You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles
A cross-party group of MPs has called on the government to intervene in tower blocks where leaseholders face huge bills to remove dangerous cladding.
In a parliamentary debate this afternoon, several Conservative MPs spoke alongside Labour and Scottish National Party colleagues calling on the government to take responsibility for the costs of removing cladding from private tower blocks.
In blocks across the country, leaseholders face having to pay for cladding that has failed the government’s fire safety tests to be removed and replaced.
Robert Neill, Conservative MP for Bromley and Chislehurst, said leaseholders in his constituency are “forking out in the region of £6,000-odd a month” for a waking watch in their block.
He added: “If there was a failure of regulation, whoever was the government at the time, it’s a failure of governance and then ultimately I would suggest that government needs to stand behind this, rather than expecting that to be picked up by individuals who have done nothing whatsoever and have no control whatsoever over what has happened.”
Housing secretary Sajid Javid has said freeholders have a “moral responsibility” not to let leaseholders cover the cost of removing and replacing cladding.
Dan Poulter, Conservative MP for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, said: “Moral responsibility is not going to work and there’s got to be legislation from the government that’s needed to sort this problem out.”
Sir Peter Bottomley, Conservative MP for Worthing West, said freeholders of private blocks where cladding is unsafe should come forward and stop “hiding behind offshore entities”.
Steve Reed, Labour MP for Croydon North, who called the debate, said it is the government’s responsibility to remove the cladding on these blocks “because it’s the government’s flawed regulatory system that allowed it to go up in the first place”.
Responding to the debate, housing minister Dominic Raab said the government has been working with councils to find out which private buildings have similar cladding to Grenfell Tower and has tasked Dame Judith Hackitt with carrying out a review into building regulations and fire safety.
He said: “The suggestion that we’re somehow sitting on our hands… is quite wrong and I think the reaction to the Dame Judith review shows that.”
He added: “Just for the record, just as a matter of balance in this debate, it is right to point out that the shadow housing secretary, when he was the housing minister, actually refused extra funding for fire safety measures because he didn’t deem them necessary.
“I’m not saying this to score any political points – I’m making the argument that any honourable member in the position of a minister would look at this carefully, responsibly and take the expert advice. That’s what the honourable gentleman did, that’s what we have done.”
Mr Raab said the government believes it has identified all the social housing blocks and public buildings with unsafe cladding.
On the removal of cladding Mr Raab said the government has been “very clear that this should be done as swiftly as possible, but it must be done properly”.
He added: “Let’s be clear, the remediation of buildings with aluminium composite material cladding is a complex process; it involves major construction work which needs to be planned, consulted on and carried out professionally and carefully.
“Planning alone can take up to a year. It’s not just a case of ripping down the cladding then deciding what to do next.”
He said the “allocation of the responsibility” for who pays the cladding costs in private blocks “depends on the terms of the leasehold arrangements”.
He added: “Where building owners are seeking to pass on remediation costs to leaseholders, it’s important [leaseholders are] able to get specialist advice.”
Inside Housing is calling for immediate action to implement the learning from the Lakanal House fire, and a commitment to act – without delay – on learning from the Grenfell Tower tragedy as it becomes available.
We will submit evidence from our research to the Grenfell public inquiry.
The inquiry should look at why opportunities to implement learning that could have prevented the fire were missed, in order to ensure similar opportunities are acted on in the future.