Local Plans (Burial Space) Bill [HL]

Baroness Sanderson of Welton Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Mohammed. I can call him my noble friend because, until last May, he was my local councillor. I hope he achieves as much in this place as he did in mine.

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, for managing this Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House, and all noble Lords who have contributed so constructively. How we bury our dead is a hugely important issue, but one which is too often overlooked or which people feel uncomfortable talking about. It should not be so.

Edmund Burke said that society is a partnership of the dead, the living and the unborn. It is only right that we can lay our loved ones to rest with dignity, and therefore right that local authorities make the necessary provisions for burial space. Just last month, it was reported that 17 local authorities in London will run out of space by 2040, and Camden, Hackney and Tower Hamlets already have. So, as the noble Lord says, there is a need for this timely Bill, which promises to address a gap in our planning framework to ensure that these issues are addressed. We look forward to its progress in the other place.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, for bringing this very important matter to us through this timely Private Member’s Bill, which helpfully coincided with the publication of a new National Planning Policy Framework. It remains the Government’s position that local matters, such as burial space, are best addressed in local plans rather than legislation, so that local planning authorities retain the flexibility to respond to the particular circumstances of their areas and the needs of their local communities. I appreciate the comments from my noble friend Lord Stansgate on this.

Some of the events we heard about the other day in the Chamber—genuinely shocking events that took place—highlighted that this is an issue where, although local authorities play a key part, there may be further work that government can do in terms of regulation and so on. I echo the thoughts expressed in the Chamber to the families of those affected by that recent scandal.

The National Planning Policy Framework sets the policy expectations for what should be considered in local plans and in decision-making. I am pleased to update the House that the new National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17 August. The definition of “community facilities” in the NPPF has been updated explicitly to include cemeteries and burial grounds, in recognition of concerns raised that these local assets have not been sufficiently recognised in national planning policy. This means that all relevant policies in the NPPF relating to community facilities also apply to cemeteries and burial grounds. This includes that development plans should be informed by an understanding of any existing deficits and additional requirements expected in the availability of community facilities and, where appropriate, should allocate land specifically for community facilities. That applies to local authorities in London as well, of course.

I hope that the recent changes made to the NPPF provide reassurance to the noble Lord that the concerns he has raised have been carefully considered. They were extremely important and are now reflected more clearly in national planning policy.

Leaseholder Remediation (Building Safety) Bill [HL]

Baroness Sanderson of Welton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate in the place—just for today—of my noble friends Lord Jamieson and Lady O’Neill of Bexley. I too welcome the Minister to her place.

I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. We speak often, on our third floor, and she has spoken on these matters tirelessly and from the heart for a very long time. It really is a very long time, for the House knows only too well why we are here. More than nine years on from the Grenfell Tower tragedy, the consequences of systemic building failures are still being felt across the country.

The Public Accounts Committee estimates that up to 3 million people may have been affected by the cladding crisis. As of this year, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, between 5,900 and 7,400 residential buildings of at least 11 metres in height have or had unsafe cladding requiring work. However, only 38% have completed remediation, 16% have started and—the truly appalling figure— 47% have not begun at all. This is clearly not good enough. From these Benches, we accept that successive Governments have struggled with this issue, but this is not progress, with many thousands of residents and leaseholders living in unsafe or unsaleable homes.

We therefore welcome the intention behind the Bill, which seeks to extend protections, impose enforceable duties on freeholders and developers, and give leaseholders meaningful routes to secure remediation when others fail to act. We agree that leaseholders must be protected and the pace of remediation must accelerate dramatically. However, the Bill raises some significant questions.

First, on scope, the Bill applies to any residential building containing one or more leasehold properties, with no minimum height or storey threshold. As we have heard, many speakers have spoken about the benefit of this, but do the Government know how many additional buildings this would bring into scope? Do they have an assessment of the cost implications? Do they have a plan to ensure that the system can cope with the increased caseload?

