 2 recommendations seek to fix the gap in fire safety to prevent future deaths, we must not lose sight of justice for the victims of the fire and for the survivors, who await the identification of those responsible.

The delays to prosecutions are increasingly unacceptable. The former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord Macdonald, has said that the biggest barrier to justice is the precarious state of our criminal justice system. He estimates that criminal trials for those responsible for the Grenfell fire may not begin until 2029. We cannot accept that. I am pleased that the Chancellor has provided an uplift in the budgets of both the Ministry of Justice and the Law Officers in order to fix our justice system, but the conversations I have had with the senior judiciary on visits with the Justice Committee show that the backlogs in our courts continue to delay justice. I know that the Lord Chancellor is committed to fixing these issues, but we have to make haste, and I join survivors’ calls for criminal and civil trials to be expedited. The victims of Grenfell should not have to wait as long as the victims of Hillsborough for justice.

I will talk briefly about the site itself, where the tower stands to this day. Many Members have spoken about its retraumatising impact on the community, as the tower stands as a monolithic reminder of the tragic and horrific events of that night. It is visible from all across west London, including from high-rise blocks in my constituency and from those that have experienced fires—thankfully, without fatalities. The report drawn up by the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission shows what needs to be included and what design choices are important to the bereaved. I understand that a competition to design the memorial is running until spring next year, and I would be grateful if we could have on the record a commitment from the Government that once they have the plans of the approved design in front of them there will be no further delays. The completion of the memorial will give bereaved families and survivors a place to gather and remember their loved ones. It is important to the community that we get this right, but we must also get on with it.

I want to mention remediation—another delayed and underfunded response to the findings of phase 1 of the report. Under the previous Government, social landlords were excluded from Government funding for remediation to buildings that were deemed to have unsafe cladding. I never understood the justification of that decision by the former Levelling Up Secretary, and I am pleased that the Chancellor committed to a further £1 billion investment for remediation in her Budget, and that social landlords will no longer be excluded from financial assistance. There is also a commitment to go faster with the works, which is very welcome, as there remain 4,000 buildings across the country with unsafe cladding. However, there is still concern that the money allocated does not meet the reality of the costs for social landlords, which are estimated to be around £6 billion.

Those who currently live in unsafe social housing deserve to be safe and to feel safe. To find the money, social landlords have made cuts, which have unfortunately come from future building programmes. As a result, national figures show that affordable housing starts have fallen by 39%. A number of housing associations have had to merge or have been taken over, and we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) that even very large associations, such as Notting Hill Genesis, find themselves in financial trouble.

In the social housing sector, funding is currently available only for buildings over 18 metres with ACM cladding, and for buildings with combustible cladding that are over 11 metres and house leaseholders. That often means that social tenants are the only people footing the bills for remediation work through their rent, because private developers have much easier access to funds to fix their buildings, and leaseholders are eligible for the Government scheme. Using rental income to fund building safety works means that there is little money left over for social landlords to carry out routine maintenance, which is a lose-lose for social housing tenants, many of whom are vulnerable and low-income families.

In the light of the time available, I will not go into as much detail as I would like, but I want to commend some of the briefings that we have had in preparation for this debate, including from the Royal Institute of British Architects and from Rockwool. They talk about the need to fireproof buildings, perhaps through retrofitting them with sprinklers or ensuring that they have two fireproof staircases. I do not know why buildings over 11 metres are not included. I do not know why all buildings that contain vulnerable residents, such as care homes and schools, are not included in having no combustible cladding allowed. I find it extraordinary that we are still allowing some buildings to be built with combustible materials on them, in the light of what happened at Grenfell.

I also want briefly to mention the causes of fire. In July this year, there was a fire—the latest in a series of fires—in a high-rise block in my constituency, caused by the failure of a battery pack on a converted e-bike. Thankfully no one was killed, but the outcome could have been much worse, had the London Fire Brigade not acted as swiftly as it did. The batteries in those products are lithium ion and if they catch fire, there is a high chance of an explosion. We know the Grenfell Tower fire was started by a faulty fridge freezer. The year before, there was a very serious fire at Shepherds Court, a high-rise block on Shepherd’s Bush Green, less than a mile from Grenfell, which was caused by another electrical device, a tumble dryer. Hundreds of these fires are happening every year.

I know that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister are committed to justice in this matter, to building safety and to a proper memorial at the site. They have shown their commitment to justice for the bereaved families and survivors through the Hillsborough law, they have made positive steps to fund remediation works and I am convinced that they will move swiftly on plans for the memorial site. I would ask also that they look at the recommendation from the organisation Inquest that we should have a national oversight mechanism so that recommendations such as these—there are 58 from this inquiry—are followed up and implemented, and that goes for both public inquiries and prevention of future death reports issued by coroners. It is all very well having good recommendations, but if they are not pursued, they become worthless. We must move more quickly and more decisively, and continue to keep the survivors and bereaved families at the forefront of our minds, so as not to prolong the trauma and heartache of a community that has already been badly let down time and time again.

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a leaseholder. I welcome this debate and, in particular, the Deputy Prime Minister’s considered, sympathetic and empathetic contribution. I agree with her wholeheartedly that the Grenfell disaster was caused by systematic failures across the board, including in the Government—or Governments—and in the private sector, where commercial gain was prioritised over people’s lives while a broken system allowed unfettered competition to bulldoze through what little regulation was in place.

As the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) said, we all remember where we were that evening. It was the month of Ramadan and we were coming home from evening prayers. My heart broke twice that evening. Once was when I saw the victims in front of me on my television screen and mobile phone. The second was knowing that those victims were going to have to wait an age for justice. Even I did not perceive that it was going to take this long. The 72 people who died on that terrible night, their relatives, the bereaved and the survivors, deserve justice, and it can happen with real change to the building safety system from top to bottom. That is why I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s commitment to putting into place all 58 of the recommendations, but it has to be done as soon as possible.

Furthermore, we welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s expediting the remediation of the unsafe cladding. This has simply taken too long. On 9 September, the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), said in answer to a parliamentary question:

“Speeding up the remediation of buildings is absolutely critical. Seven years on from Grenfell, action has been far too slow and the fire in Dagenham is a horrific reminder of the risk unsafe cladding still poses to far too many people.”

For the 49 private tenants of Abbey House, an eight-storey block in Leicester South with dangerous cladding, that remediation cannot come too quickly. However, they are caught between a bureaucratic rock and a commercial hard place. The freehold of that block is owned by Leicester City Council, but in 2015 the mayor granted a 150-year lease to a private company to refurbish the block as private rented accommodation. As the block contains no individual leaseholders, it is not eligible for any Government funding for cladding remediation. This is clearly intolerable for the residents of that block. While the to-ing and fro-ing goes on about who should remediate the block, the residents are living in constant fear that their block is unsafe, and the lack of resolution just makes it worse.

As the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) mentioned, if the Government are truly serious about making homes safe, ownership issues such as those at Abbey House cannot be allowed to get in the way of removing unsafe cladding and other materials. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it is now essential that Government funds are made available across the board urgently, to make all our buildings safe? Once that is done, issues of who is responsible and how to reclaim the costs can be resolved.

I will start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell). He is the voice of his community, and he has given a moving tribute today. As we have heard, it is now more than seven years since 72 people lost their lives in the devastating fire in Grenfell Tower. Our thoughts are with the bereaved families, the survivors, the residents and the local community. That this tragic fire happened in modern Britain is a scandal and it should fill us all with deep anger and fear. Every single person was let down by the failure of almost every institution that existed to serve them, and by decades of failure by the state.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) spoke powerfully of the moment she first saw the tragedy. I will never forget seeing those images as I travelled past not even 48 hours afterwards: the embers, the smoke, the smell—that memory will stay with me forever. The Grenfell community has demonstrated enormous strength and courage in giving evidence to the inquiry and campaigning tirelessly for justice—justice for the victims and families of Grenfell Tower, and justice to ensure that such a tragedy never befalls another community.

