Buildings could still burn under 'spineless' new safety law, industry leader warns After the devastating Grenfell Tower fire in 2017, which claimed 72 lives, the UK government pledged to overhaul building safety regulations to prevent such tragedies from happening again. However, one prominent industry figure is warning that the proposed new laws may still leave residents vulnerable. David Jones, chair of the National Housing Federation, has criticized the government's draft Building Safety Bill as being "spineless" and failing to go far enough in protecting people. In his view, the legislation will permit too many risks and compromise safety in the name of cost-cutting. "This bill is a huge disappointment," Jones said in a scathing statement. "It's a spineless piece of legislation that will still allow buildings to burn, putting innocent lives at risk." The draft bill, published in July 2020, aims to establish a new, more stringent regulatory system for higher-risk buildings over 18 meters (around 6 stories) tall. It proposes creating a Building Safety Regulator to oversee design, construction, and management of these structures, with enhanced safety requirements and stronger enforcement powers. However, Jones argues that the proposed rules don't go far enough, and he is particularly concerned about clauses that would still permit the use of combustible materials on building exteriors. "How can we claim to be putting safety first when we're still allowing the kinds of flammable cladding that turned Grenfell into an inferno?" he said. The Grenfell disaster thrust the issue of building safety into the national spotlight, revealing deep systemic failures that had left residents vulnerable. The 24-story tower was wrapped in cheap, flammable aluminum composite material (ACM) cladding, which rapidly spread the blaze throughout the building after it broke out in a faulty fridge-freezer. Investigations found that a combination of cost-cutting, poor oversight, and a race-to-the-bottom culture in the construction industry had allowed shoddy, dangerous materials to be used, with tragic consequences. The new legislation is meant to prevent such catastrophic lapses from happening again. But Jones believes the current draft bill doesn't do enough. He argues that a true focus on safety would mean banning all combustible materials on high-rise buildings, not just the specific type used at Grenfell. And he wants to see stronger obligations on developers, contractors, and building owners to prioritize safety over profit. "This is a once-in-a-generation chance to truly transform building safety, but the government has bottled it," he said. "They've listened too closely to industry lobbyists who are more interested in protecting their bottom line than protecting people's lives." The government, however, has defended the proposed law as a "proportionate approach" that strikes the right balance between safety and practicality. Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick said the new regime would be "the biggest change in building safety for a generation." "This bill will ensure residents are safe, and feel safe, in their homes," Jenrick claimed. "It gives them the confidence that the quality of their building is being scrutinized and that there are severe penalties for those who fail to comply." The government argues the legislation will significantly improve accountability, with clear duty-holders responsible for safety throughout a building's lifetime. It also promises tougher sanctions, including unlimited fines and jail terms of up to two years for the most serious breaches. But Jones and other critics remain unconvinced. They point out that the list of materials still permitted on exteriors, while excluding the specific ACM cladding from Grenfell, could still allow other flammable products to be used. "Just because it's not the exact same cladding doesn't mean other dangerous materials couldn't be used instead," Jones said. "We need a blanket ban on combustibles to be truly safe." The backlash has also highlighted concerns that the new regulatory system may still lack the teeth to drive real change. While the Building Safety Regulator will have enhanced powers, some worry it could become another toothless watchdog, beholden to industry interests. "There's a real risk this will just be Grenfell 2.0 waiting to happen," Jones warned. "We need a culture shift, not just new rules on paper. And the government has to be willing to properly hold developers and owners to account, no matter how powerful they are." The fate of the Building Safety Bill is now in the hands of Parliament, where it will undergo further scrutiny and amendment before becoming law. With the Grenfell disaster still fresh in the public consciousness, there is likely to be intense pressure on lawmakers to strengthen the legislation and deliver truly robust reform. Ultimately, the success or failure of the new regime will be measured in lives saved – or lost. As Jones put it: "This is not about bureaucracy or box-ticking. It's about making sure no more families have to endure the horror of a preventable fire that destroys everything. The government has to get this right."