Grenfell Tower Fire/Fire Safety 5.12 pm The Secretary
of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on the
Government’s response to the Grenfell Tower tragedy and our safety
inspections of cladding in other buildings. I know that I
speak for the whole House when I express my...Request free trial
Grenfell Tower Fire/Fire Safety
5.12 pm
-
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
(Sajid Javid)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on the
Government’s response to the Grenfell Tower tragedy and our
safety inspections of cladding in other buildings.
I know that I speak for the whole House when I express my
heartfelt grief at the Grenfell Tower catastrophe. Almost a
fortnight has passed, but the shock has not subsided. I
have visited Kensington and witnessed the terrible anguish
of those who have lost so much. In some cases, people have
lost literally everything. I am sure that, like me, many
hon. Members have returned from their constituencies today
with the anger and the fears of residents still ringing in
their ears. It is anger that a tragedy on this scale was
ever allowed to happen in 21st century Britain, and fear
that it could happen again. It is this fear that I want to
address first.
I know that the entire country is anxious to hear what we
are doing to reassure residents about fire safety in
similar blocks around the country. My Department has
contacted all councils and housing associations in England
to identify all tall residential buildings with potentially
similar cladding that they are responsible for. We estimate
that number to be around 600. On 18 June, we wrote to those
councils and housing associations and asked them to start
sending samples. On 21 June, our combustibility testing
programme for aluminium composite material started. It is
run by the Building Research Establishment—BRE. On 22 June,
the Government provided advice to all these landlords about
interim safety measures where a building has ACM cladding
that is unlikely to be compliant with building regulations.
This advice was recommended by an independent panel of
experts and includes advice based on the emerging findings
from the Metropolitan police investigation into Grenfell
Tower.
I can inform the House that, as of midday today, the
cladding from 75 high-rise buildings in 26 local authority
areas has failed the combustibility test. Members will
rightly want to know whether their residents are affected,
and my Department will publish regular updates on gov.uk.
The combustibility test has three categories rated 1 to 3,
and it is judged that cladding material in category 2 or 3
does not meet the requirements on limited combustibility
within building regulations. I can also confirm to the
House that, so far, on that basis, all samples of cladding
tested have failed. The fact that all samples so far have
failed underlines the value of the testing programme and
the vital importance of submitting samples urgently.
The testing facility can analyse 100 samples a day and runs
around the clock. I am concerned about the speed at which
samples are being submitted. I urge all landlords to submit
their samples immediately. Landlords and local fire and
rescue services are alerted to every failed test, and we
are supporting and monitoring all follow-up action,
including by dedicated caseworkers in my Department.
Landlords for all affected buildings have informed, or are
informing, tenants and are implementing the interim safety
measures needed, working with fire and rescue services. At
this time, the safety of people living in these buildings
is our paramount concern. I am determined that residents
have as much peace of mind as possible in such worrying
times. Landlords must keep residential buildings safe for
their tenants. Where they cannot satisfy that obligation
with appropriate mitigating measures, we expect alternative
accommodation to be provided while the remedial work is
carried out. That is exactly what happened in Camden, and I
pay tribute to the residents for their brave response to
such a distressing situation.
It is obvious that the problem of unsafe cladding may not
be unique to social housing or residential buildings. We
have asked other owners, landlords and managers of private
sector residential blocks to consider their own buildings,
and we have made the testing facility freely available to
them. My Department is also working with the Government
Property Unit to oversee the checks on wider public sector
buildings. Hospitals are well prepared. Each one has a
tailored fire safety plan, but nothing is more important
than the safety of patients and staff, so, on a
precautionary basis, we have asked all hospitals to conduct
additional checks.
The Government will continue to work closely with fire and
rescue colleagues to prioritise and conduct checks based on
local circumstances. The Education and Skills Funding
Agency is contacting all bodies responsible for safety in
schools, instructing them to carry out immediate checks to
identify any buildings that require further investigation.
We will have more information this week.
Across the wider Government estate, 15 buildings have been
identified as requiring further investigation. While that
work continues, it is vital that we offer every assistance
to the victims of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. As of this
morning, 79 people have been confirmed dead or listed as
missing, presumed dead. Sadly, it is believed that this
number will increase.
As the Prime Minister told the House last week, the initial
response of the emergency services was exemplary, but the
immediate support on the ground was simply not good enough.
A remarkable community effort sprang up overnight while
official support was found wanting. That failure was
inexcusable, and it is right that a new team and approach
is now in operation. We have activated the Bellwin scheme
and sent significant central Government resource, including
a single point of access into Government provided by the
Grenfell Tower victims unit, operating from my Department.
Staff from six Departments are offering support at the
Westway assistance centre and a family bereavement centre
in Holborn.
The Government have also set aside £5 million for the
Grenfell Tower residents discretionary fund, with more than
£1 million already distributed. Each household affected is
receiving £5,500 to provide some immediate assistance, and
so far 111 households have received payments. The British
Red Cross is operating an advice line for anyone affected
or in need of support. It is just one of many charities,
faith organisations and businesses that have provided
invaluable assistance to victims. I can announce to the
House today that the Government will contribute £1 million
to support their efforts. That money will be new money. It
will be distributed to a local consortium of charities,
trusts and foundations that are working together to respond
to this tragic event.
Our other priority has been to find survivors a safe and
secure place to live. The Prime Minister made a clear
commitment that a good-quality temporary home would be
offered within three weeks to every family whose home was
destroyed in the fire. Every one of those families will
also be offered a permanent social home in the local area.
That work is under way and the first families moved into
their homes over the weekend. Last week I also announced
that the Government had secured 68 homes in a new
development in Kensington to rehouse local residents. We
will do everything we can to support the victims of the
Grenfell Tower fire, now and in the future, and I will
regularly update the House on our progress.
As the Prime Minister said in her statement to the House
last week, the disaster at Grenfell Tower should never have
happened. There is an ongoing police investigation and
there will be an independent, judge-led public inquiry to
get to the truth of what happened and who was responsible.
Building regulations and the system for ensuring fire
safety in buildings have been developed over many decades.
Until the Grenfell Tower fire, many experts would have
claimed that that system had served us well. But now we
have witnessed a catastrophic failure, on a scale that many
thought impossible in 21st century Britain. It is clear
that that failure must be understood and rectified without
delay, and the Government are determined to ensure that
happens. As an initial step, I can inform the House today
that I am establishing an independent expert advisory panel
to advise the Government on any steps that should
immediately be taken on fire safety. Further details about
the panel, including its members, will be released shortly.
This tragedy must never be forgotten. It should weigh
heavily on the consciousness of every person tasked with
making decisions that ensure that it can never, ever happen
again.
5.21 pm
-
(Wentworth and Dearne)
(Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his
statement, and for what he has told the House. As he has
said, the shock from this truly terrible, tragic fire at
Grenfell Tower has not subsided, and neither has the fear.
As the Prime Minister said in her statement last week, the
Government’s response, both national and local, was not
good enough in the early days. Nationally, it is still not
good enough. Hundreds of residents of Grenfell Tower and
their relatives are still struggling to keep their lives
going in the face of this gravest loss, and hundreds of
thousands of residents in 4,000 other tower blocks across
the country are still wondering whether their homes are
safe, worried about sleeping at night and want to know what
the Government are doing to ensure their safety.
Trust is so low in the local community around Grenfell
Tower that I welcome the local gold command leadership. I
welcome the key workers who are in place to provide each
household with support and advice, and I welcome the £1
million paid so far in immediate assistance payments.
However, the Secretary of State has made a promise to
rehouse all Grenfell Tower residents in the local area
within three weeks. It is now nearly a fortnight since the
fire. How many people are covered by that pledge? Two weeks
on, is it correct that 370 households are still in
emergency accommodation? How many have so far been found
permanent new homes, or even the “good-quality temporary”
homes mentioned by the Secretary of State? By what date
will all residents affected by the fire be in a permanent
new home? Finally, as those residents move, will the
Government guarantee that the children will still be
eligible to attend their same schools?
More widely, Ministers talk too loosely about the buildings
that have been tested so far. The Prime Minister said last
week:
“We can test more than 100 buildings a day”.—[Official
Report, 22 June 2017; Vol. 626, c. 169.]
Will the Secretary of State make it clear to the House that
the Government’s “testing” is only of cladding samples sent
in by councils and housing associations? The Government say
that more than 600 tower blocks with cladding need safety
checks, so why, five days into the programme, have only 75
tests been done so far? Why have all failed? Importantly,
will he confirm that cladding is just not the whole story?
We know this from both coroners’ reports in 2013, into the
Lakanal House and Shirley Towers fires. We may well find
that from investigations into Grenfell Tower, as the fire
there broke into almost every floor of the building.
We need from Ministers a much more thorough review of fire
safety in all the country’s residential tower blocks, a
total commitment to action to deal with any problems, and a
guarantee that the Government will help to fund the costs.
That also applies to other public buildings such as schools
and hospitals, over which similar doubts may hang.