Secondly, this brings me to enforcement. The Bill substantially expands the powers of the Building Safety Regulator, but the regulator is already under intense pressure over significant backlogs and regulatory delays. I think we should say that, under the stewardship of the noble Lord, Lord Roe of West Wickham, decision rates are showing signs of improvement and new turnaround targets have been set. But in this context, there is a question as to whether it is wise to increase the regulator’s powers further at this point. Would the Government ensure that the regulator has the capacity to administer the expanded responsibilities the Bill would create?

Thirdly, on the Government’s own housing targets, Ministers have pledged to build 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, yet only 208,600 net additional properties were delivered last year—a fall from the previous year. On current trends, the Government are on course to miss their target by 400,000 homes. What assessment has been made of the impact of the Bill on housing supply?

Leaseholders should not bear the cost of historic failures that they did not create. The previous Conservative Government established that principle through the Building Safety Act, remediation orders, contribution orders and the responsible actors scheme. Over 50 developers signed the building safety repairs pledge, yet progress has been and remains far too slow, as we have said.

Let us not forget that behind every statistic is a family living with fear, uncertainty and financial strain. These are people unable to sell their homes, facing unaffordable insurance premiums and receiving service charge demands they cannot pay. As I think everybody has said in this Chamber, these are people who have done nothing wrong and done everything right—saved, bought responsibly and invested in their future—only to find themselves trapped by failures they did not cause.

The Bill seeks to address those failures, and we on these Benches support its aims—and, on a personal note, and echoing the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, I really applaud the inclusion of manufacturers for the first time—but, as His Majesty’s Opposition, we will scrutinise its implications carefully and hope that the Government will do the same. I think we can all agree that leaseholders deserve clarity, competence and urgency, not another cycle of delay. We must be sure that this legislation would deliver the protection, accountability and acceleration that has eluded us all for far too long—and, if it is not this legislation, that the Government’s own legislation will properly address the wrongs that the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to put right.

Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill

Baroness Sanderson of Welton Excerpts

2nd reading & Report stage & 3rd reading & Committee negatived
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report

Baroness Sanderson of Welton Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the news that the Government have accepted all 58 of Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s recommendations—at least, I welcome it in principle, in the same way that the Government have accepted some of the key recommendations in principle.

Recommendation 25 asks

“that it be made a legal requirement for the Government to maintain a publicly accessible record of recommendations by select committees, coroners and public inquiries together with a description of the steps taken in response”.

The Government say they will establish a record on GOV.UK of all recommendations made by public inquiries since 2024, that they will consider making that a legal requirement, and that Ministers will commit to updating Parliament on progress on implementing recommendations.

The problem with this is that it is no different from what happens now. In all the inquiries that I have been involved with, we always get updates on GOV.UK, and, frankly, they do not satisfy anyone because they tend to be dry and unintelligible. Ministers come to Parliament to update us, as the Minister is doing now, but there is no mention of the suggestion that the Government need to detail the steps taken in response to recommendations. Instead, the Government talk about the recommendation of the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee to establish a new committee to deliver that accountability. I sat on that committee and the response from the Government to that was, “This is a matter for Parliament”. I am not clear what is different now and where this gets us. If the Minister could explain that to me, I would be very grateful.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for the points that she has eloquently raised. I did not mention this, but I pay tribute to the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock, for the work they have done for many years on this issue, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in her role as a government Minister in this area. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, for her work with the bereaved and victims’ families in this area.

On her particular points, we are taking forward the inquiry’s recommendation on oversight. There needs to be better accountability for and oversight of how recommendations are implemented. We totally accept that. Robust oversight of the Government’s implementation of the response is essential for this and for all public inquiries. The system needs to be improved, and we are taking forward the inquiry’s recommendations on oversight.

We will create a publicly accessible record on GOV.UK of recommendations made by public inquiries since 2024. We will consider making this a legal requirement as part of a wider review of the inquiry framework. My department will publish quarterly progress updates regarding the Grenfell inquiry recommendations on GOV.UK until they have all been delivered. We will report annually to Parliament, to enable Members to scrutinise our progress and hold us to account.