My Stratford and Bow constituency sits between the two boroughs with the highest number of high-rise, cladded blocks in the country. Tower Hamlets has more than 400 buildings with unsafe cladding, and Newham has more than 200. I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s announcement that Tower Hamlets was the first to obtain a remediation order, but there is still so much more to be done.

There are thousands of residents in my constituency who, through no fault of their own, find themselves caught up in the cladding scandal. I have been inundated with messages from constituents who feel unsafe in their own homes. I have sat with them as they told me deeply personal stories, through tears and anger—of being unable to move to be with their mother who is dying of cancer; of the mental health impacts; of being unable to start a family; and of having their life savings trapped in un-mortgageable properties. The scale of anger, distrust and betrayal felt by my constituents, who are caught in this situation through no fault of their own, sits heavily with me. I share their frustration, which I can feel across the House today. It is frustration at the pace of remediation works, which are already long overdue and, for many, still feel years away.

It is shameful that, seven years after Grenfell, remediation has been completed on less than 50% of mid-rise and high-rise buildings with unsafe cladding. We have recently seen a terrifying fire in Dagenham, which is why residents across the country, including in Stratford and Bow, live in fear of what might happen to them in the event of a fire.

But this is not the end of the matter. Many leaseholders, including shared owners, feel trapped in properties that they are unable to sell, facing significant financial uncertainty and distress. In my constituency, residents in East Village—the site of the former Olympic athletes’ village—have been left in a protracted legal battle between stakeholders over who is liable for remediation costs, which has delayed essential works.

Residents of Thomas Fyre Drive are still waiting for work to start, despite their service charges going up, and some are stuck in the leasehold trap because they cannot sell their property. Many feel that saving face and saving costs have been prioritised over their safety. The distress and frustration are palpable, and the situation is becoming untenable for many.

I know that the Government share my view that every person deserves to feel safe and secure, and be safe and secure, in their home. Sadly, too many of my constituents —and too many people across the country—fear being the victim of yet another Grenfell-style tragedy.

Will the Minister meet me to discuss the cases in my constituency, as we have the most high-rise, cladded blocks in the country? I acknowledge that he has inherited a shameful situation from the previous Government, and it is scandalous that remediation has been so slow. I welcome the work that this Labour Government are undertaking to put it right, particularly today’s announcement committing to the remediation of all high-rise buildings with unsafe cladding by 2029 through a Government-funded scheme. I am also pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister has said today that we want to go much further.

At the election, we promised to speed up the removal of unsafe cladding. Today, we are acting on that promise. However, too many leaseholders in my constituency have had to pay the price of removing unsafe cladding that they had no role in putting up. I welcome the reforms announced today to give tenants, including social housing tenants, a seat at the table, but I urge the Minister to make sure that remediation costs do not fall on leaseholders. We must take account of all the views and give everyone a seat at the table.

We must truly mean it when we say, “Never again.” We must learn the lessons of Grenfell so that the tragedy is never repeated. I join colleagues in urging the Government to act in full on the findings of the phase 2 report, and to address the inequalities in housing—inequalities that we see due to class, race and disability. There is still so much more to be done, and I look forward to working together to ensure this never happens again.

I associate myself with the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) in recognising the pain, grief and hurt caused to so many connected to the Grenfell Tower tragedy, in which 72 lives were lost. I have heard the sombre comments in this debate and mean no disrespect by raising a specific matter relating to the understanding and interpretation of the legislation passed subsequently—namely, the anomaly of non-qualified leaseholder status, as it affects some constituents of mine.

My constituents own a one-bedroom flat in north Somerset. It is not a penthouse or anything luxurious; it is simply a home. They purchased it in 2015 with a 999-year lease, and it was a new build, so it was theoretically covered by the NHBC 10-year guarantee. They believed it would be an ideal long-term rental property, without too many maintenance issues ahead.

A neighbouring flat went up for sale in August 2024, and the buyer’s solicitor asked for an up-to-date fire risk appraisal. This prompted the management company to organise an assessment of the external walls, and the report strongly recommended cladding remediation work. My constituents would have known none of that, had it not been for the seller keeping them in the loop.

The new financial protections in the Building Safety Act 2022 apply to leaseholders in buildings above 11 metres, or five storeys in height, with historical safety defects. From 28 June 2022, qualifying leaseholders in England could no longer be charged for cladding remediation, and there are legal protections for non-cladding costs. The accompanying secondary legislation came into force on 20 and 21 July 2022.

The Government are clear that developers must pay to fix buildings that they had a role in developing or refurbishing, even when they no longer own the building. That seems right. The Act ensures that building owners who are, or are associated with, the developer must pay for the remediation of historical defects. The courts have been granted new powers to extend liability to associated companies, ensuring that civil cases for claims against defective buildings can be brought against companies associated with a developer, preventing the use of complex corporate structures to avoid that liability.

Qualifying leaseholders are protected from all cladding system remediation costs. Those whose property is calculated to be worth less than £175,000 outside London, or £325,000 in Greater London, or whose building owner has a group net worth of more than £2 million per relevant building as of 14 February 2022, are exempt from all historical safety remediation costs. The Act also includes a robust package of measures designed to ensure that those responsible finally put right the buildings they have contributed to making so dangerous, and that leaseholders are firmly protected from the unfair costs of remediation that they previous faced. No one could disagree that, on the face of it, that is fair.

Unfortunately, the previous Government failed to notify any leaseholders, qualifying or non-qualifying, of the implications of the Building Safety Act 2022, which came into force on 28 June 2022. However, four months ago, my constituents had no knowledge of the non-qualified leaseholder status that had been bestowed on them. Without any prior notice or consultation, my constituents’ legal rights as leaseholders had been significantly changed, backdated to 14 February 2022. That is because, as of that date, the threshold for non-qualified leaseholder status cuts in at ownership of four properties.

It is very hard to find definitions of non-qualified leaseholder status on the Government website. There is plenty about qualified leaseholder status, but very little about non-qualified leaseholder status. The Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), has confirmed that, weirdly, under the previous Government’s legislation, a couple can own five properties, provided that they own their primary home jointly and two other properties each. However, a couple who own four properties jointly become non-qualifying leaseholders. Who on earth can think that is fair? That will discriminate against couples and families as compared with sophisticated business entities, which are probably the intended target of the legislation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Grenfell Tower inquiry has laid bare the failure of successive Governments in their duty of care to their citizens and revealed a catastrophic culture of carelessness that has caused untold suffering? Does she agree that the Government must act urgently to assist all leaseholders, including those currently excluded, such as non-qualifying leaseholder residents, like my constituents, who are unfairly left in financial and emotional turmoil through no fault of their own?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will come on to some of those issues.

Sophisticated business entities are probably the intended target of the legislation, so there is good news for people who have divided their property assets, and bad luck for those who jointly own their property investments, which is a terribly random criterion. It was shocking enough for my constituents to find out that the nine-year-old building in which their flat sits had a cladding issue, but due to the fact that they jointly owned four properties on 14 February 2022, they were left largely unprotected. They are not like the developers or cladding suppliers. Not only that, but their status as non-qualifying leaseholders has been attached to their flat in perpetuity. Even after all the remediation work has taken place, centuries have passed—currently, this is another 990 years on the lease —and they have departed this world, every future owner of their flat will inherit the same diminished lease, while neighbouring flats are protected from the costs of making the building safe.

The impact of the legislation is profound. Solicitors are advising their clients not to buy any flat with the non-qualified leaseholder status attached, even after the fire safety work has been completed. Lenders are refusing to lend on properties of that status. The values are expected to reduce considerably, possibly by as much as 50%. Estate agents realise that trying to sell properties with this status is pretty much a lost cause. Non-qualified leaseholders cannot sell their flats—they are mostly flats—and cannot mitigate the risks they have been exposed to. If a leaseholder has a 75% mortgage and the value drops by 50%, it is easy to see how financial crisis can hit ordinary people who saved hard, invested in bricks and mortar and are providing homes for rent all over the country, helping alleviate our housing crisis. Insurance premiums are sky high. If this continues, it is likely that lenders will not want to take possession if there is a default on the mortgage, because they themselves would become liable. Leaving a flat with this status in a will may expose family and friends to long-term problems associated with its status, as they will potentially inherit a liability not an asset.

