I saw this and said I dont believe that can be true

And the latest is THEY'VE LOST THE FILES....seems to be a habit they have doesn't it .Windrush-files lost
Pedophile Mp's -files lost
Grenfell -files lost

What other "files" have mysteriously gone missing with no copies either paper or computer made in case of "losing" them.Its not simple negligence its criminal

Well it is not exactly difficult to find evidence of heartless Tory policies!
" hostile environment" they owned and are proud of....

Being passionate about politics is important. No political party is perfect and will attract all kinds of people. What one hopes is that political leaders, of any persuasion in UK mainstream politics, genuinely want the best for all citizens and to improve daily life for all. I am in no way convinced the current UK government does.

MaizieD your many posts on GN are there just to try and prove how the evil Tories are out to grind the faces of the poor and afflicted into the dirt, no matter what they do to help (paying to furlough/ paying to self isolate/ eat out to help out etc)
and with Grenfell, you think the entire Tory side in Westminster wants to renege on what they promised to do, just because they don’t accept one Labour amendment.
I can’t take any of your comments seriously on any thread, because they are too narrow ( tunnel vision).

Perhaps the amendment was going to be a nuisance to the other new planning regulations which will allow developers to build with less scrutiny by local planning if they have built similar developments previously. If 'previous developments' had inappropriate materials, such as at Grenfell, then the two 'laws' might prove incompatible.

lemongrove

The usual uniformed but jumping in with both feet (complete with bovver boots) comments on here.
There is more to it: a bill has to be passed before anything else can be done so the amendment put down by Labour is not accepted now.Just saw that on a news item on tv, but you should google the whole thing before rushing to judgement.
Gransnet is becoming more and more ‘shoot first and ask questions later’.

I had a feeling that your sanctimony was completely misplaced in this post. lemon. Perhaps you should research a topic before you believe what a 'news item on tv' tells you.

The bill was at the 'report stage' in the House of Commons. If you look at the link which explains the passage of a bill through Parliament (here it is, in case you can't be bothered to look for it : www.gov.uk/guidance/legislative-process-taking-a-bill-through-parliament ) you will see that the Report stage is the last stage at which MPs can propose and debate amendments. So you are absolutely wrong.

The bill is in the Lords now, awaiting its second reading, no date allocated as yet, so there doesn't seem to be too much urgency about getting it through, contrary to what Callistomen claimed Tue 08-Sep-20 23:18.

services.parliament.uk/Bills/2019-21/firesafety.html Shows where it's got to. No date set for 2nd reading in the HoL.

Government is far too busy working out how to break international law to be concerned about preventing another Grenfell disaster...

The government promised to implement the findings in full, so they need to be included. At what point is debatable, depending on how the system works. But it seems unfortunate if the system allows for delay in this being made law.

I can't see why the Amendment would need to be debated. It reads to me like perfectly a sensible and reasonable requirement. Is this perhaps the victim of an oppositional parliamentary system -that is any Amendments introduced by the opposition must be challenged and debated?

MaizieD

^Therefore I agree to a limited extent that any further change of safety legislation should be held in abeyance until at least the second stage of the Enquiry is completed.^

But that was not the rationale behind voting down the amendment, Grandad. The rationale was that the amendment would delay the implementation of safety measures.

(Any further safety requirements arising from the second stage of the Enquiry could be added to the Act by way of statutory instruments)

That may be the case MaizieD. However, I was just stating, what many believe, that we require at the very least the findings of the second stage of the enquiry before any legislation in regard to Grenfell is brought into being.

Therefore I agree to a limited extent that any further change of safety legislation should be held in abeyance until at least the second stage of the Enquiry is completed.

But that was not the rationale behind voting down the amendment, Grandad. The rationale was that the amendment would delay the implementation of safety measures.

(Any further safety requirements arising from the second stage of the Enquiry could be added to the Act by way of statutory instruments)

The primary legislation that brought about the Grenfell Tower tragedy has already been removed from the statute book.

That legislation brought in by the Cameron government allowed companies to self certify the safety of building materials rather than have it independently validated by a body the Health & Safety Executive authorised or by itself.

The second stage of the Grenfell enquiry is now investigating the companies that supplied the materials that were used in the cladding placed on the tower and what were the "supposed" safety test that they carried out.

Therefore I agree to a limited extent that any further change of safety legislation should be held in abeyance until at least the second stage of the Enquiry is completed.

