UK Inquiry Tracker

The Remediation of Dangerous Cladding

Public Accounts Committee Closed Inquiry

Opened: 31 Oct 2024 Closed: 16 May 2025 Parliament page

In June 2017, 72 people lost their lives in the Grenfell Tower disaster. The resulting public inquiry found that aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding had played a significant role in the spread of the fire. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has committed £5.1bn to remove and … Read more In June 2017, 72 people lost their lives in the Grenfell Tower disaster. The resulting public inquiry found that aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding had played a significant role in the spread of the fire. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has committed £5.1bn to remove and replace dangerous cladding. It has said will be the limit of taxpayer contributions to remediation, with building owners and developers to be held to account for sharing in the costs of fixing dangerous cladding, and leaseholders protected from liability for fixing problems they did not cause. MHCLG reported in January 2024 that almost 4,000 buildings were within the scope of its schemes, of which nearly 800 had completed remediation. In its 2020 report on remediating dangerous cladding, the Committee expressed its condemnation at the badly missed target of June 2020 for all high-rise blocks to have Grenfell-style cladding removed. The MHCLG accepted at the time that progress had been unacceptably slow. The report highlighted a system-wide failure in a building regulation system that it described as not fit for purpose, with tens of thousands of people left to live in fear and financial limbo. In its 2024 follow-up to its own 2020 investigation into the remediation of dangerous cladding on high-rise buildings, the National Audit Office (NAO) looked at how well Government has designed its schemes to maximise the identification and remediation of unsafe buildings. It also inquired into whether remediation is progressing as expected, and how well MHCLG is managing taxpayer exposure to remediation costs. Based on the NAO report, the Committee will hear from senior MHCLG and Homes England officials on topics including: - Progress and timelines on identification and remediation; - Protection of taxpayers’ money; - The Government’s approach to risk around building safety; and - Plans for deploying the £1bn announced for cladding remediation in the Budget effectively and efficiently. Please note the Committee is unable to help with individual cases. If you need help with an individual problem you are having, you may wish to contact your constituency MP . Please look at the requirements for written evidence submissions and note that the Committee cannot accept material as evidence that is published elsewhere. If you have evidence on these issues please submit it here by 23:59 on Monday 20 January 2025. Show less

20 Recommendations

26 Conclusions

1 Report

1 Oral session

5 Letters

1 Event

Activity timeline 9 events

15 Sep
2025

Correspondence

Letter from the Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government relating to the response to Treasury Minute 17…

4 Sep
2025

Correspondence

Letter from the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government relating to the 17th Report of Session 202…

17 Jul
2025

Correspondence

Letter to the Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government relating to the Treasury Minute response on The …

16 May
2025

Report published

Treasury minutes: Government response to the Committee of Public Accounts on the Seventeenth report from Session 2024-25

27 Mar
2025

Correspondence

Letter from the Executive Director at Home Builders Federation relating to the challenges affecting housebuilding: Building Safety Levy, 17…

21 Mar
2025

Report published

17th Report - The Remediation of Dangerous Cladding

3 Mar
2025

Correspondence

Letter from the End Our Cladding Scandal & Non-Qualifying Leaseholders relating to Committee’s inquiry into Dangerous Cladding, 17 February…

3 Feb
2025

Oral evidence

Oral evidence session

3 Feb
2025

Formal meeting (oral evidence session) · The Grimond Room, Portcullis House

Committee event

Oral evidence sessions 1 session

3 Feb 2025

View on parliament.uk

Ben Llewelyn · MHCLG Councillor Adam Hug · Local Government Association David O'Leary · Home Builders Federation Giles Grover · End Our Cladding Scandal Helen Fisher · Homes England Rhys Moore · National Housing Federation Richard Goodman · Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Sarah Healey CB CVO · Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

Reports 1 report · click to expand

Title	HC No.	Published	Items	Response
17th Report - The Remediation of Dangerous Cladding	HC 362	21 Mar 2025	46	Responded

Recommendations & Conclusions

46 results

2 Conclusion Accepted

17th Report - The Remediation of D…

Write to committee setting out actions to ensure sufficient remediation system capacity.

