(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by acknowledging the bereaved family members of those who died in the Grenfell Tower fire, as well as survivors and members of the local community. Nothing that can be said in this House can diminish the loss they have endured or the impact this tragedy has had on their lives, but they have the respect of this House and of the country as a whole.
The fire at Grenfell Tower, which claimed the lives of 72 people, was a profound and avoidable tragedy. Its consequences continue to be felt by bereaved families, survivors, the local community and far beyond. Grenfell must never be forgotten, and we must continue to ensure that nothing like it can ever happen again. There remains much work to do on justice, reform and making homes safe, but this Bill is concerned with one clear and specific responsibility: how we remember Grenfell and how we ensure that remembrance is properly supported over the long term.
From the outset, I want to be clear with noble Lords. This is a simple Bill with a focused purpose. It exists to provide the statutory authority necessary to support the construction and long-term care of a Grenfell Tower memorial and related activities. The design of that memorial and the way it is shaped must remain with the bereaved families, survivors and the community. This Bill is intended to support that work, not to replace or override it.
Grenfell has never been, and must never become, a matter of party politics. It is about doing what is right and keeping our word. A commitment was made to support the bereaved families and survivors to create a fitting and lasting memorial at the site of Grenfell Tower. This Government are honouring that commitment. That is why the independent Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission was established in 2019. From the beginning, its work has been community led: listening to bereaved families, survivors and the immediate community, and helping to shape a shared vision for the future of the site.
After extensive engagement over several years, the commission published its report, Remembering Grenfell, in November 2023. The report set out clear recommendations, including the creation of a permanent memorial at the site of Grenfell Tower: a private space where elements of the tower can be laid to rest with dignity and respect, and a physical and digital archive, alongside a permanent exhibition, to ensure that the story of Grenfell is preserved honestly, sensitively and with care.
This work has been guided throughout by those most directly affected by the tragedy, and it must continue to be so. Views about the future of the site are deeply personal and not always shared by everyone. The process supported by this Bill is one that remains firmly community led. The Government have welcomed the commission’s recommendations and will support it to carry them forward. Community led design work is now under way, following the appointment of a design team through a selection process that involved bereaved families, survivors and members of the local community.
This is a focused Bill. It provides the statutory authority required for the Government to spend public money on the construction of a Grenfell Tower memorial and on its long-term management and care. It also enables spending on preservation, an archive, an exhibition and a site where elements of the tower can be laid to rest, and allows for land to be acquired and works to be carried out where necessary. Although preparatory work and community-led design are already under way, Parliament must provide the statutory authority required to fund the delivery of this national memorial and ensure its upkeep over the long term. The Bill provides that authority.
I underline one important point for noble Lords. The Bill is deliberately narrow in scope. It does not determine the design of the memorial, make planning decisions or set governance or ownership arrangements. Instead, it does one essential thing: it ensures that the expenditure connected to the memorial is properly authorised, in line with the rules governing public spending and with Parliament’s consent.
Community-led design work will continue while Parliament considers the Bill, allowing progress to remain on course. The memorial will honour those who lost their lives and those whose lives were permanently changed by the tragedy. It will be a place for remembrance, reflection and respect.
The memorial does not diminish the other work that must continue following Grenfell. Bereaved families and survivors have waited far too long for justice. Those responsible must be held to account, and I fully support the Metropolitan Police in what is one of the largest and most complex investigations it has ever undertaken.
We must continue to reform the system so that residents’ voices are heard and safety concerns are never ignored. The Government remain committed to implementing the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry to deliver real and lasting change, and to ensuring that everyone can have confidence that their home is safe.
This is a modest Bill in form but it carries real weight. As I said, it is not about party politics but about how we remember Grenfell, what we learn from it and what we choose to do as a country. It does not address every issue arising from the tragedy, and we acknowledge that there is still much to be done. What it does is ensure that the national remembrance is properly supported and protected, with Parliament’s agreement and in a way that respects the central role of bereaved families, survivors and the community. Above all, it helps to ensure that Grenfell remains part of our national memory and that its lessons continue to shape a safer and fairer future. On that basis, I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, none of us will forget the events of 14 June 2017. The shock we all felt is nothing to the pain that the Grenfell community have suffered. We can never fully appreciate the cost of the Grenfell fire to those who were there that night and those who are part of that local community. They have shown such bravery in their fight for justice and I pay tribute to that community, who have demonstrated such resilience in the wake of this tragedy. Through the inquiry, they have been fighting for justice for eight years now. I know that noble Lords across the House share my hope that that community will soon get some further closure.
I thank the Minister for bringing forward the Bill, which represents an essential step forward for the delivery of a lasting memorial for the 72 people who tragically lost their lives as a result of the events of 14 June 2017. Every one of them deserves to be remembered. Their memory ought to be cherished, and Ministers are right to progress this important work to deliver a fitting memorial for the whole of the Grenfell community. Indeed, the memorial is not just for the 72 who died as a result of the Grenfell Tower fire; it is also for the 74 people who were injured and for the friends and families of all those affected by the fire. It is also for those who live nearby and who have links to that community. It is for all those who have been affected by the fire.
I pay tribute to the Minister for continuing the hard work that was initiated under the previous Government. I am also grateful to the Minister in the other place, Samantha Dixon MP, for taking the time to meet me to discuss both this Bill and the ongoing work to support the entire Grenfell community. I also pay tribute to all those who have supported the Grenfell community since the fire, in both national and local government—the MHCLG in particular—the RBKC and its officers, the NHS, the voluntary sectors, the community groups and the memorial trust. Their work has been vital and I know that they will continue to support the Grenfell community.
I turn to the memorial itself. This has taken a long time and that is the right approach. It continues to be essential that work progresses at the community’s pace, not anybody else’s. The Conservative Government ensured that the memorial was budgeted for and I am pleased that the current Government have continued that support. As the Minister said, this is not a political issue. We must work together across political divides to do the right thing for the Grenfell community. Indeed, this is not just a memorial: for many of those who lost their lives in the fire, Grenfell is their final resting place. The site deserves to be treated sensitively and with dignity, particularly for their sake.
In government, we had a cross-governmental committee to ensure that the Government were supporting the Grenfell community. I ask the Minister: how are the Government continuing that cross-government work that we started? The work we did, for example, was on health. This community has health issues unlike any other, both mental and physical: fire, smoke, contamination and all those mental issues that come from being involved in such an incident.
Children’s services were particularly important to me when I was the Minister. The children who had been in their early primary years were now becoming teenagers. Many of them had spent all their childhood in families where Grenfell and the fire were continually there. They saw it day to day when going to and coming back from school, or going to the leisure centre, but their families were also damaged by what they had seen and heard, and what they had lost. I particularly hope, as those young people become teenagers, that we are making sure, across government, that they are supported, protected and helped.
When I talk to the bereaved and survivors, they tell me that there is still no justice, so what are the Government going to do to move this on, to give this community peace and the ability to move forward with their lives? With that in mind, will the Minister confirm that Ministers will continue to engage fully with the Grenfell community as work progresses on the memorial? My honourable friend in the other place, Gareth Bacon MP, said:
“The victims of the Grenfell Tower fire belong at the heart of everything we do in this place and outside it to remember the tragedy”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/3/26; col. 706.]
That is a principle that Ministers should keep in mind whenever they are working on the memorial and the other measures to support this community. This was a local tragedy but also a national tragedy, and it is right that the nation should remember in a fitting and lasting way all those who were affected by the Grenfell fire.
We on these Benches are clear that the Government must make good all their commitments on funding, so can the Minister confirm that all the funding pledges will be delivered on time and in full? On a related note, the refurbishment of the Lancaster West Estate for those still living there is an essential project to ensure that the estate is fit for the 21st century, and as a lasting legacy from the bad times to a better time in north Kensington.
Will the Minister update the House on progress on the refurbishment? This work is ongoing, but there is still not clarity on the level of further financial support that may come from the Government. Will the Minister confirm when that final detail will be available? If she cannot, will she at least give your Lordships’ House a commitment to expedite this in the interests of local residents who would benefit from urgent clarity? It is clear that any further delays will only be for the worse for that community.
We have debated the Grenfell inquiry in your Lordships’ House on a number of occasions, and we know that there are people who bear some responsibility for the fire who have not yet been held to account. That is very important to the community. Will the Minister please provide the House with an update on progress towards delivering on the recommendations of the inquiry? How are Ministers furthering efforts to ensure that all those who bear responsibility for the events of 14 June 2017 are held accountable?
Before I sit down, I want to reiterate our firm support for this important Bill which will enable the delivery of the much-promised Grenfell Tower memorial. Ministers are right to continue the work of previous Governments to deliver a memorial that will serve the entire Grenfell community and indeed the nation. We wish the project godspeed, with the hope that it will give some closure and peace to the north Kensington community. We will support the Government in everything they are to deliver on promises made to the Grenfell community.
Lord Roe of West Wickham (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend the Minister for her words and for the continued commitment, which she is correct to say started with the previous Government. I welcome her comments that this is not a political matter but one of moral duty and the necessity to recognise that a tragedy of this scale speaks to the state of our nation—not just of our politics, of our housing, of people’s class or where they come from, but actually the state of the nation. The sensitivity with which my noble friend the Minister spoke is greatly appreciated, and I hope that those out in the community and the immediate families of those who lost their lives will recognise the intent, as spoken, that they are to be given the power to determine what the physical manifestation of this memorial should be.
In that context, I do not intend to speak to the principle of the memorial that has to exist on that site, because I do not believe it is for anyone in this House to speak to that, nor to define it. It is not our privilege nor is it our right, because we did not lose our loved ones. I hope that those conversations will continue and, as the speakers clearly expressed in those first two opening statements, the way it progresses has to lie in the control and power of those who lost their dearest loved ones. I hope we do not rush that, and I commend my noble friend Lord Boateng, who so ably led the commission with that in mind and charted such difficult waters. I think it is the sole job of this House and the other place to hold the Government of the time to account on that matter, and to demonstrate and evidence that there has indeed been conversation with those families, and that there has indeed been a richness of process that allows for divergence of thought, because grief is personal.
In that sense, I have nothing further to say. I did not have any notes, because I tried to write something, but I could not. Instead, I would like to speak to what I think “memorial” must mean for the state and for society, because I think they are separate things. Sometimes they are conflated, whether in statements around justice or around change, but what we are talking about today, in respect of a physical memorial, is very different from what I think the memorial should be for the rest of the nation, and the reason I say this is because of what I witnessed that night.