The issue of costs is crucial because some significant work
and alterations have to be done, and quickly. Will the
Secretary of State make funding available up front—not
after the event through the Bellwin scheme—for any council
or housing association that needs it for recladding or the
installation of sprinklers and other fire prevention
measures, starting with the highest-risk high-rise blocks
and those with sheltered accommodation? Will he lift the
central cap that he currently places on local authorities’
housing so that they can borrow and invest to ensure that
their residents are safe?
I welcome the independent expert advisory panel, but
frankly the Secretary of State is wrong to say that many
experts would claim that our buildings regulation and fire
safety system serves us well. Many experts have said
exactly the opposite, especially since the two coroners’
reports four years ago into previous tower block fires.
Will he now act on the recommendations in those reports?
There really should be a triple fire safety lock around
buildings and works on them. First, the materials must be
fit for purpose and meet safety specifications. Secondly,
fire safety systems must be in place and fire risk
assessments done regularly. Thirdly, building regulation
and control must make sure that design, construction and
any further works are fully safe. Instead, the update that
the Secretary of State has given us this afternoon suggests
a collapse of the fire safety control and check system. It
is not working and it must change.
Finally, what is the Secretary of State doing to make sure
that when the Prime Minister said that we simply had not
given enough attention to social housing in this country,
those were not merely empty words? What is he doing to make
sure that this terrible tragedy at Grenfell Tower means a
profound change of course on housing in this country?
-
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments—in
particular, his support for Gold Command and the relief
effort on the ground in Kensington.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of specific
questions. I can give him some updated numbers on rehousing
the victims of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. The commitment
that we have rightly made is that every single one of the
families whose homes have been destroyed—both at Grenfell
Tower and in the neighbouring Grenfell Walk: together, some
144 units—are guaranteed an offer within three weeks of
temporary housing in the local neighbourhood; we have
defined “the local neighbourhood” as Kensington and
Chelsea, but also the neighbouring boroughs.
So far, some 373 hotel rooms are being occupied; that
represents 153 households from Grenfell Tower and Grenfell
Walk and 220 households from the cordon area. Individual
housing assessments have been done for almost all those
from Grenfell Tower and Grenfell Walk; the work is led by
Westminster City Council, with support from a number of
other councils across London. If any have not been done,
that has been through choice: people have asked that their
assessment be delayed because they are not ready. We are,
of course, respecting their wishes. In respect of those
whose assessments have been done, there have already been
59 offers of temporary accommodation.
As I am sure hon. Members will understand, we are finding
that some families want to take their time to make a
decision on the temporary accommodation. In a number of
instances, some of the families have quite understandably
first asked for something in Kensington as close as
possible to where they lived, but when they have been shown
the home and seen what is left of the tower they have
understandably changed their minds and asked for some other
options. We are working with them at their pace. Our
commitment is that they will all be made offers within the
three weeks, although they will not all necessarily be in
the temporary accommodation within that time. We have to
respect their choice when they are made offers. If they
change their minds, we want to accommodate that.
The other issue is that some families actually doubted us
when we said that the initial accommodation is temporary.
One family I met in the Westway Centre on Friday said,
perfectly understandably, “How do we know temporary is
temporary? How do we know that you’re not just going to
leave us there and not find us better quality, more
suitable and permanent accommodation?” When I probed a bit
further, the family said they were told that Grenfell Tower
would be temporary accommodation when they first moved in,
but they were still there 17 years later, so I absolutely
understand their concerns. In that case, I had to make a
personal commitment to that family. That worked; they are
now in temporary accommodation. We want to work with each
family at their pace to get them what they deserve and need
as best we can.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the testing
facilities. I can confirm that the testing facility
operated by the Building Research Establishment is testing
the cladding material only. That is so important because,
besides the whole building structure, the material itself
has to meet minimum combustibility standards. The test
tries to achieve that. So far, 75 tests on samples have
taken place and all 75 have failed.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s statement that
cladding is not the whole story, as it goes much further
than that. One example is what has happened in Camden. The
result of the cladding test for Camden triggered further
investigations by the local fire service and the London
fire commissioners. When the commissioners went into those
tower blocks in Camden, they found, in their own words,
multiple fire safety inspection failures, which, frankly,
should not have happened in tower blocks of any type, and
certainly not in those tower blocks in Camden. There were
problems with gas pipe insulation, some stairways were not
accessible and there were breaches of internal walls. Most
astonishingly, literally hundreds of fire doors were
missing. Camden Council itself estimates that it needs at
least 1,000 fire doors because they were missing from those
five blocks. That has nothing to do with the cladding.
Something has clearly gone drastically wrong there. These
issues need to be looked at very carefully to find out why
this is happening in this day and age in our country.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about costs. We have been
very clear that local authorities and housing associations
must not hesitate at all. As soon as they learn about any
action and necessary steps that they need to take to ensure
public safety in terms of fire risk, they must take that
action. If they are not able to pay for that themselves, we
will of course work with them and put a financial support
package in place with the individual organisation.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about what more we can do
now. I am sure that he understands that we can do some
things now in this immediate and urgent situation, but that
there are also longer-term lessons to learn. Some will come
from the public inquiry, but we cannot wait for the final
results of that inquiry. Hopefully —it is up to the
judge—there will be an interim report, but work can be done
much sooner than that. That is one reason that I am putting
the independent expert panel in place, and I would be very
happy for the right hon. Gentleman to meet and have access
to that panel.
The right hon. Gentleman’s final point was about social
housing. I absolutely agree that there are very big lessons
to learn about the quantity and quality of social housing.
There has been massive investment of record amounts in
social housing over the past six years. More than 330,000
new units have been created, and more council housing has
been built in the past six years than in the 13 years
before that. We can do a lot more, but it is much better if
we work together.
-
Mr Speaker
There will be no more tragic matter treated of in this
House in this Parliament than that which is before us now,
in consequence of which I want every Member who wishes to
contribute to the exchanges to have the opportunity to do
so. It might, however, help the House if I point out that
there are a would-be 52 contributors in the debate to come.
As a result, there is a premium upon brevity from Back and
Front Benchers alike, now to be brilliantly exemplified by
the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr
Duncan Smith).
-
Mr (Chingford and
Woodford Green) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for the action he is taking,
the urgency with which he is seeing this process through
and the way he wants to drive it through, but to return to
the points raised by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman,
there is one issue we need to revisit in parallel and to
get on with as fast as we can. My main concern is that, as
we look at the cladding and all the other issues, such as
the windows in these tower blocks, which can explode into
flames if they are made of the wrong type of glass—that is
often overlooked among the other things, such as the fire
doors—we should really ask ourselves the simple question,
and have a real review into, whether it is necessary any
longer in many cases to have these older tower blocks, and
whether we would not be better off taking a very strong
decision to bring some of these tower blocks down and to
provide much better, much more family-friendly low-rise, or
even council house, accommodation. Will my right hon.
Friend comment on that?
-
I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks— he makes a
very good point. Our most urgent work right now is to make
existing tower blocks safe, but there are also longer term
consequences, and that includes looking at our whole
approach to social housing and the quality of social
housing.
-
(Glasgow Central)
(SNP)
I would like to take this opportunity to extend my
sympathies and those of the SNP to those who have been
affected by the Grenfell Tower tragedy and those who face
worry as they wonder about their accommodation tonight. I
am glad to see the proposal to give funds to local
charities, which is very welcome, but I would like to ask a
few more questions on the statement.
First, will there be funding from central Government for
mitigating measures and alternative accommodation where
local authorities face expensive remedial work? That work
may take a significant time, and residents will need to be
housed and perhaps compensated during that period. Will
there also be additional funding for the fire service,
which was clearly not able to carry out fire safety work
on, for example, the blocks the Secretary of State
mentioned in Camden?
Will the tenancy agreements for those moved into temporary
and more permanent accommodation be equivalent to, or
better than, the tenancy agreements they had in Grenfell
Tower?
It was clear—the Minister’s response acknowledged this—that
the official response was not good enough, although I make
these points in the spirit of helpfulness and not in any
way on a party political basis. In Scotland and in Glasgow,
we have a well-developed resilience strategy involving all
local authority bodies. Will the Secretary of State look at
the way it is implemented at local government level? Will
he also look at how building regulations in Scotland
compare with building regulations in England?
Is it possible to have Scottish representatives on the
advisory panel the Secretary of State mentioned, so that
they can share some of that experience and that different
approach? Lastly, the Scottish Government have already
established a short-term ministerial working group on
building in fire safety. Will there be a means for it to
report to the inquiry?
-
I thank the hon. Lady for all her important points and
questions. On funding, we have made it clear that all the
local authorities and housing associations absolutely must
do all the necessary work, and we will work with each of
them to make sure they have the funding they need if
funding is preventing them from doing that work.
On the tenancy agreements for the Grenfell Tower and
Grenfell Walk residents, the terms will be the same or
better, whatever housing they eventually receive—whether it
is temporary or permanent.
On Scotland, the hon. Lady made a good point. Scotland has
already identified around 500 high-rise buildings with
cladding, but none of them has ACM cladding. Scottish
building regulations certainly deserve a closer look, and
as we do a wider review, we should certainly take that into
account.
