The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local
Government (James Brokenshire) With permission, I would like to
make a statement on the publication of Dame Judith Hackitt’s final
report following her independent review of building regulations and
fire safety. Members will be aware that my predecessor and
the then Home Secretary asked Dame Judith to carry out the review
following the Grenfell...Request free
trial
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the
publication of Dame Judith Hackitt’s final report following
her independent review of building regulations and fire
safety.
Members will be aware that my predecessor and the then Home
Secretary asked Dame Judith to carry out the review following
the Grenfell Tower fire. We are approaching one year on from
that tragic event, and those affected are firmly in our
minds. I met some of the bereaved and survivors as soon as I
could after I was appointed, and that strengthened my
determination to ensure that they continue to receive the
support they need and that we learn from this tragedy, so
that nothing like it can ever happen again. With this in
mind, Dame Judith was asked to undertake her review of the
existing system as part of a comprehensive response to the
fire. I want to pay tribute to Dame Judith and all those who
contributed to this important report.
The report’s publication is a watershed for everyone who has
a stake in ensuring that the people living in buildings like
Grenfell Tower are safe—and feel safe. Dame Judith is clear
that the current system, developed over many years under
successive Governments, is not fit for purpose. She is
calling for major reform and a change of culture, with the
onus more clearly on everyone involved to manage the risks
they create at every stage, and Government doing more to set
and enforce high standards. The Government agree with that
assessment and support the principles behind the report’s
recommendations for a new system. We agree with the call for
greater clarity and accountability over who is responsible
for building safety during the construction, refurbishment
and ongoing management of high-rise homes.
The Hackitt review has shown that in too many cases people
who should be accountable for fire safety have failed in
their duties. In future, the Government will ensure that
those responsible for a building must demonstrate that they
have taken decisive action to reduce building safety risks,
and that they will be held to account. We agree that the
system should be overseen by a more effective regulatory
framework, including stronger powers to inspect high-rise
buildings and sanctions to tackle irresponsible behaviour. We
agree that there should be no buck-passing between different
parts of the industry and that everyone needs to work
together to change the system. Crucially, given the concerns
raised following the Grenfell tragedy, we agree that
residents must be empowered with relevant information. They
must be able to act to make their homes safer.
This review has implications for Government as a whole. I am
committing today to bring forward legislation that delivers
meaningful and lasting change and gives residents a much
stronger voice in an improved system of fire safety. Changing
the law will take time, but, as Dame Judith acknowledges, we
can—and must—start changing the culture and practice right
now. As a first step, we are asking everyone involved to have
their say on how we can achieve this by contacting us by the
end of July. Their response will inform a more detailed
statement to the House in the autumn on how we intend to
implement the new regulatory system. I will also update the
House on progress before the summer recess.
We all have a role to play. For our part, the Government have
accepted and have been implementing the recommendations that
relate to us since Dame Judith published her interim report
in December. First, we are consulting on significantly
restricting or banning the use of desktop studies to assess
cladding systems. Inappropriate use of desktop studies is
unacceptable, and I will not hesitate to ban them if the
consultation, which closes on 25 May, does not demonstrate
that they can be used safely.
Secondly, we are working with industry to clarify building
regulations fire safety guidance, and I will publish this for
consultation in July. Let me be clear: the cladding believed
to be on Grenfell Tower was unlawful under existing building
regulations. It should not have been used. I will ensure that
there is no room for doubt over what materials can be used
safely in cladding of high-rise residential buildings. Having
listened carefully to concerns, the Government will consult
on banning the use of combustible materials in cladding
systems on high-rise residential buildings.
Thirdly, we will work with the industry to make the wider
suite of building regulations guidance more user-friendly.
All this continues our work to ensure that people are safe.
Since the Grenfell tragedy, my Department has worked with
fire and rescue services, local authorities and landlords to
identify high-rise buildings with unsafe cladding, ensure
that interim measures are in place to reduce risks and give
building owners clear advice about what they need to do over
the longer term to make buildings safe.
In addition, I am issuing a direction today to all local
housing authorities to pay particular regard to
cladding-related issues when reviewing housing in their
areas. Remediation work has started on two thirds of
buildings in the social housing sector, and we have called on
building owners in the private sector to follow the example
set by the social sector and not pass costs on to
leaseholders. I find it outrageous that some private sector
landlords have been slow to co-operate with us on this vital
work. I am calling on them to do the right thing. If they do
not, I am not ruling anything out at this stage.