However, with the Covid-19 Crisis and many seemingly "dragging their feet" in cooperating with providing all the documentation the enquiry panel is demanding, all the forgoing is taking much longer than expected.

Thanks for your reply Maizie?

Callistemon If the Scottish Tories did not vote on the amendment, then I can only surmise that this was taken under EVEL rules I wonder if the 1 Scottish Labour MP voted? I'll check.

If the amendment had been accepted the bill would have been voted on as amended.

Amendments are always debated before the final bill is voted on.

The whole process is explained here:

www.gov.uk/guidance/legislative-process-taking-a-bill-through-parliament

As far as I can see there is no reason why the acceptance of the amendment would have delayed the enactment of the bill (i.e the bill becoming law.)

Well important just to me, obviously?

Bear with me, because it's important I understand this.

Was the Bill ready to be passed and implemented straight away? If the amendment had received a positive vote what would have happened next?

Staggering ignorance of parliamentary process being shown on this thread

Staggering rudeness but not unusual.

Amendments are debated and voted on before the bill itself is voted on because if amendments are carried the bill, as amended is voted on and goes to the next stage.

Well, yes, that was my point.
Introducing amendments at a late stage could delay proceedings. It could even be 'talked out'.
Filibustering.
This Bill, already scrutinised needed to be voted on without any more delay as it is vitally important that it is implemented as soon as possible.

Callistemon

The amendment would have held up the Bill because they would have discussed it ad nauseam.

It's vital that fire safety regulations need to be implemented as soon as possible and amendments can be debated and passed later when the main Bill is passed.
There has been far too much delay already.
Why would anyone want to hold that up?

Staggering ignorance of parliamentary process being shown on this thread.

Amendments are debated and voted on before the bill itself is voted on because if amendments are carried the bill, as amended is voted on and goes to the next stage.

As for the sudden desire for urgency, it is the function of parliament to scrutinise all bills (i,e proposed legislation). The bill goes through 2 'readings', a committee stage and to the House of Lords (which can also propose amendments). The idea is not to frustrate the government, but to ensure that the bill is 'sound'. It's nonsense that the bill has to be rushed through.

Labour are unhappy with SNP MPs because they abstained.
Ian Murray, Shadow Scottish Secretary, said:

“The SNP and Scottish Tories have let down Grenfell victims. It is a dereliction of duty by both parties to fail to vote for the inquiry recommendations.

“The border the SNP is so obsessed about should be irrelevant when it comes to a tragedy like this, and Nationalist MPs should today hang their heads in shame.”

Murray added: “The Tories’ refusal to support the amendment was sadly unsurprising, but the SNP pretends to be a progressive voice in parliament.

“Labour will continue to fight for the necessary measures to prevent a fire like Grenfell from ever happening again in any part of the UK"

How can these people sleep at night?
Abstaining over an issue which should concern us all?

Maybe I’m just not very bright, but I can’t for the life of me think why anyone would vote against implementation of the findings and recommendations, whatever their political affiliation.

The amendment would have held up the Bill because they would have discussed it ad nauseam.

It's vital that fire safety regulations need to be implemented as soon as possible and amendments can be debated and passed later when the main Bill is passed.
There has been far too much delay already.
Why would anyone want to hold that up?

Lemongrove, from my 5th form Civics lessons, I understood that a bill can be amended before it is passed. It may have had its first and second readings but at the third reading I thought amendments would be debated. Perhaps it has changed. (5th form rather dates my schooldays era, indeed it was actually Lower Fifth!)

paddyann see previous posts on finding out the whole story first. PS SNP are bad. No spin required.

Illte, this is the substance of the amendment.
I have copied the section below from The Standard, link here www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/grenfell-fire-inquiry-vote-speed-of-fire-safety-reforms-a4542251.html

“But Labour wanted to amend the Bill to ensure the Government implements recommendations made by the first phase of the Grenfell Inquiry.

The party’s new clause one would have required owners or managers of flats to share information with their local fire service about the design and materials of the external walls.

They would also have been required to carry out regular inspections of lifts and individual flat entrance doors, while evacuation and fire safety instructions must be shared with residents of the building.”

I really cannot understand how anyone could vote against this.

SNP cant vote on English only matters ,you should know that jane Not only cant, never have even before EVEL .Yu trying to spin SNP = BAD again?