I say to the noble Baroness that my office is always available, and I am happy to sit down with her and noble Lords across the House if there is anything pertinent that they think the Government need to be doing more of.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry Report

Baroness Sanderson of Welton Excerpts

Friday 22nd November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Government for tabling this debate. I make particular mention of the Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect. He has always closely followed the issues relating to Grenfell, and I know he will continue to do so in his new role.

It is important that we mark the end of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, that we address the contents of Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report and that we commit ourselves to doing all we can to deliver his recommendations—the bereaved survivors and residents deserve nothing less. I declare my interest as set out in the register. It has been my privilege to work with the Grenfell community for many years now—I am sure they would say too many years, and they would be right. But, such was the scale of the failure that led to Grenfell, I am afraid there was never going to be a quick fix.

No one comes out of this report well. Central government does not: it made successive mistakes, going back decades, and failed to act on the risks posed by the use of combustible cladding panels and insulation on high-rise buildings. The council—the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea—does not: it turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the repeated legitimate complaints of its residents. The companies involved in the refurbishment—Studio E, Rydon and Harley—do not: they

“failed to identify their own responsibilities for important aspects of the design and in each case assumed that someone else was responsible for matters affecting fire safety”.

The corporates that supplied the materials—Celotex, Kingspan and Arconic—also do not: again in the words of Sir Martin, they were systematically dishonest and

“engaged in deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate the testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market”.

The certification bodies and the risk assessors do not, and neither does the fire brigade, despite the individual bravery of its men and women.

As Sir Martin said:

“It is not possible to identify any single cause of the tragedy. Many different acts and omissions combined to bring about the Grenfell Tower fire”.


It is, however, possible to pick out a common theme, and that is one of staggering indifference. No one, in any link of the chain that led to this catastrophe, seemed to care that they were engaged in the business of health and safety—that the decisions they took, or did not take, could have a very real impact on people’s lives.

The final inquiry report stands at 1,700 pages. Throughout, with the notable exception of the current RBKC leadership, it is startling how few people are willing to stand up and take responsibility. Instead, at difficult moments during the inquiry hearings, we heard respondents say, time and again, “I don’t recall. I can’t remember”. There were so many lapses of memory, so convenient for all those questioned and so lacking in respect to the families and friends who deserved better. Yet despite this opacity, Sir Martin and his team have produced a devastating report. They have turned over every rock and stone, and left all those involved with nowhere to hide. His final recommendations are precise, considered and, most importantly, achievable. My noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook will go through many of the individual recommendations, so I will limit myself to more general remarks about overall delivery and the infrastructure of government.

There is a peculiarity to our system, as outlined in the recent report by the House of Lords Select Committee into the Inquiries Act 2005, of which I was a member. It is the fact that, when something has gone very badly wrong we rightly spend an awful lot of time and money on public inquiries to address that injustice, to work out how and why it happened so we may learn the lessons to ensure it never happens again, as the Minister said. Yet there is no formal monitoring of the implementation of inquiry recommendations. At best, this leads to frustration for those involved; at worst, it means that chances to stop future disasters occurring are missed.

The issue goes more widely than public inquiries. As Sir Martin makes clear in the case of Grenfell, in the years between the fire at Knowsley Heights in 1991 and the Grenfell fire in 2017, important recommendations affecting fire safety were ignored. In particular, the Government of the time failed to implement the recommendations made by the environment and transport Select Committee in 1999, which warned that it should not take a serious fire, in which people were killed, before steps were taken to minimise the risks posed by some external cladding systems. Following the fire at Lakanal House in 2009, the subsequent Government failed to review the guidance on fire safety, particularly Approved Document B, as recommended by the coroner.

These were serious omissions with serious consequences, which is why Sir Martin recommended that it be made a legal requirement for the Government to maintain a publicly accessible record of recommendations made by Select Committees, coroners and public inquiries, together with a description of the steps taken in response. As I say, others have identified the problem. The Lords Select Committee recommended a new Joint Select Committee of Parliament to deliver a similar outcome. The charity Inquest is calling for a national oversight mechanism, which would entail the establishment of a new independent public body to undertake this work. Will the Government look seriously at this recommendation, and at potential ways of delivering it? Today we are rightly concerned with Grenfell, but this could have far-reaching benefits beyond this particular inquiry.