-
Mr (Forest of Dean)
(Con)
The most worrying thing in the Secretary of State’s
statement was when he said that none of the examples of
cladding so far had met the requirements in the building
regulations but had clearly been fitted to buildings. May I
urge him to make that the first thing he asks his
independent expert advisory panel to look at? If we have
widespread non-compliance with existing building
regulations, that is the most urgent thing we need to deal
with to prevent a recurrence of this tragedy elsewhere in
the country.
-
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. That is a very
urgent question that is already being looked at. Once we
have the independent panel established, which will be from
tomorrow morning, that is one of the first things it will
be tasked with.
-
(Kensington)
(Lab)
I have heard some very ill-informed comments about tower
blocks here. As the only architecture expert in the House,
as far as I know, I am happy to give a lecture about the
safety of well-maintained tower blocks. Concrete-framed
tower blocks are safer than Victorian terraces, for
example. But that is for another day.
I have heard this morning, shockingly, that people who have
concerns about their immigration status or lack of
documentation are still not coming forward, and are
sleeping rough, and some have been told that they may not
be eligible for housing and medical services, and may be
reported to the Home Office. Will the Secretary of State
please make a firm commitment now, and communicate it
widely, that immigration status will not be a barrier to
help from medical and housing services, and nor will they
be reported to the Home Office, so that traumatised and
frightened people have no fear in coming forward?
-
First, I thank the hon. Lady for the reassurance that she
has been providing to her constituents, many of whom are
looking for support from across Government and elsewhere.
She has been a very reassuring figure locally, and I thank
her for that.
On her particular question on immigration, I can absolutely
give her that assurance. We have already made it clear that
any information that anyone coming forward provides either
to Government or local government will not be used for any
kind of immigration check. That has been put in a letter
that has been given to every affected family. If the hon.
Lady has some further suggestions about how we can get that
message out, as I think we should follow up on those, I
would be very happy to listen.
-
(Faversham and Mid
Kent) (Con)
I welcome the rapid pace of testing of the cladding. It is
shocking to hear that so many tower blocks are unsafe. We
have heard about the situation in Camden, where tower
blocks are being evacuated. Does my right hon. Friend
expect other councils to manage evacuations of tower
blocks?
-
Thankfully, no other councils have come forward so far with
a need to have an evacuation. There are many more tests to
take place, so I do not want to prejudge them, but
hopefully what has happened in Camden will be a rare
occurrence. As I said earlier, in the case of Camden, in
particular, the cladding was a trigger for further fire
safety inspections, but it was the massive failure of those
further fire safety inspections that caused the evacuation.
-
(Hampstead and Kilburn)
(Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for rightly commending the
bravery of the 3,000 residents who were evacuated from
their homes in my constituency on Friday. In the past few
days, residents have repeatedly brought up the closure of
Belsize fire station, which was 500 metres away from the
tower block in question. Will the Secretary of State give
his support to reopening Belsize fire station, which was
closed by the former Mayor of London in 2014, so that my
residents can feel safe in their homes again?
-
Of course, local fire and rescue services must have the
resources that they need, but in the assessment that was
done with Camden in recent days, there is nothing to
suggest that that was the issue that might have led to an
evacuation. As the hon. Lady is rightly concerned about her
constituents, I am sure that she will be hugely concerned
with what has come out of the fire inspection report on the
towers in Camden, particularly the issue around the fire
doors. I am focusing my efforts right now on making sure
that Camden can get all that remedial work done, with
significant help from Government to ensure that those fire
doors are in place as soon as possible.
-
(Mid Worcestershire)
(Con)
Regrettably, it would appear that unsafe cladding is
widespread. It exists where there are Labour councils,
Conservative councils, and councils of other colours; it
was put up during Labour Administrations and Conservative
Administrations. Does the Secretary of State share my
concern and regret, therefore, to hear some party
politicisation of this tragedy, and hope that we can all
work together across parties to make sure that it never
happens again?
-
I agree very much with my hon. Friend. As I said in my
statement, clearly some things have gone drastically and
catastrophically wrong. It has happened over a number of
decades. If we are going to put that right, we can do it if
we all work together.
-
Mr (Coventry
North West) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State inform us whether any samples
of cladding have been received from Coventry for
evaluation? Has he taken up with the Chancellor of the
Exchequer the question of making money available from the
central Treasury contingency fund, which is usually very
large and was established precisely for this sort of
disaster?
-
I will first attend to the question about Coventry. As I
have said, 26 local authority areas have done tests that
are public, but not all of them have told the residents of
their respective towers. Coventry is not on the list of
those that have gone public. I assure the right hon.
Gentleman that, if Coventry were one of those, it would
contact its local MPs individually. On funding, local
authorities also have reserves for unforeseen
circumstances. Some local authorities will certainly want
to use their reserves.
-
Mrs (Basingstoke)
(Con)
May I commend my right hon. Friend for his extensive
statement to the House? All our thoughts must still be with
those affected by these dreadful events. I welcome the
systemic testing of cladding material. What would be the
legal ramifications if landlords failed to make use of that
service or, indeed, to ensure that their property is safe?
Secondly, does my right hon. Friend agree that local
authorities should review the use of high-rise
accommodation for disabled and very elderly people?
-
Let me start by addressing my right hon. Friend’s final
point about disabled and very elderly people. Of course,
special circumstances will be required in situations such
as evacuation in case of fire. That should certainly be
taken into account by local fire services looking at those
buildings and carrying out a further inspection. On the
legal ramifications, if a landlord does not submit
something for testing when there is good reason to do so,
it is the legal responsibility of every landlord in the
country, whether the property is social or private, to make
sure that it is safe in every way for tenants, and there
will certainly be action.
-
(Poplar and
Limehouse) (Lab)
Although I welcome the announcement about an independent
expert advisory panel, the Government have historically had
the Building Regulations Advisory Committee. It has not met
for five years, but it sounds as though the independent
advisory panel will do the same job. What is the difference
between the two?
-
First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the work he has done
over a number of years to promote fire safety. He has
secured this evening’s Adjournment debate, to which my hon.
Friend the Minister of State, Department for Communities
and Local Government, will respond. I am sure that will
enable the hon. Gentleman to further explore his question
and others. In the light of the tragedy, this particular
panel will possibly have a broader remit, and its
membership might also be broader, including through taking
on international experience.
-
Ms (Wealden) (Con)
The horror of Grenfell Tower will remain with victims and
their families and friends for generations. Will my right
hon. Friend expand on the role of the victims unit, in
particular the work it is doing with children who have lost
a parent and those adults who have lost the
English-speaking member of their family?
-
The victims unit, which is now based in my Department, has
a number of officials from at least six Departments. The
idea is that if any victim, family member or friend has any
issue that central Government can help with—it might relate
to immigration, tax and benefits or housing—they would have
to deal with only one individual, making it much easier for
them.
-
Sir (Kingston and Surbiton)
(LD)
I am grateful for the statement and share the Secretary of
State’s grief, anxiety and shock at the Grenfell Tower
catastrophe. When tower blocks fail fire safety tests, and
when urgent mitigating measures cannot be done to make
those buildings safe, what he has said to date does not
reassure many Members, because local authorities and
housing associations will need funding support to help them
provide new housing for those residents affected. What
consideration has been given to declaring this a civil
emergency, so that central Government funds can be provided
to housing associations and local authorities trying to
rehouse local residents?
-
I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that funding is already
being provided by central Government in certain
circumstances. We have made it clear that if there is an
issue and the remedial work to make a property safe cannot
be done immediately, as was the case in Camden, the local
authority should not hesitate but should take action
immediately, regardless of cost, to make residents safe.
When the local authority needs funding support, we will
work with it and provide that support.
-
(Witney) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his full and detailed
statement. I am sure that all Members on both sides of the
House are united in their determination that the horrific
events at Grenfell will never happen again. I am enormously
encouraged by the announcement that there will be a full
public inquiry. Will the Secretary of State give a
commitment that that inquiry will not be allowed to drag
and that it will happen as soon as possible? We need
answers, and quickly.
-
My hon. Friend refers to the public inquiry that was
announced by the Prime Minister last week. It will be a
judge-led fully independent inquiry. We should not prejudge
the terms of the inquiry because they will be set by the
judge. The issue of timing is important, but it is also
important to ensure that the victims are properly
represented, as the Prime Minister has promised that they
will be.
-
(Normanton, Pontefract
and Castleford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State referred to cladding but not to
insulation. He will know that the police and the fire
service have raised serious concerns about the way in which
the insulation spread the fire at Grenfell Tower. What is
being done about insulation? Is it now time to require that
insulation materials are tested as well? Will there be
transparency about what insulation materials were used in
Grenfell Tower, and should those materials be banned in
tower blocks and other properties?
-
The right hon. Lady is right to raise that issue, and the
police report on Grenfell Tower rightly focuses on it. I
will not say anything more about Grenfell Tower, as it is
important that I do not get involved in that, but, more
broadly, it is possible that a test could show that
cladding was category 1, which is the correct type, but
that the insulation was the wrong type. Since the police
report, we have worked with the Local Government
Association to update the advice that is going to local
councils. We are looking at what is the best way to respond
and to ensure that insulation is also looked at properly.
