Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, 72 people died in the Grenfell Tower fire seven years ago in the most horrifying of circumstances. This phase 2 report on the Grenfell Tower inquiry from Martin Moore-Bick is an excellent analysis and provides a strong challenge to the Government for the decisions they need to make.

It is therefore disappointing that the Secretary of State’s Statement fails to be absolutely clear that the recommendation from the inquiry will be implemented in full. Instead, the words used are that the Government

“accept the findings … and will take forward … the recommendations”.

That is simply unacceptable.

The inquiry exposed a culture of greed and indifference, which must be rooted out of all the organisations associated with this wholly avoidable tragedy—I emphasise that it was wholly avoidable. The Government have a duty to ensure that all buildings with flammable cladding, and where the constructors deliberately omitted fire safety features, are fully remediated, and that the cost is borne entirely by those responsible for those failings.

Leaseholders must not be required to pay anything. Living in a building that is not safe is itself a cause of immense anxiety. Added to that is the scandal of huge rises in insurance costs and service charges, when leaseholders should not be paying anything.

The ministry’s figures show that 9,000 to 12,000 buildings of above 11 metres will need remediation, yet only 4,771 have so far been identified—of which less than half have had work started. The National Audit Office has called for the costs of this work, over and above that funded by the taxpayer, to be placed on developers. That is absolutely right. Can the Minister explain how the costs of this essential work are to be met? For information, the estimate is around £7 billion.

I turn to the 58 recommendations in the report. It recommended a single construction adviser, which the Government have accepted and will appoint. I fully support that. However, Dame Judith Hackitt’s report of 2018, made immediately following the Grenfell Tower fire, also recommended that there be a formal log of every element during construction work, including building improvements which may follow. The report recommended that that log should be signed off by the person responsible for the work. This seems to be the fundamental change that is needed. Can the Minister advise whether this particular change is to be implemented?

One of the other key changes proposed by the Hackitt report was that the overall responsibility for building control should return to the local authority for independent oversight. Can the Minister explain why the Statement simply refers to a “review” of building control? Currently, constructors can appoint their own building inspector. The failure of that system is seen in the fire safety corner-cutting in Grenfell Tower and in many other buildings. Does the Minister agree that an independent building inspector is a key change that has to be made?

The failure of the regulatory system that enabled flammable cladding to be added to the walls of many high-rise blocks is at the heart of this scandal, yet the Statement has little to encourage us to believe that essential reform is coming. The Government have published a construction products Green Paper, which is positive but long overdue. The safety of construction products partly depends on the testing regime, which was exposed in the report as being deficient. What are the Government’s intentions for the future of the Building Research Establishment?

Finally, the report refers to “higher-risk buildings”. It states that

“to define a building as ‘higher risk’ by reference only to its height is … arbitrary”,

and recommends that the use of the building is vitally important. Are the Government intending to review the definition as a matter of urgency, as required by the recommendations in the report?

What is needed now is a sense of urgency and purpose. It is more than seven years since that dreadful fire. Survivors need to see that radical change is being made. The tragedy of 72 lives cruelly ended must not have been in vain.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank your Lordships for your comments today. I know that I speak for all of us when I say that what happened on that terrible night in June 2017 must never be allowed to happen again. It was a national tragedy and an immensely personal tragedy: 72 innocent people, 18 of them children, lost their lives. The Grenfell inquiry exposed damning and painful evidence of political, corporate and individual failings over decades. I thank the inquiry chair, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, and his team, for their hard work over seven years to shine a light on these failings. Yesterday in the other place, the Deputy Prime Minister announced the Government’s response to the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s final report and apologised on behalf of the British state.

I want to say again how deeply sorry I am and this Government are for the failures that led to the tragedy. We accept that the inquiry’s final report must be a catalyst for a long-lasting system change. That message has been re-emphasised by the points raised today. That is why the Government accept the findings of the report and will take forward all the recommendations. Our response addresses all the recommendations and sets out wider reforms of social housing and the construction sector. Alongside this, we published a construction products Green Paper with detailed proposals for rigorous system-wide reform to address the critical gaps in how construction products are regulated.

