HC Deb 23 November 1984 vol 68 cc308-11W
Mr. Litherland

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will explain the discrepancy between (a) his reply of 25 July to the hon. Member for Manchester, Central, Official Report, columns 727–29, which stated that 44 local authorities had replied to his Department's letter of 5 October 1983 concerning Bison wall frame buildings and (b) his reply of 26 July to the hon. Member for Manchester, Central, Official Report, colmumn 803, which listed only 34 local authorities as having replied to his Department's letter of 5 October 1983 concerning Bison wall frame buildings.

Mr. Gow

I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of 26 October, at column750.

Mr. Litherland

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the 15 authorties which have appraised or are appraising their Bison wall frame buildings for possible faults in parapet fixing;

(2) if he will list the 27 authorities which have appraised or are appraising their Bison wall frame buildings for possible faults in the connection between wall and floor panels and in the restraint of load-bearing walls;

(3) if he will list, for each of the faults (a) to (e) specified in his Department's letter of 5 October 1983, those authorities which have undertaken, are undertaking, or are planning to undertake, remedial works on their Bison wall frame buildings with respect to each specified fault;

(4) if he will list the 30 authorities which have appraised or are appraising their Bison wall frame buildings for possible faults with spalling concrete or loose aggregate finishes;

(5) if he will list the 11 authorities which have appraised or are appraising their Bison wall frame buildings for possible faults in the ties between inner and outer leaves of external cladding panels.

Mr. Gow

On the basis of the replies to the Department's letter of 5 October 1983—the majority of which were received in 1983 or early in 1984— the authorities which had appraised, or were appraising, their Bison wall frame buildings for possible faults in the connection between wall and floor panels and in the restraint of load bearing walls (paragraph 2(a) of the letter of 5 October 1983) were:

  • Barking and Dagenham
  • Barnet
  • Birmingham
  • Bradford
  • Brent
  • Brighton
  • Eastbourne
  • Elmbridge
  • Hillingdon
  • Hounslow
  • Knowsley
  • Leicester
  • Manchester
  • Nottingham
  • Portsmouth
  • Preston
  • Rotherham
  • Rugby
  • Salford
  • Sandwell
  • Scunthorpe
  • Solihull
  • Waltham Forest
  • Wandsworth
  • Wiggan
  • Wirral
  • Wyre Forest

Those which had appraised or were appraising these buildings for possible faults in parapet fixings (paragraph 2(b) of the letter of 5 October 1983) were:

  • Birmingham
  • Elmbridge
  • GLC
  • Hillingdon
  • Hounslow
  • Portsmouth
  • Preston
  • Rotherham
  • Rugby
  • Salford
  • Scunthorpe
  • Solihull
  • Wandsworth
  • Wirral
  • Wyre Forest

Those which had appraised or were appraising these buildings for possible faults in the ties between inner and outer leaves of external cladding panels (paragraph 2(c) of the letter of 5 October 1983) were:

  • Barnet
  • Birmingham
  • Hillingdon
  • Leicester
  • Oldham
  • Portsmouth
  • Rugby
  • Solihull
  • Wandsworth
  • Wirral
  • Wyre Forest

Those which had appraised or were appraising these buildings for possible faults in the ties between inner and outer leaves of external cladding panels (paragraph 2(c) of the letter of 5 October 1983) were:

  • Barnet
  • Birmingham
  • Bradford
  • Brent
  • Brighton
  • Eastbourne
  • Elmbridge
  • GLC
  • Hartlepool
  • Hounslow
  • Islington
  • Knowsley
  • Leicester
  • Liverpool
  • Manchester
  • Oldham
  • Portsmouth
  • Preston
  • Rotherham
  • Rugby
  • Salford
  • Scunthorpe
  • Slough
  • Waltham Forest
  • Wandsworth
  • Warrington
  • Windsor and Maidenhead
  • Wirral
  • Wyre Forest

Further appraisals were planned, and for up-to-date information the hon. Member should consult the authorities which own buildings of this type.

The details of appraisals and of steps taken, or to be taken, by authorities to eliminate safety risks were not sought by the Department in its letter of 5 October 1983 on the basis that they were for publication. It is open to the hon. Member to get in touch with the authorities concerned.

Mr. Litherland

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authorities which at the time of his statement on Bison wall frame buildings of 25 July had not yet replied to his Department's letter of 5 October 1983, stating for each authority whether it has yet replied to this letter and, in the case of authorities which have replied since 25 July, the date on which the reply was received.

Mr. Gow

The local authorities which had not replied by 25 July 1984 to the Department's letter of 5 October 1983 were as follows:

  • Brentwood
  • Greenwich
  • Rochdale
  • Sedgefield
  • Tower Hamlets

The four authorities which have now replied and the date on which those replies were sent are:

  • Brentwood 12/10/84
  • Rochdale 19/11/84
  • Sedgefield 26/7/84
  • Tower Hamlets 6/8/84

A reply has yet to be received from Greenwich.

Mr. Litherland

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will arrange for the publication of any of those reports by the National Building Agency into Bison wall frame dwellings which are held by his Department.

Mr. Gow

No. In my reply to the hon. Member on 31 October, at column1055, I said that it is for the authority or body which commissioned a report from the National Building Agency to decide whether it should be published.

Mr. Litherland

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the bodies which commissioned reports from the National Building Agency on Bison wall frame dwellings, together with the dates on which his Department received copies of these reports.

Mr. Gow

It is for the bodies which commissioned such reports to decide whether this information should be made available.