I appreciate that delivering on such a recommendation would take time so, in the meantime, could I ask the Minister about the mechanism that the Government are putting in place to deliver on Sir Martin’s recommendations? In response to the phase 1 report, we set up a cross-departmental board, chaired by a Minister, to drive delivery across Whitehall, but an argument could be made, given that this is the final report, for such a board to be chaired by a Secretary of State. The Prime Minister said that, while the Government will respond to the report within six months, there would be certain areas where work could start immediately, so I ask the Minister whether putting in place a suitable delivery framework is one of those areas in which work has begun. If so, can he provide details as to what it looks like?

There were frustrations over the pace of delivery of the phase 1 recommendations, partly because government moves slowly, but partly because of the way in which we communicated what had in fact been done. To this end, the Home Office devised an interactive, very easy to access, tracker, which way surpassed the impenetrable updates given via GOV.UK. I am afraid to say that we did not succeed in getting this up and running, for reasons which, if I am honest, are still completely unclear to me. Could the Minister take this back to the department? It really was an excellent innovation, and it would be a pity not to persevere with its implementation.

While we are addressing the machinery of government, I also raise Sir Martin’s recommendation for bringing the responsibility for fire and safety, currently exercised by MHCLG, the Home Office and the department for business, into one department under a single Secretary of State. As ever, he makes a compelling argument. It would mean that information could be shared more quickly and effectively between teams responsible for all the different aspects of fire safety; it would enable policy to be developed in a coherent way; and it would also ensure better communication between the proposed building safety regulator and the Government. Of all Sir Martin’s recommendations, my personal view is that this would be one of the hardest to implement. Government is not good at overcoming silos, and there is specialist knowledge particular to each department, which is why they each hold certain responsibilities. That said, given the comprehensive way in which the system failed, this would not only address some important practical issues but help to re-establish what should have been a given but which somehow got lost along the years—that fire safety really matters. Let us not forget, as the Minister said, that all 72 deaths were avoidable. Could the Government look at ways in which those recommendations might be achieved?

Finally, I would like to mention the recommendation to review the Civil Contingencies Act, to consider two matters: granting a designated Secretary of State to carry out the functions of a category 1 responder for a limited period of time; and requiring category 1 responders to establish and maintain partnerships with the voluntary community and faith organisations in the areas in which they are responsible for preparing for, and responding to, emergencies. The latter recommendation, which is essentially adding a humanitarian responsibility to the civil contingencies framework, might not have made the headlines, but it is fundamental to how the state interacts not just with those in need but with those it has failed.

We all know how the different local organisations rallied in the days and weeks after the fire. In the years since, I have watched in admiration as the community has supported and sustained itself through its grief and hardship. The state needs to operate differently in such circumstances. Too often it can end up doing further harm, as we saw with infected blood, the Post Office and Hillsborough. When people have been failed as badly as they were in all these instances, and as they were at Grenfell, there is absolutely no trust of the institutions which let them down or the people who work in them—and, frankly, why would there be? It is up to the Government to try to rebuild that relationship, to ensure empathy in the system and to understand that this will always be a work in progress.

The response to Sir Martin’s inquiry will be part of that process, so I ask the Minister to assure us once again, as he has already done, that his Government will look seriously at ways of accepting all Sir Martin’s recommendations, as the previous Governments did for the phase 1 report, and that they will make a firm commitment to continue to support the Grenfell community, not just in terms of the inquiry and recommendations but in the many difficult moments that lie ahead, not least the decision that will have to be taken on the tower itself. As the Minister will know, this is a hugely sensitive issue, and while we need to work towards a fitting memorial can he assure me that the community, and in particular the bereaved, will remain at the heart of that process?

As the Minister said, it is now nearly seven and a half years since that terrible night, but none of us should ever fall into the trap of thinking “Oh, it’s a long time ago” or that it is somehow easier for people now than it was then. It is not. As the chair of Grenfell United said on the day the final report was published, “We paid the price”. The price was their children, their parents, their neighbours and their loved ones. We cannot bring them back, but we can do what is right in memory of them and we on this side of the House stand ready to help the Government in that task.