Since that night, I have thought long and hard about what my place was in that tragedy and what might motivate me to keep going to, I would hope, drive better change in the spaces where I might have a good effect. What has motivated me was both the profundity of what I saw that night and the courage that was embodied in individuals, both rank-and-file firefighters and those who lost their families. Because I have no notes and I could not think of something suitably strategic to say, I would like to tell the story of the night from the eyes of someone who stood there, having been sent in to try to do something to resolve what was a desperate situation on the ground.
In telling the story of these two men, I hope it might bring home to this House the horror of the night. We use words like “tragedy” and “loss of life”, but I cannot explain the granular horror of the night without telling the story of people, of humans, and the courage embodied in both the family of the young man who lost his life, and who I will describe in a moment, and the rank-and-file firefighter. In doing so, I hope we will understand our privilege and that of those who lead industry and who build and refurbish houses. We have something to aspire to, and we should be led by them and not pretend that we lead them. In the same way that the power in respect of the memorial must be given to the families, we must let them, with their courage, lead us in a continued journey and endeavour, not only to improve the built environment but to restore our reputation as a country, because I saw Grenfell as a statement on where the UK had got to. I will now tell the story.
Having arrived at Grenfell, I was confronted by the absolute failure of the building almost immediately—it was so graphic and profound. It was unbelievable that it had happened in this country; it looked like something you might see in another country. Having realised that we would have to end “stay put” immediately—all the investigation that has followed since has shown the trauma that all of it placed, completely understandably, on families—I wanted to go inside the tower to understand what I was sending firefighters into. I queued to run in—we ran in under the shields of our policing colleagues because of the debris falling. I was standing behind a firefighter I had known for some time; I had served with him earlier in my career. Both of us were scared because of the scale of what we were heading into. Then, due to the ferocity of the fire, and due to the nature of where this poor young man had been trapped, the young man jumped from the building. Having jumped from the building, there was a terrible shout. I will never forget the noise of the impact, nor the shout as it came. He hit my colleague full on. He died in the most terrible way, this poor young man, and I thought my colleague had died, because they were both inert on the ground.
Surrounding me were 100 firefighters waiting to go into the tower, so I asked that the body of the young man be moved with dignity and that the body of the firefighter be moved. I went into the tower. Inside the tower, I was confronted by a situation where there were no real services of any kind to provide protection to firefighters on their way in. We did not have enough water, so we were going to commit them, without water, right into the upper reaches of the building. We were in a situation where multiple members of the public were trying to get out of the tower, desperate to save their lives. Bodies were being carried down the stairs. It was a scene of absolute horror on a scale that I had not witnessed before, and I had seen many awful things in my careers in both the Army and the fire service.
It became clear to me that I could not provide any comfort to my colleagues in terms of what we were ordering them to do. So I came back outside the tower and briefed 200 of them. I basically said to them, “Our radios are failing. We have no water. I’m going to ask you to commit into the building—I can’t order you; you have families and you have places you might want to go home to—but I believe it is in the best traditions of our service. At the end of the day, we’ve got breathing apparatus and we’ve got protective kit; it’s what we have to do and it is in the best traditions of our service to the community”. Not a single one of them stepped back; they were terrified but not a single one of them stepped back—and it was the same throughout the night. We had failed as an institution, but rank-and-file firefighters did not, and their courage to this day has lifted me.
As I walked away from that briefing, I came across the gentleman who had been standing in front of me, who I had believed to be dead. He was sitting on the ground serving his breathing apparatus set, having discharged himself from the back of an ambulance. He pulled his drip out, gathered his breathing apparatus set and committed himself into the building to save lives.
A month after taking over the role of commissioner of the London Fire Brigade, charged with changing the institution that needed desperate change and failed that night—along with government, the industry, the local authority and anyone who should have demonstrated any care—I met the family of the young man who had jumped from the tower. Their courage was shocking. Their courage was as significant as the firefighter who had suffered serious injury and then gone back into the tower. They had clarity about what had gone wrong. They told me what had gone wrong. They explained the failure of my institution to me. They explained the failure of government to me. They told me that they expected justice, and they told me what they wanted. To echo the words of both my colleagues here in the House, we are not there yet. They set clear and straightforward expectations.
I am going to end—I apologise for the time taken—simply by saying that the physical memorial that must be laid in Lancaster West is for the families and those who survived. We have a different job to do. If noble Lords ever doubt the necessity of it, I ask them to think of my colleague, the family of that young man, the desperate situation they found themselves in and the courage with which they have lifted themselves since then.
I thank the Minister for her words, and I hope she will agree that it is the duty of this House, along with the other place, to hold ourselves and wider society to account to make sure that those changes are made real.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, any community that forgets its memory becomes senile. Remembering Grenfell Tower and those who died in the fire, which should have been preventable, will save us from becoming senile. The memorial will be a visible reminder, lest we forget.
At the first memorial service held at St Helen’s Church in North Kensington, I was invited to preach by Clarrie Mendy. I described the tower as a tall coffin in the air—a symbol of forgotten people, but people we will constantly remember.
Clarrie Mendy had lost two family members in the fire, and she became a powerful voice in the campaign for justice for those who were affected. She brought in a wide range of community and church leaders from across London. If you Google “Clarrie Mendy Grenfell”, there is a lot of information about the impact she had. Sadly, Clarrie died in 2020 of motor neurone disease, but her legacy is that of somebody who, in spite of loss, saw her work as galvanising everybody so that nobody forgets. May she and all the others rest in peace.
When I went to that service, I took bay leaves from Bishopthorpe Palace gardens for everyone present, and I focused on the leaves of the tree for the healing of the nation—words taken from the Book of Revelation, chapter 22. I am glad that we took a lot of bay leaves, because the church was heaving. Everybody was again determined to never forget what happened at Grenfell Tower. I played a lament on my djembe drum, which went on for some nine minutes. In the silence that followed, we had a community that was determined to make sure that we will not forget.
St Helen’s Church was nearest to Grenfell Tower, and its vicar, Steve Divall, and its people did a lot of work to help. I used to visit it regularly in order to ensure that what we committed ourselves to doing would happen. The Bishop of Kensington was Graham Tomlin, and he too did a lot to help people on the ground. My final words were, “No stone should be left unturned”, and I am very glad that the inquiry left no stone unturned. The Grenfell Tower commission has done an excellent job of making sure that we remember.
Let us remember Grenfell Tower and give the Bill before us a resounding yes, lest we forget. Our memory will become senile if we do not do what the commission is asking and what the Bill wants: to enable some financial provision, which needs to be done through an Act of Parliament. I wholeheartedly support the Bill. I wholeheartedly want to thank the Minister for the way she introduced it, and I thank the other two speakers before me, who also focused on the whole question of memory. Memory matters, and when we do not remember, we find ourselves in real, deep trouble. The physical memorial will remind anybody who passes by or who visits that place that some great tragedy happened, but out of it, we are determined to make sure that we remember, because without remembering we find ourselves sometimes drifting into oblivion or thinking that the present troubles are where we need to do all the hard work. We will remember.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill, a piece of legislation that carries with it profound responsibility, as my noble friend Lord Roe of West Wickham said.
The tragedy at Grenfell Tower in June 2017, in which 72 lives were lost, remains one of the darkest moments in our recent history. It is a loss that is measured not only in numbers but in the absence of loved ones, in the silence left behind, and in the enduring grief carried by families and the wider community.
Before I continue, I just want to thank my noble friend Lord Roe for his contribution and for sharing his experience and his memory. His words today really left a mark on me, so I thank him for sharing that and for driving home the importance of this memorial and the lessons and changes that need to be made as a result of this devastating event. We need to make sure that we move forward so that there is change, and that it is long lasting.
The Bill comes before us as a poignant time. Next year will mark a decade since this tragedy. Ten years on and the pain remains, the memory endures and the responsibility to honour those who were lost is undiminished. As my noble friend the Minister said earlier, in legislative terms this is a modest Bill. It does not seek to resolve the many complex issues that arose from this tragedy, nor does it replace the ongoing work of justice, accountability and reform.
But what it does do is essential. It enables the creation of a permanent memorial: a place of remembrance, a place of reflection and a place that ensures that those who lost their lives are never forgotten. That matters, because memory is not passive. It shapes how we honour the past and how we act in the future. The importance of this memorial lies not only in what it represents but in how it is created. It must be led by the voices of the bereaved, the survivors and the community. Their experience, loss and resilience must sit at the heart of this process. This is not simply about building a structure; it is about creating a space that carries meaning, dignity and truth.
While the Bill is focused on funding, it carries the weight of wider moral justice. It is part of our collective duty to remember, to honour and to ensure that the legacy of Grenfell leads to lasting change. A permanent memorial will serve not only as a tribute to those we lost but as a place for future generations to understand the consequences of failure, including the failure to listen to a community and to act on their worries and concerns, as well as the importance of accountability, safety and humanity in public life.
As I said, remembrance must never be passive. It must shape how we act. This Bill gives us the means to do what should always have been done: to create something lasting, respectful and worthy of those whose lives were taken. We cannot undo the past, but we can honour it with purpose and ensure that it is never forgotten. I support the Bill.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, like every other speaker, I start by remembering the 72 lives lost and the countless others—the victims’ families, friends and the community—whose lives were for ever changed by the fire. The tragedy that took place at Grenfell Tower in the early hours of 14 June 2017 must never be forgotten. I, like others, was deeply moved by the direct witness of my noble friend Lord Roe of West Wickham and the heroism that he described, as well as the horror.
I welcome the Bill so empathetically moved by my noble friend the Minister. It will ensure the establishment of a fitting and lasting memorial, shaped by the community. It will not only commemorate the victims but serve as a lasting reminder of the avoidable actions that must never be repeated.
It is worth reminding ourselves of the stark words of Sir Martin Moore-Bick, chair of the Grenfell inquiry, when phase 2 of his report was published. He said that
“the simple truth is that the deaths that occurred were all avoidable and that those who lived in the tower were badly failed over a number of years and in a number of different ways by those who were responsible for ensuring the safety of the building and its occupants”.
