Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neate (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 65 in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hussein-Ece, Lady Teather and Lady Lister, who have supported it. I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Abri Octavia housing association. This is my first time speaking in Committee, so I apologise to noble Lords for having to be prompted to rise to my feet.

This amendment would ensure that domestic abuse survivors were not made ineligible for a social home as a result of debt incurred in the context of abuse. This speech will be short because I do not have criticisms to make of the Bill. I merely hope to strengthen further the very welcome changes that it proposes for survivors of domestic abuse.

As I know noble Lords are aware, and as I saw time and time again as chief executive both of Women’s Aid and Shelter, domestic abuse survivors who manage to leave their abuser are often systematically robbed of their financial independence. The fact that they might become homeless is a threat frequently wielded by perpetrators to maintain control: “If you leave me, you’ll have nowhere to live”. Or even worse: “If you leave me, the children will be homeless”. All too often, the housing system makes these threats come true, preventing victims gaining safety and not allowing survivors and their children the safe space they desperately need to rebuild their lives together.

The Bill as it stands is already life-changing for survivors. It takes important steps towards shifting the system so that it is on the side of the survivor, not the perpetrator. My amendment is one more step in the same direction, which I believe would strengthen the Bill still further.

In just one month in 2023, research found that 1,500 children were trapped living in temporary accommodation as a result of housing-related debt, which according to local authority rules meant their mother could not get a social home. The housing crisis has grown only worse since then and so has the dangerous shortage of refuge accommodation for women fleeing abuse. This is exacerbated when women cannot move on from refuge into a social home and are therefore occupying a space that could literally save another woman’s life.

At Shelter, colleagues working in front-line services and on the helpline saw daily that a gatekeeping culture exists in many local authorities. For a start, survivors are not believed. Then, rules governing housing allocations are used to make the gateway to a social home as narrow as it can possibly be. Yes, there is guidance, and I am aware that the Government believe that statutory guidance can be used to achieve the ends that this amendment would achieve. I am sure that in the best local authorities that is true, but I have seen guidance disregarded many times and colleagues at both Shelter and Women’s Aid having to intervene to get a survivor’s rights upheld. The problem is that a minority of survivors have a powerful advocate on their side; most are struggling on their own. For them, all too often, guidance is not enough.

It is also not urgent enough, nor is it guaranteed. The time and uncertainty of consultation is time and uncertainty that survivors and their children cannot afford. This is especially true in the context of a desperate shortage of funds in local government, an even worse shortage of social homes, the imminent local government reorganisation, and the disruption and local shifts of emphasis following the local elections, not to mention the current political instability, which means timetables can vary. In this context, it is appropriate that priority matters are dealt with urgently by legislation. We are in the middle of a housing emergency, a funding crisis in women’s refuges and major upheaval in local government. Domestic abuse survivors are caught in the eye of this storm.

The truth is that no family should be in temporary accommodation, but that is not the reality we are in. No local authority should be gatekeeping social homes in a way that denies people their rights as enshrined in guidance, but that is not the reality we are in. This Bill, which places domestic abuse survivors at the centre of the social housing system, can be an even bigger opportunity for this House to demonstrate that we believe that domestic abuse survivors and their children, who have been systematically deprived of their financial independence, simply must have every chance to recover and that a safe and secure home is the foundation of that.

I am grateful for the hard work done by the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Shared Health Foundation and researchers from King’s College London and Oxford Brookes University on this amendment, which is supported by Women’s Aid, Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse and other expert organisations.

[Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 65, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, who has brought to this amendment her considerable experience in dealing with domestic abuse and homelessness.

It is not that long ago that the expectation was that, when somebody was the victim of domestic abuse, they had to leave their home and the perpetrator could be left in possession of the home. Thankfully, we have, in a number of ways, changed that thinking. Domestic abuse protection orders and domestic abuse protection notices in the Domestic Abuse Act have given powers to ensure that it is the perpetrator who leaves. I welcome Schedule 1 to the Bill and the efforts that the Government are making to provide greater stability and security to the victims of domestic abuse.

It is also not that long ago that we thought that domestic abuse was purely domestic violence and always had a physical violence element. As we know now, there is complexity to domestic abuse, which can include coercive control and economic control. It is in that sense that Amendment 65 is so important. It recognises that there are victims of domestic abuse who may be victims of economic coercive control and find that debt has been racked up by their perpetrator, unbeknown to them. When they are trying to leave, and trying to secure social housing for themselves, they find that that debt is against their name as well, perhaps as having been joint tenants, and find themselves in an impossible situation that has been created because they were a victim of the actions of the perpetrator.

