Fire Safety: Lakanal House Fire Question 2.48 pm Asked
by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb To ask Her Majesty’s
Government whether they will publish all the correspondence,
internal briefings, and policy advice relating to the 2009 Lakanal
House fire and subsequent inquest; and whether they will implement
the Coroner’s recommendations relating to building regulations
and...Request free trial
Fire Safety: Lakanal House Fire
Question
2.48 pm
Asked by
-
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will publish
all the correspondence, internal briefings, and policy
advice relating to the 2009 Lakanal House fire and
subsequent inquest; and whether they will implement the
Coroner’s recommendations relating to building regulations
and processes.
-
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Communities and Local Government and Northern Ireland
Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
I expect all correspondence and relevant files to be
released to the public inquiry. Work on simplifying the
guidance that supports part B of the building regulations
on fire safety was under way, but we need to look again at
that in the light of the Grenfell Tower fire. The Secretary
of State has announced the establishment of an independent
expert advisory panel to advise the Government on any
immediate steps that may need to be taken on fire safety.
-
(GP)
I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. I asked this
Question because I was a Member of the London Assembly and
chair of the Housing Committee and we produced a report on
the Lakanal fire. When the Grenfell Tower fire happened,
there were striking similarities. Now we have another 95
high-rise buildings with the same cladding. Is it the
building industry that is failing or this Government
failing to do their job properly and update building
regulations and guidance in proper time?
-
My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the work which the noble
Baroness has done. Indeed, her expertise, I am sure, will
be most welcome when the inquiry is under way. It is the
case that we will have to update these building
regulations. As I say, work was under way when this
dreadful fire happened, but obviously it is right that we
should look at updating the regulations in the light of
that event, because the previous advice was to simplify
them. That might not now be the appropriate way forward.
-
(Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the issue goes
wider than what has been covered so far? Is not the
evidence now from Camden in particular that there are
no fire doors in some of these tower blocks and there are
gas leaks? Do those failures not rest with inspection by
local authorities of their housing to ensure that the
facilities and safety precautions that are already in place
are properly doing the work that they should be doing?
-
I am grateful to my noble friend. This is not simply about
the issues that have arisen from the Grenfell Tower fire,
although obviously they are the focus of the public
inquiry. I think Camden has identified that in five
blocks, four of which have subsequently been evacuated,
some 1,000 fire doors were missing. That must also give
rise to concern.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, I refer the House to my interests in the
register. In the Lakanal House fire in 2009, there were
compartmentation breaches that allowed the fire and smoke
to spread through the building, in conflict with the
evacuation procedure. Failures like this have come to light
often only as the result of a fire or when the advice of
the fire brigade has been sought after construction,
although the power to take enforcement action expires one
year after construction and the power to prosecute expires
after two years. Does the noble Lord agree that this is far
too small a window for action to be taken, and will he act
on the London Fire Brigade’s call to extend these deadlines
to a more appropriate period to be determined by
consultation with key stakeholders?
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his suggestion. It is
right that these issues should be looked at by the
independent advisory committee that is being set up by the
Secretary of State. It will come up with urgent actions
that need to be taken and will decide which first actions
are appropriate. I will take away the noble Lord’s
suggestion; it is something that no doubt the committee
will wish to ponder on. However, this episode has thrown up
a whole range of actions to be taken not only in relation
to the cladding but much more widely, as we have seen in
evidence from around the country.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, does this not demonstrate that we should not
allow the industry to set safety standards, which is what
has happened in this case? Do we not need to have a
stronger public sector that can actually set these
standards on our behalf?
-
My Lords, it is not true to say that safety standards are
set by the industry. They are set by the Government in
consultation with the industry and the public sector. We
take advice from many sources and we will do so again
through the public inquiry that is now being set up. It is
important that we do not prejudge this and that the public
inquiry acts in a judicial way. It will be judge-led and
will look at all the evidence before we come up with
conclusions. That is the purpose of the inquiry.
-
(LD)
My Lords, the coroner in the Lakanal House case actually
cited some of the wider issues with the maintenance and
refurbishment of buildings as well as their outer
envelopes. I am slightly bemused that the Minister has said
both today and yesterday that work has not yet started on
the revision of part B regulations, because on 3 March 2015
the then Minister for Housing, , announced that not only would the review
start but that it would report back to Parliament in
2016-17 with a revised document. Can the Minister explain
why this was stopped after the 2015 election and what
interim steps will be taken before the result of the
inquiry to make sure that we do not have to wait a long
time before urgent changes can be made to these
regulations?
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. I did say that work is
actually under way on the review, not that the work had not
started. Work is being undertaken on the review that was
recommended by the Lakanal coroner, but in the light of
recent events we have halted the work so that we can take
evidence on what has happened in relation to the Grenfell
Tower fire, because it is important that we should do so. I
will say two important things. One is to restate the point
that we have an advisory committee that will look at the
issues and come up with urgent recommendations, and of course
the public inquiry will want to consider the possibility of
an interim report that could look at taking urgent action as
well.
-
The (CB)
My Lords, I understand that as late as in May this year the
red tape task force published a recommendation that the EU
directive that covers precisely this point was extraneous and
should be withdrawn. Do the Government agree with that?
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Countess. As I say, I do not want
to prejudge what will be decided partly by the advisory
committee, which will make recommendations to the Secretary
of State, and partly by the public inquiry. It is the case
that regulation is necessary and we are revisiting that. The
Lakanal inquiry and recommendations focused on simplifying
fire regulation. We are revisiting that because it might not
now be the appropriate response, but we do not want to
prejudge that; it is something that the inquiry will want to
look at.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, in his response yesterday on the Statement, the
Minister said:
“we have been in contact with all the private sector
landlords and are recommending that they test the cladding.
It is not compulsory”. —[Official Report, 26/6/17; col. 201.]
Why is it not compulsory? What is the difference between a
socially-owned block of flats and a privately-owned block of
flats?
-
My Lords, I did, indeed, say that. That is the case. There
are far more blocks in the social housing sector that are of
the relevant height, above 18 metres, that are being
contacted. We have contacted all private sector landlords and
we will follow up on that, but the noble Lord is absolutely
right: it is not compulsory for them to do so, because that
is what we have decided.
Extract from
Queen's Speech debate (Commons)
(Wakefield)
(Lab):..With the news today that 95 tower blocks
have failed the cladding test, it is clear that hundreds of
children across the country, not just in Camden but in other
local education authority areas, will experience the
disruption of being moved out of their home. What will the
Secretary of State’s Department do to help to support schools
in areas where that disruption is occurring?
The Secretary of State for Education (Justine
Greening):...We have been clear that we are getting
in touch with schools that we know are being affected by such
challenges. We did a huge amount of work in response to the
Manchester atrocities, stretching far beyond Manchester into
the broader north-west region, and in response to Grenfell
Tower. As a result, the Government will have a much better,
more systematic understanding of how to respond quickly so
that not only are the right links in place between my
Department, regional schools commissioners, local authorities
and schools, but we can work in a streamlined fashion with
local NHS services and educational psychologists. All those
things have worked effectively, but we have had to work hard
to identify emerging problems and tackle them quickly.
To read the whole debate, CLICK
HERE
|