Reforming construction products means that safety will come first. The culture that allowed the tragedy to happen will be transformed. We are focused on prioritising residents, ensuring that industry builds safe homes and providing transparency and accountability. In doing so, we will rebuild trust. The Government commit to publishing progress on implementing the inquiry recommendations every quarter from mid-2026. Also, we will provide an additional update to Parliament. The Government’s response is explicit on the need to bring about the transformational change that the people of this country deserve. As the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday, to have anyone anywhere living in an unsafe home is one person too many. Yesterday I joined the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister Norris in meeting the bereaved and victims of the horrible tragedy. It was an emotional and difficult experience, but they need justice.

I will now focus on the issues raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock. On why we are not committing to meet the inquiry’s recommendation on the single regulator, we accept the inquiry’s recommendation and will create a single construction regulator. However, we must avoid creating a conflict of interest within the regulator. We do not believe it appropriate for a single regulator to undertake testing and certification of construction products and issue certificates of compliance. This would create a new conflict of interest within the regulator. It would set the rules, test and issue certificates, and police compliances with those rules. Through our Green Paper, we are putting forward wider measures to significantly strengthen conformity assessment in order to provide the confidence and rigour that is essential as part of that system-wide reform.

We are acting now through the regulators to ensure that enforcement action is taken against safety breaches and that new buildings meet our more rigorous standards. The new building safety regime is stopping bad designs becoming bad buildings. The inquiry exposed regulation of the construction industry as too complex and fragmented. Merging responsibility for regulating construction products and professionals, and monitoring the operation of building regulations, provides the best basis for a regulatory system with clear standards, no regulatory conflict and clarity and certainty on how the industry must conduct itself. In autumn 2025, we will set out further details of the pathway to establish the single regulator.

On the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, made, the Government accept all the inquiry’s findings and will take action on every recommendation directed at us. There are 58 in total. Where we have accepted nine recommendations in principle, we will deliver the intended outcome in a slightly different way, to ensure that it meets the aims and is a lasting success. We want to be clear that the Government accept all the inquiry’s findings and will take forward action on every recommendation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned the remediation acceleration plan. I want to update the House. We are focused on speeding up remediation. The plan will create certainty about which buildings need remediation and who is responsible for that. The plan will make obligations for assessing, completing and regulating remediation clearer, with severe consequences for non-compliance, and give residents greater control in situations of acute harm where landlords have neglected their responsibilities. We will update regularly on that process. The legislative commitments are detailed in the remediation action plan.

On construction products, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked what action the Government are taking to address criticisms over the key institutions found culpable in their role. The Government have taken full account of the criticisms in the inquiry report, including those of identified institutions. We are addressing those criticisms through the government response to recommendations, as set out in the Green Paper, as part of the measures for system-wide reform.

[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.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, my point follows on nicely from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson. I do not find the Minister’s response totally satisfactory because, in the Government’s response to the Grenfell inquiry report, they accept the need for “robust” scrutiny of the implementation of the recommendations of both public inquiries and inquests. But transparency and accessibility by means of a public record of recommendations is not the same as robust scrutiny of implementation—they are two different things.

Both your Lordships’ Statutory Inquiries Select Committee and the Grenfell inquiry said there should be scrutiny by Parliament, and the Government’s response is silent on that crucial point. Without that, we are, frankly, no further forward. We have seen the disaster that happened at Grenfell following a failure to implement the recommendations of the Lakanal House inquest and the coroner’s prevention of future deaths report. If we had had robust scrutiny of implementation following the Lakanal House disaster, Grenfell probably would not have happened and certainly 72 lives would not have been lost. So are the Government prepared to accept that there needs to be scrutiny of implementation of public inquiry recommendations and inquest recommendations by Parliament?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making that point. The Government are committed to ensure lasting transparency and accountability by creating a publicly accessible record of all public inquiry recommendations. We need to learn from past mistakes to stop them being repeated and ensure that a clear process is there on reforms. As I said in my previous answer, we will report back to Parliament annually, ensure we have quarterly updates on GOV.UK and continue to meet families and victims.