As the Prime Minister announced yesterday, the Government
will fully fund the removal and replacement of potentially
dangerous cladding by social landlords, with costs estimated
at £400 million. This will ensure that landlords can focus
their efforts on making ACM—aluminium composite
material—cladding systems safe for the buildings they own. We
want to allocate this funding for remediation as soon as
possible. We will announce more details shortly, including
how we will encourage landlords to continue to pursue other
parties for costs where they are responsible or at fault. We
will also continue to offer financial flexibilities for local
authorities that need to undertake essential fire safety
work.
We must create a culture that truly puts people, and their
safety, first—that inspires confidence and, yes, rebuilds
public trust. Dame Judith’s review and the significant
changes that will flow from it are important first steps,
helping us to ensure that when we say, “Never again”, we mean
it. I commend this statement to the House.
-
I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of
his statement this morning. I join him in thanking Dame
Judith Hackitt and her team for all the work that they
have done on this review. This is, as she says, a complex
and confusing area.
Our building safety system catastrophically failed the
residents of Grenfell Tower and has proved to be
comprehensively flawed when over 300 other tower blocks
around the country are wrapped in the same dangerous,
unsafe cladding. Dame Judith said this morning:
“This is a broken system and it needs to be fixed.”
But while there are some welcome reforms in her report,
it will not do that. Why no ban on combustible cladding
and insulation? It really beggars belief that the report
continues to give a green light to combustible materials
on high-rise blocks. I say to the Secretary of State: do
not consult on it—do it. Seventy-two people died in
Grenfell Tower. Australia had a high-rise fire in 2014;
it now has a ban. Dubai had a high-rise fire in 2015; it
has a ban. We must do the same. We owe it to the Grenfell
residents and we owe it to residents living today in
other tower blocks with the same Grenfell-style cladding.
The Secretary of State was here yesterday when MPs on
both sides of the House argued for this. Even Dame Judith
Hackitt was reported this morning as saying that that she
would support the Secretary of State if he did this—just
after ruling it out, of course, in her own report.
There are some steps that Dame Judith recommends that are
welcome and that would help, such as clearer duties on
those responsible for building safety and new ways for
residents to have their concerns heard and acted on. I
have to say, however, that too many sections of this
report read like an industry insider urging reform
without rocking the boat, referring to “culture change”,
“clearer guidance”, a “less prescriptive system” and
“greater responsibility” from some of those who have been
cutting corners to cut costs in the current system.
I say to the Secretary of State that this is a missed
opportunity to set clear-cut new standards that ensure
that a disaster like Grenfell Tower can never happen
again. With regard to what is not in this report, will he
explain why and what he is going to do about those
matters? They include not only having no ban on
combustible cladding systems, but having no bar on
desktop studies for safety clearance without testing, no
plan for fitting sprinklers, no timetable for new safety
regulations in legislation and no powers or tough enough
sanctions to compel private block owners to get fire
tests done and then get vital safety work done.
The Secretary of State cannot simply hold this report at
arm’s length and say it is out for comment and
consultation. This review was commissioned by the
Government, with a chair picked by the Government,
working with support from Government staff. He says that
in principle he accepts the recommendations. While I
agree that he can endorse some of the recommendations, he
must reject others that fall short and he must act where
recommendations are missing. If all he does in practice
is accept the recommendations, the division of opinion in
this House will not be between his side and ours, but
between both sides and his Front Bench. This is not a
matter of party politics; it is a matter of public
safety, public confidence and, above all, a national
response that measures up to the tragedy—the national
tragedy—of the Grenfell Tower fire.
-
While I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s kind comments
on the words of Dame Judith and her team in what I think
is a comprehensive report—looking at the end-to-end
system and at culture, but also making recommendations on
strong enforcement and criminal sanctions—I urge him to
look at it very carefully before rushing to judgment on
all its different sections. He may not agree with certain
sections, and he is entitled to take that view, but I
think he will recognise the real intent of someone who is
independent and has significant health and safety
experience to bring about a shift in a system that, as we
mutually accept, is not fit for purpose.
This report will no doubt be subject to further debate,
and it is important that there is time for feedback on
each of the different recommendations and points that are
made, because of the complexity, depth and detail of
them, so that we get this right. With a shared sense of
what is cross-party and what is cross-community, that is
absolutely what we want to achieve. That is why it is
important to get feedback on and input into the report’s
recommendations.
