Al Pinkerton MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Residential Buildings: Safety Remediation · Hansard source

  More

  I hope that every right hon. and hon. Member who participated in the debate accepts my thanks for their excellent contributions. I thank the Front-Bench spokespeople and the Minister, who is new to her role. To pick up on one thing, the Minister said—forgive me for paraphrasing; I was writing it down as she spoke—that “no responsible party” in this whole scenario should be able to derogate, or words to that effect, from their obligations. I will leave her with one thought: the risk of PAS 9980 is that it allows those responsible to do exactly that—to be absolved of their responsibility. The defects that were built at the point of construction will be retained because of the new risk-based approach. The responsibility then falls on the purses of our constituents, because they will pay higher insurance costs in perpetuity. I know the Minister is new to her role—

• 15 Sept 2026 · Residential Buildings: Safety Remediation · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the building safety remediation of residential buildings. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and all right hon. and hon. Members for their participation. More than nine years after Grenfell claimed all those lives, we must ask whether the system that is intended to protect residents and deliver the safety and security they deserve is truly working. There has been progress. The Building Safety Act 2022, the Building Safety Regulator and remediation funding have strengthened our collective national response, but legislation must lead to safer homes, funding must lead to completed works and residents must be able to move forward with their lives. Today, I will address three interconnected issues: the protection of residents during remediation, the operation of PAS 9980 and the competence of those making critical safety decisions, and the position of non-qualifying leaseholders. I will begin by drawing on an experience directly connected to my constituency. Surrey Heath is, by any definition, a semi-rural consistency, where one would not necessarily have expected this issue to rear its head, yet the correspondence reaching my office from Camberley, our principal market town, shows how deeply the problem affects ordinary households across the UK. We must judge the system by the experience of the residents who depend on it. At Dorchester Court, one of my constituents has lived in their shared ownership home for 20 years. They are unwell, unemployed and at risk of losing that home. They need to sell, but unresolved building safety and EWS1 issues have taken that choice away. Another resident has lost two prospective buyers because lenders would not offer mortgages on that property. Cala Homes, the original developer, has accepted full responsibility for life-critical remediation, but residents say that they still have no clear timetable for those works to be delivered or completed. Accepting responsibility is only the beginning. Until the required work is completed, residents remain trapped. It is a repeat pattern across the country. People need to move because of illness, unemployment, caring responsibilities or just simple changes in family circumstances. Their lives cannot be placed on hold indefinitely while developers, building owners and managing agents decide what happens next.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Residential Buildings: Safety Remediation · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is right to say that one main handbrake to remediation is national resourcing. There are simply not enough fire safety engineers or specialist companies that can do this remediation work on a fast timescale. That problem exists not only between Scotland and England but within the English regions. I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that a co-ordinated national solution is the best response we could hope for for our residents, so that the work is undertaken in a timely and efficient manner. My second question for the Minister relates to that topic. How will those responsible be held to enforceable timetables, so that residents have certainty and transparency from companies completing the remediation works? The examples I have cited concern the pace and conditions of remediation but, before any work begins, someone must decide what work is required. That brings me to PAS 9980, the framework used to assess fire risks in the external walls of existing residential buildings. The Government have committed to making the standard mandatory for relevant external wall fire risk assessments, but its interpretation will influence the work that is carried out, the funding available and the conditions in which residents are expected to live. A proportionate approach is sensible. Assessors should consider the building as a whole, including its materials, construction and wider fire safety arrangements. The work undertaken should reflect the risk that the building actually presents, but that approach relies heavily on professional and subjective judgment. Residents need confidence that those judgments are competent, consistent, transparent and properly scrutinised. When assessments of the same building reach different conclusions, remediation can be delayed, funding becomes harder to secure, lenders lose confidence and residents are left wondering whose judgment they can ultimately trust. There is a particular concern where combustible materials, which would not be permitted on comparable new buildings, are allowed to remain on existing homes. An assessment may conclude that the immediate risk to life is tolerable, but residents could still face higher insurance premiums, difficulty securing a mortgage and a reduction in the value of their property. They may be told that their building meets the required standard, while continuing to feel unsafe and financially trapped. Royal Artillery Quays clearly illustrates this problem. At this point, I pay tribute to Steve Day, who has been a doughty campaigner for that development and its residents. Many hon. Members might have heard directly from him. Royal Artillery Quays is a large, private residential development in Thamesmead, built by Barratt Homes in 2002, and home to around 1,000 residents. Barratt Homes’s proposed approach there, assessed under PAS 9980, would leave some combustible panels in place, on the basis that the remaining risk is tolerable. Residents—not unreasonably—remain concerned both about the safety of that approach and its financial consequences. They report that annual service charges have risen from £3,000 to £6,000, with much of that increase linked to insurance. That phenomenon is confirmed by the Association of British Insurers, which in October 2025 reported that buildings remediated only to PAS 9980 may face persistently higher premiums than those remediated to a higher standard. In other words, residents will be paying higher insurance premiums in perpetuity because of decisions that were made not just by this Government but by developers in the past. Some of those residents cannot sell without accepting a substantial reduction in the value of their home. Residents have drawn my attention to a fire safety engineering report that states that leaving the panels in place is “not the most appropriate fire engineering solution” for that building. Already there is contestation between the different approaches recommended. Where does that leave residents? The reliability of these decisions ultimately depends on the subjective competence of the people making them. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government will publish the findings of their audits and reviews of the application of PAS 9980, and what steps are being taken to ensure greater consistency in its use? Where PAS 9980 assessments result in combustible materials remaining in place, how will the consequential impacts on insurance premiums, mortgage availability and property values be assessed and communicated to residents?

