MHCLG evidence to the Public Accounts Committee Inquiry on Cladding (03/02/25)

MPs in the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) questioned senior MHCLG officials for the Inquiry into the remediation of dangerous cladding. The session lasted for 90 minutes, but we have extracted some key elements in this video:

• 00:06: Officials say there is “no shortfall” in fire engineering skills and capacity – so it should not be a cause of delay for buildings awaiting an assessment.

• 01:56: Unfunded fire safety defects, including non-cladding defects, are frequently uncovered and this prevents homes being made completely safe.

...Listen to officials claim that owner-occupiers are “protected” from these costs (no mention of being on the hook for up to £15k, unless they take on the cost and risk of legal action building by building), while airbrushing Non-Qualifying Leaseholders out of the picture (who face uncapped costs).

• 04:25: Disputes between developers and freeholders currently remain unresolved for years – and government mechanisms for dispute resolution do not appear to be utilised effectively.

• 07:49: The ‘Reinsurance Facility’ has not brought down insurance premiums as much as officials expected, and the government will ‘consider’ options to intervene.

...Listen to officials say the current remediation standard is geared around ‘catastrophic risk’, including ‘preventing damage to the core fabric of the building’. We do not believe this interpretation is correct – which is why insurers often insist on remedial works beyond the ‘life critical’ PAS-9980 standard, in order to protect property.

• 16:06: Enfranchised leaseholders have no protection from the costs of remediating non-cladding defects.

• 16:40: Officials are very “reluctant” to say how many social homes could have been built if housing associations had equal access to remediation funding schemes.

• 21:17: The government is ‘forward funding’ remediation works, then recouping money from the Building Safety Levy later – but officials could not quantify the taxpayer’s maximum exposure to costs at any one time (and did not recognise the figure of £6.3bn evidenced in section 3.12 of the National Audit Office report).

• 24:03: There was no explanation as to why the government has not yet secured any contribution from product manufacturers.

• 27:40: “Absolutely no plans whatsoever to spend any more than £5.1bn of public money.” There was no mention of the £1bn of funding announced in the 2024 Autumn Spending Review, whether it is genuinely new money, or where the funds will come from.

--------------------------------------------------

Witnesses included Sarah Healey, MHCLG Permanent Secretary; Richard Goodman, MHCLG Director General for Buildings and Resilience; Ben Llewellyn, MHCLG Director for Remediation Policy; and Helen Fisher, Programme Director, Cladding Safety Scheme, Homes England.

Watch the full evidence session (panel 1 & 2), including evidence from End Our Cladding Scandal: https://www.youtube.com/live/XkEIQnGOdS0

Read the transcript: https://committees.parliament.uk/oral...

Read more about the Inquiry, including written evidence submissions from organisations including EOCS: https://committees.parliament.uk/work...