Social Housing Standards

Baroness Sanderson of Welton Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I agree with my noble friend. When I read about this, I was also very surprised by the timeline: once Awaab’s father had instructed solicitors, the housing association then said it could do nothing further. I understand that many housing providers have a policy to routinely pause addressing complaints through their process when legal proceedings are commenced, and that this stays in place until agreements are reached between solicitors. I do not think that is right. We need to look at this. Repairs should not be stopped. When rehousing is necessary, I do not think that should be stopped. I understand that this is in the hands of the housing providers; if they want to keep going with maintenance, rehousing or whatever is required, they can. They have decided to have this policy, but personally I do not think it is acceptable.

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, the Housing Ombudsman said earlier today that at the heart of little Awaab’s death lies the behaviour of the landlord, Rochdale Boroughwide Housing. As he said, for this landlord, and perhaps too many others in the social housing sector, there are issues with culture, behaviours and values. We know this. We have seen it time and again. So, while I commend the Government for all the actions they have taken since Grenfell, will they look again at including professionalisation in the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill? My noble friend the Minister has emphasised the importance of culture change, but without professionalisation it will be so much harder to change the culture, behaviours and values of those working on social housing.

My right honourable friend in the other place said that it is the right of everyone to feel safe in the place where they and their loved ones sleep at night. We know that many living in social housing would feel happier, safer and more valued knowing that the people responsible for their homes were qualified, just as those in other sectors with responsibilities to others are qualified. If this is to be a defining moment, let us not waste this opportunity. We have a real opportunity to do something about this now.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. I wondered whether I would get that question from her or the Front Bench opposite. Noble Lords know that we recognise in the social housing White Paper the need to improve professional standards in social housing, so that all residents receive the high-quality services they deserve and, as importantly, in my opinion, are treated with dignity and respect by social housing staff.

We have carried out a review on professional training and development and, as a result, have amended the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill to allow the Secretary of State to direct the regulator to set standards on the competence and conduct of all staff involved in the management of social housing. The new competence and conduct standard will ensure providers take appropriate steps to ensure all staff have the right knowledge, skills and experience, and demonstrate the behaviours required for the delivery of high-quality and professional services for tenants. As my noble friend knows, the Bill is going through the other place at the moment. I am sure there will be more discussions on this, so we wait to see.

Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [HL]

Baroness Sanderson of Welton Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 18th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

I rise to express very briefly my support for Amendment 23, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. I welcome the Government’s restating at the Bill’s Committee stage their commitment to review professionalisation. However, I want to urge them to accept this amendment, which would help to ensure that appropriate professional qualifications, training and registration are upheld. The challenges we face in the social housing sector require high standards of management which, sadly, we do not always see, and this amendment will help to ensure those.

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister and the Secretary of State for the time and effort they have put into this and other issues; they should be given credit for what they have done. I declare my interest as a community adviser on Grenfell. The Minister has worked with the community in a previous role, and I know she always has their best interests at heart, as well as those of other social housing tenants across the country. However, while I appreciate that the Government’s amendment improves on the current situation, I am afraid that the lack of any professional qualification structure leaves something of a hole—a cavity, if you like—in their plan.

In essence, the Government’s proposal says that requiring the regulator to set a professional standard will drive up knowledge, skills and experience in the sector. It argues that while they are not mandatory, qualifications may be one element of how landlords could achieve this, as part of a wider approach to training and development. I agree: qualifications are not the only way to improve skills and standards, but I am struggling to see how we do it without them, particularly in an area where the need to drive out stigma is so necessary and overwhelming. In any other sector, be it social work or education, qualifications are integral—fundamental, even—to increasing knowledge and, most importantly, to providing a career path. If we want to encourage people into social housing, to take pride in that career, we must give them a way to progress. Without that infrastructure it will be so much harder to bring about meaningful change. Would it not also be a useful indicator of compliance? It is hard to see how the regulator will accurately measure competence across the sector. I welcome the checks and balances provided for in this amendment, but it is unclear on what grounds the regulator will be able to apply sanctions where necessary.