• 15 Sept 2026 · Residential Buildings: Safety Remediation · Hansard source

  More

  I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Lady, who I know represents a Bournemouth seat. I have exactly the same issues in my constituency. Reports and certification are not being received in time, often frustrating sales and driving things like insurance premiums in the long term. Residents’ lives cannot be placed on hold indefinitely while those who have the whip hand decide what happens next. The problems do not end when remediation begins. At North Court, another development in Camberley, residents undergoing remediation through the Metropolitan Thames Valley housing association have reported restricted daylight and ventilation, broken windows and water leaks. Those issues are challenging at the best of times, but almost unbearable during a long, hot summer like the one we have just had, when temperatures inside properties regularly reached 40ºC. Some residents have described deteriorating mental health and feeling increasingly insecure in their own homes. Scaffolding, sheeting, noise and disruption may be unavoidable for a time, but poor communication, unresolved damage and unhealthy living conditions are not acceptable. Clear information, prompt repairs and credible completion dates should be basic expectations throughout the remediation process. I ask the Minister to outline how residents will be protected during remediation works, especially during hot summer periods and cold winters.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Residential Buildings: Safety Remediation · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He parallels the case made by the hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane). There has to be a national-level approach, and I hope that the Government will share information with the devolved Administrations in all parts of the United Kingdom and with all Members of this House so that we can adequately support the affected residents, who are certainly not just in England. The experience with the separate EWS1 process shows what happens when confidence in these professionals breaks down. One Surrey Heath constituent accepted an offer on their apartment for £260,000. That was for a flat originally bought for £316,000. They were prepared to accept a loss of £56,000 simply to move forward with their life, but even then the sale collapsed, because the buyer could not obtain a mortgage after lenders stopped accepting the building’s EWS1 form, which had been signed by the now notorious Adam Kiziak of Tri Fire Ltd. The Institution of Fire Engineers suspended Mr Kiziak’s membership and registration in 2024, following findings under its disciplinary process. It announced his expulsion on 5 March 2025, following even more complaints. Also in March 2025, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), I met the then Building Safety Minister to raise concerns about Mr Kiziak and his behaviour. My office has identified at least nine EWS1 forms issued through Tri Fire in Camberley alone that have subsequently been rejected by lenders. That is why independent verification is essential, including where an earlier assessment concluded that no remediation was required, because we now know that Adam Kiziak was faking EWS1 forms, suggesting that buildings were entirely safe when they in fact contained combustible material. The consequences of failure in this area can be immediate. At the Courtyard in Camberley, a couple reported receiving five EWS1 forms that were not accepted before a sixth finally satisfied the relevant requirements. That delay pushed their purchase beyond the stamp duty deadline and left them with an additional bill of nearly £4,500. They had no control over the assessment process, yet bore the cost when it failed. When does the Minister expect statutory regulation of fire engineers to be introduced? Given the degree of subjectivity in PAS 9980 assessments and the potentially life-changing costs passed on to residents, how can leaseholders have confidence in a system that lacks a fully regulated profession? Failures in assessment can impose substantial costs. The next question is who should be expected to pay them. The Building Safety Act introduced welcome protections and ensured that many leaseholders would no longer be expected to meet the cost of failures that they did not cause. Some non-qualifying leaseholders may also receive support because of their landlord’s responsibility, a developer commitment or the funding arrangements that apply to their building. However, significant gaps remain. Once a lease is classified as non-qualifying, that status can remain attached to it when the property is sold. Someone buying their first and only home can therefore inherit the consequences of the previous owner’s circumstances and become exposed to significant remediation costs. They had no involvement in the original construction and have no responsibility for the defects, yet under the current system, they can still be left with the bill. On 10 April 2025, in response to a written question, the then Building Safety Minister said the Government was looking closely at how to “sunset the ‘in perpetuity’ status of leases which do not qualify for the leaseholder protections.” Can the Minister update us on that work, and will the Government bring forward proposals to protect those who bought what they reasonably believed would be a safe and secure home? The Government’s promised remediation Bill provides an opportunity to resolve outstanding problems and turn commitments into delivery. Under their plans, by the end of 2029, buildings over 18 metres should be remediated and buildings from 11 metres to 18 metres should be remediated or firmly scheduled, with 2031 the intended final completion point. Those ambitions are absolutely welcome, but meeting them will require accurate building data, secure funding, skilled contractors, effective independent inspection and, as we have heard today, proper resourcing for agencies across the United Kingdom. It will require costs to be recovered from those responsible, including developers and construction product manufacturers. Residents have already spent years waiting. Deadlines will mean little unless they are enforceable and backed up by the capacity required to meet them. When will those duties become legally enforceable, and how will the Government ensure that the funding, workforce and regulatory capacity are in place to deliver it? The lesson of Grenfell is that building safety depends on the whole system working: sound regulation, competent professionals, effective oversight and accountability when things go wrong. When that system fails, danger can remain unaddressed and residents can be left trapped in homes they cannot sell and paying costs they cannot control. Behind every assessment, funding decision and remediation timetable is someone trying to protect their family, preserve their savings or move on to the next stage of their lives. The bereaved and the survivors of Grenfell deserve justice, and my constituents in Surrey Heath and constituents across the country deserve safe homes and confidence in those entrusted to protect them. More than nine years on, we must take every reasonable step to prevent another loss of life and ensure that those still living with the consequences of this crisis can finally move forward.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Local Authority SEND Services · Hansard source