I hope that the Government are going to look favourably on the amendment. An effort is being made by the Government through this Bill to change the scenario for those who are the victims of domestic abuse, but there is this loophole. The Government need to look at this element, given the knowledge we now have of the forms that domestic abuse can take and the greater understanding we have of the circumstances in which people can be left that are nothing to do with their behaviour, but purely because they have been the victim of a perpetrator.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I apologise that I was unable to contribute at Second Reading, but I am pleased to speak now in support of Amendment 65 and to follow the noble Baroness, Lady May, who made such a strong case. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, for tabling the amendment. Given her experience at Shelter and Women’s Aid, I can think of no better person to take up this important issue.

The relationship between homelessness and debt resulting from economic coercion and abuse, which we have just heard about, was brought to my attention last year in a briefing on a book by Professor Katherine Brickell and Dr Mel Nowicki, Debt Trap Nation. This provided evidence on the general problem of domestic abuse survivors unable to qualify for housing because of restrictive housing allocation policies. They found that fewer than one in five local authorities specifically exempts survivors from housing-related debt rules. Indeed, significant housing-related debt is sometimes bracketed with being a perpetrator of domestic abuse under the rubric of unacceptable behaviour that provides grounds for exclusion from housing. Some debt is what the researchers called coerced debt, generated through financial transactions that the victim is told to make or is aware of the abuser making in their name. They cite the organisation Surviving Economic Abuse, which discovered that victims of economic violence were at high risk of having rent arrears. As Brickell and Nowicki note, debt chips away at women’s autonomy to make decisions in their own interests.

Moreover, as the Chartered Institute of Housing points out, children suffer as a result of these exclusionary policies. The researchers observe that adult and child domestic abuse survivors subject to them are, in effect, left in limbo in temporary accommodation until they can reduce or clear rent arrears. The effect on children can be traumatic. Reducing the number of children living in temporary accommodation is one of the main aims of the child poverty strategy as well as of the homelessness strategy, so the amendment would contribute to both. The institute explains why it believes action should be taken in this legislation, rather than await the statutory guidance promised in the announced allocations review, as legislation would be more appropriate and there is a strong case for not delaying the matter. This very much accords with the strong argument put by the noble Baroness, Lady Neate. A few local authorities already pursue this policy; for example, Bedford Borough Council states:

“A blanket policy will not be operated in relation to housing debt and each case will be considered on its own merits ...Where a housing related debt has arisen as a direct result of a person being a victim of domestic abuse the debt will be disregarded for the purposes of assessing the application”.


This is to be applauded, but survivors should not have to rely on the discretion of individual local authorities.

The Bill is so positive when it comes to the position of domestic abuse survivors that it would be a real shame not to include this amendment, or one that achieved the same aim. At Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister made it clear that this Bill should not be viewed as a Christmas tree Bill. That is understandable, but I believe that this amendment is no bauble to add to the tree but rather that it would strengthen the very roots of the Bill. It is totally consistent with the existing welcome provisions, as the noble Baroness made clear. Therefore, I hope my noble friend will be able to look upon it favourably before Report.

Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords]

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 7th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

I join others in welcoming the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities back to his role. I thank him for the understanding that he previously showed and continues to show of the importance of social housing issues, and for the kind remarks he made about me.

I welcome the Bill, which has been a long time in the making, but which, critically, responds to the concerns about social housing, the attitude of some social housing landlords and the interaction between social housing tenants and landlords. Those concerns have existed for too long, but they were brought into sharp focus by the terrible tragedy of the fire at Grenfell Tower in 2017.

In the immediate aftermath of the fire at Grenfell Tower, one of the things that became very clear to me in talking to people from the estate, survivors and others was that the people responsible for managing the homes in Grenfell Tower—not just the council, but the tenant management organisation—simply failed to listen to the comments, remarks and concerns that tenants were raising about safety issues. It was not just a one-off comment that a tenant might have made; it was comments, remarks and concerns being raised time and again by the tenants, and no action was taken.

