Recommendations & Conclusions
16 items
1
Recommendation
Seventh Report: Cladding Remediation—Fo…
Accepted in Part
We are concerned that, despite our previous recommendation on this issue, the Government still lacks data on the full scale and extent of remediation needed for buildings both below and above 18m. In order to know how much it will cost to remove unsafe cladding from multi-storey buildings once and …
Read more
We are concerned that, despite our previous recommendation on this issue, the Government still lacks data on the full scale and extent of remediation needed for buildings both below and above 18m. In order to know how much it will cost to remove unsafe cladding from multi-storey buildings once and for all, how long it will take, and whether the industry has the capacity to carry out these works, the Government needs to be collecting and publishing these data as a matter of urgency.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government commits to publishing information in data releases as soon as appropriate and details its current monthly and quarterly publications on the progress of ACM cladding remediation and the Building Safety Fund for buildings 18 metres and above.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
2
Recommendation
Seventh Report: Cladding Remediation—Fo…
Accepted in Part
We reiterate our recommendation from our June 2020 report that in the same way as it has done for buildings with ACM cladding, the Government should publish a monthly data release on the number of buildings with non-ACM cladding and other serious fire safety defects awaiting remediation. This data release …
Read more
We reiterate our recommendation from our June 2020 report that in the same way as it has done for buildings with ACM cladding, the Government should publish a monthly data release on the number of buildings with non-ACM cladding and other serious fire safety defects awaiting remediation. This data release should also explicitly include buildings between 11m and 18m as well as buildings 18m and above. (Paragraph 10) Who pays for remediation?
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government commits to publishing information when appropriate and currently provides monthly updates on ACM cladding and the Building Safety Fund for non-ACM cladding on buildings 18m and above. It does not explicitly commit to a single monthly data release covering all non-ACM cladding and …
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
3
Conclusion
Seventh Report: Cladding Remediation—Fo…
Rejected
We welcome the additional £3.5 billion funding towards cladding remediation for buildings 18m and above in height, which is a significant increase on the £1.6 billion already committed. However, we are concerned about perceived and real restrictions to the Building Safety Fund which affect residents’ safety, and the approach to …
Read more
We welcome the additional £3.5 billion funding towards cladding remediation for buildings 18m and above in height, which is a significant increase on the £1.6 billion already committed. However, we are concerned about perceived and real restrictions to the Building Safety Fund which affect residents’ safety, and the approach to allocating funds. In addition, significantly more money is needed; as we concluded in our June 2020 report, the costs of all fire safety remediations could be up to £15 billion.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the implied need for a 'Comprehensive Building Safety Fund' as it believes it would lead to unnecessary remediation works and negative market impacts, advocating for a proportionate approach instead.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
4
Recommendation
Seventh Report: Cladding Remediation—Fo…
Rejected
The Government should establish a Comprehensive Building Safety Fund for full remediation works of affected buildings. In allocating funds from the Comprehensive Building Safety Fund, the Government should move away from the current height- and product-based approach and should instead take a holistic, risk- and evidence-based approach that prioritises occupants …
Read more
The Government should establish a Comprehensive Building Safety Fund for full remediation works of affected buildings. In allocating funds from the Comprehensive Building Safety Fund, the Government should move away from the current height- and product-based approach and should instead take a holistic, risk- and evidence-based approach that prioritises occupants who are most at risk. To support that approach, the Government should consider establishing a more formal process for identifying and prioritising risk holistically and report back to the Committee on the best way to achieve this, along with the evidence.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation to establish a 'Comprehensive Building Safety Fund,' arguing it would lead to unnecessary remediation, negatively impact the housing market, and counter their proportionate, risk-based approach to building safety.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
5
Recommendation
Seventh Report: Cladding Remediation—Fo…
Rejected
A building that is half-safe is a building that is unsafe. Leaseholders are no more responsible for non-cladding fire safety defects than they are for the presence of combustible cladding on their homes. The costs of non-cladding related remediation could be just as high as the costs of cladding remediation. …
