Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

Darren Paffey Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

Southampton Itchen is one of the places in Hampshire with the most buildings with unsafe cladding. As hon. Members have said so eloquently, that means people live with the worry that the horrendous tragedy that befell Grenfell all those years ago could well befall them. Even where there has been action, it is hardly ideal. Nearly 200 of my constituents are currently out of their home. They were evacuated in the spring and summer of last year, and they will not be able to return until the summer of 2028 at the earliest. This is the stark reality that drives the urgent need for this Bill, and it is why I very much welcome it.

I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for bringing forward the Bill. Like other Members, I pay tribute to residents and campaigners, including those from End Our Cladding Scandal who supported one of the very first public meetings that I conducted as a new MP, and who have not let go of this issue over the years. Since I was elected, I have listened to residents who are affected by unsafe cladding on their buildings, pressed Ministers, and submitted evidence to the Public Accounts Committee’s inquiry on remediation. The Bill is the next instalment in resolving these ongoing issues; it will certainly not be the last. I want to acknowledge the real progress that it makes, but also ask for important clarification from the Minister.

Take Oceana Boulevard, a flagship development in the regeneration of brownfield sites in the centre of Southampton. It was built some 20 years ago, and its fire safety problems were first identified nearly 10 years ago. Since then, compartmentation works have been done, but that is all. Today, we have finally got in an application to the Building Safety Regulator, covering cladding, automatic opening vents and balcony remediation works, but—sadly, as we have heard, this is not an isolated story—there is still no agreement between the freeholder and the developer on who will pay for the non-cladding-related remediation, and none of that work is anywhere near starting.

In the meantime, as we all know, residents’ costs have been skyrocketing. Ellie bought her flat in Oceana Boulevard brand new. Her service charge and insurance rose from £1,500 a year to £6,000 a year, and she has not been able to keep up with the payments, so she has handed her home back to the bank. People are losing their homes, even if not to fire, because of these issues, which have taken far too long to resolve. For that reason, alongside this very welcome remediation Bill, we must with all urgency progress the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, and the action that the Prime Minister recently announced on regulating managing agents.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

The hon. Member is right to point out the stress on residents. Those at Northpoint in Bromley are part of a residents’ management company, but RMCs have no assets, so they lean into the service charges in order to pay some of the company’s liabilities. Would he agree with me that people in RMCs need to be protected as well?

[Darren Paffey]

We are all fighting for our constituents to be protected from the bills that are landing on them through no fault of their own. They certainly did not choose any of this. They want the simple comfort of having their own home, and they work incredibly hard to achieve that, yet look at where so many of them are.

I welcome the mandatory auditing of fire risk assessments to that all-important single standard. A dispute about what is wrong with a building must never again, as in the case of Oceana Boulevard, outlast a decade; there has been constant back and forth about whether the parties accept what they read in the fire engineer’s report. I certainly agree with the comments made by Members on both sides of the Chamber about people picking and choosing who to commission a report from. In some cases, it seems that they decide whether they like what they read in a report before commissioning a different one. That has to come to an end.

I welcome the message that waking watches are temporary. At Sirocco, a development in nearby Ocean Village, the residents paid for one for years. One of the residents, Ro, tells me that she had to use a freedom of information request just to see the fire risk assessments. Under this Bill, remediation plans have to be published, along with timelines and contacts. No resident should need an FOI request to learn the truth about their home.

I welcome the legal duty to remediate. Ben and his family have told me their story, and again, unfortunately, it is not the only time I have heard such a story. They have put their life on hold and have put off having more children—growing their family—because they cannot sell and move on. Since when should anyone’s life aspirations be subject to the stalling of these companies, many of which have literally not bothered to get their own houses in order? Sadly, being unable to sell and move on is a story I have heard many times, and which other hon. Members have repeated. Remediation work at the Blake building close by began only this summer. It certainly will not finish before next summer, four years after enforcement action was first taken. It is clear that delays cost, and it is far too often still the residents who pay those costs.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Much of what my hon. Friend is saying has echoes in my constituency. Residents in Hanwell Locks have been in a battle with Bellway over remediation works to their building. There has been an acknowledgment that works are needed, but there is no clear programme of works, and no progress at all. Those residents, like those in his constituency, are having trouble re-mortgaging or selling, and they are worried about the continuing fire risk. Does he agree that the remediation compliance plans required in the Bill and the strong financial penalties against builders will make a difference to our constituents?