Of course, that was not confined to Grenfell, or even the wider North Kensington estate. Particularly when Housing Ministers were listening to tenants across the country, we saw and heard that that experience was mirrored up and down the country. As has been referred to, my Government published the social housing Green Paper in 2018 and launched a call for evidence as part of a review of social housing regulation. That led to the social housing White Paper in late 2020 and now, at last, we have the Bill.

What was clear throughout that process was that, while many tenants had a positive experience to report, there was a problem at the heart of our social housing system. That is why I welcome the Bill as a means of strengthening the regime of social housing regulation. By the introduction of the new consumer regulatory regime, which will be more proactive, and in enhancing the economic regulatory role and providing new enforcement powers to strengthen the regulator’s role, it aims to ensure that landlords do not just listen but, critically, act when problems are raised. Crucially, the Bill puts the emphasis on making the tenants the focus of landlords’ work, with a particular priority rightly given to safety issues. By enhancing transparency and accountability, the Bill will help to set a different balance between the interests of the tenants and those of landlords, and emphasise the delivery of services to the tenants.

So far, all well and good, but there is an area where I hope the Government will accept there is a desire from many that they should go further. It is an area that the Secretary of State has already referred to: the question of the professionalisation of the sector. I am aware that the Government introduced amendments to address this issue in the other place, and that an amendment from Baroness Hayman of Ullock to go further was narrowly defeated, but I am not convinced that the Government’s proposals fully address the issue.

The Government have introduced requirements for the social housing regulator to set regulatory standards on staff competence and conduct. Once in force, the regulator, in the words of the Minister in the other place, would

“proactively seek assurance that providers are meeting them.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 October 2022; Vol. 824, c. 1029.]

That was an alternative to the other approach, which has been supported by Grenfell United and others, of the Government mandating professional qualifications.

I have looked at the Government’s arguments. The Government have said that the sector is so diverse that mandating a set of qualifications or a single qualification would be too restrictive, that there is no single qualification that would meet the diverse needs of the sector—the Secretary of State referred to that—and that landlords need to have the flexibility to determine what qualifications their staff need. It was also argued that this would make it harder to recruit staff and that there was a risk that it would lead to staff who did not have the right attitudes and behaviours. I find all those arguments extraordinary. Social housing is provided for those in need. Why is it that in other social professions staff are required to be suitably qualified and to be prepared to accept an ethos, a code of ethics or values, yet we are not willing to require that of those employed to manage the homes, particularly the safety of homes, that social housing tenants are living in?

What is more, it is all very well saying that professionalisation would lead to the wrong attitudes and behaviours, but the very reason that we have the Bill today and that we are discussing it is that there are too many people managing social housing with the wrong attitudes and behaviours. I fail to see how making the management of social housing professional—requiring people to have qualifications, saying it is a valuable and worthwhile career, ensuring people have the knowledge and skills needed to do the job—leads to worse outcomes. Professionalising social housing management would, over time, mean that the perception of the role would change. It would come to be seen as a worthwhile career, and would attract more dedicated people interested in what would be seen as a valued profession.

As for the argument that one qualification could not cover all the roles, I am sure the Secretary of State, with his intellect, will soon be able to destroy that argument. There are many ways that that can be approached. We can limit the role that we initially set the qualifications for—to, say, senior management—and allow further qualifications to be developed. We could set up a range of qualifications. They are many ways in which that issue can be addressed; it is not insoluble.

Behind these arguments lies something critical to providing a better future for social housing and social housing tenants, and it has already been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes): we need to remove the stigma of living in social housing. Those who live in social housing should be able to feel proud of where they live, and not feel that people are judging them because they live in social housing. Ensuring the professionalisation of the management of social housing would send a clear message of the value that Government attach to social housing, and the importance of ensuring that those charged with looking after the homes of others have the skills necessary to do that. If we do not care who manages social housing, it is easy to think that we do not care about those who are living in social housing. If we care about those who manage social housing, we show that we care about those who are living in social housing.

[Mr Francois]

I pay tribute to all the work that my right hon. Friend has done in relation to Grenfell, which has been of great importance. I declare an interest as someone who grew up in a council house. I have great sympathy with the argument she makes. Does she agree that as well as qualifications a key thing is attitude, and that people who run housing associations need to have a positive attitude to their tenants and not, as is sometimes the case, a negative one?

[Mrs May]

I absolutely agree. The problem we have seen, and that we saw at Grenfell, was that the attitude was that negative one of just ignoring tenants and not listening to what they were saying. It is essential that people have the right attitude, and see social housing tenants as people who are living in those homes. If people have concerns about their homes and their safety, those concerns should be listened to.