  More

  A great number of children across Surrey have been left without the special educational provision they need this year and a disproportionate number—64%—of those who require specialist autism provision live in the new West Surrey unitary authority area. Given Surrey county council’s historical failure to align provision with need, and with worrying reports that the SEND system is being allowed to collapse in Surrey’s final year of operation, will the Minister directly intervene to ensure that Department for Education capital investment prioritises the specialist autism places that West Surrey desperately needs? Will she meet me and the incoming leaders of West Surrey to see how that can be done?

• 14 Sept 2026 · Local Authority SEND Services · Hansard source

  More

  18. What discussions her Department has had with local authorities on ensuring that SEND services accurately cater to levels of unmet need.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  You wait a while and two Surrey questions come along at once! One of the potential unintended consequences of today’s announcement is to leave Surrey in the slightly discomfiting position of being in an experimental cohort with a sample size of one—the one county being reorganised under this legislation. We all know why: it is because the Conservative-run Surrey county council begged the Government to put it on this rollercoaster with no known destination and, as it turns out today, with legally slightly shonky rails. Do the legal concerns that the Secretary of State has expressed today also relate to Surrey? If Surrey is affected by those legal concerns, what faith should my residents have that this experiment is not going to come fully off the rails before 1 April 2027?

• 16 Jul 2026 · Gibraltar: UK-EU Treaty · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, having had the privilege of visiting Gibraltar last July. I warmly welcome the agreement and congratulate the Minister and the Government, together with Gibraltar’s Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister on securing it. Gibraltar has always insisted that there should be nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar, and this agreement both meets that expectation and honours that principle. I also pay tribute to the Spanish Government for the pragmatism they have shown in coming to this arrangement. The agreement finally resolves the existential uncertainty created by Brexit. It protects Gibraltar’s economy, safeguards our defence interests and gives the territory certainty and confidence in its own future. Self-determination is and must remain the bedrock of our relationship with all our overseas territories. Sadly, that is especially important to say today after the disgraceful scenes in Atlanta last night, where football was used as a platform to challenge the democratic right of Falkland Islanders to determine their own future. That principle is not negotiable and never should be. I ask the Minister three simple questions. First, in relation to the EU’s entry-exit system coming into force, what reassurance can he give British travellers that journeys to and from Gibraltar will not face unnecessary disruption this summer and into the future? Secondly, have the Government assessed the practical impact of the Schengen 90-day and 180-day rule on British citizens travelling to Gibraltar? If so, what conclusions has that assessment reached? Finally, will the Minister reassure the House that the constitutional safeguards within this agreement are sufficiently robust to ensure that Gibraltar, the United Kingdom and Spain never again return to the uncertainty and border disruption of the past?