The legislation has removed a whole tier of property from the ever-increasing number of young buyers and those who want to downsize, such as older citizens. It is clear that without the support of surveyors, agents, solicitors and lenders, it will become increasingly hard to secure one’s first or last home. Whatever one’s political ideals, surely we all agree that there is a terrible shortage of affordable homes, and the affordable end of the market often comes in the shape of a leasehold flat. I cannot find the path of logic through this legislation. I have no idea who tried to think this one through—I recognise that it was not the Minister. It seems deeply unfair that someone’s legal rights can be different from those who own flats in the same building, just because my constituents had four or more properties in their ownership on 14 February.

Will the Minister try to explain the logic, though I recognise he did not write the legislation? It would be nice if his opposite number, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), would have a crack at trying to tell me how it works—I just do not get it. It is a bit like someone having their car recalled for a safety issue and having to pay to correct the problem and any other safety problem in the future due to the fact that they and their family have three other cars between them, and they might want to sell the car once the safety fault is fixed. This is madness.

The Minister is on the record as having confirmed that the Building Safety Act 2022 was written to safeguard the health and safety of those who lived in the affected buildings. If a non-qualified leaseholder has a leasehold flat as their principal flat, they are protected. What about the tenants who live in the flats owned by private landlords who are in this trap? Are they not important enough to be protected, too? The Minister further confirmed in a letter last month that once the property is brought up to standard and safety remedies are completed, in the years ahead

“the expectation is that the qualification point should essentially become moot”.

There is plenty in the Government’s guidelines about non-qualifying leasehold status remaining with the property in perpetuity. I can find absolutely nothing about it becoming moot. I wonder how the Minister sees that being legislated for.

On the subject of Government guidelines, they are so complicated and hard to interpret that solicitors are at loggerheads over their ramifications. My constituents’ management company initially confirmed that they would be liable for all the costs associated with cladding remediation works, even if the building were accepted into the cladding safety scheme—that is, until my constituents were able to get the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to write to them confirming that they would be protected under the cladding safety scheme. However, it fell to my constituents to get proof and to convince their management company.

Worse than that, the Department advises owners to contact LEASE—the Leasehold Advisory Service—to establish their rights. LEASE confirmed both on the phone and in writing that my constituents did not qualify for any help or support in the cladding safety scheme. They were advised by others in the same predicament to contact the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Can the Minister confirm who should indicate whether non-qualifying leaseholders are covered by the cladding safety scheme?

These Government Departments are set up to help and guide people such as my constituents, yet they are giving completely conflicting advice. That situation has caused my constituents anguish, sleepless nights and constant worry about the possible life-changing financial burden that may be heading their way. If the Government do not sort that out so that advice is clear and consistent, we are all lost. Will the Minister meet my constituents and me to further discuss non-qualified leaseholder status as soon as possible?

Order. As the House will have realised, many Members wish to speak in the debate, so in order for us to help each other, I am afraid that I will have to impose a four-minute limit on speeches. I call Ben Coleman.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I fully understand the challenge that you face, so I will do my best to keep to four minutes. It is an honour to follow the Deputy Prime Minister and so many hon. Friends and hon. Members, and to have so many people sitting up in the Public Gallery listening patiently to the debate, having suffered so much over the years.

I begin by recalling, as others have, the 15 disabled people who died in the Grenfell Tower fire. There was no plan in advance to ensure that they could be evacuated in a crisis. I am pleased that the Government have announced today, in publishing their response to the consultation, that they will introduce a set of measures on residential personal emergency evacuation plans. However, I agree with Grenfell United that personal emergency evacuation plans for disabled residents must be mandated—that is essential.

Let me turn to other matters that my hon. Friends have set out so well. The report is scathing about the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and its tenant management organisation. What leaps out in page after page of the report is the council’s absolute lack of respect for so many of its residents—how it refused to listen to people living in social housing when again and again they raised concerns about the problems with the Grenfell building that eventually contributed to the terrible fire; how it treated the most dissenting voices as enemies; and how, once the fire had happened, it treated its own residents.

At the time, I was a councillor in the neighbouring borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. The day after the fire, our council became aware, purely by chance, that Kensington and Chelsea council had placed Grenfell residents in hotels in our borough, because some of those residents happened to wander down to the local West Kensington and Gibbs Green estate, where they were given food, shelter and clean clothing. They happened to mention that they had been placed at the Holiday Inn Express in Fulham, and our council leader got council officers to go to all the hotels in the borough, which we discovered were full of Grenfell residents. No one from Kensington and Chelsea council had tried to tell us. The report talks about the council’s response being “muddled” and “piecemeal”, but perhaps another word is “cruel”.

Teams from Hammersmith and Fulham council kept a close eye and visited every week to look after the residents as best we could. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) came and sat with Grenfell residents on the grass at the West Ken and Gibbs Green estate. They asked, “Are you really a Member of Parliament? Because no one official from our borough has been to see us at all.” I cannot speak highly enough of how the community responded. I am keenly aware that where Kensington and Chelsea council failed, the community got it right.

The council in Kensington and Chelsea says that it is determined to learn from what it got wrong. That is very welcome, as is the fact that the scope of its review is going to explicitly consider racial as well as social discrimination—I look forward to that being the case. However, I still have serious questions about whether that council really gets it, because thousands of my Chelsea constituents live in social housing, and time and again they say that they do not feel that their voices are being heard, or that the culture has changed.

The Friday before last, I decided to call a meeting on the World’s End estate to talk about some serious crime issues—sadly, a man from another estate had been stabbed in an altercation and had died. I invited all the residents to come and have a conversation with me about it. To my surprise, senior councillors from the Conservative Kensington and Chelsea council tried to dissuade me. They said that they had already engaged with residents and that another meeting would bring no more benefit. In the event, more than 50 residents came. We had a great conversation; not everyone agreed with each other, but everyone had a chance to speak and to be heard. Only one thing really shocked me, which was the number of residents who said at the end of the meeting, or even during the meeting, that they had lived on that estate all their lives or for decades, and that this was the first time they had ever been to a meeting like this on the estate—one where they felt listened to.

To sum up, I hope that residents will be listened to. If I may, I hope that we will have a debate like this every year, so that we can look at the recommendations. I request that Front Benchers enable that to happen. I am grateful for your time, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I, too, start by joining the Deputy Prime Minister in expressing my sincere condolences to the families tragically impacted by this avoidable disaster. I welcome her statement and the positive steps and actions she has outlined to address the findings of the inquiry.

I welcome the plans to introduce heavy penalties for those who fail to meet repair deadlines, but I share the concerns of campaigners that the timescales for making properties safe are way too long. The Deputy Prime Minister may say that the Government are taking “decisive action”, but the building safety fund was first opened for registration in 2020. The 2029 target must not be for the first building to be remediated—it must be guaranteed to be when the last one will be.

For over seven years, residents and leaseholders have continued to live with the mental anguish that the properties they and their families go to sleep in every night are unsafe, aware that what happened to the residents of Grenfell could well happen to them. As we have heard, residents also face extortionate home insurance bills and rising costs for repairs that should be the sole responsibility of the developers, while leaseholders face ruin, financially trapped in properties that they bought in good faith but were built in bad faith.

To widen the argument and the issue at hand, the picture of property developers cutting corners to make a profit and disregarding human life in the process is one that, before Grenfell, we wanted to believe belonged to a bygone era. Unfortunately, it is very much the reality of 21st-century Britain; a culture has become embedded where corporate bosses think they can get away with cutting corners in the pursuit of profit. We have seen the ugly imprint of that culture again and again, whether it is Government lobbyists scamming the public purse during the covid crisis, water companies polluting our rivers, the blatant disregard for truth and basic decency in the Post Office Horizon scandal, or people being burned alive in buildings that are not fit for purpose.