I underline this Government’s seriousness of intent. That
is why I have today said that we will consult on the
banning of combustible materials—I look forward to
bringing the details to the House in due course—and why I
have said what I have about desktop studies. I want to
inject a sense of pace into the process. I have
acknowledged that the legislation that may flow from this
will take time, and we want to work with parties across
the House to ensure that it is got right. Equally,
however, I recognise that there are steps that may not
require legislation that we should get on and take, and I
am committed to taking that forward as Secretary of
State.
I encourage Members on both sides of the House to look
carefully at Dame Judith’s comprehensive recommendations.
They should recognise that, on the issue of cladding
systems, she acknowledges:
“A clearer, more transparent and more effective
specification and testing regime of construction products
must be developed. This should include products as they
are put together as part of a system.”
We also recognise that, and we are bringing forward the
consultation I have announced in my statement today so
that we can actually make the difference we all want by
making these changes and ensuring that our system and our
high-rise buildings are safe.
-
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. I also
welcome him to his new role, in which I know he will
perform admirably.
Many of us representing constituencies in London, who
were hugely shocked by what happened at Grenfell, have
people living in high-rise blocks in our communities, who
will be affected by the actions that now need to be
taken. I welcome the announcement yesterday of the
additional £400 million for local authorities and housing
associations. Will he set out what processes are in place
for getting that resourcing to local councils?
May I also encourage my right hon. Friend to look at the
fact that many councils, such as Wandsworth, are spending
much more resourcing than goes purely on the work that
needs to be done to replace the cladding on buildings
such as Sudbury House in my constituency, including the
expense of sprinklers? As he said, it is important that
as well as being safe, people also feel safe. Over the
coming weeks and months, will he reflect on those costs
and local authorities’ liability for them?
-
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for her
question. I do understand the concerns that Members on
both sides of the House, including those in London,
understandably have following the appalling tragedy of
Grenfell. I can tell her that we will be providing
details for local authorities and housing associations
about how they can access the funding. We are working at
pace to ensure that the relevant information and guidance
is given, because I am certainly very conscious that we
want to allocate the funding for remediation as soon as
possible. I will announce more details shortly.
-
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. As he
knows, the Housing, Communities and Local Government
Committee is taking evidence from Dame Judith this
afternoon. Once we have heard from her and had a chance
to read the report in detail, I am sure the Select
Committee will want to let him have our comments, and we
will pass them on before the deadline of 25 July that he
has set for such comments to be received.
May I ask about the specific issue of combustible
materials used in cladding on high-rise buildings?
Shortly after the interim report, the Select Committee
called for such materials to be banned. We took up that
issue with Dame Judith, and we wrote to the then
Secretary of State and other Ministers about it. I
welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is now going
to consult on banning combustible materials. Will the
consultation on a ban apply to regulations for new
buildings and the refurbishment of existing buildings, or
does he intend to apply the regulations retrospectively
to all existing buildings, so that if the consultation
goes in such a direction, combustible materials will be
taken off all existing buildings to make people safe?
-
I certainly recognise the importance of the contribution
made by the Select Committee on these issues and of the
hon. Gentleman’s points. I note that Dame Judith is
providing further evidence this afternoon, and I look
forward to hearing from the Committee about its
recommendations.
The point is that we firmly want to consult on the issue
of combustible materials because of the concerns that the
hon. Gentleman and others, including in the industry,
have raised. I will come forward with further details,
and I will obviously publish the details of the
consultation’s scale and extent. The clear intent is to
ensure that there are not combustible materials on
buildings—fire safety issues are of paramount importance
in what we are doing—and I will certainly reflect further
and carefully on the points that the hon. Gentleman has
made.
-
This is a technical report by a leading technician, but
it has a glaring omission. For the public and indeed for
the people in Grenfell to have confidence in any new
system, all combustible materials in external cladding
and insulation must be banned. Anything less will not do.
I really welcome the tone and substance of what the
Secretary of State has said, but I hope he will take this
opportunity for a cross-party initiative to ensure that
this kind of thing never happens again.
-
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I
am in no doubt about the strength of feeling that he
expresses. Such strength of feeling exists not just in
the House but outside, which is why I judge it right that
we consult on this issue and take it forward in the way I
have outlined. I look forward to advancing the
consultation and to hearing the responses.