I and my party welcomed the previous Government’s commitment to delivering the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry in full, and I support the current Government’s plans to implement them all by the end of the current Parliament to ensure that a lasting legacy of this tragedy will be that everyone is safe in their own home. It was heartening to hear the commitment to this legacy from across the political spectrum when colleagues in the other place considered the Bill last month. I am proud that the same commitment is evident in this House today.
I particularly highlight the need for a change in culture towards one of transparency and accountability: a necessary change that the Grenfell inquiry emphasised. Collaboration across all these Benches is crucial if we are to ensure that such a change in culture is cemented in practice and in delivery, so that a tragedy like this is never allowed to happen again.
I will focus briefly on the social housing sector’s role in the remediation process. Housing associations are crucial to the delivery of the policy. The safety of their residents is of the utmost importance to them, and I know they are working at pace to remediate the buildings under their care. The collaborative approach of government and the social housing sector in the development of the joint plan to accelerate the remediation of social housing and its deadlines has been welcome. There is now a clear plan of action, which is coupled with sufficient resources to deliver the ambitious numbers planned.
The Government have given the social housing sector, including housing associations, equal access to the cladding safety scheme, which was announced in the 2025 spending review. This will be a transformative step towards securing the necessary resources. As everybody has said, progress has been far too slow. Now, alongside the package of measures the Government have introduced to bring about a decade of renewal for social housing, this has given housing associations more capacity to remediate buildings at a faster pace.
Progress is at last being made. Analysis by the National Housing Federation of the building safety remediation data published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government shows that the social housing sector has been completing works at around twice the rate of the private sector. However, it is clear that there is much more to be done, and we need to see this welcome commitment to securing residents’ safety from all actors across the wider housing sector.
It is crucial that the social housing sector has the resources available to continue delivering on its commitment to carry out remediation works as fast as possible. In conclusion, I ask my noble friend to commit to continuing to work closely with the sector to secure the on-time delivery of the deadlines outlined within the joint plan, to ensure that the tragedy that took place at Grenfell is not allowed to happen again elsewhere.
This Bill enables the delivery of a memorial that should be a stark reminder to us all of our duty to ensure the safety of people across the country in their own homes, which should be a long-lasting legacy of this terrible tragedy. I also hope that the memorial, the design of which will be led by the bereaved and the wider community, will be a place of remembrance of those who tragically lost their lives on that dark day in 2017.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, only someone who was there on the night of the Grenfell Tower fire or who experienced the loss of a loved one in that disaster can truly understand what it must have been like to suffer the physical and emotional losses that it caused. Death, injury, mental trauma, the sudden removal from a home, and the incalculable and continuing difficulties and questions for the emergency services and their personnel are just some of the consequences that come to mind, but there will be others. The noble Lord, Lord Roe, powerfully spoke about this, as others have pointed out, and I commend him for what he did with his colleagues on the night of 14 June 2017 and for what he said to us today.
It is right that there should be a memorial to the people whose lives were lost or damaged by this fire. Its design is not a matter for this debate, but I hope that it—in its entirety—will be a thing of beauty and utility that will last as a solace and as a continuing reminder not just of the lives lost but of the need for public authorities and the corporate world to behave with responsibility for and to others. In short, I ask that we do not just look back but that we look forward to the creation of a better regime for government and corporate conduct.
In the compressed procedure that governs the narrow compass of the Bill, there will not be time—indeed, it may not be appropriate—to introduce an amendment to describe the idea that I wish to advance, but it is one I would like the Government seriously to bear in mind. I interrupt myself by making it clear that, although some members of my barristers’ chambers have been involved in the Grenfell Tower inquiry and its related litigation, I am not a construction law practitioner and have played no part in the inquiry, nor in any related cases.
Although a memorial of the type envisaged by this Bill is a fitting way to commemorate what happened on 14 June 2017, that is not all that we should do. What connects the 72 deaths in Grenfell Tower and other cases of corporate decision-making resulting in loss of life are the bereaved families waiting for justice. The 72 Grenfell Tower deaths and others elsewhere caused by corporate failure make it clear that we need to strengthen corporate criminal law.
We may think that corporate crime is only financial: bribery, tax evasion, money laundering, fraud, cash in brown envelopes, false accounting and clever schemes that cheat the Revenue. Britain has, to its credit, taken a leading role in tackling those offences. However, where corporate misconduct kills rather than steals, our legal system is failing.
It does not have to be like this. The Bribery Act 2010 introduced a powerful weapon: a company commits a criminal offence if it fails to prevent bribery by those who work for it or on its behalf. Companies can no longer shelter behind ignorance or delegation. If a company benefits from wrongdoing and has not put reasonable procedures in place to stop it, the company itself can be prosecuted. We later extended that model to the failure to prevent tax evasion and fraud offences through, respectively, the Criminal Finances Act 2017 and the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. The effect of those laws on corporate culture has been profound. Rather than turning a blind eye, companies now invest in procedures to prevent financial crimes.
Without new UK legislation, the same cannot be said about the prevention of death, assault, forced labour and other non-financial crimes from which companies benefit. It is now nearly nine years since the Grenfell Tower fire. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry, so ably and sensitively led by Sir Martin Moore-Bick, concluded that the 72 deaths in the 2017 fire were, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, pointed out, “wholly avoidable” and resulted from “decades of failure” by government, industry and regulatory bodies.
The final phase 2 report, published on 4 September 2024, identified a “merry-go-round of buck-passing”, where every party involved in the building’s refurbishment failed to take responsibility for fire safety. Sir Martin revealed that persistent and deliberate prioritisation of commercial interests over human safety played a direct part in causing this tragedy. A cladding company that knew about the safety issues was
“determined to exploit what it saw as weak regulatory regimes”
in the United Kingdom.
By 2023, the financial cost of the Grenfell Tower disaster had reached nearly £1.2 billion; that is 4,000 times the amount that was saved by replacing fire-retardant cladding with a cheaper combustible alternative during the disastrous refurbishment. The bulk of the cost is being met from the public purse, dwarfing the compensation to the bereaved and the survivors paid by companies involved in wrapping the tower block in combustible materials before the fire in June 2017. Although the biggest fire in a residential block, Grenfell was not the first, and there have been others since. So far, no one has been held criminally accountable.
I could cite other examples where corporate decision-making, or the lack of it, both here and overseas, has caused or been alleged to have caused hundreds of people to lose their lives, homes or livelihoods. I will not say more, as at least one of the cases that I have in mind is currently the subject of High Court proceedings here in London. What I can say is that the law of the United Kingdom makes it difficult for cases like these to result in effective accountability, let alone access to justice for those who have suffered.
Jurisdictional arguments aside, holding corporations accountable for criminal activity is complicated, whether it is based on the identification principle or on attribution to a senior manager—an improvement now proposed in the Crime and Policing Bill, which is shortly to receive Royal Assent. Crucially, existing laws do not impose a proactive duty on companies to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm arising from their commercial activities.
The introduction of effective corporate accountability laws here in the United Kingdom is long overdue. I first wrote about the need to plug the gaps in our legal system more than eight years ago, in the Times newspaper. Since then, other countries have moved ahead. Norway, Germany, France and the EU as a whole have all introduced a legal requirement for companies to prevent human rights and environmental abuses in their operations and supply chains.
Now is the time for us to act. The failure to prevent model is an effective British legal innovation. It is pragmatic and it is fair. It does not criminalise accidents. It does not promote meaningless box-ticking. It simply asks whether a company that has benefited from serious wrongdoing took reasonable steps to stop it. If the company can prove to the civil standard that it did, it has a defence. If it did not, it should answer in the criminal courts and compensate its victims.
Calls are growing to extend this model beyond financial crime to discourage harm to human rights, workers’ rights and the environment. They come from campaigners, parliamentary committees, trade unions, investors, businesses themselves and the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner. The argument is no longer seen as radical. It is not, as others have already said, party political; it is humane and it is orthodox. The Government’s trade strategy proclaims that responsible business conduct is a priority, and a review of the UK’s approach is under way. If Ministers are serious about this and they wish to be taken seriously about this, they should build on what works. A new law cannot bring back the dead of Grenfell, but the failure to prevent model has changed corporate behaviour before and it can do so again. Would not such a reform of our laws be a practical and above all a fitting memorial to the victims of the Grenfell Tower fire?
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier.
The late great Martin Amis described the sensation of ageing as feeling like breakfast comes around every 15 minutes. Dare I say it but, for some of us in your Lordships’ House, 2017 feels like yesterday. For the survivors and the bereaved, it must feel like every day. I welcome this Bill to fund a memorial, but I agree with everyone else that the best memorial would add action on culture, governance and regulation in the field of building and fire safety and more generally.
This was no natural disaster, nor one caused by overt acts of terrorism or war as normally understood. Instead, it was a catastrophe—a loss of life caused by public, private, central and local negligence, complacency, cover-up, corruption and greed. Greed in the late 1990s and 2000s was given political voice through the zeal for deregulation and privatising regulation, as we see in the report, and against the so-called health and safety culture that was derided at times by senior politicians, including very distinguished ones and including in your Lordships’ House. This was done with an enthusiasm now reserved for the denigration of human rights alone.
In pursuit of the cutting of red tape, some lives mattered a great deal less—as we have heard from the noble and learned Lord—than corporate profit. These are the profits of architects, builders, manufacturers of building materials and all those who purported to regulate and kitemark all of the above—again, for profit, which is a bit of an oxymoron. It is not so much regulatory capture as regulatory corruption and cancellation. This is so clear from Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s damning inquiry report.
What of the public sector? What of central and local government, which should have been on the side of the poor and the vulnerable—those tenants in the richest borough in one of the richest cities in the world? Sir Martin was appropriately scathing about the negligence of central government.
As for local government, Kensington and Chelsea is consistently rated as our capital’s richest borough in terms of average household income, property prices and the concentration of what are described as “high net worth” residents. Is this what led a so-called royal borough to behave more like a rotten one, via its tenant management body? There is an idea: a tenant management body that, in the years before the fire, and, some would argue, even in the immediate aftermath, treated the repeated concerns of Grenfell residents, even after earlier comparable high-rise fires, with such contempt.
As for the fire brigade, I need say little more than how well represented that service has been today by my noble friend Lord Roe of West Wickham. He said that we failed as an institution, but our people, our firefighters, did not. His courage and humility in describing his experience is something that few of us will forget in a hurry. If that approach to public service could be distilled and distributed more widely, our country would be a much better place.
