Grenfell Recovery Taskforce 4.33 pm The Secretary of
State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid) With
permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the
independent recovery taskforce that is working with the Royal
Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in the wake of June’s tragic fire
at Grenfell Tower. The...Request free trial
Grenfell Recovery Taskforce
4.33 pm
-
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
(Sajid Javid)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a
statement on the independent recovery taskforce that is
working with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in
the wake of June’s tragic fire at Grenfell Tower.
The people of North Kensington have been failed by those
who were supposed to serve them. They were failed by a
system that allowed the fire to happen. They were failed
once again by a sluggish and chaotic response in the
immediate aftermath. It was clear that if RBKC was to get a
grip on the situation and begin to regain the trust of
residents, it would have to change and change quickly. That
started with a change in leadership of the council, new
senior officers, and new support brought in from other
councils and from central Government.
To ensure that that translated into a better service for
the victims and for the people of North Kensington and to
assure myself that the council would be capable of
delivery, I announced on 5 July that I was sending in a
specialist independent taskforce. The taskforce is made up
of experts in housing, local government, public services
and community engagement. I deliberately appointed
independent-minded individuals who will not hesitate to
speak their mind.
I have now received the first report from the taskforce,
reflecting on its first nine weeks on the ground. The
report has been shared with the right hon. Member for
Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). I will be placing
copies in the Library of the House, and the report will be
published in full on gov.uk.
It is clear from the report that progress is being made,
that much-needed change has happened and continues to
happen, that the council today is a very different
organisation from the one that failed its people so badly
back in June, and that the taskforce is satisfied that
RBKC, under its new leadership, recognises the challenges
it faces and is committed to delivering a comprehensive
recovery programme. For that reason, the taskforce does not
see any practical advantage in further intervention at this
time as it would risk further disruption.
Although there are green shoots, the report pulls no
punches about the fact that there is still significant room
for improvement. The taskforce has identified four key
areas in which the council needs to step up. The first is
pace. The speed of delivery needs to be increased, and more
work needs to be done more quickly. The second is
innovation. The scale and impact of the fire was
unprecedented in recent history, but RBKC is relying too
much on tried and tested solutions that are not up to the
task. The council should be much bolder in its response.
The third area is skills. Too many of the officers and
councillors working on the response lack specialist
training in how to work with a traumatised community—that
needs to change. The final area, and arguably the most
important, is the need for greater empathy and emotional
intelligence. The people of Grenfell Tower, Grenfell Walk
and the wider community have already suffered so much, yet
the taskforce has heard too many accounts of that suffering
being compounded by bureaucratic processes that are not
appropriate when so many deeply traumatised men, women and
children have complex individual needs. A greater degree of
humanity must be put at the heart of all RBKC’s recovery
work.
I have discussed those recommendations with the council’s
leadership, which accepted them all without question.
Culture change is never quick or easy to achieve in any
organisation, but I am in no doubt that the leadership and
staff of RBKC genuinely want to do better. It is their
community, too, and they desperately want to help it heal.
I am particularly encouraged that the council is now
drawing on NHS expertise to secure specific training for
the frontline staff responsible for providing direct
support to survivors.
I have assured the council that I will continue to support
it in building capacity. However, I have also made it clear
that my support will not be uncritical or unqualified. I
expect to see swift, effective action to deal with all the
issues highlighted in the report. I am not taking any
options off the table if progress is not made, and I will
continue to monitor the situation closely.
Until now, one aspect of the monitoring has involved weekly
meetings, chaired by me, bringing together Ministers from
across Government and senior colleagues from RBKC. Although
the meetings have proved effective, the taskforce expressed
concern that meeting so often is beginning to become
counterproductive and that the time required to prepare
properly is cutting into the time available for frontline
work. As a result, the report recommends that we meet less
often, and I have accepted that recommendation. However, I
reassure the House that that does not mean our priorities
are shifting elsewhere or that the level of scrutiny is
being reduced. It is simply a matter of ensuring time and
resources are focused to the maximum on those affected by
the fire.
One area to which the House knows I have been paying
particularly close attention is the rehousing of those who
lost their home in the fire. Although I have always been
clear that rehousing must proceed at a pace that respects
the needs, wants and situations of survivors, I have been
equally adamant that bureaucratic inertia must not add
delay. Clearly some progress is being made. The latest
figures I have received from RBKC are that 122 households
out of a current total of 204 have accepted an offer of
either temporary or permanent accommodation. Seventy-three
of those households have now moved in, of which 47 have
moved into temporary accommodation and 26 have moved into
permanent accommodation.