-
Not only is it nearly a year since the Grenfell disaster,
but it is nine years since the Lakanal fire, which should
have set alarm bells ringing about the weakness of
building regulation. The Hackitt review is strong in its
critique of regulatory failure, but it is profoundly
disappointing in the strength of the recommendations it
makes. I do not understand—perhaps the Secretary of State
will help us to understand—how Dame Judith can this
morning be reported as saying that she would support a
Government ban on the use of combustible materials, but
the report does not actually include such a direct
recommendation. Will he take this opportunity to mark the
anniversary of Grenfell by making it clear, early enough,
that there will be an unambiguous ban? Will he cut
through the confusion, and make that a proper memorial to
those who died?
-
I understand the hon. Lady’s point. Dame Judith is
independent, but her recommendations set out the
end-to-end cultural and systemic change that it is
important to take forward. I have already pointed to her
recommendations about looking for greater clarity on
specification, and by consulting in the way I have set
out, we are taking that forward and reflecting her
concerns. I hope that the hon. Lady will acknowledge what
I said about the need to clarify building regulations for
fire safety guidance, and as I have said, we will be
publishing revised and clarified versions of that
guidance for consultation in July.
-
May I welcome the positive and constructive tone of my
right hon. Friend’s statement? Knowing him, I know that
he intends to deliver on it fully. As a former Fire
Services Minister, may I associate myself with the former
Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford
and Stortford (Mr Prisk), given where our experience
leads both of us in relation to combustible materials?
The Minister made a welcome comment about owners of
private blocks who will not step up to their moral
responsibilities and shoulder the cost, and I was glad to
hear him say that he rules nothing out. Will he keep in
close contact with those of us whose constituents, such
as mine in Northpoint House in Bromley, may be faced with
a situation where the owners will not, or financially
cannot, fulfil those responsibilities, and will he see
that leaseholders are not left without any recourse?
-
My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point about
the private sector and remediation, and as I said, I find
unacceptable the attitude that has been shown by a number
of owners of private blocks. I intend to convene
roundtables urgently to make that point crystal clear,
and to hear the solutions that are being advanced. As I
said, I rule nothing out.
-
The lack of support in Dame Judith’s report for a ban on
combustible materials is profoundly disappointing. The
Royal Institute of British Architects, whose members
specify building materials, supports a ban and is clear
that it is not incompatible with the wider change in
regulatory framework recommended by Dame Judith. A ban is
already in place in many other countries. Survivors of
Grenfell, relatives of those who died, and thousands of
residents who are currently living in fear in tower
blocks across the country are relying on this report to
deliver the step change to the construction industry that
is needed to keep people safe and rebuild trust. A ban on
materials that are developed to make a profit for their
manufacturers, but that do not keep members of the public
safe in their beds at night, is essential if we are to
rebuild that trust. Will the Secretary of State be
unequivocal in his acknowledgment that the report as
published does not do that job and is not acceptable?
Will he ensure that a ban is introduced without further
delay?
-
I have made my position clear: the report does an
excellent job in setting out end-to-end and regulatory
issues, specifically in the point about clarification.
That is why I made a clear statement of intent about the
consultation on banning combustible material. I have
listened carefully; I heard the debate in the House
yesterday, where a number of these points were raised. It
is important to take this step, get on with the
consultation, and ensure that we follow this through.
-
My right hon. Friend is obviously coming under a lot of
pressure to ban combustible materials on high-rise
buildings, but this excellent report does not do that
because it would give a false assurance that that one
shot would somehow make everything okay, when it would
not. Combustible materials are used in all kinds of
buildings and all kinds of capacities, but they do not
necessarily mean that those buildings are dangerous.
This report represents the importing of an aviation
safety culture into the buildings industry, which is
probably long overdue. I look forward to a
recommendation, perhaps in the Moore-Bick inquiry, that
there should be independent incident investigations to
ensure that lessons from incidents such as the Lakanal
House fire are learned much more comprehensively than
they have been in the past. Will the Minister assure the
House that the legislation he brings forward will wait
until the Moore-Bick inquiry has reported?
-
My hon. Friend makes an important point about this not
being some sort of box-ticking exercise, and about the
need to assess—as the report does—different systems that
operate around the world, including the benefits and
weaknesses of prescriptive or outcomes-based frameworks.
There is also the whole issue of safety cases, and about
who bears responsibility all the way through the chain,
and Dame Judith is right in understanding the need for an
effective system. I want feedback from all sides of the
House on how we take the issue forward, because it
matters that we have a system that is effective and
works.
-
The Secretary of State is making the same sort of noises
as were made after the Lakanal House fire. A date of 25
July takes us beyond the recess, and means that we will
not get a statement about the end of the consultation
until September at the earliest, or possibly October.