I was with victims yesterday with the Deputy Prime Minister, listening to the concerns and, naturally, frustrations. Lasting transparency is important; we also want to commit to enforcing a legal duty of candour through a new Hillsborough law. Your Lordships may recall that this is something we have talked about. We need to compel public authorities to disclose the truth, ensuring transparency in major incidents, such as the one mentioned by the noble Lord. We want to hold those responsible for failings to account, and we are committed to that.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fire Safety and Rescue. I thank the Minister for the information on PEEPs. When is “later in 2025”? It would be useful to know, and I look forward to seeing the detail. I remain concerned that the detail is not quite as clear as some of us with disabilities would like.

Following on from the other points noble Lords have made about the recommendations in principle, with recommendations 43 and 48 it seems that the Government are not quite doing it in full because it sounds like, first, it is onerous and, secondly, it might cost money. Yet one is dealing with voluntary organisations as first responders, and the second, and in my view much more important one, is about codifying the training required for local authorities and other category 1 responders. Why are they only in principle and not accepted in full, with the resources needed?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, on the question on PEEPs, the Government have committed funding this year, 2025-26, to begin this important work by supporting social housing providers to deliver residential PEEPs for their renters. Future years funding will be considered at the upcoming spending review. I will come back to the noble Baroness on which part of the year in particular.

The noble Baroness asked why we are not accepting those recommendations in full. I want to be clear: we accept all the inquiry’s findings and will address all the recommendations. However, we have to look at how we work through the recommendations. The commitment is clear—we accept them in principle. But there are different ways of dealing with this. As I said to her on the previous issue about the single regulator, there are some conflicts and we want to make sure that we do this, which is long-lasting, sustainable, makes a difference to people’s lives, and makes people feel comfortable and confident in the system as something they believe in.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I want briefly to highlight that the Grenfell United bereaved families and survivors group said that a single construction regulator could be a significant step forward if it was well resourced and tough on industry failure. How will His Majesty’s Government ensure that the new regulator will be totally independent and have impartial oversight?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Earl makes a good point. We will create a new single construction regulator to bring together oversight and enforcement. This will close gaps in regulation and ensure that those responsible for building safety are held to account. We accept the recommendations and will respond to them. That is something we are working on but, as I said earlier, we have to work through this. As we accept the recommendations in full, we need to do it in a way that does not have any conflicts of interest. It will take time, but rest assured that, for the issue the noble Earl raised, we will take that back, feed it into the system and ensure that we cover the pertinent points he raised.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, given the rigour, skill and knowledge shown by Sir Martin Moore-Bick, and taking into account the question asked earlier by my noble friend, will the Government consider inviting Sir Martin in one year’s time and in two years’ time to prepare a short report on the implementation of his recommendations? I am sure that the public and this House would deem it to be of great value.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, as always, makes a very important point. We are working on the response to Sir Martin’s report. We accept the inquiry’s findings and will address all the recommendations. I will take that suggestion away and we will have conversations to ensure that we deal with the recommendations and work through all of them. We will explore the opportunity for noble Lords, if not here then in another setting, to have an opportunity to listen to Sir Martin’s recommendations and how the Government are doing.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the report from Sir Martin Moore-Bick and the Government’s Statement, but there is a legacy issue from what was put in place by the previous Government in terms of support measures for a defined range of properties considered most at risk following the tragedy. In light of the measures put in place concerning remediation under PAS 9980, which is the relevant standard, can the Minister explain what steps are now proposed to prevent that proportionate approach—bearing in mind there is an issue between critical life safety on the one hand and the safety of the building on the other hand? Those are two different risks. What does he propose to prevent that proportionate standard? There is also the issue of the lack of the Building Safety Regulator powers in relation to avoiding full remediation responsibilities where building regulation standards at the time of construction had not been met. The problem is continuing to impede remediation and to trap innocent homeowners with high insurance costs. I wonder if he could comment on that. He may need to write to me.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I kindly accept the invitation to write to the noble Earl, due to the specific nature of the very important question he raised.

House adjourned at 6.23 pm.