I hope that this draft legislation has already made some contribution by prompting all of us who are attempting to contribute today to reread the findings and urgent recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry report. I know my noble friend to be fierce in her defence of human rights and renters’ rights, and I know that memory without action will be insufficient for her, so can I ask for her view of the implementation to date of Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report?
Public sector, if not private sector, obfuscation in the aftermath of disasters would be significantly lanced by the prompt passage of the long-promised Hillsborough legislation. Can the Minister advise the House on the likely timetable for that? Can she also advise, or say anything more, on what my noble friends have alluded to regarding the timetable for relevant criminal prosecutions, given that the report lays considerable breadcrumbs for the police and prosecution authorities to follow?
Is the Minister of the view—this is where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, comes in—that the current criminal law is adequate? I think few that heard him would be reassured that it is. Are the laws of corporate manslaughter and director regulation and disqualification adequate to provide corporate and personal accountability for the kind of unadulterated neglect and corruption that we saw in this and other scandals, including that of the postmasters? In the wake of all sorts of other debates about AI and exciting challenges, will the Government always remember the importance of transparent and effective regulation, not just in housing but in every other aspect of everyday life?
Housing is no mere commodity; it is a fundamental human right. Sir Martin’s report emphasises the importance of safe, private and dignified housing to any quality of life. Perhaps the denigration of human rights might be resigned to the dustbin, like the denigration of health and safety that came before it.
Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)
My Lords, first, I declare an interest and draw noble Lords’ attention to my role as a non-executive director at MHCLG, the lead department for this Bill. The Bill, as presented very ably by my noble friend the Minister, is short, tightly drawn and constitutionally straightforward. It is a money Bill and, as such, as many speakers have already said, our role today is limited. However, its significance is anything but limited. This Bill asks Parliament to do something solemn, to authorise public expenditure so that this country can create, maintain and steward a permanent memorial to the 72 people who lost their lives on the night of 14 June 2017.
My noble friend the Minister has explained eloquently what this Bill seeks to do. What it does not do is equally important. It does not determine the design, governance or planning decisions associated with memorial. Those remain rightly with the bereaved, the survivors and the local community, through the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission. This is a deliberate choice on the behalf of the Government. Ministers in the Commons were clear that the narrowness of the Bill is intended to preserve community leadership, which is a profound shift in our British tradition of memorialisation. For most of the last century, national memorials from the Cenotaph to the Commonwealth war grave cemeteries were designed, commissioned and governed by state or national bodies. Grenfell is different; it is community led, because the community has borne the greatest loss and because the state must demonstrate again that it must not impose decisions on people whose voices were ignored for far too long.
We also must be honest about why this memorial is needed. The Grenfell Tower fire was not a natural disaster or an unforeseeable accident. The public inquiry has documented in painful detail what the Government themselves have described as failure after failure, year after year—failures of regulation, of oversight, of enforcement and of listening. Many Members in the Commons debate said plainly that Grenfell was an avoidable tragedy rooted in systemic regulatory failure. The memorial, therefore, is not only a place of remembrance but a form of institutional accountability. It is a public acknowledgement that the state failed in its most important basic duty: to keep people safe in their own homes.
At the time of the fire, I was the leader of Newcastle City Council, and the four weeks that followed were the worst of my time holding that office, because I was not able to give a categorical assurance to residents in my city that every tall building around them was safe. Those buildings in public ownership, where we had clear records of design, building control sign-off, construction materials and usage, were manageable, even when remediation work was needed. But several tall residential buildings were a mystery. We did not know who owned them. We did not know how they had been constructed. We did not know what materials had been used—and there was no mechanism to find this out quickly. That was the direct consequence of a deregulatory zeal that removed safeguards without understanding what those safeguards were there to prevent. It was a failure with profound consequences for public confidence and public safety.
The Grenfell Tower fire has been described by commentators as one of the gravest failures of the British state in modern times. Personally, I would go further and call it the greatest crime committed in this country this century. What is beyond dispute is that the cladding that turned a small kitchen fire into an inferno was not installed for thermal efficiency or structural protection, or for any purpose that served the residents inside the building. It was installed for cosmetic reasons—for those who looked at Grenfell, not for those who lived within it. This was a deliberate attempt to hide a community that some considered inconvenient or unsightly, or somehow less deserving of dignity. At the heart of this tragedy lies a toxic mix of elitism, class prejudice and a disregard for people living in poverty. A memorial cannot put that right, but it can ensure that we do not look away. It can ensure that the lessons of Grenfell are not confined to inquiry reports or regulatory guidance but are embedded in our national memory, and that future Governments, of whatever political persuasion, remain accountable for the long-term stewardship of that memory.
That is why this Bill legislates for expenditure not only today but for the decades ahead. It mirrors the long-term commitments we have made to the maintenance of our war memorials, recognising that remembrance is not a one-off act but a continuing and collective intergenerational responsibility. The Bill may well set a precedent; other tragedies linked to state or institutional failure—Hillsborough, the contaminated blood scandal and the Post Office Horizon scandal—have prompted calls for memorialisation that acknowledges harm and honours those affected. The approach taken here, with community leadership and statutory funding, may shape how Parliament responds in future.
I end on a point raised by many survivors and bereaved families. Community leadership does not mean community responsibility alone. The state cannot outsource remembrance. It cannot say: “This is for you alone to decide and therefore for you alone to carry”. The responsibility for learning, reform and ensuring that nothing like Grenfell ever happens again rests with public bodies, regulators and those of us in positions of authority. A memorial is not a substitute for action. It is a reminder of the cost of inaction. So while I support this Bill and the funding it provides, the true national memorial to Grenfell must be a housing system that is safe, a regulatory system that is robust, a culture that listens to tenants and a state that never again allows people to be treated as though their lives matter less. This Bill enables a physical memorial. It is our duty to ensure that it also builds a moral one.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Forbes of Newcastle. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roe of West Wickham, for his incredibly powerful speech. We all need a reminder sometimes of the enormity of that night, and his speech certainly did that. While he spoke about the night itself, he did not mention the incredible, painstaking work he has done with the community in the years since. I also acknowledge the work of that community today, in particular the representatives of the memorial commission, because for them the road to get here has been rather less straightforward than the Bill before us today.
We know that, in the days after the fire, the local community pulled together in the most extraordinary way. We all remain in awe of their resilience, but it was inevitable with a tragedy on this scale that people were going to take different views on how to navigate the aftermath. One of the most sensitive and, at times, divisive issues has been the memorial, so it took great courage for the bereaved and survivors to step up and take a place on that commission. I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, in co- chairing it alongside Thelma Stober, who has played a brilliant and pivotal role from the very beginning. It really has not been easy and there will undoubtedly be further hurdles ahead, so will the Minister ensure that the Government pay careful attention to the role of the commissioners when taking any decisions related to the site and the memorial? Of all the people involved in this process, they are uniquely exposed and we owe them a huge debt of gratitude.
This Bill sits alongside the deconstruction process, which continues apace. I know the Government are aware that there is still a lot of distrust, I am afraid, about the way in which the decision was taken. In fairness, it was never going to be an easy decision for anyone to take, but it remains a sensitive issue. Can the Minister assure the House that proper support will continue to be made available to those who need it, because trauma this significant has a long tail? As one former resident of the tower told me,
“we have all given a lot of thought to how people might be affected by the Tower coming down but what about when it’s no longer there? I’m not sure any of us have properly thought that through yet”.
At the same time, as I understand it, some support services are no longer available. On a visit to Al Manaar, Nick Hurd and I were told that they would no longer be receiving funding for their helpline, which is relatively low-cost and has provided a lot of help to many in the local community. So, although I do not expect the Minister to know the details now, could she write with an update on what support is available, be that through helplines, drop-in sessions, specialist support services or GP practices? I think I am right in saying that support will be available until the end of any potential criminal proceedings, but if she could confirm that, I would be grateful.
We are here today to talk about the memorial, but the memorial, those proceedings and the question of justice are inextricably linked. In 2024, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Stuart Cundy took the highly unusual step of publicly confirming that the Met would be submitting charging files to the CPS. But as it stands, the investigations are still ongoing and those charging decisions are not expected until the spring of 2027.
In his excellent speech in the other place, the honourable Member for Kensington and Bayswater said that Ministers in the Home Office had told him that the Government’s special grant for Operation Northleigh—the investigation into Grenfell—would continue. Can the Minister confirm that? She said that there was support for the investigation, but I would be grateful for clarification on that point about the grant. He also raised the important point about ensuring that court time is made available. I understand that this is not in the Government’s gift, but families are anxious about the delay, so I think it is worth mentioning. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether there are any representations the Government can make on this.
When the discussions began about the future of the site and the memorial, the Government agreed a set of principles with the community that would govern the process. As has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, one of those principles accepted that work on the site and the memorial would go hand in hand with work to deliver a model 21st-century estate—the Lancaster West estate. Some progress has been made, but I hope the Government will continue to support RBKC in ensuring that the memorial will sit within the model of social housing that I know we would all like to see in the future.
The memorial will honour the memory of all those who lost their lives, and of course it is important. But the Grenfell community has always been clear that, alongside any appropriate memorial, they want Grenfell to be remembered not for what happened on the night but for the positive change it brought about. For groups such as Grenfell United, that should be the real legacy of Grenfell. They have spent years, at great cost to themselves, trying to bring about that change.
One of the most important aspects of that was the professionalisation of social housing. Some of us in this Chamber today will remember that long-running battle, so I will not repeat the arguments other than to say that it put right the anomaly whereby social housing was the only front-line service without any formal qualifications structure. I want to put on record the disappointment that many felt at the Regulator of Social Housing’s decision not to set a stand-alone competence and conduct standard but to instead incorporate the requirements into the existing transparency, influence and accountability standard. This has come as a big and unwelcome surprise to the sector, including the Chartered Institute of Housing. Does the Minister agree that this proposal does not accurately reflect the Government’s original direction to the regulator? If she cannot answer that today, perhaps she could write. I promise that that is my last request of her.
Despite the number of questions, I genuinely welcome today’s Bill and thank the Minister for the way in which she introduced it. But as she said at the outset, it is just one part of a complex landscape in which there is still much to do if we are to do right by the Grenfell community—for all those who survived, and for all those they lost that night.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her introduction and give my strong support to this Bill. I join noble Lords from across the House in thanking my noble friend Lord Roe and his team for their service that night. As others have already said, the Grenfell Tower fire was not only a profound tragedy but an event that exposed deep systemic failures in building safety, governance and the relationship between communities and the state.