Will he bring forward the end of his consultation so that
we can hold his feet to the fire and ensure that we deal
with this in a timely manner? The least we can expect is
a ban on combustible materials as a testament to the
people who died in that fire.
-
I say firmly and fairly to the hon. Gentleman that I
intend to make progress. I am certainly not intending to
delay or drag things out, which is why I said that I
intend to come before the House before the summer recess
to give a further update. However, given the nature and
complexity of the report, it is right that there is an
appropriate time to get feedback on legislation and
things that will take time, without delaying where we can
actually make progress.
-
The all-party fire safety rescue group is delighted that
Dame Judith’s report has now been published and we can
get some action. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s
approach to this issue, but he knows only too well that
our group will not shut up until the consultation period
has closed and we get a ban on combustible cladding. He
did not seem to say anything about sprinklers in the
statement, so I wonder if he could address that.
-
I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to make
powerful points on behalf of the APPG. I welcome that and
the undoubted challenge and input that that will bring.
Our advice on sprinklers is clear: for new blocks over 30
metres in height, statutory guidance states that
sprinklers should be fitted. For existing buildings, it
is for the building owner to decide whether to retrofit.
Sprinklers can be an effective fire safety measure, but
they are one of many such measures that could be adopted
and, as Dame Judith Hackitt points out in her report, no
single fire safety measure, including sprinklers, can be
seen as a panacea.
-
There is nothing wrong with what is in the Hackitt
review; it is what is not in there. We do need a change
to processes, systems and culture, but we also need to
give confidence now to residents living in high-rise
buildings where cladding is being replaced. Yes, we do
want a ban on combustible materials and guidance on
sprinklers and on means of escape. Dame Judith concludes
that prescriptive controls alone are not adequate. That
may be right, but we do need prescriptive controls, so in
the consultation will the Secretary of State take advice
from professional bodies not just on combustible
materials, and will the Government listen to that advice
and respond as quickly as possible?
-
We will listen carefully to all inputs. The hon.
Gentleman’s fundamental point is about reassurance and
people feeling safe in their homes. That point is
certainly not lost on me. That is why I have said the
things I have said today, welcoming and acknowledging the
important steps outlined by Dame Judith in her report but
equally commenting on a number of other issues as well
and on how we are able to make further progress and
deliver that overarching safety agenda to which the hon.
Gentleman rightly points.
-
Many of my constituents in Chelmsford travel to London
every day and go to work in high-rise buildings. Can the
Secretary of State confirm that any new measures for
safety and its enforcement will be considered for
high-rise office blocks as well as for residential
blocks? People should be as safe at work as they are at
home.
-
Many of the report’s recommendations are intended to
apply only to high-rise residential buildings, but as
Dame Judith says the ideas proposed in her report have a
broader application, to a wider range of buildings. We
will consider that further. I am sure that we will
receive further feedback from stakeholders and consider
that when we come to this in the autumn.
-
Like others, I welcome the fact that the Secretary of
State has made it clear that he will rule nothing out
when it comes to forcing action on private freehold
developments such as New Capital Quay in Greenwich. That
represents progress. May I test whether he understands
the urgent need to break the impasse on such
developments? Leaseholders are living with not only the
anxiety about the long-term costs of remediation, but the
daily mounting costs of interim fire safety measures and
the fear that they live in homes that are still
surrounded by lethal material.
-
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes
about the uncertainty and the cost of interim measures
that may be put in place. One developer in Croydon has
done the right thing: Barratt Developments has told
residents of the Cityscape flats that it will cover fire
safety and cladding costs. The message is that others
should be doing the same.
-
I am conscious that it is very difficult to define
combustibility in technical terms, so can my right hon.
Friend reassure me that during the consultation he will
be cognisant of the standards that underpin the words we
use? One may say that something is non-combustible, but
it can be combustible in certain circumstances. So we
want to push towards a ban on our general understanding
of combustibility, but that must be underpinned by a
definition of the standards behind that.
-
My hon. Friend makes a point about the complexity and
technical nature of this issue. I am sure we will reflect
carefully as part of the consultation.
-
While welcoming Dame Judith’s recommendations, the new
regulatory framework and the sanctions, criminal and
otherwise, there is disappointment about some of the
omissions this morning. The Secretary of State has done
his very best to plug those gaps, but the Government have
been promising to revise Approved Document B since 2011.