I realise that some of these questions will be for the proposed consultation, but at the moment it all feels a bit woolly. There is constant talk of driving up skills and knowledge, but not enough in practical terms on how to achieve this goal. To that end, as the Bill progresses will the Government consider including a specific request to the regulator to consult experts such as the Chartered Institute of Housing on a suitable qualifications framework?

I am pretty sure that the Minister will say to me that doing so could lead to a reclassification by the ONS. I fully understand the risks involved, as have been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and I appreciate that the Government have no control over the ONS’s decisions. However, at the moment we are still talking about a risk, not a certainty, so, as my noble friend Lord Young suggested, is it not possible to consult the ONS on this? Otherwise, we are in a world of “what ifs” and “maybes”, which seems absurd given what is at stake. For as it stands, we seem to be saying that tenants in social housing can expect to send their child to a school where the teacher must be qualified, and to send their parents to a care home where there must be suitably qualified staff, but that the people responsible for running their homes do not need any qualifications at all.

The Government argue that they are not ruling out qualifications, but that providers must be allowed to determine the right mix. I am sure the Minister will understand why there is nervousness about leaving this to landlords’ discretion. Do we really expect them to introduce qualifications voluntarily? This is not just about Grenfell. As I mentioned in Committee, one look at Kwajo Tweneboa’s Twitter account and the neglect and misery it chronicles will tell you all you need to know about the attitude and aptitude of some providers. They are the worst examples, but surely the least likely to equip their staff with qualifications.

Finally, I repeat one more point I made in Committee: what happens if the Grenfell Tower inquiry recommends mandatory professionalisation? Will all the same arguments apply, or will we have to find a way around this later down the line, when we should be doing it now? To that end, while I reiterate my thanks to the Minister and the Secretary of State—I understand that it is a difficult area—I cannot help feeling that on this issue, the department may need to provide us with some more answers.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a very powerful debate on something that is pretty esoteric: the qualifications of those providing social housing. However, it seems vital for the safety of social housing tenants that the people responsible for the management of their properties know what they are doing. This group of amendments includes alternative ways forward in relation to the importance of raising standards of management and the need for professional qualifications.

On the one hand, the Minister is arguing for a light-touch approach, as set out in her Amendment 10, arguing that there is a risk of reclassification of the sector if the strategy laid out by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, in her Amendment 23 is followed. But two things come to mind. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, explained that the approach she has laid out is flexible and combines that with an ambition for higher standards in the sector. Her amendment uses “may” throughout, so it is not a mandatory approach. It is trying to say, “Here is a way forward to raise standards—follow it, sector, and raise standards”. What an ambition that would be.

On the other hand, we have the Minister arguing that there is a risk of reclassification. I have to say that if there is a barrier to raising standards in the management of social housing, it needs to go. We have to find a way around it. We have heard two examples from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baroness. They have both explained how we can get around this—so let us get around it.

Shelter has highlighted in the wake of the Grenfell tragedy that social housing tenants were concerned not only with safety but with maintenance, repairs and poor living conditions. Social landlords and managers are the first port of call for tenants to raise concerns about standards, so ensuring that senior managers are qualified and have the requisite knowledge and experience will have a trickle-down effect—something I am sure the Minister will approve of. So, let us professionalise the workforce.

In Committee, my noble friend Lady Thornhill—who is unfortunately unable to be here today as she is not well—made comparisons between the workforce of the health and care sector and that of the social housing sector. That comparison rightly reflects the important role of social housing in the well-being of the nation, but, like the health sector, housing and construction are facing shortages of both people and resources. Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would ensure that the Government were able to prescribe mandatory qualifications—but, as I have said, in a flexible way. That would protect tenants and make sure that their homes were safe and fit for habitation, and that tenants’ voices were heard. As has already been said, one of the findings of the Grenfell inquiry was that tenants’ voices were ignored.

