Barry spoke in today’s second reading of the Building Safety debate, which follows on from multiple speeches he has made in debates relating to the previous Fire Safety Bill.
Unfortunately, he was cut off by Madam Deputy Speaker before he could conclude. So copied below is the text of his whole speech, that he would have delivered if time allowed. You can also watch the speech he made at the bottom of this page:
I am not sure what is worse for leaseholders, the fact that they are in constant fear because their homes are unsafe. The fact that they cannot afford to make them safe and are being harassed by greedy managing agents, or the fact that they are "trapped" in their flats without any easy option to sell and move on with their lives. Today’s Statement and this Bill does not fundamentally change that for all the reasons the Father of the House set out in his brief but excellent speech.
During the passage of the Fire Safety Bill Ministers promised these issues would be addressed in the Building Safety Bill.
Lord Greenalgh said:
“it is unacceptable for leaseholders to have to worry about costs of fixing historic safety defects in their buildings that they did not cause”
“building owners are responsible for ensuring the safety of residents”, and he said they should “protect leaseholders from the costs of remediating historic building defects.”
I don’t know what the correct term in parliament is for someone who makes promises they don’t keep, but I know what they call them on the streets of Brent North. They call them a government minister!
Extending the scope and duration of the Defective Premises Act (DPA) in The Building Safety Bill shows the government does not understand the extent of the problem.
I would ask the Minister to explain to my constituents who live in the Wembley Central Development how this will help them? The original Developer of their homes- St Modwens have washed their hands of these defective properties. They sold them to an off-shore company in Jersey in 2018 following the introduction of the new Building Regulations.
They were in partnership with Sowcrest, who are now in a very convenient liquidation. So who exactly does the minister think my constituents can chase here?
What is the government prepared to do about buildings with obscure corporate ownership?
I first contacted St Modwens in 2017 immediately after the Grenfell tragedy. They repeatedly assured me these buildings were safe and in 2018 confirmed in writing that no fire safety defects had been identified. I am now told the cladding on this building is the same as used for the Grenfell Tower and the Fire Safety Report has identified fire stopping defects throughout the construction process.
But In May of this year St Modwen agreed to a takeover bid of £1.2 billion from Blackstone. Can the Minister tell me how this Bill will make them accountable for their actions?
It wasn’t the leaseholders who decided to use flammable cladding, to leave out fire stopping in voids or cut corners. Developers made those decisions.
My constituents do not have either the deep pockets or the legal expertise to fight these corporate chameleons who start off in London and end up in Jersey as a different company. And this Bill shows the government either does not understand or does not care.
The companies can afford lengthy litigation. Leaseholders cannot.
Finally The Minister must explain why there is so little progress on the Building Safety Fund?
I wrote to St Modwens on the 23rd June 2021. I still await a response.
I have also written to Fidum/Fox Cooper, the new managing agents for the New owners based in Jersey. I asked them about their application to the Building Safety Fund BSF for the removal of the unsafe cladding. I have received no response.
But Fidum have now told residents that they missed the closing date of the 30th June for the second application because they are still waiting to have eligibility confirmed for the first! And therefore cannot move to stage 2 of the application process. I contacted the BSF directly on the 23rd June and was advised I would receive an urgent reply from the Ministry of Housing – now precisely 4 weeks later I have received no response. All of us knew that the system that government had put in place was inadequate.
What we didn’t expect was that it would be incompetent as well.