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

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.

Thanks for your reply Maizie?

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.

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)

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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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).

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.

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