Another objection has been raised about the possibility of professionalisation requiring qualifications for those managing social housing: it would lead to the reclassification by the Office for National Statistics of all social housing providers as public bodies. None of us wants that to happen, and I know the angst that the issue causes in Government, having been there when the last change in the classification of social housing took place. However, no one knows definitely that the ONS would reclassify it in that way, and no one seems to know where the tipping point is regarding how much extra regulation would move such providers into the category of public bodies. Can the Government achieve professionalisation in a way that does not lead to reclassification? Can the regulations be rebalanced to ensure that professionalisation can be brought in and that tipping point is not reached? I welcome the commitment that the Secretary of State made in his speech to work across the House to find solutions and see whether we can find a way through this. I hope that, during the remaining stages of the Bill, the Government will have that conversation with the ONS and will actively seek to table amendments that allow for proper professionalisation of the sector without reclassification.

This important Bill aims to deal with inequities that have been there for too long. It should lead to deeper concern for the needs of social housing tenants, and a greater willingness of all those who are managing social housing to listen to their tenants. However, we should also all aim to remove the stigma that is attached to social housing. That would be of real benefit to all involved. I believe that the professionalisation of social housing management would be a real legacy for the 72 who sadly lost their lives on that fateful night in June 2017.

Planning and House Building

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 8th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing this debate on a very important subject, and on his excellent speech.

We need to build more homes; the Government are absolutely right about that. We need to level up across the country; the Government are right about that, too. But the problem with the algorithm on housing numbers is that it does not guarantee the building of a single extra home and, far from levelling up, it forces more investment into London and the south. That is a mechanistic approach and it is ill-conceived.

We need to reform the planning system. We need to ensure that that planning system sees the right number of homes being built in the right places. But we will not do that by removing local democracy, cutting the number of affordable homes that are built and building over rural areas. Yet that is exactly what these reforms will lead to. We do need, as I said, to build more homes, but we will not do that by forcing local authorities to grant more planning permissions to developers so that they can build more homes to bring the price down, because developers simply will not do it.

The Government need to think again, and they need to understand the impact that their proposals will have throughout the country—an impact that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight so ably set out. But I want to focus on my constituency. For the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, the housing target will go up by 21%. Given a previous planning inspector’s decision, most of those homes will be in Maidenhead, not in the Windsor part of the constituency, and there is already an implication that green belt needs to be built on. But those numbers are less significant than the increase that is faced in the part of my constituency under Wokingham Borough Council. That council, over the past three years, has seen the delivery of homes over and above its target, but its target of 789 homes per year is now to be more than doubled, to 1,635 homes per year.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour in Berkshire agree that councils such as Wokingham Borough Council and Bracknell Forest Council should be given some credit for delivering against mature local plans, and that very well run councils like them are best placed to understand the local requirement, instead of having national targets imposed on them?

[Mrs May]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on those points. What seems to be happening is that if councils have delivered in the past—and they deserve to be congratulated on that—they are being forced to deliver even more in the future. Yet, by definition, if you have delivered in the past, you have less land on which to deliver in the future. It just does not seem to make sense, particularly when those who have not delivered are being rewarded by lower target numbers. That is the opinion of parish councils and town councils across the Wokingham area, including those in my constituency—Charvil, Remenham, Ruscombe, St Nicholas Hurst, Sonning, Twyford, Wargrave, and Woodley town council, part of which covers my constituency. They have urged the Government to think again, and to ensure that a realistic and manageable plan is put in place, that is achievable and does not create more problems than it solves.

I say to the Minister that one of the strongest arguments, if not the strongest, against this new housing algorithm—I would have thought that the Government might have abandoned algorithms by now—is that it simply does not deliver a single extra home. We want those homes to be built, but one of the problems that we see at local level is that developers just constantly put in planning permission applications. What we will see is not homes being built, but more planning permissions being built up by those developers.

One of the difficulties is that councils often find that, because of the way the five-year land supply is calculated, they reject planning permission and it is then allowed on appeal because there is not a five-year land supply. Why not count previously granted planning permissions in the five-year land supply, giving developers an incentive to build them out, because otherwise they would not get planning permissions in the future?