[Darren Paffey]

I absolutely agree. As I will come on to say, it is simply unforgivable that too many companies still have no plan whatever for remediation, and people are paying the price, financially, but also with their life ambitions.

[Shockat Adam]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that although the Government already have remediation orders, remediation contribution orders and the responsible actor scheme, the Property Institute says that it has seen absolutely no evidence that they have been used proactively, and that no developer to date has faced any consequences? The Bill must ensure that is addressed.

[Darren Paffey]

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s closing point. The Bill must fix that, which is why I welcome its progress, but like Members from across the Chamber, I will follow its progress very closely to ensure it is not just a Bill that gets a headline, but instead fixes things and gets things right.

The Blake building sits outside the developer contract, so this new duty will finally reach it. That is real progress from the Bill, but there are points on which residents still have questions, and campaigners are not yet convinced that all this goes far enough. I hope that the Minister will address some of those questions today.

First, most Ocean Village buildings are subject to the developer contract, but the Bill excludes them from the new duty because “equivalent requirements” are already in place; however, physical works have still not started on Sirocco, Moresby, Hawkins or Oceana Boulevard. We have heard different statistics, but those I am looking at tell me that nationally, there are over 2,500 buildings in that contract, but for 854 of them, work has not started and there is no plan in place—not a single plan between them. What will the measures mean for those living in buildings with no plan? It must mean progress. Should they not have audited assessments, published timetables and a backstop if a developer stalls? I hope that the Minister will confirm that Ocean Village residents will benefit from all three. The Bill rightly focuses on cladding, but residents live in whole buildings, and internal safety matters, too, so I very much welcome the announcement made at the Dispatch Box today. When it comes to filling that gap, I hope that as the Bill progresses, we will hear more detail about what the grant funding will cover.

Secondly, on enforcement, the Bill provides for prosecution, penalties of up to £500,000, and a backstop that allows Homes England or councils to step in, but as we all know, a power is only as good as the capacity to use it, and the route to the backstop will run through notices, representations and tribunals. How long will it take from first notice to a contractor on site? Will Homes England and councils such as Southampton city council be resourced to use that power?

Finally, and most practically for residents like Ben, is the question of when. The duty is to remediate

“as soon as reasonably practicable”,

but the detail is left to regulations. The Government’s 2029 and 2031 deadlines, already put forward in the remediation acceleration plan, do not appear in the Bill. I ask the Minister to add them; my constituents would find that reassuring. If she will not, can she commit to dated milestones, and a hard stop date in those regulations, so that 2029 is the final, legally enforceable deadline that constituents need, not just an aspiration?

Those who have been waiting years and cannot move on have asked if there is any way for the Government to buy back those homes while they are waiting. Now, I suspect that I know the answer, but I will ask—particularly as the Budget is tomorrow. The previous Chancellor amended some of the rules to ensure that council-owned properties are assets, not liabilities. By releasing people from the stalemate that they are in with their homes and families, could we be looking at assets that this Government, who need to build and own more housing, could very much use?

I will proudly support the Bill on Second Reading. For everyone who needs the Bill to be the strongest it can be, I will be glad to engage with Ministers and others as it progresses through the House. We need to fix all our buildings. We need to ensure that the work is paid for by those who were responsible for this sorry episode, which I believe is an absolute stain on our history. In doing so, we might just be able to give people their futures back—people like Ellie, Ro, Ben, the hundreds of others in Southampton Itchen, and the thousands more across the country whose stories have been told by Members across the House. They have all had enough and want an end to the nightmare. The Bill—if we do it right—gives them that hope.