-
(North West
Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that this
tragedy has been politicised so heavily by senior members
of the Labour party? How long does he think the public
inquiry will take to come to conclusions? Is there any
evidence that the panelling has been used in countries
other than ours?
-
What the public want to see—this is what they are seeing
today in this Chamber—is everyone working together. The
timing of the public inquiry will be up to the judge, but
it is hoped that the judge might see fit to produce an
interim report that we can act on much more quickly.
-
(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Green)
I want to press the Secretary of State a little further on
funding for local authorities. Most of them do not have
vast reserves but are struggling with 40% funding cuts.
There is still not sufficient clarity on exactly where and
when the Government will step forward with funding. It is
needed not only for places that need sprinklers and to get
rid of cladding but, crucially, for rehousing. Will he say
exactly what the national Government will fund?
-
I can only repeat what I said earlier: whether it is
removing cladding, taking other necessary action to improve
the fire safety of buildings or rehousing, local
authorities should get on with it, just like in Camden. The
first thought there was not, “How exactly are we going to
fund this?” The council rightly got on with action and made
the tenants safe. The Government will then work with those
local authorities that cannot afford that to provide
necessary support.
-
(Croydon Central)
(Lab)
As someone who previously worked for Shelter, may I thank
that organisation and all the other charitable
organisations that are working so hard in the constituency
to do what they can for the victims of the Grenfell Tower
fire? What is the Government’s timeline to rehouse all the
displaced Grenfell survivors from temporary accommodation
into long-term, stable homes in their local community?
-
Mr Speaker
We welcome the hon. Lady to the House and look forward to
her bringing the benefit of her experience in that and
other sectors to our deliberations.
-
On the timeline, the offer of temporary accommodation will
be made within three weeks. On permanent accommodation, we
have already found a number of units. Some people are
starting to look at them, and my expectation is that we can
hopefully do that within months and move very quickly, as
long as that is what the tenants want. I, too, welcome the
hon. Lady’s experience at Shelter. She may be aware that
Shelter is giving tremendous help on the ground in
Kensington to a lot of the tenants who have concerns over
whether temporary really means temporary, and I hugely
welcome that.
-
Mr (Sheffield South East)
(Lab)
On funding, basically the Secretary of State has said that
the Government will work with local authorities and housing
associations to provide funding if they cannot afford to
carry out the work. Will he explain precisely what that
means and what criteria he will use? Is it not
fundamentally wrong to expect other social housing tenants
to pay for this work through either increased rents or less
maintenance of their properties? Will the Government bring
forward a comprehensive finance package that provides not
merely increased borrowing for organisations, but the
actual cash to pay for this work?
-
The hon. Gentleman will know that, as we speak, it is a
legal requirement for local authorities and housing
associations that they ensure that the homes they offer to
tenants are fit for habitation. They should be meeting
those requirements already. I gave the example of Camden;
it should already have been meeting those requirements.
Despite that, if authorities and associations are not able
to do that from their current resources, they should get on
with the job and meet those requirements, and we will work
with them and give them the support they need.
-
(Vale of Clwyd)
(Lab)
It is good to be back, Mr Speaker.
, the Assembly Member for
the Vale of Clwyd, has brought forward her own legislation
to introduce sprinklers in all new-build houses in Wales. I
am a firm believer in the dictum that out of badness comes
good. What happened at Grenfell Tower was bad—it was a
tragedy. Can we use this disaster to open a complete review
of fire safety across the UK, not just on the issue of
cladding, but on insulation, containment, emergency
lighting and especially sprinkler systems, and for not just
high towers but other vulnerable housing, such as houses of
multiple occupation?
-
As I said in my statement, there will certainly be a need
for a complete review across the UK.
-
Ms (Westminster North)
(Lab)
Approximately one in three properties in Westminster towers
are leaseholds and I am sure the same is true for other
blocks. Does the Secretary of State have the power to
require leaseholders to install fire doors and other
internal fire safety measures? If not, what is he going to
do about it and who is going to pay?
-
The hon. Lady raises a very important point. This is often
the case, although not exclusively. Many leaseholders have
removed fire doors, which is clearly not acceptable. I
believe that all the legal powers are in place. Certainly,
one of the lessons of this tragedy—this is certainly what
we have seen in Camden—is to make sure we take a much
greater interest in enforcement.
-
(Derby North)
(Lab)
The Secretary of State said in his statement, “Landlords
must keep residential buildings safe for their tenants.”
The experts all agree that sprinklers save lives.
Sympathetic words are simply not good enough. Fitting
sprinklers would cost far less than the deal the Government
have stitched together with the DUP. Let us have no more
excuses. What is more important to the Secretary of State:
clinging to power or preventing fire deaths?
-
When the local fire and rescue service recommends
sprinklers, they should be installed.
-
(Eltham) (Lab)
Was the Secretary of State’s Department aware of the fire
at the Lacrosse tower in Melbourne in 2014? It had cladding
similar to that at Grenfell Tower. What lessons did the
Department for Communities and Local Government learn from
that fire? Should it not have prompted a review of the
cladding of tower blocks in this country?
-
The important point that the hon. Gentleman highlights is
that we can benefit from international experience, whether
that comes from Australia, Europe or elsewhere. That is
certainly one thing we should look at as we learn the
lessons.
-
(Bristol West)
(Lab)
The Secretary of State will be familiar with tower blocks
in my constituency. I would like him to explain now why he
will not simply use this opportunity to pay for the
sprinkler systems that were recommended by the coroner
after the Lakanal House fire.
-
It is important that we are clear on this. The coroner did
not say in her 2013 report that all high-rise buildings
should have sprinklers; she said that they should be
considered where they are appropriate.
-
(Birmingham, Yardley)
(Lab)
I want to follow on from the point made about immigration
status by my very welcome hon. Friend the Member for
Kensington (Emma Dent Coad). Having worked with people with
a very fragile immigration status who have suffered a
trauma, I know that until people have a stable immigration
status, they will never feel safe to speak out. The
Secretary of State asks what we can do. We could give those
people a message today that we will fast-track them for
indefinite leave to remain, with access to public funds, so
that they can go through the inquiry without fear or
favour. Will he agree to that?
-
It is a very important point. I think we can show
appropriate sensitivity to victims who feel that they have
challenges with their immigration status and treat them
more favourably.
-
(Newport West) (Lab)
Public inquiries are slow, lumbering instruments of change,
as we found with the Chilcot report and the Savile inquiry,
which took nearly a decade. Will the Secretary of State
give an assurance that we will not wait until we have
inquiry reports for remedies, but that as soon as remedies
are obvious and required, we will act instantly, because
the danger is so high and the anxieties are so widespread?
-
I absolutely agree.
-
(Birmingham, Erdington)
(Lab)
The Secretary of State is right that profound lessons need
to be learned from this tragedy, such as why fire service
checks on high-rise blocks have been cut by 25% since 2010,
but in the here and now, urgent action is necessary. There
are 10,000 households in 213 tower blocks in Birmingham
where rightly anxious tenants want action. Birmingham City
Council has pledged that it will retrofit sprinklers to all
those blocks. That will cost £31 million, but the council
is suffering the biggest cuts in local government history
and therefore urgently needs Government support. May I
therefore ask for a straight yes-or-no answer? Will the
Secretary of State guarantee that Birmingham City Council
can go ahead and carry out that work, and that it will be
refunded in full?
-
Birmingham City Council, like every other council, has a
legal responsibility to its social tenants, so it should do
whatever it believes is necessary. As I have said before,
if there is an issue with funding for necessary works, we
will provide the support.
-
(Cardiff South and
Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
May I praise the swift response of the Welsh Government and
Cardiff Council in responding to the concerns of residents
in Cardiff South and Penarth, which has more than 14,000
apartment units, and urge Vale of Glamorgan Council to come
up with some answers as soon as possible?
Will the Secretary of State look at the issue of estate
management companies? I have seen very variable records of
action on fire safety and response to concerns across many
privately owned tower blocks in my constituency. Quite
frankly, some of them are not living up to their
responsibilities in terms of staffing, resourcing and
looking at issues such as fire door, sprinkler and fire
alarm safety.
-
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. One of the
lessons from this tragedy and what we are learning now is
that we should look at the private sector much more
carefully, including estate management companies.
-
(Stockton North)
(Lab)
Thirteen Group owns most of the social housing across
Teesside. It paid for fire-retardant and non-toxic cladding
for the balconies at Kennedy Gardens in Billingham in my
constituency but ended up with flammable, toxic material,
which is now being removed. One thing was paid for and
another dangerous alternative was provided. Does the
Secretary of State agree that frauds such as those ought to
be investigated and those responsible prosecuted?
-
I agree 100%.
-
(Hammersmith)
(Lab)
The Secretary of State said nothing about the cause of the
fire. I realise that product safety is a matter for the
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy,
but given that this is his statement, will he say when the
tests of the fridge-freezer model that caused the fire will
be complete, whether other fires have been caused by this
model and whether he will immediately change the advice
that owners of this model can continue to use it, pending
the outcome of the tests?