Insufficient capacity and skills across regulators, local authorities and the construction sector risks undermining MHCLG’s acceleration plans. In 2020, the previous Committee warned that skills needed for remediation work would come under pressure as the scope of government’s programmes increased. … Read more

Government Response

The government agrees to write to the Committee by July 2025, setting out actions taken to ensure sufficient capacity in the remediation system, detailing examples of ongoing work such as funding for the BSR, bringing in additional inspectors, and working with mayoral areas.

HM Treasury

The Remediation of Dangerous Cladding

Activity timeline 9 events

Oral evidence sessions 1 session

Reports 1 report · click to expand

Recommendations & Conclusions

Write to committee setting out actions to ensure sufficient remediation system capacity.

Publish annual report on effectiveness of resident-centric remediation, dispute resolution, and Code of Practice adherence.

Undertake urgent review of building insurance premiums and propose actions to reduce costs for residents.

Uncertainty remains regarding dangerous cladding remediation scope, costs, and completion timelines.

Strengthen counter-fraud controls for accelerated funding and share learning across Ministry programmes.

Publish formal assessment of remediation policies' impact on housebuilding targets and identify mitigation actions.

Committee took evidence from MHCLG, Homes England, and industry on cladding remediation.

MHCLG's cladding remediation targets considered too slow and incomplete, with works extending to 2035.

Persistent and new barriers hinder accelerated progress of cladding remediation efforts.

Legislative changes necessary to address remediation barriers and strengthen freeholder enforcement.

Uncertainty about 11-18 metre building safety and remediation timelines remains for residents.

MHCLG's remediation plan lacks sufficient scope and fails to address critical issues.

Government funding programmes exclude non-cladding fire safety defects, burdening property owners and leaseholders.

Leaseholders continue to face significant, 'life-changing' costs for non-cladding fire safety defects.

Manufacturers of non-compliant construction products have yet to contribute financially to remediation.

Specialist skill shortages for remediation, particularly fire engineering expertise, remain a concern.

Construction industry continues to report a lack of skills for essential building remediation activities.

Limited qualified professionals compromise quality and consistency of PAS 9980 fire risk assessments.

Disagreement persists regarding the sufficiency and calibre of Chartered Fire Engineers for remediation assessments.

Construction industry faces capacity challenges from ageing workforce and Brexit, impacting remediation acceleration.

Regulators' capacity, funding, and skills shortages hinder effective building safety remediation enforcement

Insufficient capacity and capability within the Building Safety Regulator is delaying remediation efforts

Millions of residents trapped in unsafe, unsellable flats face severe financial and emotional hardship

Delayed government guidance and existing litigation hinder resolution of remediation disputes

Residents still lack sufficient information and transparency regarding their building's remediation progress

Code of Practice for resident communication during remediation shows inconsistent practice and limited awareness

Effectiveness of new resident communication requirements in Cladding Safety Scheme remains too early to assess

Spiralling insurance costs and 'nil' mortgage valuations for leaseholders remain largely unaddressed

Exorbitant building insurance costs continue to impose severe financial hardship and debt risk

Risk-pooling arrangements have not effectively reduced extreme building insurance premiums for leaseholders

Insurance premiums may remain high despite remediation due to PAS 9980 life safety focus.

Insurance premiums will remain high without full property protection alongside life safety.

Building remediation cost estimates for thousands of buildings remain uncertain without updates.

Inconsistent PAS 9980 fire risk appraisals lead to significant delays and disputes.

Published remediation unit costs reflect older standards, not the lower-cost PAS 9980 methodology.

MHCLG's building remediation number estimates remain outdated and highly questionable.

Government plans to cap public remediation funds at £5.1 billion, recouping remainder via levy.

Taxpayer exposure to building remediation costs could exceed the stated £5.1 billion cap.

Relaxed funding criteria in early remediation schemes increased fraud risk for taxpayers.

MHCLG was late completing a full fraud risk assessment for the Building Safety Fund.

MHCLG details improved fraud prevention and detection measures for building safety schemes.

Cladding remediation funding disproportionately prioritised private over social landlords, hindering social housing progress.

Social housing providers diverting funds for cladding remediation impacts new home construction significantly.

MHCLG acknowledges remediation spending by social housing providers reduces new home building commitments.

Building Safety Levy raises concerns about impact on new housing delivery and smaller developers.

MHCLG expects Building Safety Levy to have minimal impact on housing supply.

Government Response AI assessment · 45 of 20 classified

Correspondence 5 letters