The Government have listened to the debate in Committee and the calls from groups such as Grenfell United and Shelter, reflected on their own commitment and brought forward a number of amendments in this group with the aim of raising standards for registered providers and social housing managers. Of course, I welcome this, but the Government’s argument that a balance needs to be struck between safety and workforce supply is, in my view, a false one. Ultimately, the safety of social housing tenants has to be paramount. We need to make sure that the situation is not made worse for tenants by exacerbating problems in the training and retention of staff, but in the end, the quality of managers is what keeps tenants safe.

High-rise Buildings: Evacuation of Disabled Residents

Baroness Sanderson of Welton Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

Having evacuation lifts in high rises, as well as more than a single staircase, is the sort of thing we need to capture and make very clear in building regulations. This will become something of the purview of the new building safety regulator. It is a very good point.

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a community adviser on Grenfell, so I really do understand the anger at the decision not to implement PEEPs. In this instance, it is important to acknowledge that this was done not just on a whim or after a single meeting. The truth is that a tremendous amount of work has been done on this behind the scenes, but we have not arrived at a satisfactory place. To that end, would my noble friend agree that it is hugely important that all the interested parties follow the lead of Andy Roe, the LFB commissioner, take part in the new consultation and make their concerns known so that we can make progress and get to a better place?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for her recognition of the hard work it has taken to get to this position. There were nearly 400 responses. All were carefully gone through and responded to as part of the previous consultation. I join her in encouraging all parties to come forward and respond to the EEIS+ consultation. The Government really are listening and it is important that we hear from as many diverse stakeholders as possible.

Building Safety Bill

Baroness Sanderson of Welton Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome today’s debate, and I thank my noble friend the Minister for his commitment to this issue. It is appreciated.

We all know the importance of the Bill before us today and we all know what led to its creation: the devastating fire at Grenfell Tower. It was a tragedy that shocked and shamed the country, yet more shocking still has been the evidence that has since come out of the public inquiry. Listening to all those involved makes for a deeply depressing experience. With the notable exception of RBKC, no one is ever to blame. It is always someone else’s fault, someone else’s problem.

Take the architects involved in the refurbishment. Apparently, they did not have design responsibility; that was the contractors’—except the contractors say that they delegated it to the cladding subcontractor. But no, hold on a minute, the cladding subcontractor says that the design compliance was not its job but the job of—wait for it—the architects. As for the companies that made the cladding, Arconic, Celotex and Kingspan —no, none of this was their responsibility. Never mind that the inquiry evidence shows that they manufactured or provided products that they knew or suspected to be dangerous for buildings of above 80 metres. Nor, apparently, was it the fault of the bodies responsible for testing and certification—bodies that have been accused of being too close to their customers and failing to provide the necessary protections.

Worse even than all this is the casual disregard—the flippancy—shown by pretty much everyone involved, at every level, in an industry that is supposed to have safety at its core. It is impossible to convey, so here they are in their own words, as heard at the public inquiry. An email from a senior staff member at Local Authority Building Control about the wording of a certificate, wrongly asserting that Kingspan’s insulation could be used on high-rise buildings, states:

“This issue has been burning for a LONG time though, hasn’t it? (Get it!!!!) Why is it raising its head again all of a sudden?”


An email between the contractors, fire engineers and architects, about the need to install strong fire barriers, says:

“There is no point in ‘fire stopping’, as we all know, the ACM will be gone rather quickly in a fire!”


Messages between employees of Kingspan discussing the rating of their material as class 0, or non-combustible, state:

“Doesn’t actually get class 0 when we test the whole product tho. LOL.”


An email from Grenfell’s fire risk assessor to the council’s tenant management organisation, after the LFB contacted them asking for help in identifying vulnerable persons, said:

“I would say you have nobody that this refers to … If you identify anybody now questions like why were they not included in the buildings FRA spring to mind. A good response I believe would be thank you for this information if we find anyone in the future we will let you know.”


For reference, while some updating did later take place, 15 of the 37 residents classed as vulnerable and disabled died in the fire.

This, then, was the culture of a truly broken industry. Within this, I fully appreciate that the role of government must also be looked at, and it will be considered by the inquiry shortly. I also appreciate, however, that that must not take away from the huge strides that the Bill will make.

