Update on Grenfell Response and Building Safety

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association, and thank the Minister for his update now and during the recess. As the Statement says, there is no excuse for failing to do everything possible to support the victims of Grenfell and ensure that such a tragedy never happens again.

First, I address the issue of supporting the victims. The Statement says that 196 households are in need of a home, 10 households have accepted offers of permanent accommodation and two have moved in. That implies that 194 households have not moved into permanent accommodation. What exercise has the department done on how long it will take to rehouse all those 196 households in need of rehousing in permanent accommodation?

I noticed one sentence in the Statement in which the Minister said that,

“127 have expressed an interest in one or more properties”.

What that does not tell you is how many properties there are to be allocated. It is very important now that those facts are clarified. How many properties has Kensington and Chelsea got for permanent accommodation, and how many are forecast to become available over the next 12 months? It would help to know that.

The context was laid fairly starkly during the recess when we were told that Kensington and Chelsea borough has 1,652 unoccupied properties in the private sector. The Government will have to look at ways in which they can give local authorities greater powers over empty dwelling management orders, because that figure of 1,652, when many residents of Kensington and Chelsea are homeless, seems to me unacceptable. Should we not have increased council tax surcharges on empty homes of at least 200%, or conceivably 300%, and a requirement for all local authorities to have an empty homes management policy for homes that have been empty for more than one year?

I welcome the establishment of the independent review of building regulations. It reflects concerns that have been expressed on a number of occasions in this Chamber and the concerns of many social housing tenants in high-rise blocks. Some of those who have been part of current testing, and others in blocks not part of current testing, are concerned about why their high-rise blocks do not have sprinklers. That issue needs to be addressed, and I am very glad that the independent review of building regulations has been established.

The judge leading the public inquiry, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, has clarified one issue about whether he wishes to look at social housing policy. He suggested to the Prime Minister that he could not do that because he wanted to focus clearly on the issues that have now been defined around the fire itself, what led to it and the response in the aftermath. The Prime Minister’s letter to Sir Martin on 15 August indicates that the Government will carry out a review of social housing policy. I do not think I have misunderstood what is being said, but it would help enormously if the Minister could say a bit more about what is planned. At some point—presumably this autumn—the Government have to come back with a response to the White Paper, which will presumably reflect the Prime Minister’s promise.

I have two other brief questions. First, on the timing of each of the inquiries, we have a public inquiry, an independent review of building regulations, the police investigation and the Government’s response to the White Paper. I am not clear how those four different strands are being brought together to avoid different inquiries cutting across each other unnecessarily, and to ensure that the urgent outcomes needed, particularly in relation to this catastrophic failure of building control, are being delivered. Anything that the Minister can say about how that is to be brought together would be helpful.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, asked about money. I agree with him, because the Government need to be very clear, very soon, about what they will fund and what they think local authorities will fund. At the end of July it was reported that 82 blocks had used the combination of materials that we are talking about, of which 47 are owned or maintained by local authorities. By implication, 35 are not owned by local authorities—some of them in the private sector, some of them NHS buildings and some of them schools. The issue of who is footing the Bill for essential works really needs to be clarified at an early stage.

As the Statement tells us, 165 blocks have failed the test. I have not understood why the Government use a measure of 18 metres tall. The Statement says:

“Across England there are 173 social housing buildings that are over 18 metres tall and clad with some form of aluminium composite material”.


I want to challenge that 18 metres, because I do not understand why the figure is deemed important. We do not want a fire to break out at all, whatever the height of the building. A number of the NHS buildings and schools that have been talked about are not 18 metres high. Some clarity is needed on this issue.

My final point relates to the private sector, because I did not understand the wording of the Statement, which said:

“Since June, we have made the BRE tests available to all private residential building owners”.


It does not say whether that refers to high-rise blocks or any private residential building owner. The Statement tells us that,

“89 buildings in England have tested their cladding through those facilities”.

How many are there, how many have not been tested and is it only buildings over 18 metres or any kind of private sector accommodation? In that case, the same rules should apply in the public sector.

I echo the comments of the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, about the strength of the community in Grenfell, particularly the pupils in the school and all those who have been so seriously affected by what has happened. It is incumbent on all of us to do everything we can to help them as quickly as possible.