The fire, in which 72 individuals lost their lives, was entirely avoidable, as Sir Martin Moore-Bick concluded in the inquiry. It has left a stain on the city of London, which allowed this to happen, and our wider country. It must remain in our national conscience. Recovery from this tragedy has been about more than buildings and regulation. It is about memory, dignity and the recognition of those who were lost and those who continue to live with its consequences.
Grenfell has had a profound impact on me, professionally and personally. I had the privilege—I use that word with great care—of serving as a trustee of the London Emergencies Trust, representing the British Red Cross on its board as a director at that time. I came face to face with Grenfell families when I and some of my colleagues attended a meeting with Grenfell United, which I will never forget. We were confronted not with statistics but with people—families who were grieving, families who were angry and traumatised. They needed to be heard and, most importantly, they needed urgent practical help. Grenfell was a tower, but in the face of that tragedy I could see that the community came together and stood as a tower of strength.
Through the London Emergencies Trust, we distributed £8 million to the bereaved and hospitalised and a further £773,000 to 165 households. We allocated grants for those who had been hospitalised, for pregnant women who suffered due to unimaginable stress, and for families who had lost fathers, mothers and children. Behind every grant application there was a grieving family and a community in huge distress. It was one of the most humbling periods of my life. The British Red Cross provided one of the largest humanitarian responses since World War II, mobilising volunteers from across our country at the start of the fire. It deployed over 630 volunteers, who supported more than 1,700 people. I cannot forget how volunteers arrived from all over the country. It also raised £7.3 million in funds to help those affected by this terrible tragedy. I thank all the volunteers, our psychosocial team for their immediate response at the time, and the senior leadership of the British Red Cross and trustees of the London Emergencies Trust for their service.
As we have heard, the Grenfell tragedy should never have happened. It exposed systemic neglect of the very people the state had a duty to protect. As a doctor I have spent much of my career speaking about health inequalities and helping to tackle them, but Grenfell forced me to confront something even more troubling—an inequality of safety and an inequality of voice in our society. Grenfell Tower stood in one of the most deprived areas in the country, within Kensington and Chelsea, one of the wealthiest boroughs in our country. Around 85% of those who died were from Black, Asian and minority-ethnic backgrounds. These two facts are not incidental. For years, residents had raised concerns about fire safety and were consistently ignored. As Leslie Thomas KC, who represented many of the bereaved families, argued:
“Grenfell is inextricably linked with race”.
It was a working-class community tucked, or forgotten, inside one of the richest boroughs of London. The failure to hear, to act, to protect, fell disproportionately on those who already had least. A permanent memorial is an act not of charity but of civic responsibility.
Grenfell must never become just a chapter in our history; it must remain a call to build a society where safety is not determined by race or postcode. A permanent memorial must carry that truth, not just the grief. The Bill’s provision for expenditure on the Grenfell memorial, including an archive and a sacred resting place for elements of the tower, in line with the recommendations of the commission, is therefore vital. A memorial of this significance must be properly maintained, protected and preserved for future generations, not only for them to remember those who were lost and those who lost but to remind us of our duty to tackle inequality and protect the most vulnerable in our society.
Critically, the Bill does not prescribe the design of the memorial. It enables government expenditure, while ensuring that the community shapes the memorial’s design and purpose. Those most affected must remain at its heart. The Bill is a necessary step in honouring our commitment to that community and to our nation, and I commend it to the House.
Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Lab)
Who and what we as a country remember matters. Although many others in your Lordships’ House are clearly far more qualified on this topic and have had direct face-to-face experience of the tragedy, I wanted to speak in this debate because, as somebody who was living in London and has the name of a council estate in my title, this is a debate and a subject that matter very much to me. I remember vividly watching in total disbelief as those events of 14 June 2017 unfolded. It was a day when so many things changed, and this painful event in the city’s history is etched on Londoners’ hearts for ever. Of course, that is incomparable to those who were there and witnessed it with their own eyes and are living with that day, as others have mentioned—a repeated memory.
It is absolutely right that there is a fitting memorial, and it is absolutely right that Governments, institutions, professional organisations and regulatory bodies learn every possible lesson from this appalling tragedy and litany of systemic failures. Both these things can happen, as others have said, only if a relentless focus on the voices of surviving residents and the local community is maintained. The government response to phase 2 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, published in March 2026, stated:
“It was clear from events leading up to the tragedy in 2017 that too many voices had gone unheard by too many responsible organisational bodies leading to devastating consequences. This government is determined that we learn from these injustices and ensure that tenants’ voices are not only heard but reliably acted upon”.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for all the reassurances today that that is precisely what is happening, as well as the work that has happened on this in the other place. That is the key here: not just hearing from those voices but learning from and acting on them. It is so important that this memorial is built and well funded to remember those who died and to declare war on “institutional thoughtlessness”, a phrase I borrow today from prison scholarship. These systems and structures that failed so badly were the result of cultures that allowed cost-cutting, regulation to be treated merely as guidance and a lack of rigour in thinking through what might happen in the event of systemic failure and therefore a lack of mitigations in place. There was wide-ranging institutional thoughtlessness.
Systemic failures are far less likely to viscerally impact those in senior roles, who are often cushioned by class, wealth or their whiteness. The systemic failures at Grenfell Tower are no different—failures that resulted in the deaths of people whose lives and stories have been too often marginalised and forgotten. As your Lordships’ House has heard, those who lived in Grenfell Tower and those who died there were disproportionately working class, people who had made their home afresh in the UK, and Black and brown people.
Who and what we remember matters. Black lives matter. That is why this memorial is so important, both for the survivors and for the community, who have expressed their desire for one that includes private space to grieve and one with funding to preserve and sustain it. The memorial is important for our country, to say clearly that those 72 lives mattered—each life of value, each person remembered, each story told. Their lives had huge value, and the systemic failures that brought about these tragic and untimely ends have been devastating to uncover.
The memorial will remind all of us in your Lordships’ House and in the other place, all those in positions of power, that there cannot be a relaxed approach to systemic failures. They are not someone else’s problem. It is not okay to wait for a loss of life to address them. It is repeatedly demonstrated that systemic failures impact some groups of people disproportionately, and this memorial will serve as a reminder that each life is precious and of equal value. Whatever your gender, ethnicity, skin colour or class, the lives of people of all faiths and none have equal value.
I express my gratitude to the survivors, the community and all those who have contributed, who are contributing and will contribute to the memorial. We can hear from the tributes in the House today just how much work and thought has gone into it, but there is still much yet to do. I am grateful for the fact that it will enable the whole of London and the UK to better remember those precious lives and these people’s stories. Who and what we remember really does matter.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
My Lords, it is an enormous privilege to take part in this thoughtful debate. I remember the shock of witnessing the charred husk of Grenfell Tower as I drove across London to do the paper review on Sky News. I remember being on air, and it was incredibly difficult to process what had just happened, in this day and age, in a residential building. It was a moment and a tragedy that none of us, whether we were journalists or anyone else, could really get our heads around—72 people losing their lives, in this day and age. They were not just statistics, as we have heard, but men, women, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, aunties, uncles, and so many children and babies who perished in what must have been unimaginable fear, confusion, bewilderment and pain that night.
I have been thinking about the tragedies that live on in history, the ones that we think change things, the ones that herald a new era of health and safety, and change. I was thinking, for example, about a tragedy that I spend a lot of time thinking about for various reasons: the “Titanic”.
As much as we talk about systemic failures—we will come on to discuss that, as my good friend, my noble friend Lady Hyde, just said in her excellent speech—the staying power of remembrance is about those human stories, people and personalities, such as Raymond Bernard, known as Moses to his friends, who had moved to the UK from Trinidad in 1969. He worked as an electrician and a part-time DJ. His relatives said that he
“had long, flowing locks like the free-thinking lion that he was”.
The wee girls Hania Hassan, aged three, and her sister Fethia, aged four, known as Fou-Fou, died along with their mum, Rania Ibrahim. Their dad and Rania’s husband, Awadh, said his life had “fully stopped” since the fire.
The Choukair family lived on the 22nd floor. Bassem died alongside his wife Nadia and their three girls Zainab, Mierna and Fatima. Bassem worked at Marks & Spencer and was described by his colleagues as a dedicated man who never took a day off, such was his pride in his work. His mother-in-law, Sirria, died alongside them. Sirria had come to this country from Lebanon back in the 1960s. She worked at the Royal Marsden Hospital, where she became close friends with her boss, a lady called Maria Del Pilar Burton, who also lived in Grenfell Tower and who died in hospital six months after the fire.
Anthony Disson, the retired lorry driver, lived on the 22nd floor. His son said of him that he was
“always there to help anyone, no matter who you were or where you came from”.
Ligaya Moore, the Filipino pensioner loved her 21st-floor flat and was so proud of it because, she said, it made her feel like she was
“on top of the world”.
The artist and photographer Khadija Saye lived and died with her mum, Mary Mendy, that night. Khadija was a great talent and her work was displayed at the Venice Biennale and Tate Britain after her death.
Gary Maunders, aged 57, was remembered by his family as a man with a great personality and as a devoted Manchester United football supporter.
Sheila, aged 84, had lived at Grenfell for 34 years. Sheila was full of life and fit as a fiddle, often being seen cycling around or doing yoga daily. She was a keen swimmer at the Kensington Leisure Centre until she was 80 years old.
Steven Power lived on the 15th floor. His daughter said her dad was a keen fisherman and DJ, and had a style which was like a
“West Indies man trapped in an Irish man’s body”.
Steven’s best pals were his three dogs, who also died with him that night in his flat.
These are just a handful of the stories behind that number of 72—the number of people who died that night. As we have all been discussing, we must remember and honour every single one of them. We must also honour what Grenfell Tower represented. In an often toxic, polarised world, we are often told, particularly online, that London, our capital, has been invaded by outsiders; that it is a violent cesspit and a crime-ridden, nasty and unhappy place. But we in this House all know that Grenfell—the Grenfell that we have all got to know though the work we have done—told a very different story. The globe resided there, with people from all over the world who came to London to work very hard, like Bassem, and make a better life for themselves alongside Londoners who lived in that building. They found in that tower block such riches: friendship, kinship and community in life and then, tragically, in death. Grenfell is a reminder of resilience and unity in a very divided climate, of hope and of the best of humanity, particularly in the aftermath and the days afterwards.