The only way to root out that culture is regulation to protect the public from those who seek to exploit them, and I am concerned that the Deputy Prime Minister does not go nearly far enough in that regard. We know that the property industry in general is rife with profiteering, and I am concerned that we will see more of the same as property agents hike up fees, earning hundreds of millions of pounds in the process by charging administration fees on works to make buildings safe. In opposition, the Labour party committed to preventing this by calling for the nationalisation of the process of fixing high-rise flats to eliminate administration fees, and I encourage the Government to pursue that policy.

I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to consider applying the risk assessment to buildings of under 11 metres as well. Campaigners are right to say not only that a comprehensive risk assessment must apply to buildings of all heights, but that building safety crises go far beyond external cladding and a holistic approach must give equal consideration to non-cladding defects—

Order.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for her speech, and I associate myself with her words. She reminded us that we should once again remember the victims, the survivors and those left behind after the tragedy of the 72 entirely preventable deaths in Grenfell Tower. There are many lessons to be learned from this tragedy, and residents in Southampton Itchen, especially those in the 46 blocks still affected by unsafe cladding, are looking on anxiously to see if we learn those lessons. These are some of the people who know far too well and far too personally just how slow the progress has been of making all buildings safe.

As this Government embark on our ambitious plan to build 1.5 million new homes, we and, importantly, those who will call those houses their homes, need to know that they are safe. Sadly, however, such peace of mind is not yet felt by many residents in my constituency, where an unacceptably high number still live in buildings affected by cladding or fire safety risks. Some remediation has happened, and that is to be welcomed, but in too many places it is not happening fast enough, or leaseholders are paying the price, as in the countless examples we have heard. They include those who live in blocks that do not meet the 11-metre threshold, and who are getting unexpected bills for tens of thousands of pounds through their letterbox.

I recently held a public meeting with constituents awaiting fire safety works. Among the many who came to share their experiences, Ellie has seen her service charges soar from £1,600 a year to over £6,000, and she has no idea how she will afford it. In the same block, Stewart told me he feels as though no one cares after the same service charge hike left him and his family trapped in a property they have outgrown. Just down the road, Daniel is not only facing escalating service charges of £3,000, but his insurance now tops £4,000 on top of his rent and on top of his regular bills. James happens to live in one part of a taller development in which his building is under 11 metres, yet he is facing remediation charges of between £15,000 and £30,000. Those responsible cannot yet decide how much they are going to charge the residents, and this is simply not acceptable.

Others have told me about the changes they want to see implemented, so in the time left I want to make my constituents’ views and voices heard in this place. They want a clearly defined single construction regulator that can channel efforts to drive change, and I am sure they will welcome today’s announcements. Many are stuck in unsellable flats, and they could not tell us who exactly is responsible for keeping them safe. That needs to change. They want to see a much clearer role for managing agents. What exactly are their responsibilities, and what standards will they be held to? They want to see improved regulation of insurance and service charges—again, that is touched on in the report—so they are not charged for remediation works through the back door, which is simply not fair. With an eye to the future, people want us to move away from the feudal system of leasehold, which this Government are committed to delivering. They want much better-quality housing, so they can move into places where they know they are safe. In short, people want, need and deserve a way out of this mess.

The remediation action plan shows that this Government are taking these issues seriously. I would just urge Ministers, even where deadlines are set, to move even more quickly, where possible. We have begun the crucial work to put right this scandal, and we must not rest until that is done in full.

I am here to talk about the people, their treatment and their rights, and I am sorry I do not have more time to do the topic justice. I had been a London Assembly member for one year in 2017 when the Grenfell disaster happened, and it had such a huge impact on my work and on me personally. I will never, ever forget the many things that I saw and heard. I will never forget the smells, the burned debris on garden hedges, the community’s shock and heartbreak, and its spirit as it called me and many other elected representatives down there to try to deal with the issues that they themselves were dealing with and identifying. The people around Grenfell, the victims, the 72 people killed that day—they are constantly in my heart when I work on any related issue. I was also a councillor in Camden, and a few days later five of our blocks had to be evacuated due to related issues, so I have a perspective of dealing with a non-fatal but nevertheless disruptive evacuation and incident.

Let me rattle quickly through a few of the recommendations relating to people, and to these issues. I am desperate on behalf of the residents I represented then, and those I represent now in Brighton Pavilion, where we have a huge number of medium and high-rise blocks that need work. For no good reason I still see many of these issues emerging in relation to the treatment of residents in blocks, the information they can get out of their landlords, the slowness of the action, and the fact that substandard work is still being done on many people’s blocks—I should not still be doing this so long afterwards.

Let me start with the recommendations related to management. The way that the TMO treated its residents was abysmal. We have seen much evidence for that, but the report gets to the heart of it when it states that however “irritating and inconvenient” it may have been to deal with those residents,

“for the TMO to have allowed the relationship to deteriorate to such an extent reflects a serious failure on its part to observe its basic responsibilities.”

The housing ombudsman echoed that, speaking of gross imbalances of power. Residents who ask questions, or who start to organise their neighbours to have some kind of collective voice that might get things done, are still talked about as troublemakers, as militants, or as a nuisance. I am still encouraged not to listen to those residents when there are issues, which is not correct.

I also want to focus on transparency of information—these things are the basic building blocks on which resident trust can possibly be built. In 2017 I was having trouble getting fire risk assessments from Camden council. I went to the Information Commissioner’s Office, which responded in a fantastic way. She was clear that councils needed to publish those assessments proactively, yet here I am representing residents in Brighton, and it has taken 18 months. My predecessor, Caroline Lucas, first asked the council to publish its fire risk assessments when she realised that it was not complying with the ICO’s recommendations. I wrote to the council about the issue back in September when I realised that was the case, and finally last week I was told that some assessments would be published imminently. That is just not good enough from councils. I do not even know where to start when trying to get information about non-council landlords. It has been ridiculous on behalf of so many residents. Finally, I want to talk about the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and its recommendations, which are tremendous. The humanitarian response on the ground was nowhere near good enough—

Order.

I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), and others, and I very much welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s written statement today, and her speech highlighting why the Government are acting and what they are doing.

We know that this was a systemic failure over many generations and across many parts of Government. In fact, in 2018 the late James Brokenshire issued a ministerial direction to civil servants to ensure that the original money was spent to remove the most dangerous cladding. I spoke to the senior civil servant who had had to go back and speak to predecessors about what had gone wrong, but no one had seen this coming. So I say to the Deputy Prime Minister that if there is a bigger lesson in this, it is about how the Government manage risk and watch for the unintended consequences of actions. Even with all the problems nobody intended that such things would happen, but that is what can happen if we do not keep our eye on the ball, and I hope my right hon. Friend will take that back to the heart of Government.

The impact in my constituency has been immense. Hackney as a borough has the second largest number of unsafe buildings in London, with the London Fire Brigade showing that 93% buildings in Hackney are at high risk—a larger figure than all other London boroughs except Tower Hamlets, as we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran). We have 72 buildings that are over 18 metres tall. Together, Hackney and Tower Hamlets in the heart of east London account for almost a quarter of the buildings in London with fire safety failures. I invite the Minister to meet us in any of our constituencies, or indeed in this place, to talk about what can be done across east London, because the impact is terrible. Insurance premiums have gone up massively. Many of my constituents who are leaseholders face bankruptcy. The mission to achieve change by 2029 will be too late for some. There is also disruption to their lives. They are unable to move on, and are putting off having a family. Their lives are on hold while they wait for the matter to be resolved.

I concur with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) about housing associations, but in the interests of time I will not repeat them. Some of these properties are owned offshore or have opaque ownership. That is one of the reasons that James Brokenshire issued a ministerial direction. He realised that one of the buildings with the worst cladding had had 89 owners since it was built. If there is one thing that the Government can do, they can stop our homes becoming vehicles for offshore finance. That is why 2029 is a challenge.