-
I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the
Business Secretary and his Department are speaking to not
just the manufacturer of the fridge-freezer concerned with
regard to Grenfell Tower but a number of other
manufacturers of white goods, some of which already have
products on recall. The pace of recall is, frankly, far too
slow, and my right hon. Friend is taking that very
seriously.
-
(Dulwich and West
Norwood) (Lab)
Between 2010 and 2015, the Department for Communities and
Local Government reduced its staff capacity by a higher
proportion than any other Department—almost 40%. As a
member of the Communities and Local Government Committee in
the previous Parliament, I saw that in many areas the
Department is clearly very stretched. Will the Secretary of
State confirm that the number of staff in the Department is
being increased, so that it can co-ordinate the national
response to all aspects of the Grenfell Tower tragedy in an
efficient and timely manner, including providing emergency
support to any council that requests it?
-
Yes, it is being increased.
-
(Bristol East)
(Lab)
I want to echo what colleagues have said about the need for
certainty on funding coming into councils. As the Secretary
of State will know, Bristol is facing £104 million of cuts
over the next few years. We need to know whether we have to
make other cuts. May I press him on a couple of changes
that would help us to raise our own finance? One is
scrapping the annual rent reduction rule, and the other is
allowing us to spend all right-to-buy receipts on new
housing, which would free up other money for investment.
Will he talk to Bristol City Council about being able to do
those two things, which would help us to pay for this work
ourselves?
-
In the light of the pressures on local authorities, it
would make sense to look carefully at policies that may
help them to meet some of the challenges, and that is
something we have already started doing.
-
(Lewisham, Deptford)
(Lab)
Last week, the Prime Minister informed us that the DCLG
would write to us with an update on safety tests of all
tower blocks. There are 63 tower blocks in Lewisham,
Deptford, but I have yet to receive any information,
despite writing to the Minister and requesting the promised
update. Will the Secretary of State provide an update now,
and will the Government, having been asked umpteen times,
commit to fully fund the fitting of sprinkler systems and
any associated costs, to ensure that people’s homes are
safe?
-
Following the Prime Minister’s statement, I sent a letter
to every Member of Parliament and every Member of the other
place on Friday; it has gone out. I believe I have answered
the question on funding.
-
(Warwick and
Leamington) (Lab)
In the wake of the awful disaster at Fukushima, the German
Government shut down all their nuclear plants, fearing that
a catastrophe such as that could happen on their soil.
Surely after an event like the Grenfell Tower tragedy, we
should be looking to put sprinkler systems in all our tower
blocks.
-
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should certainly do
whatever is deemed necessary by the local fire and rescue
service—the fire safety experts—and ensure that we take all
the action they recommend to keep our citizens safe.
-
(Leeds West)
(Lab)
I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House would
agree that what happened at Grenfell Tower was a national
disaster. The Treasury contingency fund exists exactly to
provide funding in these sorts of disasters. What
conversations has the Secretary of State had with the
Chancellor about releasing money to ensure that all
remedial work and accommodation on an emergency basis is
funded directly by central Government for local authorities
and housing associations?
-
The conversations I have had with the Chancellor reflect
what I have said at the Dispatch Box today. If any local
authority or housing association needs funding help for any
necessary works, we will support them.
-
Dr (Ealing Central and Acton)
(Lab)
May I praise the staff, officers and leader of Ealing
Council, who stepped in to run the relief effort at the
Westway centre when Kensington and Chelsea was overwhelmed?
I am informed that standards at Ealing are higher than at
RBKC. I do not know whether that is the case, but surely
any inconsistency needs addressing, with minimum stringent
requirements that apply across tenure, even to student
halls of residence—we have a lot of high-rise halls in my
seat—and that are in place well before the inquiry ever
sees the light of day.
-
I very much agree with the hon. Lady’s praise for the
leader of Ealing, in particular for the help provided at
the Westway centre. Ealing has taken this seriously in its
response, like every council across London, but it is
important that other councils do the same.
-
(Kingston upon Hull
North) (Lab)
I have been contacted by many constituents concerned about
our local hospital. Hull Royal Infirmary is a tower block
and had cladding put on a couple of years ago. I note that
the Secretary of State said that additional checks are
being made on NHS properties. Are we likely to have a
statement from the Secretary of State for Health about the
outcomes of that investigation?
-
I will certainly pass on that request to the Secretary of
State for Health, but I know that the whole Department of
Health is taking the issue very seriously and is absolutely
prioritising any buildings in the NHS estate that may have
been clad.
-
(Nottingham South)
(Lab)
I note from the Secretary of State’s statement that he has
asked owners, landlords and managers of private sector
residential blocks to consider their own buildings, but
there are around 150 such privately owned residential
blocks in Nottingham alone. What is he doing to ensure that
those owners, landlords and managers do not just “consider”
but act to ensure the safety of their residents? What is he
doing to support local authorities, such as Nottingham City
Council, that are working to secure such reassurances on
behalf of their citizens?
-
First, we are reminding all the owners of those properties of
their existing legal responsibilities. We have done that
through their trade organisations, letting agents and other
bodies. Secondly, we have made our testing facility available
to all of them free of charge. We will keep monitoring that,
but right now my absolute priority has been the more recently
clad buildings held by local authorities and housing
associations that have cladding similar to what was at
Grenfell Tower.
-
(Sunderland Central)
(Lab)
Five tower blocks in my constituency were found on Saturday
lunchtime to have this dangerous cladding. By Sunday
lunchtime it had all been removed. I praise the housing
authority, the local authority and the fire and rescue
service for working together. That work was done quickly and
the buildings are safe, but obviously more work needs to be
done to put them into a good state. Can the Secretary of
State assure me that funding will be made available not just
to local authorities—the local authority in my area does not
have properties; there was a total stock transfer—but to the
smaller housing authorities with that responsibility? Will
the correct funding be made available to put right those
works? Also, when tower blocks or other buildings are
retrofitted, they might comply with building regulations at
the time but things change, so will the building regulations
be looked at to ensure that when that happens more checks
take place?
-
I can confirm to the hon. Lady that our commitment on funding
and providing support where necessary for those who need it
also applies to housing associations.
-
(Stretford and Urmston)
(Lab)
The Secretary of State said in his statement that the problem
of unsafe cladding might not be confined to residential
buildings. It is also not necessarily confined to high-rise
tower blocks. There is a particular concern about sheltered
housing, which was described to me as, in many cases, a tower
block turned on its side. Will the facilities for testing
where cladding has been applied to those buildings also be
made available?
-
Yes, they will.
-
(Rhondda) (Lab)
The truth is that we in this country have for far too long
tried to do social housing on the cheap, and in the end that
decision by this country has killed people. I fully
understand why the priority now is primarily residential
property, but my hon. Friends are absolutely right: there are
workplaces, too, that are probably dangerous. Indeed, the
fire at the Glasgow School of Art showed that very old
buildings are sometimes in the most danger, because they have
lots of timber walls and floors that can easily spread fire
from one part of the building to another. This building is
one such. We have had hundreds and hundreds of warnings, but
we have not acted on them. We have a fire alarm system so
antiquated that it no longer works. When will the Government
make sure that we do the work that this building needs?
-
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman had to
say and I will take it up with the Leader of the House.
-
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department
for Communities and Local Government and Northern
Ireland Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I shall repeat a Statement made in the other
place by the right honourable , the Secretary of
State for Communities and Local Government. The
Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update
the House on the Government’s response to the Grenfell
Tower tragedy and our safety inspections of cladding in
other buildings. I know I speak for the whole House
when I express my heartfelt grief at the Grenfell Tower
catastrophe. Almost a fortnight has passed; the shock
has not subsided. I have visited Kensington and
witnessed the terrible anguish of those who have lost
so much. In some cases they have lost everything.
I am sure that, like me, many Members have returned
from their constituencies this morning with the anger
and fears of residents still ringing in their
ears—anger that a tragedy on this scale was ever
allowed to happen in 21st century Britain and fear that
it could happen again. It is this fear I want to
address first today.
On the cladding checking process, I know the entire
country is anxious to hear what we are doing to
reassure residents about fire safety in similar blocks
around the country. My department contacted all
councils and housing associations asking them to
identify all tall residential buildings in England that
they are responsible for that have potentially similar
cladding applied. We estimate this number to be around
600. On 18 June, we wrote to them and asked them to
start sending samples, and on 21 June our
combustibility testing programme for aluminium
composite material cladding started, run by the
Building Research Establishment.
On 22 June, the Government provided advice to all these
landlords about interim safety measures where a
building has ACM cladding that is unlikely to be
compliant with building regulations. This advice was
recommended by an independent panel of experts and
includes advice based on the emerging findings from the
Metropolitan Police investigation into Grenfell Tower.
I can inform the House that, as of midday, the cladding
from 75 high-rise buildings in 26 local authority areas
has failed the combustibility test. I know that Members
will want to know if their local residents are
affected, and my department will publish regular
updates on GOV.UK.
The combustibility test has three categories rated 1 to
3, and it is judged that cladding material in category
2 or 3 does not meet the requirements for limited
combustibility in building regulations. I can also
confirm to the House that so far, on that basis, all
samples of cladding tested have failed. The fact that
all samples so far have failed the test underlines the
value of the testing programme and the vital importance
of submitting samples urgently. The testing facility
can analyse 100 samples a day and runs around the
clock. I am concerned about the speed at which samples
are being submitted. I would urge all landlords to
submit samples immediately.