I very much welcome this Bill and the many wonderful, thoughtful and really moving contributions that we have heard, particularly from my noble friend Lord Roe. I think we were all extremely humbled by his story, his bravery and his lived experience. He powerfully reminded us of our privileges and responsibilities.
We all agree, though, that this memorial, however it takes shape, must be guided by survivors, families and the local community. As we have been discussing, the legacy must be more than simply memories. It must be about learning the right systemic lessons for the future and about justice, which means prosecutions. Like so many of the big scandals of our generation, including Horizon, nobody senior and very well paid ever seems to be held properly accountable. Every single one of these deaths was avoidable. As the inquiry said, everyone who died in the fire had been failed by those responsible for keeping them safe.
I welcome the words from the Minister and hope that she will have heard many of the questions. I am sure she will agree with us all that these reports and recommendations must not become just dusty tomes on the shelf of history. We must never allow a tragedy like this to happen again.
Lord Sharma (Con)
My Lords, following the 2017 general election, I was appointed Housing and Planning Minister on 13 June by the then Prime Minister, now the noble Baroness, Lady May. That, of course, was the day before the terrible tragedy at Grenfell Tower where 72 people lost their lives—54 adults and 18 children.
As many of your Lordships have noted, this was a tragedy that should never have happened. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry has been very clear that those 72 deaths were “entirely avoidable”, and we have to acknowledge that ultimately this was the result of decades of failure by successive Governments, by myriad institutions and of course by the construction industry. A number of noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Sanderson and Lady Hazarika, pointed out that so far no one has been prosecuted for this disaster. We know that the criminal investigation remains ongoing, but when charges are brought, and I sincerely hope they are, the full force of the law should be thrown at those found to be culpable.
The immediate initial response to the fire was also simply not good enough. As Ministers, we acknowledged that at the time. I did so in the media and in Parliament. We should have moved much more quickly to put our arms around the grieving and shell-shocked families and communities to offer support and reassurance. The Government did pick up the pace, and in the days and weeks following the tragedy, I and other Ministers spent a significant amount of time listening to and engaging with survivors and the wider Grenfell community to offer immediate support but also to discuss what longer-term support might be required. The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, set out very eloquently that a lot of what was started then continues today.
I also noted in a parliamentary debate in the other place that hearing the harrowing accounts of the survivors was
“the most humbling and moving experience of my life”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/7/17; col. 1191.]
That remains the case. If anything, the passage of time has only reinforced to me the real dignity that was maintained by the survivors in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, despite the unimaginable pain and grief that they faced.
I particularly recall speaking to one survivor when I was meeting families individually at the Westway emergency relief centre to talk about their housing needs. One gentleman had waited patiently for hours to speak to me, and in our conversation I learned that at the time, some members of his family were still unaccounted for, but he wanted nothing for himself. All he asked was that I—we—do everything to prioritise and help find accommodation for survivor families with young children. His was a display of the best of humanity at a very dark and testing time for our nation.
I very much welcome this Grenfell Tower memorial Bill, which will allow for the construction of a permanent and fitting memorial. We all owe enormous gratitude to the community-led Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission, which has worked so diligently over the past years to recommend how the victims of the fire should be remembered. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Roe, for the work that he did that night and subsequently. I totally agree with him that, of course, it is up to the community to decide what this memorial should be like, but I do think that the commission’s recommendations show great sensitivity and awareness about the type of memorial that should be constructed. I particularly welcome the recommendation that the memorial should be a “sacred place”, designed and built to last, for remembering and reflecting, both individually and communally, on who and what we have lost.
It is also vital, as the commission recommends, that there is a long-term public exhibition, which, together with digital archives, will help ensure that current and future generations can learn about and remember the tragedy, the factors that contributed to it and how the Grenfell community responded to it. We must never forget what happened—and what, through years of inaction, and worse, was in effect allowed to happen—on that fateful day. The noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Nargund, have noted that this tragedy happened in the middle of one of the most prosperous and advanced cities in the world.
As I understand it, the commission has committed to beginning the memorial’s construction in mid-2027, and the passage of the Bill will help ensure that public money is made available. A permanent Grenfell memorial is vital, but there are other ways in which we can honour the memories of those who lost their lives. First—the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, raised this issue, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister on this—I would like to see the Government deliver on their commitments to help fund the refurbishment of the Lancaster West Estate. I know that the Government are having a constructive dialogue with the local council, but, for the sake of local residents, funding decisions need to be concluded now. Secondly, as many of your Lordships have noted, we need to ensure that the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry are implemented in a timely manner, so that a tragedy like Grenfell can never be allowed to happen again. I commend the Bill to the House.
Baroness Gill (Lab)
My Lords, the Grenfell Tower fire was a tragedy of an unimaginable scale, as many of the contributions have reminded us. The noble Lord, Lord Roe of West Wickham, in particular, described the shocking events of that day so movingly.
I am contributing today not only to debate a Bill but to honour the 72 lives that were tragically lost. We do well to remember that each one of those 72 individuals had dreams and a future. They were someone’s child, parent, brother, sister, uncle or aunt. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, for sharing the stories of those individuals who perished. It is so important for us to remember the individuals, but there were also countless others who were injured and who will be impacted for rest of their lives. It was not just them and the local community who were left scarred by the Grenfell Tower fire but the entire country.
Like many others, I vividly recall the day I heard the news; I was in Brussels at the time. The sheer horror I felt as the news sunk in was followed rapidly by questions: how could this happen in the UK, a first-world country, not some poor, developing one with shoddy standards? This is a country that prides itself on being well regulated, with a strong ethos of values, the rule of law and standards. I recall the shame I experienced as a British representative in the EU, fielding questions from other MEPs about this, asking how this could happen—as many have said today—in one of the most prosperous capital cities in the world.
The international standing of “brand Britain” was badly damaged that day. Grenfell was not simply a fire but a national tragedy that exposed deep failures in safety, accountability and the duty that we owe each other as citizens. That includes the combustible cladding, the fire doors that failed and the evacuation procedures that were tragically inadequate, as well as the deeper systemic failures in regulation, oversight and accountability that made such a disaster possible.
Going forward, as someone who has a long history in housing development, I shudder each time I hear the word deregulation in reference to housing, because that means lax enforcement of construction standards and building regulations, which is what we need to be strengthening. Furthermore, residents must have clear and accessible channels to raise their concerns without fear. Unsafe materials must be removed from all buildings, nationwide, identified as a risk. Landlords, building managers and regulators must all face real accountability. I know many of your Lordships have already raised this point, but I ask my noble friend the Minister: when will we ensure that negligence in housing safety carries consequences strong enough to deter future failures?
Grenfell is not a chapter that we can close lightly; it is a stark reminder that safety cannot be optional, that the dignity of residents cannot be compromised and that complacency costs lives. We must act decisively, implement every recommendation in full and monitor progress rigorously to ensure that no community ever endures the pain, the fear and the loss that Grenfell brought. The lives lost and the voices of those who survived demand nothing less, and we must ask ourselves how we will honour them—through action, or will history record that we waited too long? Therefore, a memorial for the victims is wholeheartedly welcome and long overdue.
As we have heard, the Bill is not about politics; it is about remembrance, dignity and responsibility. A permanent memorial is essential, not just as a structure of stone or steel, but as a place of reflection, a space where families can grieve, where communities can gather and where the nation can remember. This will ensure that those we lost are never reduced to statistics but are forever recognised as human beings whose lives really mattered.
But I reiterate that remembrance alone is not enough. This memorial must also stand as a symbol of change, a reminder of the consequences of when safety is compromised and when voices, especially those of vulnerable residents, are ignored. It must call on all of us in this House and beyond to ensure that such a tragedy can never happen again. We owe that to the victims, the families and future generations. Passing the Bill will send a clear message that we remember, we care and we are committed to building a safer and just society. Let this memorial be a promise that Grenfell will never be forgotten and its lesson will never be ignored. I commend the Bill.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I support the Bill and hope that the memorial will bring some comfort to the friends and families of those who lost lives and the thousands more scarred by this avoidable tragedy.
The root cause of this tragedy is lust for higher profits, performance-related pay, failure of regulators, local authorities and Governments. No memorial will be complete without ending regulatory failures to ensure that there are no more Grenfells. People’s lives and welfare must come before corporate profits. Yet, sadly, deregulation is the mantra of the day, as Governments push for economic growth at almost any human cost.
Sir Martin Moore-Bick, chairman of the Grenfell inquiry, said that cladding manufacturers Arconic
“deliberately concealed from the market the true extent of the danger of using Reynobond 55 PE in cassette form”.
The inquiry found that Kingspan knowingly made false claims about its insulation’s fire performance and conducted
“long-running internal discussions about what it could get away with”.
The inquiry concluded that Celotex used “dishonest means” to break into the market, presenting its insulation as safe while knowing that it did not meet the required standards. The inquiry found that companies used
“deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate the testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market”.
The inquiry identified “persistent indifference” of the tenant management organisation, “systemic dishonesty” of product manufacturers, and decades of government failures as the causes of this tragedy.
The Government have accepted all 58 of the inquiry’s recommendations, but they have not yet been fully implemented. Many buildings still have the same cladding as Grenfell. Despite the evidence, no one has yet been charged or prosecuted over the death of 72 innocent people. No director has been disqualified, the offending companies are not excluded permanently from public procurement, no legislation has been introduced to improve corporate governance or accountability, and directors are not held personally liable for causing grievous harms. Ministers bat away calls for urgent actions by claiming that somebody else, such as the police, is looking into the issues, and prosecutions may follow.
Governments speedily prosecute carers and poor people for minor indiscretions but suddenly lack the necessary backbone for dealing with corporate crimes. Here are just some examples. After 30 years, and despite the 2019 High Court judgment and a landmark inquiry, no one connected with the Post Office or Fujitsu has been charged or prosecuted. Yes, there is the ever-ready excuse that police are looking into this, which may or may not be able to bring any prosecutions.
England’s water companies have over 1,200 criminal prosecutions. Fines on companies are announced but then quietly waived or not collected at all. No company has had its licence to operate withdrawn. Company executives are rewarded for boosting profits by dumping sewage in the rivers. No one is charged or prosecuted for killing marine life, destroying biodiversity and even harming humans.