The National Audit Office report that has been cited says that we will not see changes until 2035. With the construction industry in its present state, and all the other pressures that the Government will face when trying to invest in infrastructure, I would love to hear from the Minister how we will ensure that we have the right construction skills in this country and, if it is what is required, that the Government will allow migration in order to ensure that we have the right skilled people in place.

Finally, I will highlight a wider issue about how we support families affected by fire. On 5 June this year, during the election campaign, a fire gutted a building on Dalston Lane in the Pembury Estate, with 36 households escaping with just the clothes on their back. Of those households, 10 are still in temporary accommodation—the Peabody housing trust did a good job in the early days of getting them housed—and many are still living in hotel rooms. Someone who is in her 90s is trying to be offered a place by an estate agent. Today, I launch a campaign, which other Members are welcome to join, to require landlords to have a wider set of plans to help tenants in the aftermath of a fire or other crisis. Yes, there is the immediate challenge—happily, there were no fatalities on Dalston Lane—but the ongoing impact on residents is immense, with mental health challenges, disruption to their lives and trauma. We need a holistic approach to supporting tenants and residents in those situations, and every landlord should be required to have that model.

I associate myself with the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister, who did well to capture the tragedy that we all experienced so many years ago. The tragedy of Grenfell Tower will forever remain in our collective memory. On the devastating night of 14 June 2017, 72 lives were lost and many more were impacted forever. The events of that night left a deep wound in London’s history, physically and mentally. I extend my deepest sympathies to the victims, the families and all those affected. The fire changed their lives in unimaginable ways.

Seven years on, justice for the victims is painfully overdue, yet thousands in the UK still live in buildings wrapped in dangerous flammable cladding. Of the nearly 5,000 buildings identified as having dangerous cladding, less than half have begun work and only a third have completed it. Between 4,000 and 7,000 buildings are still unidentified, highlighting the absolute failure of the last Government to get a grip on the crisis. That failure leaves an alarming number of buildings and residents still at risk. Just days before the publication of the final report in August, a fire broke out at a tower block in Dagenham. Thankfully, there were no fatalities, but more than 200 firefighters battled flames that spread rapidly due to non-compliant cladding.

These unsafe buildings are ticking time bombs. Residents in London live in constant fear of another disaster. Across London, including in my constituency of Sutton and Cheam, tower blocks still possess non-compliant cladding, which could pose a serious risk to residents. The previous Government mandated that local authorities must make these buildings safe; however, crucially, they provided no funding to support that, at a time when local authorities were already facing severe underfunding. As a result, millions of pounds were added to council housing revenue accounts as an unplanned financial burden. Worse, Government assistance through various schemes was exclusively directed towards leaseholders, leaving local authorities and tenants without support.

Although I welcome this new Government’s commitment to the replacement of all flammable cladding by 2029, urgency is of the utmost importance. It is essential that all dangerous cladding is removed as soon as possible and that leaseholders should not be required to pay a penny towards these necessary safety improvements. This work is as a result of the failure of builders, product manufacturers and regulators to ensure that the buildings that residents live in are safe. The report is utterly damning on the failures of the industry and the criminal negligence as a result of the failed safety tests that were hidden. The industry focused on contrivance and profiteering, instead of residents’ safety. We must all work to ensure that the mistakes of the past are never repeated. Another Grenfell must never happen. This tragedy will always serve as a stark reminder of the devastating consequence of neglecting safety and justice for local authority residents. Justice for the victims of Grenfell means a commitment to immediate action to implement the 58 recommendations of the phase 2 report. That is not just for them, but for every community still at risk.

In the short time available I want to say to the survivors and the next of kin—some of whom are here today; some will be watching from home—that I am sorry they have been so severely let down by the previous Government and by their council. I hope that the words of the Deputy Prime Minister today have given some comfort.

Brent East is just next door to Grenfell, and we watched the fire unfold. They say that 72 people died, but the reality is that we do not really know the exact number, as people from Kensington tell me. Every time we say that this disaster was preventable, we have to be honest about what happened in the system. Some 85% of people were black and a minoritised group. That is why they were not listened to and were ignored. Grenfell United and Grenfell Next of Kin have been fighting for more than seven and a half years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) said, they are still not being listened to. They have been so badly let down, and there needs to be an investigation into what happened, how the council used Grenfell to get funds and what happened to those funds. There is so much that needs to be discussed.

I also notice that Kwajo is here. He is a housing campaigner and activist. That is an indication of how much people of colour are not listened to when they try to say that there is an injustice. Why was the cladding put on the building? The residents did not want it. It was so that it looked pretty and nice to the more wealthy residents down the road. We have heard about the profits, the greed and the deregulation that caused this catastrophe. If we want it not to happen again, we have to be honest about why it happened in the first place.

My thoughts are with the bereaved families and survivors. Every year, we go on the silent march. I remember speaking to a little girl who is a little bit older now. She said she was studying for her GCSEs and that the day after she was taking them, which she passed. She said that was what she was focused on, but what are the families and survivors focusing on now? It is justice, which they have not got. Until they have justice, none of us should rest, and none of us should feel comfortable—this may well happen again—because justice delayed is justice denied. I pass Grenfell on my way home most nights, and every time I pass that building, I say a prayer for everybody who died, everybody who survived and all the names we will never know.

On 14 June 2017, the country watched in horror as images of the fire engulfing Grenfell Tower emerged. I felt it in the pit of my stomach as the true scale of the devastation and loss of life became apparent. This tragedy should never have happened. I will call it out for what it is: a national scandal.

I hope that the family, friends and community affected by the fire can find some peace in the fight for justice, but as I stand here I am reminded of another disaster: the Summerland fire in 1973, with combustible cladding, critical matters of safety of life ignored and disregarded, and a catalogue of failures. Fifty people died in that fire, including 11 children, and many more were injured. Those events were 44 years apart but the parallels are all too clear.

Speaking in 2013, a photographer called Noel Howarth, who captured pictures of the fire as it engulfed the Summerland leisure complex, said:

“Unless we learn from history, we will repeat the mistakes we made in history”.

Whether it is 2017 or 1973, justice must be served and lessons must be learned. Both campaigns for justice have my full support.

I might only be five months in as an MP, but I have heard every Government promise to cut red tape. The thing is, regulations keep people safe in their homes and in the workplace. There are organisations and people who should have faced a trial over Grenfell by now. The criminal process should have happened simultaneously with the inquiry. There is plenty of evidence—plenty of proof—but the survivors of Grenfell are still waiting for action and justice. When we look at Orgreave, Hillsborough, infected blood, the Women Against State Pension Inequality, Horizon and Grenfell, we see that the list of injustices that impact working-class communities goes on and on.

These are shared struggles, because Grenfell is not about cladding. Grenfell is about how the state has repeatedly treated the working class with utter disdain and contempt. In reality, there has been a lack of urgency around implementing lifesaving changes so far. The inquiry must change things. Time is of the essence, because how many Lakanal Houses or Grenfell Towers must there be before things really do change? We can all talk in sombre tones in the Chamber, but why are people still going to their beds surrounded by flammable cladding tonight?

Grenfell survivors deserve justice, and firefighters and every community across the country deserve a properly funded fire service with the equipment they need to save lives and keep themselves as safe as possible. For example, firefighters deserve proper decontamination units to reduce their risk of getting cancer while at call-outs. Funding, rules and regulations do save lives. Our fire service and our working-class communities across the country need to be invested in, not stripped bare, hollowed out and failed by the state.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for her speech. I put on record my deepest sympathies to all the families affected by this terrible tragedy and thank Members from across the House for their thoughtful contributions to the debate. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for their emotive and powerful speeches.

Group Commander Rod Wainwright served for 26 years. He had a distinguished career of service in the London Fire Brigade. He said:

“I was not on duty that night, 14 June 2017. The fire brigade did not have the correct team on duty and called me to assist with the incident but never recalled the correct team or number of staff required to be effective from Gloucester. That team should never have been outside of the M25 leaving London unprotected. I was called around 1 am. I spent 15 hours on the scene and was never relieved or given the assistance that was required.