• 8 Jul 2026 · European Entry and Exit System · Hansard source

  More

  It is clear that the delay to the UK-EU reset summit—it was initially scheduled for July, but has now been delayed till October—has not cancelled the problems which that summit was, at least in part, designed to address. Might the Minister suggest an interim emergency summit to deal explicitly with this issue, bringing together the French and the European Commission to try to resolve it before we hit peak summer season? If he is willing to organise that summit, could he also raise the case of UK hauliers, who are reporting inconsistent scanning of their exit from the Schengen area and real fears that their 90 in 180-day entitlement will artificially run down as a result? That is going to have a profound effect on our economy.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) on securing this important debate. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I had the great pleasure of visiting Gibraltar in July last summer, perhaps shortly before the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), and, like him, I got to experience the new border control operations that will be in place. I had the great pleasure of meeting multiple representatives, who spoke positively about the experience and the way in which the United Kingdom Government had ensured that, at every single stage of the negotiation that led to the agreement, Gibraltarians were present and gave their consent. The Liberal Democrats welcome this agreement. It achieves the objective that matters above all others: preserving British sovereignty over Gibraltar while providing a practical solution to the problems that have hung over the territory since Brexit. I spent much of my academic career—I am a recovering academic—researching borders, sovereignty and contested territories, and I have spent time in Gibraltar recently and in the past and spoken to people who live with the consequences of the treaty, so I know all too well that borders are rarely just lines on a map. They are systems for managing movement, trade and security. When those systems fail, ordinary people end up paying the price. That is precisely what happened after Brexit. Gibraltar found itself excluded from the trade and co-operation agreement, leaving 38,000 people living with years of uncertainty. As we have heard, the people of Gibraltar did not choose that outcome. Not only have they repeatedly rejected the prospect of joint sovereignty, as they did in 2002, but they overwhelmingly voted to remain in the European Union in 2016. Whatever our views on Brexit, we should recognise that Gibraltar has spent the past six years managing the consequences of decisions that it did not participate in making. The treaty reflects one of the oldest truths in geopolitics: geography cannot be wished away. Gibraltar is politically British, geographically Iberian and economically dependent on the daily movement of people across the frontier. Good statecraft—of which these proposals are an example—reconciles those realities, rather than pretending that we can override them. The treaty deserves support—albeit not uncritical support—because it starts from the correct constitutional principle, which is that the freely expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar are paramount. That principle is reflected in the agreement. Article 2 contains what many legal experts have described as the strongest “without prejudice” sovereignty clause ever included in an EU agreement relating to Gibraltar. Three independent KCs have concluded that the treaty makes no concession whatsoever on sovereignty. That legal certainty matters for all the reasons that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) outlined. That is why the agreement enjoys such strong unilateral support from Gibraltar’s Chief Minister and other representatives in the Parliament. Gibraltar’s Parliament and all three living former Chief Ministers agree that this is an appropriate deal. That consensus is highly unusual—Westminster might take note. The agreement is equally clear on defence. The MOD has confirmed that the UK retains full freedom to operate from Gibraltar. British military capabilities remain sovereign and unconstrained, with Spain unable to impede British personnel or equipment. At a time of growing geopolitical instability across Europe and the Mediterranean, preserving Gibraltar’s strategic role in NATO is essential. However, the possession and preservation of sovereignty alone is not enough. Sovereignty must also work—it must be practical. We have heard observations today not only about Gibraltar’s strategic importance, but about the sheer intensity of everyday cross-border movement: 15,500 people cross the frontier every single day. Those people staff Gibraltar’s hospitals, restaurants, financial services, construction industry and public services. Almost all food and medicines arrive in Gibraltar by road through Spain. That is why a functioning border is not just a convenience but an economic necessity. Gibraltarians understand better than most what happens when borders cease to function. Many have spoken to me about their recollections of the years after 1969, when the Spain frontier was closed, severing families, disrupting livelihoods and isolating Gibraltar economically and politically. Even after that frontier fully reopened in 1985, political tensions have, at times, caused lengthy queues and disruption at the crossing. I have waited in those queues at various times. Gibraltar endured them for years, but its economy today is very different from the economy of the past. Thousands of workers now cross that frontier every day to sustain its economy and public services, which is precisely why this agreement matters so much. The treaty has become