Read more
A building that is half-safe is a building that is unsafe. Leaseholders are no more responsible for non-cladding fire safety defects than they are for the presence of combustible cladding on their homes. The costs of non-cladding related remediation could be just as high as the costs of cladding remediation. Leaseholders should not be expected to pay for these any more than they should be expected to pay for cladding remediation. We call for a Comprehensive Building Safety Fund that: • applies to all high-risk buildings of any height, irrespective of tenure; • covers all fire safety defects, including combustible insulation; and • covers all associated costs. (Paragraph 20) Cladding Remediation—Follow-up 23
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation for a comprehensive building safety fund, arguing it would lead to unnecessary remediation, negative market impacts, and delays. It highlights its proportionate approach and existing provisions under the Building Safety Act 2022 for non-cladding costs.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
6
Recommendation
Seventh Report: Cladding Remediation—Fo…
Rejected
The Comprehensive Building Safety Fund should be fully funded by Government and industry, and the Government should establish clear principles regarding how the costs should be split between the two. Total contributions should not be capped, given that, as we have already highlighted, the full scale of remediation needed is …
Read more
The Comprehensive Building Safety Fund should be fully funded by Government and industry, and the Government should establish clear principles regarding how the costs should be split between the two. Total contributions should not be capped, given that, as we have already highlighted, the full scale of remediation needed is not yet fully known.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejected the recommendation to establish a comprehensive, uncapped building safety fund, arguing it would drive unnecessary remediation and negatively impact the housing market by exacerbating incorrect risk perceptions.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
7
Recommendation
Seventh Report: Cladding Remediation—Fo…
Accepted
Social housing providers should have full and equal access to government funds for remediation, whether through the existing Building Safety Fund or our proposed Comprehensive Building Safety Fund. Our proposed Comprehensive Building Safety Fund would cover all necessary remediation, including relating to non-cladding fire safety defects, but if the Government …
Read more
Social housing providers should have full and equal access to government funds for remediation, whether through the existing Building Safety Fund or our proposed Comprehensive Building Safety Fund. Our proposed Comprehensive Building Safety Fund would cover all necessary remediation, including relating to non-cladding fire safety defects, but if the Government does not accept this recommendation and continues to fund only cladding-related works, it should: • update the Building Safety Fund contract to make clear that funding does not need to be in place for non-cladding remediation works in order for any recipient to access funding for cladding remediation works; and • engage with relevant stakeholders to ensure that any confusion regarding this issue is resolved.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government stated that social housing providers already have access to the Social Sector ACM Cladding Remediation Fund and the Building Safety Fund under certain conditions, and can claim for costs chargeable to leaseholders, but did not commit to new full and equal access or …
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
8
Conclusion
Seventh Report: Cladding Remediation—Fo…
Not Addressed
It is disappointing that the Government’s proposed loan scheme, whereby leaseholders contribute up to £50 a month to pay for cladding remediation works on buildings between 11m and 18m high, does not satisfy the previously agreed principle that leaseholders should not pay. Leaseholders of buildings below 18m are no more …
Read more
It is disappointing that the Government’s proposed loan scheme, whereby leaseholders contribute up to £50 a month to pay for cladding remediation works on buildings between 11m and 18m high, does not satisfy the previously agreed principle that leaseholders should not pay. Leaseholders of buildings below 18m are no more responsible for fire safety defects, and no more able to pay, than leaseholders of buildings above 18m. The Government appears to be prioritising certainty for lenders above fairness for leaseholders. We are particularly worried by how little detail about the loan scheme has been established.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government's response did not address the committee's concerns about the proposed loan scheme for 11-18m buildings or the principle of leaseholders not paying, instead responding to an unrelated recommendation about a comprehensive building safety fund.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
9
Recommendation
Seventh Report: Cladding Remediation—Fo…
Rejected
The Government should abolish the loan scheme. We reiterate our call on the Government to re-establish the principle that leaseholders should not pay anything towards the cost of remediating historical building safety defects. Instead, as we have stated, costs should be fully met by the Comprehensive Building Safety Fund, to …