I had counselling from LFB counsellors on three different occasions but it wasn’t effective. I asked for specific PTSD counselling from a specialist and for the brigade to pay. They said ‘no’ and to use the in-house option again. The specialist would have cost around £2,000, but I was told”—

by the director—

“that it wasn’t suitable and sent the wrong message. I was diagnosed with complex PTSD and subsequently medically retired with no recognition, thanks or acknowledgement from senior management.”

As I have told the House before, Rod blames himself for not saving more people that night. However, in my view, he too is a victim of failure. I will say again that people like us in suits in this room are to blame for the tragedy of Grenfell, not heroes like Rod Wainwright. The executive summary to the phase 2 report makes that clear. It makes grim reading to us all. It describes the systematic dishonesty of those who made and sold the rainscreen cladding panels and insulation products. They allowed customers to continue to buy products in the UK despite knowledge gained from fires in Dubai in 2012 and 2013. I repeat: systematic dishonesty.

I apologise to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) because this was in his constituency, but briefly, in another early MP surgery I was visited by Claire Newman, who told me of the story of her mother Daphne Holloway and her neighbour Ivy Spriggs, who died in their beds during a nursing home fire around the same time as the Grenfell disaster. The nursing home had no sprinkler systems. I welcome the commitment from the Deputy Prime Minister that all new care homes will be given sprinkler systems, but I ask for some consideration, as Claire is asking for, of putting in sprinklers retrospectively. Although care homes do not meet the 18-metre requirement, I also ask that they be included on the higher risk register.

On that terrible morning in 2017, 72 people died in their homes. Families were broken. Lives were destroyed. Let us please learn lessons from that tragedy.

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Member’s Financial Interests.

First of all, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), plus all the London MPs who have brought home what Grenfell meant in their constituencies. However, the consequences of Grenfell are felt right across the country, and they have gone on for far too long for the residents of my constituency. Had the previous Government proceeded at pace with the confidence to take on developers with legal obligations and severe penalties, my residents would not still be stuck in buildings that have not had the remediation required. Each year since Grenfell, thousands of people in Milton Keynes have been left worse off, impacting their financial and mental health.

A woman in my constituency—we will call her Angie—bought her flat with her husband in order to downsize, and be mortgage free and financially secure in their retirement. Unfortunately, she lost her husband, and with her single pension she cannot afford the 600% increase in insurance costs that she has seen in the past seven years. She is accumulating debt that she will never be able to pay, and she cannot sell her flat to prevent further debt. Her plan for a secure retirement has turned into a nightmare that she cannot get out of. That is why I welcome the Government’s announcement today to challenge that practice by the insurance industry, and to promise to act if the insurance industry does not. Has the Deputy Prime Minister had discussions with the industry about any retrospective reductions for those who have been affected by those huge insurance hikes?

The Grenfell report rightly identifies the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea for its many failings, but not all local authorities were slow to respond, such as my own in Milton Keynes Central where two council housing tower blocks were dealt with within a year of the tragedy—well within the guidelines that the Government recommended, and with no financial support from the Government. I would welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s views on whether the councils that took action, at huge cost to their housing revenue account, should be rewarded for their proactive attention with help to build more council homes.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to putting local authorities at the heart of the solution, but developments are still being put forward that might not meet building control requirements, especially the permitted development of office conversions to flats. That is not currently a material consideration, so local planning committees have no choice but to pass it. Will the Secretary of State review the planning rules so that no building, new or converted, is unsafe for its residents? Will she also consider whether building control should be fully in the hands of local authorities, so that developers can no longer use their favourite private building control to sign off developments? The privatised BRE and its role in ensuring new materials has been brought up by many. Will the Minister consider renationalising the BRE, so that there can be no question of any company influence over the safety of new building products?

Finally, it is not just tall buildings that have been affected. For far too long, those in buildings like Backus Lodge in my constituency, which has been rated B2 under the EWS1 framework since March 2022—

Order. I call the final contribution from the Back Benches.

I strongly welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement, which shows that she cares and is resolute in seeking redress. The essence of how our country is run with regard to public safety is at stake, so I hope my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members will agree that, for public confidence and for the deterrent effect to grow, not only must we ensure that justice is not denied by being delayed; it is also for us to ensure that justice—in the form of individuals, organisations and companies being properly held to account—happens at all. That is important because, as other hon. Members have alluded to, in previous cases of egregious state and business failure, there has been insufficient justice of this kind. We owe this to the Grenfell victims, to the survivors and indeed to wider society.

I call the shadow Minister.

This evening’s debate has been appropriately serious and wide-ranging, and I will open by thanking the many who have enabled it to be just that: the excellent journalism of the BBC, which has ensured that not just the initial fire, but the inquiry and the lessons learned from it have remained at the forefront of public debate; and the survivors, the supporters of Grenfell United, some of whom are here tonight, and the many others who contributed to the inquiry process and to ensuring simply that Grenfell remained at the forefront of the public mind. I also thank Sir Martin Moore-Bick, who chaired the inquiry. I know it was the subject of some criticism when he was first appointed, but when we read the phase 2 report and consider everything that led up to it, we can see that it is a serious piece of work that puts us in a position to make good decisions about what needs to change.

It is our parliamentary duty to consider these most serious of matters. We need to ensure that we get it right for the sake of the survivors and the families of victims, but also for all the other people who have been spoken about in the Chamber this evening: those who live with anxiety about their own personal safety and circumstances, and those with a stake in the system, who need to ensure that the legislation that has flowed since the tragedy, and the actions that the new Government will need to continue, are fit for purpose. To that end, I confirm that the Opposition will support the Government to implement the proportionate and necessary measures that are required to keep the public safe.

Many Members across the Chamber have said that those who have intentionally cut corners on building safety need to be held to account, and the Opposition agree. While it has taken a long time, the inquiry process has gathered really good evidence, which will provide the Metropolitan police and others that may be involved, including the Crown Prosecution Service, with the beginnings of the evidence base needed to hold specific individuals to account through criminal charges and to pursue action against those developers and contractors who we now know clearly and fraudulently cut corners on building safety for their own financial gain. It has been said very clearly that we also need to ensure that the bigger businesses—the big corporates—that may have condoned that action need to be excluded from profiting from future public sector procurement activity.

There will be further lessons to learn from the inquiry. I pay tribute to a number of Members who made very serious and considered speeches. The hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) talked about the rise of the tenant management organisation. That is example of where there will be difficult questions for all parties and Government Departments to consider. The purpose of the previous Labour Government in introducing arms-length management organisations was to create a mechanism by which additional funding could be put forward to enable a higher standard to be achieved in the social housing sector.

However, I also know—the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation is a good example of this—that that created an additional barrier of governance between the local authorities, which in most cases were the freeholders of the properties in question, and the tenants, who in theory gained additional control through the creation of boards to oversee what happened in their buildings. However, as the phase 2 report spelt out very clearly, effective governance often failed to materialise. Instead, there was often mutual finger pointing, with each thinking that somebody else was responsible for the critical fire safety issues. Those lessons about governance, however difficult they may be for both sides of the Chamber, must not be glossed over.

It is clear, as has been set out, that the Government intend to take robust action. It is the Opposition’s contention that they have solid foundations to build on. As the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) set out, James Brokenshire—the then Minister, since sadly deceased—set out swiftly after the fire, once some initial information about its causes was available, that £400 million funding was to be made available to social housing providers and local authorities in 2018 to ensure the swift remediation of social housing settings with the most high-risk cladding on the exterior.

