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.