Before I get on to that, I have one question for my noble friend the Minister. Incredible as it seems, post Grenfell and after all we have learned, the regulations still allow for tall residential buildings with only one fire escape staircase. Last month, it came to light that plans for two such developments in London are being rethought after concerns were raised locally and by the LFB.

Dozens of other countries require two or more escape stairs in such buildings, and I would like to know whether we will consider doing the same. It seems an anomaly when the Bill will do so much to fix the system, including the building safety regulator; new competence requirements for anyone carrying out design or building work; gateway points to ensure that building regulations compliance is considered at every stage of design and construction; and an accountable person who will ensure that residents are given a voice in decisions that concern the safety of their buildings. These changes are all designed to ensure that a tragedy such as Grenfell never happens again. While I understand that there will be improvements to make, regarding cladding remediation in particular, I urge noble Lords to bear in mind the fundamental reason for the Bill: that no one has to endure what the residents endured that night.

I declare my interest as a community adviser on Grenfell. I have worked with many members of the community since the days immediately after the fire. I have witnessed their strength and dignity in the face of so much suffering. I have heard what happened to them. It is not something that they like to talk about but, with kind permission, I want to tell one man’s story.

He grew up in Grenfell Tower and his mother and sister still lived there. On the night of the fire, they were trapped on one of the upper floors. His sister called him, leaving the line open as he rushed from his home in north London. Standing inside the cordon area, he saw his friends at the windows. He watched the flames engulf the building, as he remained on the phone to his sister. Despite her deteriorating situation she kept insisting she was okay, until finally she began to fade away. He heard a banging on the floor and then silence. At this point, he thought he had lost his mum too but, 30 seconds later and for the first time in the early hours of that morning, he heard her voice. She was struggling for breath and said her last words: “I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe.” He stayed on the phone, unable to cut off the call, hearing only the sound of the fire but hoping against all hope that maybe they would be okay, maybe someone would rescue them. It took him over an hour before he finally managed to switch off his phone.

Can noble Lords imagine how difficult that must have been and how difficult the reliving of that moment must still be? That is the reality of Grenfell. That is why the Bill is before us today—and it is why we must do everything we can to ensure its safe passage through this House.

Fire Safety Bill

Baroness Sanderson of Welton Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 1st October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, and I welcome my noble friend Lord Herbert to this House.

On the face of it, this is a straightforward Bill that will clarify the scope of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 to better identify and enforce against fire risk in multi-occupied residential buildings. In reality, of course, the situation is far more complicated, for lying behind this piece of legislation is the devastation of the Grenfell Tower fire and the knowledge that 72 people lost their lives simply by virtue of the fact that they were at home at the time. By definition, a home is somewhere that should provide protection, not sow the seeds of a person’s death.

I welcome the Bill, as it will significantly improve the safety of millions of people around the country. It is, however, only one part of a raft of measures to improve standards. There is the building safety Bill, and another key element in this process is the fire safety consultation, which closes in less than a fortnight and includes proposals to implement all the recommendations made by Sir Martin Moore-Bick in his excellent phase 1 report.

I am afraid I do not agree with the argument put forward in the other place that a number of those recommendations should be included in the Bill. As they should, the recommendations incorporate significant change. Sir Martin himself said that it was

“important that they command the support of those who have experience of the matters to which they relate.”

It was therefore essential to consult, not least because the Government are legally obliged to do so, given that the vast majority of the recommendations will require implementation in law.

However, I completely understand the anger and frustration at the lack of pace. As has been mentioned today, it is more than three years since the fire and nearly 12 months since the recommendations were first made. I ask my noble friend the Minister to give a clear timeframe for when and how the recommendations will be implemented. When will the Government respond to the consultation, and when can we expect the regulations that will enable many of the recommendations to be put in place? When does he expect the building safety Bill to be introduced?

Together, these measures will significantly improve fire safety standards. I pay tribute to all those from the Grenfell community, particularly Grenfell United, whose members spend their time campaigning on this issue solely so that what happened to them does not happen to anyone else. At the very least, we owe them some reassurance as to when these much-needed changes will be brought about.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has withdrawn so the next speaker is the noble Lord, Lord Storey.