That was followed with legislation: the Fire Safety Act 2021, the Building Safety Act 2022 and the Social Housing Regulation Act 2023. Each was designed, as the process of inquiry was progressing and as other evidence came to light, to ensure that we were addressing, as far as we could, those things that we were legally able to do at each of those stages, first on the basics of fire safety, and then on to the broader lessons emerging about building safety and ensuring that social housing regulation—in what is a diverse sector—was fit for purpose.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I want to repeat the point I made earlier, to see if I can get a response this time. We knew at various stages that there needed to be skilled people, from surveyors to contracting, to carry out the remediation work. Looking back, does he regret that perhaps some of that effort was not put into developing those skills earlier, so that constituents of ours who are still waiting for remediation could perhaps have had it done more quickly?

The hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight the lack of capacity as a huge issue in the sector. Those who have been interested in housing for a long time will know that the remediation of risks can be incredibly complex. The Bison blocks, which many of us will have in housing built in our constituencies and across London, were supposedly made safe in the 1980s in response to particular gas safety risks, and we know that other structural risks have subsequently emerged. Making sure there are people with the detailed knowledge and technical ability to address those risks effectively is critical.

We welcome the plans that the Government are setting out to accelerate the work that was under way to remove dangerous cladding. We will be scrutinising and working with the Government to ensure that that continues to progress. The previous Government made available over £5.1 billion to remove unsafe cladding from buildings identified as high and medium rise, and therefore most at risk, given the inherent risk to residents of it being on buildings with a higher number of floors. We need to ensure that that work is completed. It is positive news that, according to the Government’s figures, on 98% of the high-rise buildings with the most dangerous styles of cladding, the work to remove it had been either started or completed by July 2024, but we know that that comes in the context of many other risks about which our residents and constituents will be concerned, and we must ensure that those are addressed effectively.

When we look back to previous debates about building safety, we see that, as a number of Members have mentioned this evening, we cannot simply focus on the issue of cladding and materials and set aside issues such as the effectiveness of fire-stopping and fire doors, which have often come to light during inspections subsequent to Grenfell as being deficient in all manner of buildings. We should bear in mind the debates between the technical experts about whether sprinklers or misters are the most appropriate means of fire suppression in different types of settings, about the need to provide effective sources of water for the fire brigade, and about whether dry risers or wet risers are the most effective. Issues involving access for rescuers and fire safety operatives, and also the ability of residents to escape—again, those have been highlighted this evening—also need to feature in our thinking.

As a number of Members have pointed out, including the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), the emergence of new risks, such as much larger numbers of lithium batteries driving electric bikes that are being charged in residential premises, are now at the forefront of the thinking of our fire brigades, as they look not just at the historical risks, which we know about and can take action to mitigate, but at the emerging new risks. They need the equipment, the technology and the capacity to ensure that they can deal with those factors, should they encounter them in a context in which there is a risk to life.

Other Members have highlighted the importance of dealing with the problems of, in particular, constituents who may not be able to benefit from the funding already in place for social and council tenants because they are leaseholders—in some cases, leaseholders in investment properties. They find that their properties are uninsurable, and that it is very difficult to obtain a mortgage. People want to purchase those properties to be their homes or to be part of a pathway that will give their families access to the size and quality of housing that they need. Those pathways must be reopened, and people who are trapped by some of those issues must see them addressed. In all those respects, we undertake as an Opposition to support the Government in ensuring that fully effective measures are in place for the future.

While much of the debate has focused on the role of the suppliers of products used in construction, it is important to acknowledge the need to ensure that our existing estates are safe and fit for purpose. Local authorities, social housing providers and other landlords have a multitude of legal obligations, but I am conscious, from my experience as a local authority councillor, that not all occupiers wish to engage with that process. The local authorities that serve my constituency have to go to court from time to time to gain access to properties, simply in order to carry out safety checks for which they are responsible as landlords and which are an element of keeping the bigger building of which those individual homes are a part safe for the benefit of all the residents. We must ensure that those local authorities, social housing providers and other landlords have effective tools, so that the expectations we are setting for them can be realised without compromising the safety of residents, and that means being able to gain access expeditiously. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), in what I thought was a very thoughtful and considered contribution, henceforth we must have a more effective, more independent system for managing all those risks.

When the phase 2 report was published, Councillor Elizabeth Campbell, who is now the leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council, set out, in a way that I think deserves credit, her acceptance of failure, on behalf of her local authority—I should make it clear that she was not in charge of housing before the Grenfell fire, although she was a serving member then—a willingness to take responsibility, and the ownership of that improvement journey, in response to the detailed recommendations in the report.

Clearly, the response to Grenfell has now spanned two Governments of different parties. We can be broadly proud of our record. We have passed those pieces of legislation and allocated substantial sums of money, which has built the foundations to ensure that public and private housing in this country is safer for the tenants and residents of the future. The baton has now been handed over, and it is the Government’s job to ensure that everyone else in the system is doing their job to the highest standards and in accordance with the law. The Government can count on the Opposition’s continued support in the delivery of that, but they should also expect to be held to account, because it is the interests of everybody in this country to ensure that it is achieved.

This has been an important debate on the findings and recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry. As the inquiry’s phase 2 report and today’s debate have made clear, fundamental change is needed to make our homes secure and safe, both now and in the future.

I said in a building safety debate a few weeks ago that, like other colleagues, I reflect on where I was on that night seven and a half years ago. It was a poignant moment. Having sat on the other side of the Chamber, I think that if we had said then that we would be where we are now, we would have been exceptionally surprised and disappointed that not enough progress has been made. It now behoves the Government of the day to move at much greater pace, building on the inquiry’s recommendation to move at speed.

The inquiry’s findings on the causes of the tragedy tell us something about a building safety system that was fundamentally broken, that had baked-in deficiencies and that went unchallenged by authorities across the piece, and about the relentless dishonesty of individuals. But it also tells us about Britain and the country in which we live. The consequence was buildings with unsafe cladding and 72 people losing their lives, which was devastating for their families and for the community. As the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister have said, we apologise on behalf of the British state. We cannot say sorry enough.

As the Prime Minister has set out, the Government are considering our response to the report and have committed to come back within six months with our response to the recommendations, as well as to give Parliament the opportunity to debate it at that time and on an annual basis. I say from the bottom of my heart that this has been an important debate for shaping the Government’s response to the report. I have some points of my own to make, but I will major on the points made by colleagues, because there have been a lot of important questions and comments that need a reply at this stage.

I will start with my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), who shaped both the spirit and the content of the debate. He spoke with purpose, but I could detect quite a lot of anger as well. When I speak to bereaved people, the next of kin, survivors and the immediate community, it is clear how angry they are with how little progress has been made, how tired they are of telling people like me their story, how much pain it causes them to tell their story again and to hear it played out in our nation’s Parliament, and how angry it makes them that we cannot say that this tragedy will not happen again, which is shameful for our country. My hon. Friend talked about the merry-go-round of blame. Let me tell him that the report’s recommendations provide a chance for a single response, owned singularly by the Government of the day, to break that merry-go-round.

The Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), spoke with characteristic power. What I took from her contribution, and what I suspect will be the work of her Committee, is the need for more systematic action. We have said that we will address the recommendations within the timeline to which we have committed, but we understand that systematic challenges in the building safety industry have been highlighted by the inquiry report, the Morrell-Day report and the Hackitt review, all of which we will pick up as part of the process, because the whole system needs reform.

That takes me to what the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said. He is coming to see me in the next few days to discuss his thoughtful ideas about safety investigations that have worked in other industries, and the Government are all ears.

My hon. Friends the Members for Kensington and Bayswater and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green talked about manufacturers. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the Prime Minister has committed that we will take action against culpable manufacturers. As the first step in that process, the Cabinet Office has written to organisations named in the inquiry who bear different responsibilities for these failings. For those found by the inquiry to have been part of these horrific failings, this is the first step in stopping them being awarded Government contracts. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the Government intend to publish guidance to support this first set of decisions early next year to stop the most egregious companies getting Government contracts.

