Dismore raises inadequate Government response to dangerous cladding and fire safety crisis

At today’s Assembly plenary, Andrew Dismore AM, Labour London Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden and Chair of the Assembly Fire Resilience and Emergency Planning Committee proposed successfully a motion raising the inadequate Government response to dangerous cladding and the fire safety crisis  (text of motion below).

Mr Dismore said:

Through no fault of their own, many Londoners have found themselves living in flats wrapped in aluminium composite material cladding. This is the material that burned so horrifically on Grenfell Tower. It is the material that enabled an ordinary kitchen fire to turn into a deadly blaze, and it is the material that the chair of the inquiry, Sir Martin Moore Bick, found never to have met building regulations.

Dealing with this risk to life must clearly be a priority for public authorities. Despite the Government’s piecemeal approach, local councils have stepped in to protect their residents. The contrast with private block owners, engaged in a game of pass the parcel over who pays, is sobering.

But ultimately, someone must pay. Despite the fact that blame lies with successive Governments, the building industry, and regulators, the costs are being felt by others.

After the Grenfell Tower fire, you might think the argument for sprinklers in high rise blocks, including retrofitting, was irresistible. Even the Government seemed to agree. But will they pay for them? No. Indeed, even to fit sprinklers in new build schools, the Government said it required local authorities to pay the extra costs.

This has been the theme of the approach to building fire safety since the Grenfell Tower fire. Announcements, promises of change, consultations – but no money to make it happen. And what has the result been? Cash strapped local authorities have had to pick up the tab.

I am in no doubt that fixing years of a broken fire safety system is a problem of Augean stable proportions.  it will require a Herculean effort to clean up. But so far the Government has handed the mop and bucket to the stable boy and left the scene.

The cladding remediation funds – £600m in total – barely scratch the surface. Worse, they deal only with ACM cladding. But in building after building, where ACM is found, so are other fire safety hazards, including other forms of flammable cladding.

The G15 group of housing associations estimate it will cost £4.3 billion to fix their stock. No figure for London boroughs is yet known. But a freedom of information response from Camden states that since Grenfell, the council has spent £59.6 million of its Housing Revenue Account on fire safety.

To give some idea of the opportunity cost, with £30.7m from City Hall awarded in 2018, Camden is building 308 council homes. So that £59.6m equates to the cost of 600 new Camden council homes.

That is why it is wrong to see this as simply a fire safety problem. It is a home building problem. It is a council stock repairs and modernisation problem. And it is an environmental problem.

Meeting our climate change targets demands that London’s old, draughty, inefficient homes are improved. Though this saves money in the long run, the investment now is not cheap. And in the absence of central funds, improvements can only be funded from council Housing Revenue Accounts.

So which should London local authorities prioritise? Should they leave their residents in buildings with fire safety risks? Or leave residents in homes overdue for modernisation or major repairs? Or build fewer new social homes? Or ignore the demands of the climate emergency? In case anyone should think this not a comparable issue, let me remind members that Public Health England attributed 223 excess deaths in London just to the 2019 heatwaves.

Politics always raise questions of priorities. But when it comes to the safety of its people, the Government should not force councils into such choices.

I am proposing this motion because we must not drift into a trade off with one urgent priority derailing another. We need to know the cost of all fire safety remediation, the impact on decarbonisation targets from depleted council budgets, and we need the Government to pay these extraordinary costs.

I ask members to join me in demanding a response to fire safety risks that does not detract from our efforts to fight the climate emergency, and to support this motion.

ENDS

Text of Mr Dismore’s motion:

This Assembly notes:

  • The GLA has declared a climate emergency and the Government has committed to Britain becoming carbon neutral by 2050;
  • Housing is a significant source of carbon emissions, but boroughs have limited Housing Revenue Account (HRA) resources to improve this; and
  • The Government has provided £400m to deal with social sector ACM cladding, but the costs of fire safety remediation works for London boroughs could rise to £1 billion, while the G15 housing associations has estimated their remediation costs at £4.6 billion.

This Assembly believes:

  • Decarbonising homes is an urgent priority;
  • Fire safety failings are a risk to life across the housing estate in London, which we must not delay in addressing; and
  • These two priorities should be treated with equal urgency, not forced to compete for resources.

This Assembly resolves to:

  • Ask the Mayor to work with London Councils to estimate of the costs to social sector housing providers of remediating their fire safety risks;
  • Ask the GLA environment unit to assess the impact on decarbonisation targets of social sector housing providers using their HRAs to fund fire safety work; and
  • Ask the Mayor to write to ministers calling on them to fund building fire safety costs for social sector housing providers.

For further information call Andrew Dismore 07957 625 813

FacebookTwitterLinkedInShare