In every case of failed tests, landlords and local fire
and rescue services have been alerted, and we are
supporting and monitoring follow-up action, including
by a dedicated caseworker in my department. Landlords
for all affected buildings have informed or are
informing tenants and implementing the interim safety
measures needed, working with fire and rescue services.
At this time, the safety of people living in these
buildings is our paramount concern. I am determined
that residents have as much peace of mind as possible
in such worrying times. Landlords must keep residential
buildings safe for their tenants. Where they cannot
satisfy that obligation with appropriate mitigating
measures, we expect alternative accommodation to be
provided while remedial work is carried out. That is
exactly what has happened in Camden and I would like to
pay tribute to the residents there for their brave
response in such a distressing situation.
It is obvious that the problem of unsafe cladding may
not be a problem unique to social housing or
residential buildings. We have asked owners, landlords
and managers of private sector residential blocks to
consider their own buildings and we have made the
testing facility freely available to them. My
department is working with the Government Property Unit
to oversee checks on wider public sector buildings.
Hospitals are well prepared—each one has a tailored
fire safety plan. But nothing is more important than
the safety of patients and staff, so on a precautionary
basis we have asked all hospitals to conduct additional
checks. The Government will continue to work closely
with fire and rescue colleagues to prioritise and
conduct checks based on local circumstances.
The Education and Skills Funding Agency is contacting
all bodies responsible for safety in schools,
instructing them to carry out immediate checks to
identify any buildings which require further
investigation. We will have more information this week.
Across the wider government estate, 15 buildings have
been identified as requiring further investigation.
While that work continues, it is vital that we offer
every assistance to the victims of the Grenfell Tower
tragedy. As of this morning, 79 people have been
confirmed dead or listed as missing presumed dead.
Sadly, it is believed that this number will increase.
As the Prime Minister told the House last week, the
initial response of the emergency services was
exemplary, but the immediate support on the ground was
simply not good enough. A remarkable community effort
sprung up overnight, while official support was found
wanting. That failure was inexcusable, and it is right
that a new team and approach is now in operation.
We have activated the Bellwin scheme and sent in
significant central government resource including: a
single point of access into government provided by the
Grenfell Tower victims’ unit operating from my
department; and staff from six government departments
offering support at the Westway assistance centre. The
Government have set aside a £5 million Grenfell Tower
residents’ discretionary fund and more than £1 million
has so far been distributed. Each household affected is
receiving £5,500 to provide immediate assistance, and
so far 111 households have received payments. The
British Red Cross is operating an advice line for
anyone affected or in need of support. It is just one
of many charities, faith organisations, and businesses
that have provided invaluable assistance to victims. I
can announce to the House today that the Government
will contribute £1 million to support their efforts.
This money will be distributed by the local consortium
of charities, trusts and foundations that are working
together to respond to this tragic event.
Our other priority has been to find survivors a safe
and secure place to live. The Prime Minister made a
clear commitment that a good-quality temporary home
would be found for every family whose home was
destroyed in the fire, within three weeks. Every one of
those families will also be offered a permanent social
home in the local area. This work is under way, and the
first families moved into their homes over the weekend.
Last week, I also announced that the Government had
secured 68 homes in a new development in Kensington to
rehouse local residents. We will do everything we can
to support the victims of the Grenfell fire now and in
the future, and I will regularly update Members on our
progress.
As the Prime Minister said in her Statement to the
House last week, the disaster at Grenfell Tower should
never have happened. There is an ongoing police
investigation, and there will be an independent
judge-led public inquiry to get to the truth about what
happened and who was responsible. Building regulations
and the system for ensuring fire safety in buildings
have been developed over many decades, and until the
Grenfell fire many experts would have claimed that
system has served us well. But now we have witnessed a
catastrophic failure on a scale many thought impossible
in 21st century Britain. It is clear that that failure
must be understood and rectified without delay, and the
Government are determined to ensure that that happens.
As an initial step, I can inform the House today that I
am establishing an independent expert advisory panel,
which will advise the Government on any steps that
should immediately be taken on fire safety. Further
details of the panel, including its members, will be
released shortly.
This tragedy must never be forgotten, and it should
weigh heavily on the consciousness of every person
tasked with making the decisions that ensure it can
never happen again”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.36 pm
-
(Lab)
My Lords, I refer the House to my interests,
specifically as a councillor in the London Borough of
Lewisham and vice-president of the Local Government
Association.
I thank the noble Lord, , for
repeating the Statement made in the other place by the
Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government. My thoughts and prayers are with the
victims and their families of this terrible tragedy at
Grenfell Tower, and with our emergency services, which
responded so bravely and quickly to the unfolding
disaster. Their actions saved countless lives. The
whole nation owes these heroes a debt of gratitude.
The Prime Minister acknowledged that the response by
Kensington and Chelsea Council was not good enough and
a firm grip on the situation needed to be taken. The
response by charities, faith organisations, businesses
and local residents has rightly been praised and I pay
tribute to them all. They add to the shame with which
the response of Kensington and Chelsea council is
viewed by everybody. I find it staggering that the
council leader did not resign immediately. He should
resign without further delay. The chief executive of
Lewisham, Barry Quirk, has taken over as the chief
executive of Kensington and Chelsea council. He is a
public sector manager with years of experience and will
get a grip of the situation quickly. The command centre
is under the joint leadership of John Barradell, the
chief executive of the Corporation of London, and
Eleanor Kelly, the chief executive of Southwark
council. Both are experienced public sector managers.
Eleanor Kelly is known to me, and she will do an
excellent job, I am sure, with the chief executive of
the Corporation of London.
I have no intention of speculating on matters that are
best left to the police and the inquiry. I have
confidence that robust work will be undertaken, and
where criminal activity is found to have taken place,
prosecutions to the full extent of the law will be
brought. But lessons have to be learned and things have
to change. I hope that we never again hear the nonsense
that we have heard in the past about red tape and
health and safety regulations. It is clear that, rather
than having too much regulation, there has in this case
been a catastrophic failure. Regulations were either
not good enough or were not followed and applied
thoroughly and properly.
The checks on tower blocks throughout the UK need to
continue as quickly as possible. I pay tribute to the
residents of Camden who have been affected by the right
decision to evacuate their blocks, which are deemed by
the authorities to be unsafe, and to the leadership
shown by the leader of Camden council, Councillor
Georgia Gould, who has been there on the ground
speaking to residents. It would be welcomed by the
whole House if we were given further details of the
work being undertaken by the Government Property Unit
to oversee checks on wider public sector buildings.
Cladding is not the whole story. That is clear from the
Lakanal House and Shirley Towers fires, as the
respective coroners’ reports show. Can the noble Lords
tell the House what plans the Government have to
provide up-front funding to local authorities to take
recladding measures, the installation of sprinkler
systems or other fire precaution measures rather than
the after-event funding through the Bellwin scheme? I
welcome the independent advisory panel that is being
set up, but the Statement repeated by the noble Lord
seems to suggest that the system is at the point of
collapse, and urgent action must be taken. We need to
do that quickly.
Last Thursday, the Prime Minister said:
“we simply have not given enough attention to social
housing”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/6/17; col.
169.]
I would suggest that the Government have given plenty
of the wrong attention to social housing. Schemes such
as the National Tenant Voice have been scrapped. The
social homes build is down from 37,000 to 1,000, and
Homes and Communities Agency funding for the Decent
Homes programme has been ended. What we need now from
the noble Lord is a commitment to do everything to
ensure that the Prime Minister’s promise is not just
empty words and that we will see a complete change of
course by the Government in support of funding for
social housing so that we have truly affordable homes
in this country.
-
(LD)
My Lords, I start by declaring my interests as a
councillor elected in Kirklees and as a vice-president
of the Local Government Association. I join with what
has already been said in tribute to both the fantastic
work of the emergency services on the night and to the
ongoing support that has now been put in place by a
combination of charities, faith groups, community
groups and finally—although too late—the Government and
local government. I have three major areas of concern
following the Grenfell Tower fire.
The first area is that of care for the victims of the
fire. The initial co-ordination of this huge and
probably preventable catastrophe was a fiasco. As I
said in this House last Thursday, accountability in the
political process is absolutely vital if we are to
retain trust between those who are elected and those
who are represented. I called for the leader of the
council in Kensington and Chelsea to take
responsibility for the fact that 79 people have died in
a council building on his watch. I cannot believe that
a leader elsewhere in the country would not have
resigned by that point. I repeat my call of last
Thursday and I trust that some Members on the
government side will talk to the leader and urge him to
take responsibility.
A second element in the area of care for the victims is
the co-ordination of ongoing support for them. I
understand that the Government are implementing the
Bellwin scheme, which provides recompense to councils
and other authorities for the emergency costs of the
work they do. That is positive, but I am concerned
about the work that they ought to be doing to support
the children who have been involved in this awful
trauma. They are a particular concern of mine because
of my interests. Are their welfare and ongoing
education needs going to be well supported for a very
long time, because that is probably what they will
need?