A number of colleagues mentioned issues relating to leaseholders, and I shall start with leaseholder protections, which came into force on 28 June 2022. Qualifying leaseholders are protected from the costs of legal or other professional services relating to the liability or potential liability incurred as a result of a relevant defect. The Building Safety Act 2022 also provides for remediation contribution orders, which allow interested persons to apply to the first-tier tribunal for an order requiring building owners to pay to fix unsafe buildings, but I am struck, as a Minister, by how often colleagues tell me that these things are not happening. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), who is no longer in his place, mentioned Abbey House, which I am keen to talk to him about. I will also meet my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) to understand how this is manifesting itself for her constituents.

My hon. Friends the Members for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) talked about insurance for leaseholders, and it is impossible not to be struck by the financial and emotional impact that high insurance premiums are having on leaseholders. Affected leaseholders have been burdened with paying high premiums for too long, and as part of the remediation acceleration plan, we have announced that we will work with insurers to consider whether, for the duration of remediation programmes, the Government might support industry to reduce fire-related liabilities in order to reduce the high insurance bills that leaseholders are facing. We have also launched a public consultation today on our plans to prevent excessive buildings insurance commissions for landlords, for property managing agents or for freeholders being charged to leaseholders. Our intention is to replace those with a fair and transparent fee.

I have mentioned qualifying leaseholders, which takes me to the point about qualifying and non-qualifying leaseholders that the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) raised in this debate and earlier in oral questions. She invites me to set out a path of logic for the distinction between qualifying and non-qualifying leaseholders. I would maintain that, in principle, the difference between what we would consider an ordinary resident and what we would consider a business owning perhaps very many properties is a distinction that we would want to draw when providing public relief. At some point we have to draw a line. The hon. Lady spoke with great eloquence about how that has manifested itself for married couples, and I know from my conversations with many others that there are similar edge cases. We will look at those edge cases, and I am keen to meet her because she spoke with great power about one such case in her community.

With your forbearance, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to correct something that I said during oral questions earlier, because it is an important distinction. I talked about the need to find the balance between those who built a building and those who live in it, but in reality, the balance we need to find is between those who have financial interests in a building and those who live in it. That is slightly different. I will correct the record formally, but I did not want to miss this first public opportunity to do so, given the importance of the point that was raised.

The question of justice was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) and for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman). Speaking to survivors, to the next of kin and to the immediate community, it is impossible not to be struck by their anger and their entirely natural need for justice. I have to say, as building safety Minister, that to some degree this is the element of the entire piece that I find most challenging because, quite rightly, the police and courts are independent of Government. We of course speak with the authorities, and I know that they hear very clearly from those affected about the need for pace. The Metropolitan police have said that it will take time, that it is one of the largest and most legally complex investigations they have ever conducted, and that they have 180 officers and staff dedicated to the investigation.

A question was asked about court capacity, which colleagues will know is of great importance to this Government. We are working very hard to relieve the pressure on Crown courts to ensure they are not the point at which justice is prevented.

An hon. Member whose name I have not noted asked about memorialisation, and it is important that I make it clear on the record that no decision has been made about the tower’s future. This matter is being led by the Deputy Prime Minister, who recognises the importance of listening to the community on this sensitive issue. She is actively doing so, and it is right that the bereaved, the survivors, the next of kin and the immediate community are at the heart of this conversation. It is part of a process, and there is unanimity across all involved, including in this place, on the need for a fitting and lasting memorial. We salute the important work of the independent Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission and will support it in any way we can.

Colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) and for Brent East (Dawn Butler) and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), mentioned the role of local authorities. As the shadow Minister said, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has admitted that it failed in some of its most basic duties: to keep residents safe; to listen to and act on their concerns; and to respond effectively when disaster struck. The Government will work very closely with the community to hold the council to its commitments to improve its services for residents. I will shortly meet the council leader to discuss a number of issues that residents have asked me to raise—we will work very closely.

The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East both spoke about the importance of transparency. Transparency is always important in local government, but it is crucial when rebuilding trust after a tragedy has laid bare such failings.

In that spirit, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) spoke powerfully about Rod Wainwright, the brave firefighter on duty that night. The actions of the London Fire Brigade have been referred to the independent inspectorate, which is very important. However, with the Fire Minister sitting beside me, I assure the House that the Government are responsible for overall oversight of fire and rescue services, and for ensuring public safety more broadly. We will work with the inspectorate, the Mayor of London and the LFB to support the brigade’s continued progress.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch spoke about skills. Seven years on, it is clear that we have missed an opportunity. Young people should want to go into the house building industry, as this is skilled, well-paid and important work. The Government are working with the Industry Competence Committee to make sure that we have a competent house building workforce capable of delivering safe, high-quality homes, which is especially important in the light of our commitment to build 1.5 million homes during this Parliament.

In the autumn, the Government launched Skills England, which will work closely with employers and other key partners to identify and address priority skills gaps, including in construction. The Budget made more money—£300 million—available for further education, including in construction.

Today, I have had a conversation with mayoral combined authorities and elected mayors about how they can use their locus on skills to promote this industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch asked whether we would be willing to lean on the shortage occupation list, if needed. That would not be the Government’s preference, of course, but it is a commitment that has been made.

I will use my remaining time to talk about the remediation acceleration plan, because a number of colleagues have talked about the importance of quicker remediation. I am grateful to the Opposition and the Select Committee for their warm sentiments, but I am clear that success is never in a plan’s publication. As the shadow Minister said, we expect to be held to account for the commitments we have made today.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) talked about the need to be quicker and, again, 2029 is not when it will start but when it will be resolved. Our commitment is that by the end of 2029, all residential buildings 18 metres and over with unsafe cladding in a Government-funded scheme will have been remediated, and every residential building 11 metres and over with unsafe cladding will have either been remediated, have a date for completion or the landlord will be liable for severe penalties.

Our plan has three objectives. First, it will fix buildings faster. I am pleased that we, as a Government, have secured an important commitment from developers to accelerate their pace. Secondly and crucially, it will identify all buildings with unsafe cladding. If we talked to ourselves seven and a half years ago and said, “In seven and half years’ time will not even be able to say how many buildings there are with unsafe cladding, but the best range we will be able to give the House is somewhere between 4,000 and 7,000”, that speaks to the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) that that clearly is not good enough. Finally, it will support residents.

On acceleration, our plan has set a clear timeline and we will actively pursue the landlords of buildings who refuse to act. We will ensure better co-operation between regulators. We are working hard with metro mayors to provide localised plans, because often the buildings are in combined authority areas, so we need to work in partnership.

On identification, we have set up a “tell us” tool through the cladding safety schemes, so residents can tell us directly. We are working very hard going through Ordnance Survey maps and doing all the line-by-line work needed to assess 175,000 building records by April—540,000 in total—to ensure we find all the buildings that have cladding defects, so remediation action can take place.

I know there is a lot of interest in protections for residents, which I have talked about a little. I hope what I have been able to say about insurance is welcome. We look forward to making good on that. If the market will not deliver, we will work closely with developers to change commissioning.

I will draw my remarks to a close. Today’s debate has been very important and has highlighted just how far we have to go, as the inquiry shows us. We still have thousands of buildings with unsafe cladding. We need a complete reversal if we are going to put people and safety first, ahead of profits, empower residents and hold those responsible for the safety crisis to account.

We have committed to building 1.5 million homes during this Parliament, which our country desperately needs, but they must be safe, secure and decent homes. The package of measures we have set out today through the remediation acceleration plan will help us with that. As has been mentioned, residential PEEPs will improve fire safety and evacuation of vulnerable people in high-rise and high-risk buildings. I have not had time to talk about the replacement of waking watch, but we are extending the waking watch replacement fund, so that leaseholders can access that and get an alarm in place.

All of our work takes place with those 72 lives held at its heart, and in our hearts. They were failed by the system at all points and failed by this country to all degrees. We are so sorry for what happened, but I know the people involved have heard those apologies and those words from people like me too often. We can do only one thing to make things better: deliver. The inquiry has helped us on our way and our plans are developing. I am grateful for the contributions colleagues are making, but now we must deliver.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Grenfell Tower Inquiry phase 2 report.