However, the report is also clear that that the process is
simply not moving as quickly as it should. RBKC’s latest
figures show that 131 Grenfell households are still living
in emergency accommodation. Behind every one of these
numbers are human faces. There can be no doubt that there
are families who desperately want a new home but for whom
progress has been painfully slow. Almost five months after
the fire, this must improve. Responsibility for re-homing
ultimately lies with RBKC. However, in central Government
we cannot shy away from our share of the responsibility. I
expect the council, in line with the taskforce’s report, to
do whatever is necessary to ensure households can move into
settled homes as swiftly as possible. I will continue to do
all I can to ensure that this is done.
When I announced the creation of the taskforce, I said it
would stay in place for as long as it was needed. Based on
this first report, there is still much more to be done, so
the taskforce will remain for the foreseeable future. I
have asked the taskforce to ensure that proper action is
taken on all the fronts it identifies, and to come back to
me in the new year with a further update, which I will, of
course, share with this House. I must, of course, thank the
four members of the taskforce for their tireless efforts so
far: Aftab Chughtai, Javed Khan, and Chris Wood.
This weekend, I read the Right Rev. James Jones’s excellent
report on the appalling experiences of those who lost loved
ones in the Hillsborough disaster. It is a sobering piece
of work, reminding us that
“the way in which families bereaved through public tragedy
are treated by those in authority is in itself a burning
injustice”.
We saw that all too clearly in the hours and days after the
Grenfell fire. The clock cannot be turned back; the woeful
inadequacies of the early response cannot be undone. But I
can say, once again, that as long as I am in public life, I
will do all I can to ensure that the failures of the past
are not repeated, and that the people of Grenfell Tower get
the help and support they deserve. The Hillsborough
families had to fight for a quarter of a century to get
their voices heard, to be taken seriously, to be treated
properly by those in authority—we cannot allow that to
happen again. I will not allow that to happen again. The
public inquiry established by the Prime Minister will play
the major role, but, for its part, I am confident that the
continued work of the taskforce will also help ensure that
the survivors receive the support and respect they deserve.
4.42 pm
-
(Denton and Reddish)
(Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his
statement this afternoon. I also wish to join him in
thanking the members of the Grenfell taskforce for
producing this report. On all sides of the House, we
recognised the totally avoidable tragedy at Grenfell and an
official response that was just not good enough. The
support on the ground for families who needed help or basic
information in the initial hours was not provided by the
council. The council was too distant from the residents it
serves, which meant there was little effective and
structured support from the Royal Borough of Kensington and
Chelsea at a time when its residents needed it the most.
Instead, support came from the many volunteers, charities,
emergency services and aid workers. As we all know only too
well, without them the situation would have been much
worse.
For many survivors, the situation is far bleaker than the
information provided to us today by the Secretary of State
would suggest. First, will he confirm that the figures that
have been presented do not include people from the
properties surrounding the tower, in the three walkway
buildings? Residents of Barandon Walk, Hurstway Walk and
Testerton Walk did not run out of a burning building, but
they still lived through an unimaginable tragedy and they
still saw unspeakable things. My understanding from the
council’s figures is that if we are to include these
additional people made homeless from the fire, we find
that: 376 households were made homeless —comprising 857
people; 311 of these households are in bed and breakfast
accommodation; and 87 households are in temporary
accommodation. In future, will the Secretary of State
provide the full data when he updates the House, including
a full account of the numbers made homeless and the
progress made in rehousing the survivors?
There are additional issues for those in the walkway
blocks, because under the Royal Borough of Kensington and
Chelsea’s suggested rehousing policy, tenants would not be
given priority for rehousing while they remained in bed and
breakfast accommodation. Residents have accused the council
of insensitivity, and I agree with them. The policy would
mean that they would be required to move either into
temporary accommodation or back into their old home
overlooking the tower, where they would have to relive the
tragedy every day. Even then, priority for housing would be
removed if residents reject two offers. That has left some
residents fearing that they will be made intentionally
homeless. Hotel accommodation is not a substitute for a
home, especially after such a traumatic event, and there
are growing concerns about people beginning to lose hope.
Dr John Green, the clinical director of the Grenfell Tower
NHS mental health response team, said last week that he had
found that 667 adults were in urgent need of treatment for
post-traumatic stress disorder. Three hundred and sixty are
undergoing treatment. The capacity issues in the NHS that
we often see nationwide are amplified locally at times of
tragedy such as this, as the taskforce notes, describing
support services as “stretched”. Survivors have reported
issues with appropriateness, accessibility and lack of
cultural and faith sensitivity. Fundamental problems
remain, with NHS staff unable to get timely and accurate
location lists from the council. Will the Secretary of
State recognise that the effects of this tragedy go beyond
those who were in the tower and ensure that steps are taken
to make sure that severely traumatised people have the
support they need and do not face an unnecessary burden in
finding somewhere safe to live?