Dame Judith recommends a revision of all the Approved
Documents—A to Q. How much longer is this going to take?
Will he consider suggesting the relocation of the fire
safety regulation and enforcement team from the Home
Office to his Department, where it can sit alongside the
housing and building regulations section, which seems to
be a much better fit?
-
I am sure that a number of points will be raised during
the consultation. The hon. Gentleman has just raised one.
On Approved Document B, we have already consulted on
changes to that. I can tell him that we intend to
complete that work and publish a clarified version of the
guidance by July.
-
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and Dame
Judith’s report. The construction industry is quite wide
and diverse. I note that in the report Dame Judith
comments that minimum standards were sometimes seen
as
“a high bar to be negotiated down”.
Does he agree that we need the construction industry to
look at the report to see what it can do to implement the
outcomes?
-
I agree, which is why I made the point that there are
responsibilities on all of us. I have set out a number of
actions that the Government are taking but there is also
a responsibility on the industry itself. Some of the very
powerful comments Dame Judith makes in her report require
action not just by the Government but by industry and
others.
-
Will the Secretary of State ensure that there are
effective sanctions in building regulations to make sure
that those who cut corners in the pursuit of profit are
held to account and to provide an effective deterrent?
Will he look again at the recent London Assembly report
that recommended the installation of sprinklers? It is
not good enough to leave it to owners of existing
buildings to determine whether to take action. Why is it
right that hotel guests are protected by sprinklers,
where evidence shows they can eradicate the risk of
death, while high-rise occupants are not so protected?
-
I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to look at chapter
two of the final report, which sets out a number of
different steps on enforcement:
“Failure by relevant dutyholders to comply with either
type of notice”—
there is a prohibition or stop notice and an improvement
notice—
“would be a criminal offence.”
When he reads the report in detail, I think he will see
the seriousness and robustness of Dame Judith’s
recommendations and therefore the changes that need to
happen.
-
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the fact
that he has gone a significant step further forward than
the Hackitt review recommendations on the key issue of
combustibility. In a letter to the Chair of the Select
Committee, Dame Judith explains that there are two ways
to work with the current guidance: either using products
of limited combustibility in cladding systems or
undergoing a full system test. She says her clear view is
that the former
“is undoubtedly the lower risk option.”
It is therefore surprising she is not recommending that
approach. However, I welcome the Secretary of State’s
consultation. The issue with large-scale tests is that
they do not reflect real world conditions, so we will
need to consider that in the consultation. Can he confirm
that the consultation will consider external cladding and
insulation in terms of limited combustibility or
non-combustibility?
-
My hon. Friend makes some powerful and important points
about the nature of a system, the external cladding, how
that fits within certain other structures and systems and
what that actually means. That is why it is right that we
look at the consultation in that way. He points to
important recommendations that Dame Judith makes.
Equally, she has made clear statements about what system
products can and cannot be used for, how they should be
developed and their use made essential. When we look at
the report, both in terms of its specificity and broad
nature, it points to significant change. As he rightly
says, I want to consult on combustibility and get on with
this.
-
Fire safety regulations were wrongly covered by the one
in, two out statement of new regulation. Will the
Secretary of State commit today to excluding fire safety
regulations from the statement’s successor, the business
impact target, which is currently being devised for this
Parliament?
-
What I would say directly to the hon. Lady is that we
need to get this right. We have had a comprehensive set
of recommendations from Dame Judith, which will require
legislation. We are determined to look at that carefully
to ensure that we are able to consult and get the right
legislation before the House. That is my driving
priority.
-
I welcome the fact that the Government have committed to
covering the costs of replacing cladding on local
authority and housing association properties. Has that
offer been formally articulated? I also agree with my
right hon. Friend’s comments on private developers. As
far as I am concerned, they need to stand up, show
responsibility and get on with it.
-
I wholly endorse what my hon. Friend has said in relation
to the private sector. On the public sector, as I
indicated in an earlier response, we are formulating our
detailed guidance and information to go to local
authorities but my intent is to see that that money is
deployed as quickly as possible.
-
I welcome Dame Judith’s recommendations. Does the
Secretary of State now recognise the need for clarity
across the building industry? When will new standards be
in place?
-
We have talked about Approved Document B and other
planning guidance. I want that to be out before the
summer. We have had some consultation, but we need to
make progress. I think that underlines my clear, driving
desire to get on with things where we can but, obviously,
where longer-term reform is necessary, to consider
carefully to get it right.
|