Read more
The Government should abolish the loan scheme. We reiterate our call on the Government to re-establish the principle that leaseholders should not pay anything towards the cost of remediating historical building safety defects. Instead, as we have stated, costs should be fully met by the Comprehensive Building Safety Fund, to be funded by Government and industry.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejected the recommendation to abolish the loan scheme and establish a comprehensive fund, arguing it would lead to unnecessary work and negative market impacts, instead reiterating its proportionate approach and provisions in the Building Safety Act 2022.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
10
Recommendation
Seventh Report: Cladding Remediation—Fo…
Accepted in Part
The Committee welcomes the introduction of a new developer levy and tax to ensure that developers contribute towards the costs of remediation. We recognise and welcome the fact that some developers have already committed millions towards remediation funds. We also recognise the need to encourage the building of new homes, …
Read more
The Committee welcomes the introduction of a new developer levy and tax to ensure that developers contribute towards the costs of remediation. We recognise and welcome the fact that some developers have already committed millions towards remediation funds. We also recognise the need to encourage the building of new homes, and that not all members of the construction industry are responsible for fire safety defects. Notwithstanding, we consider that developers can and should be expected to make a greater contribution to the costs of remediation. The developer levy and tax should be extended and should serve as an additional contribution to the Comprehensive Building Safety Fund, in line with principles to be set out by the Government, as we have recommended, about how the full funds for remediation should be split between industry and Government. The Government should also consult with all relevant stakeholders to design the gateway 2 developer levy in such a way so that costs are not passed onto house buyers, including housing associations. (Paragraph 32) 24 Cladding Remediation—Follow-up
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government partially accepted the recommendation by agreeing that those responsible should contribute and stating it will use powers in the Building Safety Act to compel construction product manufacturers, and noted it has consulted on the impacts of the building safety levy, but did not …
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
11
Recommendation
Seventh Report: Cladding Remediation—Fo…
Accepted
We also ask the Government to consider how others, including product manufacturers and suppliers, can contribute to the costs of fire safety remediation, in line with principles set out by the Government about the proportion of costs to be met by industry.
Read more
We also ask the Government to consider how others, including product manufacturers and suppliers, can contribute to the costs of fire safety remediation, in line with principles set out by the Government about the proportion of costs to be met by industry.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government accepted the recommendation, stating it agrees that responsible parties should contribute, and will use powers in the Building Safety Act to compel construction product manufacturers to contribute to remediation costs, with a new Recovery Unit to pursue firms.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
12
Recommendation
Seventh Report: Cladding Remediation—Fo…
Accepted in Part
We welcome the introduction of the waking watch relief fund, which shows the Government recognises that intervention is needed to support leaseholders with interim fire safety costs. However, the scheme does not go far enough. It does not cover the costs of installing alarms in all affected buildings, and there …
Read more
We welcome the introduction of the waking watch relief fund, which shows the Government recognises that intervention is needed to support leaseholders with interim fire safety costs. However, the scheme does not go far enough. It does not cover the costs of installing alarms in all affected buildings, and there can still be ongoing costs for leaseholders who do have alarms installed. Funding should be extended—either through the relief fund or through the Comprehensive Building Safety Fund—to cover all interim fire safety costs in all high-risk buildings (as defined by our recommended risk-based approach), including those below 17.7m.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges the burden of interim costs and has launched a £35 million Waking Watch Relief Fund and a further £27 million Waking Watch Replacement Fund to install fire alarms in buildings of all heights, aiming to end reliance on Waking Watch measures.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
13
Recommendation
Seventh Report: Cladding Remediation—Fo…
Deferred
We are concerned by the lack of progress on keeping residents’ building insurance costs reasonable during the period when their buildings are being remediated. The Government has been engaging with the insurance industry for months, and all the while leaseholders are seeing their premiums skyrocket—yet another cost they are facing …
Read more
