Welcome to the Backbench Business Committee, which will consider only one application for a debate this afternoon. The request is for a debate on the building safety remediation of residential buildings, either in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall on a Tuesday or Thursday.

Thank you for listening to this application. It comes at a very significant time. We are rapidly approaching the ninth anniversary of the tragedy of Grenfell Tower, and we continue, frankly, to live with so many of the same issues that led to Grenfell still in society today. There are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people living in buildings that are just as dangerous today as Grenfell was in 2017. Some of the legislation and some of the protocols that have been brought in since then have not really helped. In fact, in some respects, they have just codified or crystallised the injustices that people face. I first became aware of the issue when a constituent of mine wrote to me to say that she was unable to sell her apartment because a fake EWS1 form had been issued to her by a fraudulent fire safety engineer. She was not able to sell her flat until the block and the housing association that had procured the EWS1 form went through another process. That is, sadly, a regular story that affects constituents up and down our country from the north of Scotland to the south of England. Many people do not even realise that they are sitting on what is effectively a ticking time bomb until they try to sell their apartment, which reveals the fraudulent nature of the EWS1 forms. There are several key issues. Some 1.3 million people live in buildings under 11 metres with flammable cladding, and they have received no protection from the changes in rules and regulations. We have a completely unregulated fire engineering marketplace. We have what I call the institutionalisation of tolerable risk under new regulations, such as PAS9980, which effectively allows assessors to redesignate flammable cladding as “tolerable” depending on other risks that they see in buildings, and we have a complete lack of data about the nature of high-rise buildings. There are so many issues that different MPs who participate in such a debate could bring. Judging by my inbox, constituents would really appreciate these concerns being aired, especially as we approach the ninth anniversary of Grenfell. We have to recognise that this is not now just a building safety issue, although it fundamentally is that. It is also about the mental torture that people are living in when they are stuck in one of these buildings, knowing that flammable cladding is attached to the outside but unable to sell. They live with daily anxiety. It is not just about cladding: it is also a housing justice issue, and a public health one too. I hope that the Committee will consider this a worthy application for a Backbench Business debate.

I declare an interest as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue. I had a meeting yesterday with the “fire doors lobby”. With a great group of people in the room, it was admitted that at the current rate of progress, it will be 30 years before all the buildings above 18 metres are inspected and the requisite remediation carried out. So I understand the need for the debate.

For transparency, my wife works for a housing association. Thank you for the presentation of your debate, Al. On the form, you have ticked both the Chamber and Westminster Hall, and you have provided a substantive motion for the Chamber. If the debate took place in Westminster Hall, it would have to be a general debate. Are you comfortable with that?

I would be comfortable with that. I recognise that time is precious and I do not want to appear too choosy. I would be very happy with that.

Do colleagues have any further questions?

It is always best to have that on the record. The Clerks will be in touch with you, Al, when time permits us to have the debate. Thank you.