My second major area of concern is that of prevention,
referred to by the Minister in the Statement. What we
absolutely must ensure is that there are no other
buildings where further loss of life could take place.
My understanding is that all building materials have to
be passed by the British Board of Agrément, which
determines whether the materials are fit for purpose
and how they can be used. I have not heard in any of
the statements in either this House or the other place
whether this is the case for the materials referred to
by the Minister; that is, the aluminium cladding. I
would welcome an answer to that point.
The second element in the area of prevention is that I
am particularly concerned about schools. I am a
governor of a school which should be opening in
September. It is being built through the government
scheme. As I speak it is being clad and does not have a
sprinkler system because the requirement for such
systems in schools has been removed. No doubt the
Minister will not be able to respond, but a number of
schools are currently being built around the country.
Will they have sprinkler systems put in and will the
cladding be checked?
My third area of concern is that of costs. We have
heard that the emergency costs are to be covered by the
Bellwin scheme, but we expect that cladding which fails
the checks will have to be replaced. Who is going to
pay for that? If there are some 600 tower blocks,
numerous schools and some hospitals which did fulfil
the building regulations but latterly discover that the
cladding material is combustible, who will fund the
enormous cost of recladding those buildings? I doubt
whether cash-strapped local authorities will be in a
position to fund replacement cladding, and similarly I
doubt whether the NHS will be able to meet the cost of
recladding buildings. It is not responsible in the
sense that, if the building regulations were complied
with, in my view the costs ought to be met by the
Government.
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the
noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their contributions
and I acknowledge, as I think I did in the Statement,
the importance of the role played by the emergency
services. They were truly heroic and the events
demonstrated in a very graphic way how much we owe to
them on a continuing basis. Of course, as has also been
said, the response has not been limited to the
emergency services, although their role was
extraordinary. I was reading this morning about a young
Latvian-born Russian man who went five or six floors up
into the tower to rescue people. The human response was
extraordinary, while the continuing response of
charities and faith organisations has also been first
class. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned Barry
Quirk, Eleanor Kelly, John Barradell and indeed the
work of many London boroughs which have contributed
massively since Kensington and Chelsea, as it were,
stood down. Their response has been extraordinary too.
Elected representatives are responsible and should be
held accountable, and that is a matter for them to
consider, but I certainly hear what has been said by
both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness.
Let me deal with some of the specifics that were
mentioned: I shall start with the victims, then move to
costs and I shall try to pick up some of the other
points that were made. As I indicated in the Statement
there is a Grenfell Tower victims’ unit which looks at
many things through the medium of the Red Cross, with
the funding assistance I have just mentioned, and a
hotline. It is helping with advice on health, education
and finance. Many of these people, it has to be
recognised, do not speak English, so language support
is being offered as well, for the various languages
that are necessary: it is quite right that that should
happen. There is counselling, including grief
counselling and counselling to deal with the dreadful
situation there.
On the cost, first, one should not ignore the
significance of the Bellwin scheme. It has been used on
many occasions, such as the Buncefield disaster, floods
and so on. After 0.2% of the authority’s budget—in the
case of Kensington and Chelsea, £300,000 is not
significant in terms of that budget—the other money is
supplied by the Government within the scheme, up to
100%. One should not ignore the significance of that:
it really is important, it is in place and already, as
I understand it, in relation to Grenfell Tower and in
relation to Camden, it will obviously be utilised. On
top of that, primary responsibility, of course, rests
with the landlord of the relevant body, whether that is
public sector or private sector, but of course we
recognise that there is a cost here. The most important
thing is the safety of individuals. That is something
we want to stress and we will obviously be talking with
local authorities about the cost. At the moment we do
not know what that cost will be: even in relation to
the 75 examples I cited of non-compliance, it is not
necessarily clear that removing the cladding will be
necessary overnight, as it were. We just have to look
at how that is to be taken forward, but I recognise the
importance of the point; of course, I do.
The general, broader point about social housing is well
made. We know that many of the authorities concerned
are of all parties, I think, and all parties have to
look at how we address this on an ongoing basis. There
are certainly lessons to be learned there. The noble
Baroness mentioned prevention—I do not think the noble
Lord did, but it is clearly an issue that needs looking
at. Fire safety checks on cladding and so on are
needed, not just on residential buildings but on all
buildings. We have already put in place a system for
the NHS and for education, but of course in the private
sector there will be office buildings and so on, which
while perhaps not as urgent as residential buildings
will still need to be looked at. I know that some
hotels—Premier Inn, for example—have stated that they
will be removing cladding. So the private sector needs
to look at this too and there are many issues to be
looked at.
The sprinkler situation has been mentioned. Residential
blocks above 18 metres since, I think, 2007, need
sprinklers. That raises the question, clearly, which I
think the public inquiry will certainly want to look
at, that if it is right for them, what about
retrofitting other buildings within that system? I
would be astounded if, when we see the terms of
reference, that is not part of the inquiry. Those terms
of reference will be discussed not just with tenants
and representatives of tenants of Grenfell Tower but
with the chairperson of the inquiry. Those matters need
to be looked at too.
Once again I thank the noble Lord and the noble
Baroness for the genuinely consensual way that they
have been seeking to move this forward, which I am sure
is the right way. I think that certain statements made
elsewhere are unhelpful, but this is a national
position which we have to deal with in a national,
consensual way. I do not think that victims would
welcome any other approach than the one that has been
demonstrated today.
5.53 pm
-
(Con)
My Lords, the Minister made clear in his Statement that
the Government are aware of the lack of preparedness at
all levels of government to take a grip of this
situation. Is the Minister aware that the Cabinet
Office runs the Emergency Planning College at
Easingwold in North Yorkshire, an admirable
organisation that trains people from all over the
world, who come to prepare themselves for catastrophes
and disasters of this sort? Will the Minister please go
away urgently and ask his department to see what can be
done to encourage people at all levels of government to
make use of this admirable institution so that the lack
of preparedness in this case is not perpetuated again
in the future?
-
My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for that
helpful suggestion. He will be aware that, in the
Statement repeated in this House by the Leader of the
Lords last week, mention was made of the possibility
and maybe the likelihood of a civil disaster action
body—I forget the exact appellation—being set up to
look at this type of situation so that lessons can be
learned. I think that the Emergency Planning College
that my noble friend mentioned would be an admirable
body to involve in that discussion and I will take that
back.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what work is
being done to check the safety of electrical
appliances? It is a slightly different angle. I am sure
that the safety of electrical appliances will be
covered by the public inquiry, but what work is being
done at present? It is clear that safety in American
appliances is very different from that in appliances
sold in the UK. What consultation, if any, is taking
place with the much reduced trading standards officers,
who have a lot of experience in the area of electrical
appliance safety? Finally, what involvement, if any,
does the Health and Safety Executive—again, much
reduced—have in the current activities?
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that
contribution. It illustrates the breadth of the inquiry
that is needed here, because there are many aspects to
this. One has almost overlooked how the fire started,
but she is absolutely right. The supplier of the white
goods in question, if I can categorise it in that way,
has made a statement and is looking at checks on that.
If I may, I will write to the noble Baroness and copy
it to all Members, with any additional points I miss or
am unable to answer in this session, including on the
involvement of the consumer safety bodies she referred
to and the Health and Safety Executive. I am sure that
they will be very much involved—I was going to say,
plugged in, but that might not be the right word—in the
discussions in relation to the inquiry and taking this
forward. It illustrates the immense challenge that we
have here, and we really cannot duck this challenge. I
should also say that I held a briefing earlier today on
this situation, attended by many noble Lords, ahead of
the Statement. It is my intention to hold another,
because this is a quickly changing position, and to
take points in more detail with officials then.
-
Lord
(LD)
My Lords, I tried last week to ask this question and I
should like to try again. I had the privilege in the
2013-14 Session to chair a Select Committee of a dozen
Members of this House on the Inquiries Act 2005 and
whether it was fit for purpose. We produced a report
which was unanimous and generally well received. We
said that it was fit for purpose. Therefore, the
question is this: is the full rigour of the Act going
to be used in the public inquiry? If it is not, whether
it is judge-led or not, it will not have the power to
pull witnesses in and they can slink away. It is very
important that the Act be used.
-
My Lords, as I understand it, the inquiry will be
within the rigour of that Act. I had a briefing today
that indicated that people could be obliged to attend
by subpoena, for example, which indicates that that is
the case. Another point I am getting officials to check
is that we have somehow to ensure that people giving
evidence to this public inquiry—we want it to happen in
a very timely way—are protected in that, if they face
criminal charges, there has to be some sort of
mechanism for making sure they are aware that anything
they say on that occasion could be used in criminal
proceedings. I will contact the noble Lord, via the
letter I am sending round, if I am wrong on that, but
as I understand it the Inquiries Act will apply.
-
(Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that public
figures should be very slow to make criticisms of
individuals or wild allegations of criminal
responsibility until such time as the public inquiry
informs us where responsibility truly lies?
-
My Lords, my noble friend speaks with great authority,
as a distinguished lawyer. Of course, that is the case.