What the algorithm does is build up planning permissions; it does not build houses. As Cox Green Parish Council in my constituency has said:

“The real block to delivery is the developers’ appetite to build at a level which will affect house prices and their profit margins.”

It says of the Government’s approach:

“All that this strategy will accomplish is to further undermine public confidence in the planning system.”

My second objection was about the fact that this does not level up, as was very ably set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight. What the new algorithm does with regard to levelling up is fly in the face of the Government’s flagship policy. My point is simple: these proposals do not deliver on Government policies. The Government need to think again and come back to this House with a comprehensive proposal for a proper debate and—dare I say it?—a meaningful vote.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 1 Report

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I will come on to that point in just a moment, if I may.

Sir Martin recommended that the Government produce national guidelines for carrying out the evacuation of high rise residential buildings. I am now working closely with colleagues in the Home Office on those guidelines. My Department and the Home Office have formed a steering group with the National Fire Chiefs Council and other experts, which met for the first time in December. The group agreed on the scope of an evidence review into stay put and evacuation. Let me reiterate, however, that the advice from the National Fire Chiefs Council is that stay put remains an appropriate policy providing compartmentation is maintained. In fact, Sir Martin highlighted that effective compartmentation is likely to remain at the heart of fire safety and the response to fires in high rise buildings. I think that that is an important point that we should all bear in mind in how we communicate on these issues to members of the public.

A number of recommendations made by Sir Martin were for the London Fire Brigade, and for fire and rescue services more widely across the country. The firefighters serving that night showed exceptional bravery and dedication. I would like to pay tribute to their courage, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did last year. However, the report made very clear that there were failures in the London Fire Brigade’s response. Significant changes are needed in its policies, guidance and training, including on evacuation procedures. We know that fire and rescue services across the country need to have the training and processes in place to be able to respond as effectively as possible to fires in residential buildings. The control rooms that co-ordinate emergency responses must have the processes in place to deal with all incidents effectively.

I am pleased that London Fire Brigade has already rolled out fire survival guidance training, and is reviewing its policies and guidance in the light of the inquiry’s recommendations. It is important that all our emergency services have proper protocols in place to ensure that they can work together and communicate effectively in an emergency. The Home Office is working with the interoperability board to ensure that those lessons are learned. While these recommendations are not aimed directly at the Government, clearly the Government have a role and we will not sit back.

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. As Home Secretary I chaired the board of JESIP, the Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Programme. What is clear from Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report, page 698, is that the protocol was not followed on the night of the Grenfell fire. He recommends changes to that protocol. Have the changes been put in place? Equally important, have frontline officers and staff of the three emergency services had the changes drawn to their attention, so that they know what they must do when they are working together in a major incident?

[Robert Jenrick]

My right hon. Friend makes a series of extremely important points. Those issues have been brought to the attention of all the emergency services; they are now working through them. The Home Office is helping to co-ordinate that work and, like her, I hope that those lessons are learned as quickly as possible so that if we are ever presented with a tragedy on this scale again all the emergency services can work together as one, in a co-ordinated way.

Fire and rescue services need urgently to address these issues and must set out their plans to do so. There have been some welcome developments, including, for example, that the London Fire Brigade now carries smoke hoods on its fire engines; that five pumps and a drone, rather than four pumps, are now deployed to fires in high-rise buildings; and that the London Fire Brigade has already taken steps to ensure that personnel understand the risk of fire taking hold in external wall systems. My hon. Friend the Minister for Crime, Policing and the Fire Service will address the House at the end of the debate on the work he is doing with the sector.

The work I have outlined shows the urgency with which we are addressing Sir Martin’s recommendations. The Government did not wait for the phase 1 report to begin addressing the most pressing building safety issues. We took immediate action in the aftermath of the fire with a comprehensive and independent review of building safety, chaired by Dame Judith Hackitt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

May I first say, Madam Deputy Speaker, what a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair and welcome you to your new role as Chairman of Ways and Means?

I thank the Secretary of State and the Government for bringing this further debate to the House. It was good that we had an initial debate in the previous Parliament, on 30 October, when this phase 1 report was published by Sir Martin Moore-Bick. However, as the Prime Minister recognised at the time, it was not possible to go into the detail of this very detailed and lengthy report to the extent that the House would have wished, and a further debate was necessary, so I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving us that opportunity. I was able to speak in the debate on 30 October, so I will limit my comments here today, because I know that other Members wish to speak.