We are concerned by the lack of progress on keeping residents’ building insurance costs reasonable during the period when their buildings are being remediated. The Government has been engaging with the insurance industry for months, and all the while leaseholders are seeing their premiums skyrocket—yet another cost they are facing for a problem not of their making—or worse, living in uninsured buildings. The time has come for the Government to consider setting a deadline for the insurance industry to act. If that deadline is not met, the Government should intervene to require industry to resolve the problem of eye-watering building insurance premiums. (Paragraph 40) The wider impacts of the cladding crisis
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government has deferred direct action, stating that the Secretary of State called on the FCA and CMA to review buildings insurance premiums, with recommendations expected in summer 2022, rather than setting a deadline for the industry or committing to intervention.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
14
Recommendation
Seventh Report: Cladding Remediation—Fo…
Deferred
The new guidance on EWS1 forms alone is not sufficient to mitigate the short-term and long-term impacts that the underlying uncertainty around building safety is having and will have on the wider housing market. We ask the Government to report back to this Committee with its assessment of the impact …
Read more
The new guidance on EWS1 forms alone is not sufficient to mitigate the short-term and long-term impacts that the underlying uncertainty around building safety is having and will have on the wider housing market. We ask the Government to report back to this Committee with its assessment of the impact of fire safety remediation on the wider housing market. The Government should ask the Prudential Regulation Authority to assess the impact of fire safety remediation on banking capital ratios.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledged the recommendation for an assessment of the housing market impact and noted it had already launched a consultation on the building safety levy's impact, stating it is considering feedback and will update in due course, but did not address the request to …
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
15
Recommendation
Seventh Report: Cladding Remediation—Fo…
Not Addressed
We are concerned that the exclusion of social landlords from the Building Safety Fund and waking watch relief fund except in specific circumstances is having negative consequences for the wider social housing sector. While the £12 billion Affordable Homes Programme is welcome, any funds diverted from building new social homes …
Read more
We are concerned that the exclusion of social landlords from the Building Safety Fund and waking watch relief fund except in specific circumstances is having negative consequences for the wider social housing sector. While the £12 billion Affordable Homes Programme is welcome, any funds diverted from building new social homes to pay for cladding remediation will still result in fewer, much-needed, new social homes being built. In addition to our recommendation that social housing providers should have full and equal access to the Building Safety Fund, preferably our proposed Comprehensive Building Safety Fund, the Government should: • ensure that social housing providers have full and equal access to the waking watch relief fund; and • carry out and publish an impact assessment on the knock-on effects of fire safety remediation on maintaining existing social homes and building new social homes. (Paragraph 47) Cladding Remediation—Follow-up 25
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government's response did not address the specific recommendations to ensure social housing providers have full access to the waking watch relief fund or to publish an impact assessment on the effects of fire safety remediation on social housing provision.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
16
Recommendation
Seventh Report: Cladding Remediation—Fo…
Acknowledged
We do not think the Government is doing everything it can to support the physical and mental health of residents of affected buildings. The Government should work with local authorities to ensure that affected residents have access to the physical and mental health support they need. The Government should make …
Read more
We do not think the Government is doing everything it can to support the physical and mental health of residents of affected buildings. The Government should work with local authorities to ensure that affected residents have access to the physical and mental health support they need. The Government should make it an explicit requirement that the information that the “accountable person” is required to share with residents includes signposting to support services for residents worried about their safety, financial situation, and physical and mental health. In the interim, the Government itself should supply this information to residents. (Paragraph 50) 26 Cladding Remediation—Follow-up
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledged the negative mental health impact of the building safety crisis and stated it is working to ensure all people receive the mental health support they need, but did not commit to the specific actions recommended.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government