We have a proper procedure and process to follow in our
parliamentary and democratic system, based on the rule
of law and the English legal system. That is the reason
for the inquiry. That is the reason for legal
proceedings, and we must make sure that they happen in
a timely way so that we can draw the necessary
conclusions, and draw them quickly.
-
(CB)
My Lords, first, where cladding must be removed, whether
on high or low-rise buildings, can this be done while the
residents remain in place? Secondly, the disaster makes
it clear that almost no reserve of rented accommodation
exists. Does this not underline the urgent need to
multiply the rate at which safe and affordable dwellings
are produced?
-
My Lords, the noble Lord asked two very relevant
questions. The first was whether the cladding can be
removed while people are in place. Yes, that is possible,
certainly physically, and that could well—and almost
certainly will—happen to some of these blocks if there
are other mitigating factors meaning that those people
are not at risk; for example, if the block has been built
since 2007 and there is an effective sprinkler system,
that might be the right way to proceed. Each case is
being looked at individually and that will not
necessarily be appropriate for every case but it will be
for some. The noble Lord then made a general point about
the importance of affordable housing and, by implication,
having it in the appropriate places, which is a challenge
that we are addressing and have been seeking to address
quite independently of this. He is absolutely right about
that, and that assault on the importance of affordable
housing will continue quite independently of this, but
this does underline it.
-
(LD)
My Lords, the Minister has described some of the work
that will be done, and that is welcome. However, there is
utter confusion at the moment among not just residents
and tenants but those in the construction industry about
what will now be deemed safe, because of the seeming
contradiction between the building regulations and the
combustibility test that the Government are carrying out.
Where does the industry now go for a definitive list of
what is safe in areas such as the cladding of schools,
which was referred to by my noble friend Lady Pinnock? If
there is not a definitive list, how quickly will the
Government get one so that those who are cladding or
retro-cladding will know exactly what is safe?
-
My Lords, admittedly, this is a proxy test that is being
done at the moment but the testing facility that is being
used by the BRE is incredibly fast and very clear. That
is why we know that 75 samples that have been assessed so
far are non-compliant. I do not think there can be any
doubt about that. There is a wider question about the
building regulations—last revised in 2006 and amended in
2010 and 2013—which the inquiry will no doubt also want
to look at.
-
The Lord
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments about the
voluntary sector. In the lessons learned exercise, will
research be done to understand exactly why the voluntary
and faith sector was so good at responding and could
organise teams within four hours to distribute things,
compared with the local authority response? Will lessons
be learned about the why the concerns raised by the
residents in the months—indeed, years—beforehand were
never listened to, and in the future will tenants be
listened to more appropriately? Finally, what can the
Government do about the speed of the submission of
samples by landlords, which is woefully slow?
-
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for those
points. First, perhaps I might, through him, congratulate
the faith sector more widely, and indeed the charity
sector and the voluntary sector. I do not think this is
limited to Grenfell Tower, but it is true that often
Governments and local authorities—the public sector in
general—are not always trusted as much as the local
faith, charity and third sector, which is local, trusted
and more responsive. I have seen the same thing in
relation to some of the dreadful terrorist incidents we
have had, most recently in Finsbury Park. That is
certainly true there.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned the concerns of
tenants not being listened to over time. Of course, that
will be looked at again by the inquiry. I do not want to
prejudice that by coming out with statements but concerns
raised by tenants should always be listened to. The
tenants are the people who know about this. He then asked
about the slow response, was it? I am sorry.
-
The Lord
The Minister said that landlords are being very slow to
send in samples.
-
Yes, in repeating the Statement. That is certainly the
case. We are talking to the LGA, which is a very helpful
partner and is following up on some of these. The testing
is quite quick. We need to make sure that some of the
local authorities are coming up with the material for us
to test. With the LGA, we are following that up.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, a question was asked about work being carried
out while residents are in situ. The recladding and other
fire protection work will involve potentially hundreds of
blocks of flats nationally and perhaps as many as 50,000
families, instead of the evacuation of families, which
will arise in some cases, with all the disruption of
family life that entails. That is what we hear is going
on in Camden at the moment. Have the Government and local
authorities considered the appointment of fire monitors,
on a shift system basis, during surveys and periods of
work, carefully located in vulnerable blocks, in
particular where there are clusters of blocks of flats,
and where those fire monitors can be in fire alarm
contact with all flat owners? There are two advantages.
First, it will give residents some peace of mind and,
secondly, it will save a lot of public money.
-
I thank the noble Lord and congratulate him on his
perseverance in asking the question. He is absolutely
right that evacuation should be only in extremis, which I
think the Camden situation was. They considered very
carefully whether it was appropriate there. The
possibility of fire monitors—or, as I think we are
calling them, fire managers—being in situ on the premises
is certainly being looked at as one possible way of
mitigating that, and I thank the noble Lord for his
support for that idea. He is absolutely right that, where
appropriate, this will provide peace of mind and save
money and, of course, save disruption in other cases. But
in some cases, evacuation will be appropriate and Camden
was certainly one of them.
-
(Con)
Will my noble friend clarify the position on Part B of
the building regulations? That seems to be the part that
is relevant. As I understand it, in 2009 a coroner in
Southwark recommended that the building regulations
should be reviewed. In 2016 the Minister for Housing
undertook that they would be reviewed. I understand that
recently the Minister for Housing has said, “We are ready
for consultation”. Surely this should be a real priority;
otherwise, no one in the construction industry knows what
on earth they can do. That is an absolute priority. May I
have an assurance from my noble friend that something
will be done about this now?
-
My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much indeed. The
Lakanal inquest in 2009 that he referred to suggested
that the building regulations needed simplifying. That
work has not yet started. We were about to start that
when an election intervened but, clearly, we have to
learn the lessons in relation to building regs and fire
safety measures. We will be setting up a public inquiry,
which I am sure will have an interim report that will
come forward with some urgent findings. But I agree with
my noble friend that this clearly is in purview.
-
(LD)
My Lords, perhaps I might ask the Minister to say
something further about the private sector. I remind the
House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government
Association, although it is in no way involved in my
asking this question. He has referred twice to the
private sector. If I recall his wording, he said, first,
that private sector companies should do the checks in
blocks that they own and, secondly, that the testing
facilities will be open to them. However, where a block
is in the private sector and the building control
function has been undertaken by the private sector, does
the Minister agree that it is very important that checks
are compulsory and not advisory?
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Perhaps I may track
back on to something that I should have mentioned earlier
in relation to those blocks that have, after testing,
been found not to be compliant. In those 75 cases, my
department will nominate a specific employee to liaise
about the necessary action. That is in relation to all
those public sector or social housing blocks that have
been identified. In relation to the private sector
blocks, subject to the same sort of constraints at 18
metres and above, we have been in contact with all the
private sector landlords and are recommending that they
test the cladding. It is not compulsory; we are making a
facility available to them without charge, but those are
not part of the 600 blocks which I mentioned. I am sure
that we will want to follow up on that but, as things
stand, it is not compulsory. We are focusing on the
social rented sector at the moment because that seems the
right thing to do.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, there has been a systemic failure to deal with
policy in relation to fire for some years. One reads
newspaper reports, which I think the Minister has
confirmed, that some action was intended in recent years
after reports were received, but nothing has yet
happened. Can he confirm that, as the situation is
reviewed after this tragedy, it will be a
cross-governmental engagement? All departments ought to
be involved—one thinks, for example, of education, health
and indeed justice, with prison establishments. It will
need to reach out to the private sector as well. It has
already been indicated that there are potential problems
in private developments, which also need to be covered.
Can the Minister confirm that, so far as local
authorities are concerned—and it may be that a similar
principle will have to be extended to other areas, such
as health—the full costs of this will be met by
government? I remind him that a reduction is going ahead
now in council house rents, which will help the
Government’s finances by significantly reducing housing
benefit. Some billions of pounds will be involved over a
long period. I suggest that, if the Government are
looking for a resource to fund the necessary work, that
would be one way—by using the money being diverted from
local authorities at the moment—to ensure that they are
at least able to carry out all that is required of them.
-
First, I thank the noble Lord for his point on the
involvement of other government departments. As I have
indicated, it is absolutely right that this is
wide-ranging. I also mentioned in the Statement the fact
that some of the people on the ground in the Westway
centre near Grenfell Tower are from DCLG; they are also
from many other government departments as well. There is
certainly a recognition— more than a recognition, an
embracing of the fact—that this involves many other
government departments. He is absolutely right to mention
education, health and justice.
The most important duty of any Government is to keep
people safe. We recognise that, and there will obviously
need to be a discussion about the cost of this. We do not
yet know what the cost will be. I suspect that the
testing we have seen so far has indicated some of the
more urgent instances. We cannot conclude that this is
the case, but it may well be that local authorities have
recognised those blocks where there is a concern and
therefore submitted those samples in a timely way. We
might therefore find that the 60 in one category and the
15 in another category are not representative of the rest
of the 600 blocks. Let us hope and pray so; we do not
know that yet. We will want to engage with local
authorities once we know the sum total of what it will
cost, to see how that is determined, but some local
authorities—notably, Kensington and Chelsea—are perhaps
not quite so short of money as others.
|