I want to raise two issues. I have already touched on the first in my intervention on the Secretary of State. It is the question of interoperability and the communications between the emergency services. I am pleased to hear that the Home Office is working with his Department to look at this issue. Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s recommendations included some changes to the wording of the protocol. That should be relatively easy and, I hope, quick to achieve, and should be relayed to all those who are likely to have responsibility for major incidents and therefore be responsible for putting that protocol in place.

The other issue I want to touch on today goes absolutely to the heart of what happened at Grenfell Tower. There are many quotes that I could use in reference to this, but I am looking at page 584 of Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report. His essential conclusion, which he did not need to go into in phase 1 of the report but did, was that he could see

“no rational basis for contending that the external walls of the building met requirement B4(1), whatever the reason for that might have been.”

Requirement B4(1) is the regulation that requires the external walls of a building

“to adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls…having regard to the height, use and position of the building”.

It seems to me that absolutely at the crux of this issue—Sir Martin Moore-Bick acknowledges that it is a key issue for phase 2 of the report—is why that building in which so many people were living did not meet the building requirements, because it had on it material that would not adequately resist the spread of fire. It was not just the material, but other issues such as the positioning of the windows, which was changed when the refurbishment was done in a way that actually made it easier for fire to escape from a flat and take hold of that combustible cladding.

Sir Martin Moore-Bick goes on to say that

“on completion of the main refurbishment, the external walls of the building did not comply with requirement B4(1) of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations. A separate question is how those responsible for the design and construction of the cladding system and the work associated with it, such as the replacement of the windows and infill panels, satisfied themselves that on completion of the work the building would meet requirement B4(1).”

This seems to me to be absolutely crucial.

In his intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) used the phrase that the inquiry is not there to place blame. Actually, the inquiry is there to find out what happened, why it happened and how it happened. Phase 1 has shown what happened. The crucial issue for phase 2 is how, despite the regulations and the requirements that were there, we still had this building with cladding that did not meet the building regulations. The questions must be: who took decisions along the line that led to that being possible; were the decisions taken because there was a misinterpretation or a misunderstanding of building regulations; was it about the drafting of the building regulations; and did people properly inspect the buildings? Further on in the report, on page 590, Sir Martin Moore-Bick says:

“The failure to appreciate the nature of the risks posed by the cladding at Grenfell Tower was due in part to the approach adopted by the LFB to the discharge of its obligations under section 7(2)(d) of the 2004 Act.”

He notes further on that

“there was no attempt to carry out a visit which comprehensively addressed each of the listed matters to ensure that the information relating to the refurbished building and the assessment of the risks it presented was accurate and up to date…no good explanation was given for the failure to carry out a comprehensive assessment of the tower after the refurbishment had been completed.”

He goes on to say that individual members of the London Fire Brigade had not received training and that they cannot be blamed, because they could not be expected to assess the risks.

What this shows is a failure of the system, and this is where I slightly take issue with the shadow Secretary of State. He referred to the Government being able to make decisions and regulations. Yes, Ministers decide policy and this House passes legislation. We can pass all the legislation we like, but if it is not properly implemented on the ground, it is of no effect. That is the issue that lies behind the tragedy at Grenfell Tower. We should be worried not just because of all those people who lost their lives and the many families whose lives have been absolutely turned upside down because they lost everything and have had to rebuild their lives; we should also be worried about other areas. The purpose of this place is to pass legislation for the betterment of our society and the protection of our citizens, but we rely on others to ensure that it is then implemented properly.

It is essential, as Sir Martin Moore-Bick himself states, that

“the principal focus of Phase 2 will be on the decisions which led to the installation of a highly combustible cladding system on a high-rise residential building and the wider background against which they were taken.”

That, it seems to me, is absolutely crucial. The shadow Secretary of State has said that this inquiry is taking longer than any of us would have wished. Crucially, however, Sir Martin Moore-Bick is ruthless in getting to the truth, and that is what we want, not just for the victims and survivors of Grenfell Tower but for the wider good of our society. We need those answers and I have every confidence that, given the integrity he has shown, Sir Martin Moore-Bick will come forward with them. Then, of course, this place and the Government will have to respond to the inquiry’s findings.

As I said on 30 October, the detail in this report and the ability to start to find answers are only possible because people who went through hell have been willing to stand up and give their testimony and to fight for justice. This House and the Government owe them that justice.