Then there is the long-running saga of the £1 billion fraud at HBOS, which since 2009 has been part of the Lloyds Banking Group. The FCA, the SFO and the City of London Police, which is partly funded by City institutions, declined to prosecute anyone. In 2017, the Thames Valley police and crime commissioner successfully prosecuted some HBOS managers for fraud. Still, the regulators refused to fully investigate and secure compensation for the victims. Instead, Lloyds Bank was persuaded to appoint Dame Linda Dobbs to investigate and issue a report by 2018. No report has been issued. Some victims of the fraud have since died, and obviously never received any compensation.
I have raised matters relating to HBOS in this House on many occasions, such as 28 January 2021, 14 April 2021, 6 February 2023, 9 February 2023, 22 January 2024, 14 February 2024, 15 May 2025 and 26 March 2026, just to give your Lordships a few examples. The typical response from the Ministers is silence, carefully calculated indifference, or that it is a matter really for somebody else or a failed regulator. This is how the political system incubates tragedies such as Grenfell, because Ministers and Governments are too afraid to upset the corporate lobby.
The most fitting memorial for the victims of the Grenfell fire is effective democracy, regulation, corporate and director accountability, Governments who can be called to account, and speedy justice to ensure that such a tragedy never ever occurs again.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in this debate only in my capacity as co-chair of the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission. The commission welcomes this Bill. On behalf of the commission, I thank the Minister and the representative of the Opposition for their support for the Bill, and I thank the whole House for its unanimous support for the Bill. The commission is grateful.
The commission reflected at its last meeting on the Bill and the circumstances that led to its introduction. The commission wrestles with this issue not only at its meetings but for the overwhelming number of its membership, excepting only me and my co-chair, who is a source of inspiration to us all. Deputy Lieutenant Thelma Stober is a survivor of 7/7. She has been with the commission and with the people of the Grenfell community from the outset of this tragedy and its aftermath, and the commission has asked me to thank her publicly for her service over these many years.
Hers is the only name I will mention in my contribution to this debate, save for—they have not asked me to say this, but I am going to—each and every one of the people who have lost and had to bury their nearest and dearest, the people who have lost neighbours and friends, the people who have lost their very homes, and the people who are bereaved, the next of kin, survivors and residents of the immediate community. To have served with them on this commission has been the greatest privilege of my life.
We begin every meeting of the commission with a two-minute silence in memory of the 72 who lost their lives. They have been at the heart of the commission’s work and have to be at the heart of this Bill as it is implemented. We in the commission are in the business of memorialisation; noble Lords will therefore forgive me if I do not address the specific points that individuals have made in this debate, with great force and great acuity, and bringing to bear their enormous, first-hand experience of these matters.
I will address only the issue of memorialisation, save in one matter. Memorialisation is all very well in its built and material form, and, rightly, with this measure, the Government provide the material resources that will enable a memorial to be erected. That is all very well.
The Minister, in her excellent introduction to the Bill, referred to the community’s desire for, and entitlement to, respect. I welcome that. But this community, while appreciating respect, demands justice. They have not had justice and, I have to tell noble Lords, they do not expect it. You may hope for it, and your expressions of hope are appreciated, but this community does not expect justice. They will continue to demand it, but they do not expect it. So the memorialisation has to address wider issues around learning lessons that all noble Lords in this House have expressed. That can be the only memorial.
If we do address those difficult issues, so well articulated by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, that will require legislation. This is an easy Bill to pass: it has passed without opposition. It will not be so easy to pass a Bill that puts in the dock those people who are responsible for this injustice. That will not be so easy to promulgate. It will not be so readily passed, but, if these are to be anything other than empty words, it must be. That is all I am going to say about the content of your Lordships’ debate today.
The rest of what I have to say, in very few words, is simply to mouth, as is my duty as co-chair, the expressions —the ready expressions, the printed expressions, the published expressions—of the aspirations of the commission as to what a future memorial should be like. It is contained in the Grenfell Memorial vision statement. These are its words:
“The Grenfell Memorial will be at its heart a peaceful place. It will provide a space for reflection and remembrance, of those that lost their lives, and of why this tragedy happened and the need for justice.
The memorial will reflect the Grenfell Community and the love within it; evoking a sense of hope and positivity that remembers the past and looks forward to the future.
It will be a place for bereaved, survivors and members of the local community to come together.
A respectful, bold and lasting memorial that honours those that lost their lives and their families, the survivors of the fire and members of the local community”.
That is the vision that, in passing the Bill, we will enable materially, with the resources, to be realised.
I thank noble Lords for their vigilance; I am authorised to say that on behalf of the commission. I thank each and every noble Lord for their vigilance, for their service. I say a particular thank you to my noble friend Lord Roe, and the other men and women of the London Fire Brigade on that night, for their service. We say a huge thank you to the first responders. Noble Lords’ vigilance will be required because—we addressed this at the last meeting of the commission—there are, and will continue to be, obstacles ahead.
I will say only this about those obstacles, and I say it to both Front Benches and to the leader of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: do not allow any disagreements between the royal borough and the Government of the day. Do not allow any party-political considerations to come into the decisions that must be made to ensure that the Lancaster West Estate is properly developed, so that the memorial is properly encompassed on all sides by an estate that is in itself a worthy place—a place where people who are all too often marginalised and forgotten are respected. Do not allow any party-political disputes or disputes about resources to get in the way of that. Listening to Members of this House, as I listened to Members in the other place, I do not believe that your Lordships will allow them to get away with it. The community, and the commission, expect noble Lords to deliver on the promise, the hope and the expectation that your Lordships’ sentiments and work rightly have aroused.
In that, I hope that noble Lords will be led, as we have been led, by the incredible spiritual power and engagement that the faith communities have marshalled around this tragedy. Immediately on that night and thereafter, the one set of institutions that were able to deliver to that community were institutions of faith: the churches, the mosques, people of faith coming together, being there alongside a community. This is a community which, however marginalised and however disrespected, has been a community of faith—of different faiths, but believing in a God, believing in something greater than ourselves and our individual self-interest.
The meditation that guides us as a commission is there on the very first page of the report:
“Grief, Remembrance, Empathy, Nerve, Fortitude, Energy, Loss and Love”.
Those are the words; that is the title of the meditation. It ends, as I do, with these words:
“We have faith in the truth we all know. We have hope in the very justice of our cause. We have love in our hearts for which there can never be closure. And of all these three, it is in the name of love that we will journey on”.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this has been an incredibly moving debate; in particular, the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Roe of West Wickham, who shared his practical experience at some personal cost, I think. The noble Lord has helped us all to understand the context in which we debate this Bill today; I thank him.
Every Member who has spoken fully supports the proposal in the Bill to fund the memorial to the 72 lives lost in the Grenfell Tower tragedy—or scandal, as I sometimes call it—and we on these Benches associate ourselves absolutely with those sentiments. The very powerful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, brings home again the depth of feeling—both positive and that of distrust—that has developed within the community affected by the fire, and how we all have a huge responsibility to do what many Members have said: ensure that there is action as a consequence. The memorial is very important, and I will speak a little bit about that, but part of the memorial has to be how we put right the wrongs that the community has suffered. That will be the lasting legacy, the lasting memorial, as well as the physical one that the Bill will enable.
Remembering Grenfell is a very powerful read. It captures the emotions, memories and reflections of those who survived, and it is their contributions that must be faithfully followed. The memorial is primarily for the families and community affected by that terrible night, but it is my hope that it will also stand as a lesson to our generation, and future generations, of the dreadful consequences of disregarding people.
All the evidence from the tragedy indicates that the views of those who lived in Grenfell Tower were dismissed by those in authority simply because the people who lived there were often poorer economically and from many different cultures and backgrounds. Those differences were sufficient for neglectful as well as criminal decisions to be taken. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said—rightly, I fully support what he said—corporate failures of this scale, which end in loss of life or harm to individuals, have to be addressed. The route is through legislation, and that is what we do.
I hope that the Minister has listened carefully— I am sure she has, because she always does—to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and takes that back to the department. What he talked about will not be easy, but it may be one of the ways in which we remember and act upon what happened that dreadful night.
Members across the House have reflected on what should be done. A memorial is very important, as is using the site of the tower, because it is where 72 people’s lives ended. That is what this Bill is about. But surely, as I think all Members have said, it should also be about what lessons we learned and how we can act on those lessons.
One of them has to be that listening carefully to people affected, whoever they are, is vitally important. We often talk in legislation about consultation—and I am beginning to hate that word. Consultation has to be a two-way process; it has to be about asking for views and listening to those views, and then acting together on them, otherwise there is no point at all.
Another lesson has to be that those in authority, including us, must be constantly mindful that cutting corners can cut lives. That is what happened—bodge jobs covered up cost lives. Some people call regulations red tape because they want to dismiss them; they want to say, “We can cut red tape”. We had regulations in place for the building and construction industries when the Grenfell Tower fire occurred, but those regulations were not enforced. Nobody likes all the regulations—they regard them as constraining what they can do—but regulations are there for a purpose. If the regulations had been properly followed at Grenfell, lives would not have been lost. Whenever anybody talks about cutting red tape, let us remember Grenfell.
Another lesson is that perverting regulatory requirements to improve profit margins must never be acceptable in any circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, has reminded us of the deliberate acts of perverting regulatory requirements that caused Grenfell.
All institutions provided for the public benefit have hard lessons to learn, which I hope can be reflected in any exhibition element of the memorial. The individuals of the London Fire Brigade were heroic in their efforts, but the institution had not learned from previous incidents. The local authority had demonstrably failed the community it purported to serve. Have fundamental changes been made to the culture and purpose of the local authority and council? The latest reports indicate that that is yet to happen.
Criminal charges must follow what has occurred; if they do not then there is never to be justice for the 72, their families and that community, and the rest of us who are looking for justice. If we do not put that right, it will happen again. I hope that elements of the memorial will include those lessons and how we must not forget them.
Even now, nine years on, 15 buildings more than 18 metres high have not had the work done. Those are the ones most at risk. The department reckons that, of more than 4,000 buildings of 11 metres or more, only 1,500 have been fully remediated. There is work to be done and it should be done. It has been nearly nine years and the people paying the price are those who live in those properties. If they are leaseholders, they are paying sky-high insurance and inflated service charges. But the people and organisations that caused the tragedy are yet to pay, and that has to follow.
