My hon. Friend was a driving force behind that code of practice, and we are monitoring it actively. Anecdotally I am seeing fewer issues, although there are still some. I would be happy to receive from him and other Members of the House any information or evidence that suggests there is still a problem.

I want to see a good resolution for Leaseholders at the Mill. Our priority is finding a way to keep the residents safe in their homes and make sure unsafe cladding is remediated. The department are working at pace with the building’s Insolvency Practitioners, Ipswich Borough Council and Homes England to find solutions.

Like my hon. Friend, the Department and the Government want to see a resolution to the Mill, which is complex and challenging. We accept the points that he makes. I look forward to continue meeting with him, and we will try to find a positive resolution.

We intend to co-develop a Code of Practice for publication by the Summer, working with residents, the housing and construction sectors, and oversight bodies. The Code will set out the impact of remediation works on residents and provide guidance and support for industry on how to take account of residents' needs. The Code of Practice will also make clear to residents what they can expect during the remediation process.

Building owners are legally responsible for making sure their buildings are safe. Should the residents of an unsafe building need to be evacuated, the Government expects building owners to provide suitable alternative accommodation until residents can return home, at the building owner's expense.

Building owners do not have unqualified rights to evacuate their buildings. If a building owner needs to evacuate residents from a building, they must comply with the terms of the lease. If the building owner does not have express rights under the lease to evacuate a building, they must seek consent from the residents for the evacuation and we expect building owners to agree the terms for evacuating with residents before they leave.

Should a building owner unlawfully evacuate a building, residents may be entitled to damages from the building owner. The building owner may also be committing a criminal offence under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. Local authorities also have a legal duty to step in as a last resort and provide alternative accommodation should residents be at risk of becoming homeless.

In terms of Cardinal Lofts, the Department is closely monitoring the situation, and I am being kept updated. Officials have held meetings with Railpen (the owner of Grey GR), Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service and Ipswich Borough Council.

Officials have stressed the importance of residents being provided with temporary accommodation that meets their needs and have made clear that the Government expects this accommodation to be provided, at Railpen's expense, until residents can return home safely.

Remediation is vital to make buildings safe but we recognise that remediation projects can cause significant disruption to residents and negatively affect their welfare, in particular the wrapping of buildings whilst unsafe cladding is removed and replaced.

Fundamentally, building owners are responsible for making their buildings safe without delay, and decisions on the approach are down to them. As part of this they must ensure that works are taken forward efficiently in a way that minimises disruption to residents.

To that end, we are reviewing what expectations should be placed on those responsible for remediating unsafe buildings. We plan to work with the sector to develop a Code of Practice, taking account of residents' needs, with the intention of it being introduced later this year.

I am keen to continue to work with colleagues where there are concerns on this issue.

The Government are providing a significant amount of taxpayer subsidy to remediate cladding on high-rise residential buildings, 95% of buildings with unsafe ACM cladding have work under way or complete, and over £1.6 billion

has been allocated from the fund alongside a wider set of interventions to speed up resolution for those leaseholders who are impacted.

My hon. Friend is an absolute champion for the issues that his constituents have highlighted to him, and I had the privilege of accompanying him on a visit to one of those particular buildings—Cardinal Lofts—a few weeks ago. Building owners have a responsibility to remediate the buildings that they own, and they have access to funds with which they are able to do that. They should be ensuring that developers and other interested parties are followed up accordingly to make sure that the ultimate aim, which is to ensure that leaseholders are not impacted, is resolved as quickly as it can be.

From the outset of the Building Safety Fund, the Department has engaged industry to ensure sufficient capacity exists to meet demand and to have arrangements in place to address any blockages in the supply chain. We therefore provide direct expert support to Government funded projects, in the form of client side remediation advisors, and run a series of market engagements to highlight options and solutions to address challenges.

We publish data which shows when building remediation projects are starting on site and when they are complete. As these buildings vary in size, complexity and cladding type this means that the corresponding time to complete the projects also varies. We therefore monitor Government funded projects against the forecast start and completion dates submitted by building owners, taking action whenever these dates are at risk of slipping by involving expert support to help remove any blockages and maintain the pace of remediation.

Building owners must make their buildings safe without delay. It is unacceptable that some are deliberately holding up remediation works by refusing to sign legal agreements that allow Government funding to be released.

Regulatory bodies, the Secretary of State, and leaseholders have legal powers to compel building owners to fix their buildings. We are working with regulators to ensure that rogue building owners are held to account. The Department is already pursuing legal action against Grey GR, the owner of Vista Tower in Stevenage.

Building owners need to minimise the impact of remediation works on residents, and contractors undertaking work should consider carefully how to make work less disruptive and intrusive where possible, listening to residents of the buildings undergoing remediation. Secondary legislation under the Building Safety Act 2022 will include new legal requirements to share information with residents, and new rights for residents to request further information from building owners, including about remediation works.

Building owners must make their buildings safe without delay. It is unacceptable that some are deliberately holding up remediation works by refusing to sign legal agreements that allow Government funding to be released.

Regulatory bodies, the Secretary of State, and leaseholders have legal powers to compel building owners to fix their buildings. We are working with regulators to ensure that rogue building owners are held to account. The Department is already pursuing legal action against Grey GR, the owner of Vista Tower in Stevenage.

Building owners need to minimise the impact of remediation works on residents, and contractors undertaking work should consider carefully how to make work less disruptive and intrusive where possible, listening to residents of the buildings undergoing remediation. Secondary legislation under the Building Safety Act 2022 will include new legal requirements to share information with residents, and new rights for residents to request further information from building owners, including about remediation works.

The Government does not disclose the names and locations of individual buildings with unsafe cladding out of concerns for public safety. It should be noted that the owners of each of the affected buildings have been informed, who we expect will ensure that their residents are kept fully informed as part of their responsibilities.

The Government is making £1.6 billion available to support the remediation of unsafe cladding but this does not absolve building owners of their responsibility to ensure their buildings are safe. The remediation of over 50 per cent of privately owned high-rise residential buildings with unsafe Aluminium Composite Material (ACM) cladding will be paid for by building owners and developers, or through warranty or insurance claims - without passing the cost to residents and leaseholders. We expect building owners and developers to step up in a similar way for other kinds of unsafe cladding.

The Government has asked Michael Wade to accelerate work with leaseholders and the financial sector to develop proposals to protect leaseholders from unaffordable costs of remediating historic defects. The Government is determined to remove barriers to fixing historic defects and identify financing solutions that protect leaseholders from unaffordable costs; but we must also ensure that the bill does not fall on taxpayer. It is likely our solution will be a combination of options as there is no one quick fix. We will update leaseholders as soon as we can, and before the Building Safety Bill returns to Parliament.

For both the Private Sector ACM Fund and the Building Safety Fund applicants are required to demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable steps to recover the costs of replacing the unsafe cladding from those responsible through insurance claims, warranties and/or legal action. Where they are able to successfully recover damages relating to the removal and replacement of unsafe non-ACM cladding, Government will require building owners to repay any amounts recovered which relate to the removal and replacement of the unsafe cladding up to the amount provided through the funding.

The Government has committed £600 million for the removal and replacement of unsafe ACM cladding on high-rise residential buildings. Government intervention is wholly exceptional, and is based on the unparalleled fire risk ACM poses. We are aware of concerns leaseholders have about meeting the cost of remediation of fire safety issues other than ACM cladding remediation on high-rise buildings. Building safety is the responsibility of the building owner, and they should consider all routes to meet costs, protecting leaseholders where they can – for example through warranties and recovering costs from contractors for incorrect or poor work.