Asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark To ask Her Majesty’s
Government how many bids from local councils for funding of fire
safety measures in tower blocks have they (a) accepted and (b)
refused since the tragedy at Grenfell Tower on the 14th June 2017.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab) My Lords, I beg leave to ask
a Question of which I have given...Request free trial
Asked by
-
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many bids from local
councils for funding of fire safety measures in tower
blocks have they (a) accepted and (b) refused since the
tragedy at Grenfell Tower on the 14th June 2017.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have
given private notice. In asking the Question, I refer the
House to my registered interests, particularly as a
councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and as a
vice-president of the Local Government Association.
-
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Communities and Local Government and Northern Ireland
Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, building owners are responsible for funding fire
safety measures but, where works are required to ensure
fire safety, we are ensuring that lack of financial
resources will not prevent them going ahead. Thirty-one
local authorities have contacted DCLG. We have invited
councils to provide more detail about essential works and
will consider requests as information is provided.
Discussions are ongoing, but we have not turned down any
requests for essential works.
-
Since 2007, the fitting of sprinklers has been compulsory
in new blocks over 30 metres tall. The London Fire
Commissioner has said since the Grenfell Tower tragedy that
retrofitting sprinklers,
“can’t be optional … can’t be ‘a nice to have’”.
However, the Minister’s honourable friend the Minister for
Housing in the other place has been telling councils that
bids for sprinklers are additional rather than essential.
Does the Minister agree that it is time for the Government
to reflect on and review those decisions in the light of
comments from the Government since the tragedy and the
advice of professionals in the fire service and elsewhere,
who regard these measures as essential and not additional?
-
My Lords, the position as set out by my right honourable
friend the Minister, , in his letter of 31
July, where he clearly indicated that essential local work
for fire safety will not be restricted by financial
resources, remains the position. We are currently in
discussion with six authorities, one of which, Portsmouth,
has now submitted all the documentation required—it is the
only one to have done so so far and we are now looking at
it. There are another 35 which we are still assessing, and
31 local authorities have responded in full. If they set
out essential work, we will, as indicated in that letter,
ensure that the resources are forthcoming.
-
(LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy,
for asking this Question, because there is considerable
concern in local authorities about funding the costs of
cladding replacements. Forgive my cough; I have caught the
Prime Minister’s bug. It is shocking to me that the
Government are failing to take full financial responsibility
for the failures of public policy, the Grenfell Tower fire
being the result of those failures. I have two questions for
the Minister. First, I understand that 186 buildings have
failed the more stringent tests by the building research
laboratories on cladding and fire safety. Will the Government
publish a list of those buildings so that those of us who are
concerned can see the extent of the problem? Secondly, I
asked in this House on 26 June about the Government taking
full financial responsibility for funding local authorities’
costs for cladding. The Minister agreed that this was an
important aspect for the Government to consider. I think that
he ought to consider it now and let us know that they will be
funded, so that those people will be safe.
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. On her first question,
I will certainly revert to her and to other Peers who have
participated in this debate and put a copy of the list of the
186 buildings concerned in the Library. On cladding, I come
back to the central issue, the subject of the Question, which
is essential works. Essential works, which might include
sprinklers or might not, will be assessed by the department
on a case-by-case basis. As I say, until now we have had one
completed documentation, which we have just received and
which we are looking at. I do not think that there is
anything unfair about that. There are five further
authorities that we have asked for further information; they
will, no doubt, come forward with it. Each case has to be
assessed on what the fire officers are recommending and what
the building owners think is required; there is no standard
rule. We will look at it, but I repeat the undertaking made
by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in his
letter in July that we will not stand in the way of the
performance of essential work because of a lack of financial
resources.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister enlighten the House a bit more
about how the word “essential” is being defined? From the
answer he just gave it appears that it is a very mutable
concept. Will he give us some idea of what criteria are being
brought to bear when determining, even if it is on a
case-by-case basis, what constitutes “essential”,
particularly when it appears that the consistent advice of
the fire service is that, for example, retrofitting
sprinklers is essential? Is its advice being questioned, or
is advice being sought from elsewhere?
-
My Lords, I come back to the basic point that no application
has been turned down: every application that has been made is
still open and there have been 31, covering roughly less than
10% of authorities. We are looking at those. Clearly,
“essential” is going to depend on the circumstances of each
case; I do not think that I can do fairer than that. It is
what is deemed necessary by the building regulators and by
the owners and it will be looked at by the department. I come
back to the basic point that nothing has been turned down and
we remain wedded to the central concept that safety is
everything and we will not allow lack of financial resources
to prevent essential building work.
-
(CB)
My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that similar
approaches in terms of financial recompense will be taken for
requests regarding housing association property that was
transferred from council housing structures originally? I
declare my interests with two housing associations.
-
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an interesting and fair
point. The application is made separately in relation to
housing associations but exactly the same yardstick is used.
Once again, we will not allow financial difficulties to stand
in the way of doing the essential work. I do not know of any
housing association which has made an application that has
been turned down. I do not think that that is the case. If I
am wrong about that, I will write to noble Lords.
-
(LD)
My Lords, I remind the House of my registered interests. The
Minister has just said that no applications have been turned
down but at the weekend it was reported in the media that
Nottingham City Council’s request to install sprinklers
inside flats and communal areas in 13 towers had been turned
down because, according to the Housing Minister:
“The measures you outline are additional rather than
essential”.
Given that there is a public inquiry and, separately, a
building regulations review, if either or both of those
reviews conclude that works to fit sprinklers are essential,
will the Minister guarantee that the Government will fund
them?
-
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a fair point. The position at
the moment is that nothing essential has been turned down—I
checked that with officials today. Clearly, an inquiry and a
review of building safety regulation and fire safety are
ongoing. It would make a material difference if one of those
were to come forward with something that is essential
forthwith. We will look at that situation. I do not think
that is an unfair response. It is something that could happen
and, clearly, in the light of changed circumstances we would
have to look at that anew.
-
(Con)
My Lords, rightly, the focus has been on housing associations
and social housing generally but will my noble friend the
Minister assure the House that with regard to high-rise
buildings that are either in shared ownership or actually in
private ownership, the Secretary of State has written to
those developers to check that there are not safety concerns
in those blocks? Some of the fires that we have seen in other
countries have been in privately owned dwellings.
-
My Lords, my noble friend makes an entirely fair point. I
think that has been the subject of a letter from my right
honourable friend. I will double-check that, if I may, to
ensure that that is the case, and if it is not we will
certainly need to pick it up.
-
(Lab)
But, my Lords, there is no difference between a publicly
owned block and a privately owned block. Over the months, in
replies to these Questions that have been asked in the House,
the Minister keeps drawing a distinction between where the
work should be required by law to be carried out and it being
left voluntarily to private landowners. How can the Minister
carry on justifying this great inconsistency?
-
My Lords, that is not an inconsistency I have expressed. I
think it must be a figment of the noble Lord’s imagination. I
certainly have not said that at all. What I have said, just
now in response to my noble friend Lady Berridge, is that we
will look at it in exactly the same way. Anything that is
essential to be done will be done. We will ensure that
financial hardship does not stop that happening.
|