even more necessary because Europe itself is changing the way its borders operate. The EU entry/exit system requires biometric registration of third-country nationals entering the Schengen area. That may work tolerably at airports—actually, I am not sure that it does, given the words of the chief executive of Aeroporti di Roma this week—but at one of Europe’s busiest land borders, it risks creating queues measured not in minutes but in hours. Had this been left unresolved, Gibraltar would have faced severe disruption through no fault of its own. The agreement prevents that outcome and removes routine immigration and customs checks at the land frontier while keeping Gibraltar outside of the Schengen area. Gibraltar retains its own immigration laws and authorities. At Gibraltar international airport, British immigration controls will be carried out by Gibraltar officials before a Schengen check under the agreed arrangements. Spain has no unilateral power to refuse entry. Equally important are the safeguards for Gibraltarians. Residents and Gibraltar identity card holders cannot be refused entry into Gibraltar, detained under those arrangements or subject to the EES or ETIAS systems. Those guarantees are practical expressions of sovereignty. The economic benefits are also equally significant. Without an agreement, Gibraltar faces prolonged uncertainty and significant economic harm. With the agreement, estimates suggest about £200 million could be added annually to Gibraltar’s economy—that is about 6% of its GDP—while boosting investment and confidence at no additional cost to the UK taxpayer. The agreement also creates opportunities beyond the land frontier. Direct air services between Gibraltar and European destinations could strengthen tourism and economic connectivity. With more than 9.4 million visitors entering Gibraltar annually across the border, compared with around 184,000 by air, smoother movement would benefit Gibraltar’s economy while reducing friction for communities on both sides of the frontier. Concerns have understandably been raised about the Schengen 90/180-day rule for air arrivals. However, it is worth saying that visitors stay on average just 3.4 days in Gibraltar—a small fraction of the 90-day allowance—and many already continue into Spain and use part of that allowance there. For most travellers the practical impact is therefore likely to be minimal. There are, however, still issues that deserve scrutiny. Will the Minister clarify precisely how the Schengen 90/180-day rule will apply to British citizens spending time in Gibraltar? It is important that we avoid creating constitutional tests that have never existed elsewhere in the British family of overseas territories and Crown dependencies, with which the United Kingdom has never operated unrestricted freedom of movement. Territories such as the Falklands—as I know all too well—have long maintained their own immigration laws and entry requirements, reflecting their distinct constitutional status and circumstances. Gibraltar has likewise always controlled its immigration arrangements. The question is therefore not whether Gibraltar should have border controls, but whether those controls serve Gibraltar’s interests while fully preserving British sovereignty. Notwithstanding the clarification that I just sought from the Minister, the treaty strikes that balance. Implementation must be undertaken in close co-operation and partnership with Gibraltar’s Government and its business community. Ultimately, this agreement will be judged by whether the borders work smoothly for those who depend on it every day. Gibraltar illustrates a wider truth about Brexit. Like the Windsor framework, this agreement is an intelligent and pragmatic attempt to solve problems that Brexit created. Geography has not changed—Gibraltar remains politically British while being physically connected to the European continent, and good diplomacy recognises both those realities—but we cannot continue to resolve the consequences of Brexit one border at a time. I contend that the United Kingdom needs a broader reset with our European colleagues. If I may be so bold, I suggest a growth and defence partnership with our European neighbours—something I have spent a lot of time trying to fashion over the past few months. That would involve entry into the single market and a relationship with the EU’s customs union, which would restore and revive our relationship and solve many of the challenges that we have spoken about in the debate. I welcome this agreement, which protects sovereignty, Gibraltar’s economy and British strategic interests, and, above all, respects the wishes of the people of Gibraltar.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Draft Trade (Mobile Roaming) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I was recently in Iceland and have just been reviewing the text messages I received there. I am a customer of EE, which the Minister mentioned; I was told that I could enjoy up to 14 gigabytes of data abroad this month, in line with its fair usage policy. I take the Minister’s point that this is about wholesale charges, but as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge made clear, the consumer experience is already ahead of the wholesale cost in many ways. Although this change is incredibly welcome, I do not think that it will necessarily have a transformative effect on consumers, who have already experienced many of the benefits that the Minister talked about. I wonder whether this SI is indicative of a broader ambition to do more on roaming charges, and not just with EEA EFTA countries. I would like to hear a little more, if possible, about the Liechtenstein challenge, and about whether this approach may represent a model for wider expansion across the European Union.