There is much to remember and to learn from the appalling and dreadful tragedy of Grenfell Tower. Above all, the memorial must form a fitting remembrance to those who perished.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an incredibly moving, thoughtful and serious debate. I begin by thanking noble Lords across the House. The contributions we have heard reflect the weight of Grenfell’s legacy for bereaved families, survivors, the local community and the country as a whole. I want to reflect on those very precious lives, brought to us so vividly in the testimony of my noble friends Lord Roe and Lady Hazarika.
Today’s debate has shown that, whatever our political differences, there is a shared understanding across the House that this Bill is not about party politics. It is about the lasting impact of Grenfell on our national conscience. It is about doing what is right and about keeping faith with those most directly affected by the tragedy. It is about the collective commitment made by Parliament that Grenfell would be remembered with dignity, truth and permanence.
Before I turn to the points raised during the debate, I want to restate very clearly exactly what this Bill does. It is a simple Bill with a focused purpose. It provides Parliament’s authority for the public spending required to deliver the Grenfell Tower memorial so that it can be constructed, cared for and sustained over the long term. It authorises spending on any site where elements of the tower can be laid to rest, in the peace that the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, so powerfully reminded us of, as well as spending on preservation, an archive, an exhibition and land acquisition in support of those activities where needed and for works to that land.
The Bill does not determine the design or location of the memorial, nor does it set governance arrangements for how it will be run. That is because, as many noble Lords have mentioned, this Bill is not about taking control; it is about supporting the community-led design work that is already under way and ensuring that it has the financial backing it needs, with Parliament’s consent. In doing so, the Bill helps ensure that Grenfell is not forgotten, and that remembrance of the tragedy continues to sit alongside and support the Government’s wider programme of reform following Grenfell. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned my honourable friend in the other place, Minister Dixon. I am so pleased that she has sat patiently in the Gallery all through our debates today to hear what your Lordships had to say.
I will respond to the detailed points raised by noble Lords in a moment. First, I turn to the very powerful testimony of my noble friend Lord Roe, who spoke about the courage of all those involved. I thank him for his service on that dreadful day; I thank all his colleagues in the London fire service and all those who have been involved in supporting the survivors, the families and the community since then. My noble friend put the emphasis on the responsibility to ensure that families, survivors and the community are front and centre of this project. We must honour their memory by ensuring that we continue to strive to move this on in all respects, so that the failure he highlighted is confronted, dealt with and brings justice, safe homes and the lasting legacy that says, “Never again”. I thank my noble friend Lord Roe for his work and testimony.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, my noble friend Lady Nargund, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, and my noble friend Lord Forbes and many others, raised concerns surrounding support for the Grenfell community going forward. Supporting remembrance does not detract from supporting bereaved and survivor families and the immediate community. I reassure noble Lords that we are continuing to work through local authorities, health partners and the community to ensure that those families are supported. The memorial forms part of a long-term national commitment, not an alternative to action elsewhere.
My noble friend Lord Forbes spoke about the centrality of the community whose voices have been ignored, leading to this dreadful tragedy. I reassure him, and others who have spoken about this, that the Department for Education and MHCLG have jointly issued additional funding to Grenfell-affected schools to support children, young people and the entire school population throughout the period of works to carefully take the tower down. Likewise, NHS England has confirmed that Grenfell-specific NHS services will continue to be provided as the tower is taken down. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned support for young people involved; that is very important. Departments across government will continue to work together to make sure that we provide the best joined-up service possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked me about funding and whether we had a specific amount. The Bill authorises expenditure but does not approve budgets or set spending levels yet. I reassure the House that detailed funding decisions will be taken through the usual scrutiny and controls set out for managing public money. Introducing a fixed amount at this stage would be premature, particularly in the light of the fact that the community-led design work is still under way.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Sanderson, and the noble Lords, Lord Sharma and Lord Boateng, raised the issue of the Lancaster West estate. To support the refurbishment of the Lancaster West estate, MHCLG has already provided about £25 million in funding. This is in addition to other funding issued to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea for the Lancaster West estate, including from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. The Government have no direct management over the refurbishment of the estate, but I am sure that we will continue to work with colleagues in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea as they complete the refurbishment works and deliver for their community.
Noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, raised the national oversight mechanism. We recognise that, in the past, inquiry recommendations have been made and accepted but, as one noble friend mentioned, are then left as dusty tomes on the shelf. That must not happen. The Government are continuing to explore ways to improve the transparency and accountability of recommendations made to them by public inquiries. I reassure the House that we will continue to listen to the views of groups that have been impacted by public inquiries so that the Government’s progress towards implementing inquiry recommendations is properly scrutinised. On the Grenfell Inquiry’s recommendations specifically, we will continue to provide progress updates until all the recommendations have been implemented.
My noble friends Lady Dacres and Lady Hyde raised community engagement. My noble friend Lady Dacres spoke about lessons from a community that had not been listened to, and my noble friend Lady Hyde spoke about a relentless focus on voices that had not been heard. I want to be clear that this Bill does not change who leads the design, vision or decision-making for the Grenfell Tower memorial. The Government’s role in the memorial is to facilitate, support and manage technical delivery of the programme; they will not lead memorial design. On behalf of the independent memorial commission, Freehaus, the appointed design team, is now working with the community to develop the design to honour those who lost their lives and those whose lives were for ever changed by the tragedy.
My noble friend Lady Warwick highlighted the housing aspects in relation to the Grenfell tragedy, as well as the avoidable deaths and the need for a change in culture towards transparency. We are committed to continuing to work closely with social landlords and regulators to deliver the joint plan, backed by over £1 billion of investment, to speed up remediation, improve support for residents and maintain momentum against the plan’s target dates, so that unsafe homes are made safe faster and the lessons of Grenfell are never forgotten.
I am doing a specific piece of work around social housing stigma, which sadly still exists. In the case of Grenfell, this was further exacerbated by the racial inequalities powerfully highlighted by my noble friends Lady Nargund and Lady Hyde. We need to work with tenants and the sector to consider how we can tackle this stigma. The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, raised qualifications in social housing; that is an issue that we are looking at very closely. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti said, quite rightly, that housing is a human right. I absolutely agree with her on that. We all have all to pick up the lessons we learned from Grenfell in our action on social housing.
I want to reflect on the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, on corporate responsibility. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti also referred to corruption, cover-up, greed and negligence, as did other noble Peers. On accountability for building safety in the specific case of Grenfell, those responsible must be held to account, and the Government fully support the police in carrying out the investigation. I also flag the forthcoming remediation Bill, which will introduce new criminal penalties for people who refuse to remediate similar fire safety defects to those that existed on Grenfell Tower. I will also take up with the relevant Ministers in the Department for Business and Trade the issue of corporate accountability laws raised here today, and I am happy to take part in further discussions with the noble and learned Lord if he feels that would be helpful.
The Government are currently introducing the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, usually known as the Hillsborough law, which is about public body accountability. The noble and learned Lord made an important point about the need for accountability in respect of corporate bodies too. While I mention the Hillsborough law, I should acknowledge that tomorrow is the anniversary of Hillsborough; I think we should reflect on that and take the action necessary to deal with the recommendations on that.
In relation to the current investigation, I say to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti that 180 officers and staff are working on this in the Metropolitan Police Service. We want to see the justice that many noble Lords have mentioned during this debate, and I know that that inquiry is being progressed with appropriate resources and as quickly as the Metropolitan Police Service can do it.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Forbes and Lady Gill, mentioned cladding remediation—
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
If the Minister is moving on to cladding, I go back to the police investigation. Does she have an update on the position on the special grant and Operation Northleigh, and whether it has been granted or not? Could she write if she does not know that?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will write, and I apologise for missing the noble Baroness’s point on that issue.
On the matter of cladding, a number of noble Lords mentioned failures caused by deregulation and a failure to listen to local voices. I reassure the House that for both me and the Minister and the other place, speeding up remediation is one of our top priorities. We are working to get buildings fixed faster and to allow residents to feel safer in their homes. Nearly nine years on from the Grenfell Tower tragedy, there is no justification for any building to remain unsafe. Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Sikka, have raised issues of negligence in building, and over the past year we have taken steps to remove barriers to remediation, strengthen accountability for those responsible for unsafe buildings, and support residents facing delays or uncertainty.
It is not for this Bill to legislate on remediation matters, but that work, as my noble friend Lord Forbes said, remains a moral responsibility for all of us, and the Government will bring forward a remediation Bill, which will drive forward the remediation of historic unsafe cladding by compelling responsible entities to remediate their buildings by clear targets or risk criminal prosecution. We will bring forward that remediation Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows.
In respect of the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Boateng as co-chair of the commission, and I thank his fellow co-chair, as he rightly said, for incredible service to the commission, and all the commissioners for the work that they have done, which was powerfully outlined in my noble friend’s speech, The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, also mentioned the commission, which is an independent, unincorporated, community-led body. I can confirm that the commission leads on the engagement with the community and the appointed design team is working with the community to determine the design for a lasting and fitting memorial. The Government’s role in the memorial is to facilitate, support and manage the technical delivery of the programme—but I hope that the positive comments made by my noble friend Lord Boateng will be reflected as we go forward with this work, and I look forward to continuing to work with him.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, mentioned the taking down of the tower—and I know what an incredibly sensitive issue this was. Work has been paused in a particular area of the tower in relation to a recent request to preserve certain elements. Subject to that, work to carefully take down Grenfell Tower is progressing and is due to complete in 2027. This will ensure that it is done respectfully, minimising noise and dust compared with other methods. I reassure all noble Lords that we continue to engage with the bereaved, with survivors and the immediate community during this very sensitive piece of work. I have met the co-ordinator, who is there on site, to discuss this with her. On the particular issue around the helpline, I will confirm the details of that in writing.
A very important matter that has come up during the debate has been the issue of justice. I think nearly all noble Lords who have spoken have mentioned it. I have spoken about the investigation by the Metropolitan Police. Those responsible—and I want to be very clear about this—must be held to account. The Government fully support the police in carrying out the investigation. Of course, it is important that the Government do not take any action that could risk prejudicing those processes, but we must all be focused on the justice that the memory of those lost and the lives of those who survive absolutely demands.
I am so grateful for the very thoughtful scrutiny and contributions offered in this debate. The legacy of Grenfell, the justice, the lessons learned and the memorial must lead us to the light mentioned by my noble friend Lord Boateng—the light of hope for a better future.