Meeting of the Parliament 12 March 2024
I thank our committee convener and our hard-working clerks, who provided much-needed advice and guidance in the preparation of the committee’s stage 1 report, which was unanimously agreed by all members.
It is worth remembering that cladding remediation is principally an issue for the developers and builders who built the homes that have this cladding, and there has been nothing really to prevent them from getting on with remediation all this time. I have always said at committee that it is an issue for both Government and developers—a dual responsibility. Some developers have been doing remediation work, which is to their credit.
I have been involved in the preparation of a number of stage 1 committee reports over my years in the Parliament, but this one was different. The level of scrutiny and inquiry that all our committee members undertook is understandable, given the subject matter, but it is a testament to their commitment to getting it right that they undertook such forensic scrutiny of the Government’s proposals for cladding remediation. All the committee members deserve great credit for the work that they have done. Our witnesses—some of whom are affected residents—offered us a valuable degree of rigour in getting the bill right, which I sincerely hope stands us in good stead as we take the bill through the parliamentary stages to become law. I thank them all for helping to get us to where we are now.
The minister reminded us where all this came from: the tragic events at Grenfell in London in 2017, when 72 people lost their lives. Our committee will play an important part in getting the bill right and providing assurance to residents whose homes have cladding that needs to be replaced.
A key issue for the committee and for many of those who gave evidence was whether the bill could or should include wider fire safety considerations beyond the cladding remediation that was intended at the outset. From the Government’s response to that aspect of the stage 1 report, as requested by the committee in recommendation 73, it is clear that the bill
“relates to buildings with ... cladding systems and it is not a general fire safety Bill.”
Although wider risks might well emerge during the assessment and remediation of a building, the Government states that we should
“recognise that there are broader systems and legislation in place to manage these where they fall outside the scope”
of the bill. The Government makes that point again as part of recommendation 93 in relation to the cladding assurance register.
Rightly, the committee asked for clarity on the exact specification for the single building assessment. I note from the Government’s response that the single building assessment will include the fire risk appraisal of the external walls system, which is based on industry standard PAS 9980. The SBA will also include a fire risk assessment that
“will survey the internal fire safety measures, including internal compartmentation of buildings in order to assess risk”
that might be
“created or exacerbated by the building’s external ... cladding”.
If I have understood that correctly, that will provide additional assurance for residents about some of the wider fire safety matters that are important to many of the residents from whom we heard. If that is the case, I would welcome a comment from the minister when he winds up the debate.
It is welcome that the Government has agreed that “tolerable risk” will form part of the single building assessment process instead of the initial proposal to have binary designations of “safe” or “unsafe”.