The Government conceded that the failure of the Royal
Borough of Kensington and Chelsea was real and sent in the
taskforce, yet they also left the council in
charge—something that the Opposition strongly cautioned
against. We welcome the taskforce’s four key findings as a
way to begin to rebuild public trust in the council. The
Secretary of State says that he will continue to monitor
the situation closely, but although I understand the
reasons why he has announced that there will be fewer
meetings between his Ministers, the council and the
taskforce, how will he then ensure that the level of
scrutiny that is so desperately needed will not be reduced?
It is worth noting that, by contrast with the taskforce’s
findings and the Secretary of State’s comments today, the
leader of the council, Councillor Campbell, last week
praised the council’s response, describing its efforts in
the immediate response as “incredible”. Frankly, I find
that comment incredible. Notwithstanding the taskforce’s
view of a significant change in the senior leadership team,
it appears that little has changed in the gap between the
council leadership and the communities it seeks to
represent. The council is still far too distant.
Children are still being failed by the council. Two hundred
and twenty-seven children are still in temporary
accommodation following the fire. Although not all of them
will have been there for nearly five months, some will have
been, and the Secretary of State will of course be aware of
the six-week legal limit on emergency bed and breakfast
accommodation for families with children. The taskforce
recognised as much in its report, describing a
“distinct weakness in the response”
of the council. Will the Secretary of State please clarify
whether it is his view that the council has failed in its
statutory obligations to its residents, and to the 227
children still in emergency accommodation? If he does, what
further action will he be taking against the council and,
more urgently, to help families?
We are 145 days on since the dreadful fire, yet it still
appears that many of the promises that were so hastily made
are still not being actioned quickly enough. Without the
full use of the Secretary of State’s powers to rectify the
inadequate governance arrangements at the Royal Borough of
Kensington and Chelsea, there is still a long way to go
before the local community will feel any trust in its
council again.
-
First, may I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and
welcome his support for the members of the taskforce?
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues. Let me begin
with rehousing. He talked about the walkways. I am sure
that he will understand that, from day one, the priority
for rehousing has been the victims—those who have
permanently lost their homes—of Grenfell Tower and Grenfell
Walk. At the same time, work has been going on with many of
those in the walkways whose homes were initially
uninhabitable. Many of them also required other support,
including emotional and mental health support.
The council and others have been working with people in the
walkways, providing them with whatever support is needed.
The hon. Gentleman said that a number of people from the
walkways are still in emergency accommodation —hotel rooms
and so on. The latest information that I have is that there
are currently 161 hotel rooms being occupied by residents
of the walkways. There were many more—I think that, at one
point, it was closer to 300 rooms—so, thankfully, the
number is coming down. Many people have moved back to their
homes. Some have said that they are not ready to move back,
or, in some cases, that they do not want to move back. The
council has quite rightly said that, if anyone from the
walkways does not want to move back to their previous
accommodation, they should be listened to. No one should be
forced to move back. The council is working with many
others to get them into temporary and permanent
accommodation as quickly as possible.
The hon. Gentleman rightly raised the issue of emotional
support. That is one of the most important areas of support
for people—whether they were from Grenfell Tower/ Grenfell
Walk, the walkways or the larger community. That is where
the NHS, the clinical commissioning group, other councils
and voluntary groups have been involved. He will know that
there has been considerable support on offer: a 24/7
dedicated NHS hotline; a number of outreach efforts in
which almost 4,000 contacts have been made; emotional
support in 13 hotels, much of it available throughout the
night; and funding for community groups, including
religious groups and others, to ensure that support can be
provided in all ways to all members of the community.
A couple of weeks ago, I requested that we set up a
roundtable meeting with voluntary groups, the NHS and
others who have been providing support to ensure that we
looked at all options of support and provided it in every
way that we could. That meeting was held and a report came
back to me last week through the ministerial taskforce that
I chair. We have taken up any recommendation that was made
to make sure that we are providing all the emotional
support that we possibly can.
The hon. Gentleman was quite right to highlight support for
children. He will know that, in its rehousing policy, the
council consulted survivors and set up a consultation
process. A priority system is in place. I am sure that he
understands that the priority for permanent homes are those
families who have been bereaved—whether or not they have
children—and then those families with children. There is
also support for educational services. He may know that the
Kensington Aldridge Academy, which had been affected by the
fire, was rebuilt as a temporary building and reopened
again, on time, in September. As far as I know, that is the
fastest school building programme that has ever been
achieved. I just mention it as a demonstration of how far
we need to go to ensure that we are doing everything we can
to support the council, the Department for Education and
others in helping the children.
Lastly, the hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the findings
of the taskforce report and specifically asked me how we
maintain scrutiny. Let me make it clear that all members of
the taskforce were independent and therefore
independently-minded in their approach. It was important to
listen to the taskforce’s recommendations and, most
importantly, to act on them. The council is publishing a
report today, and I am glad that it is making it clear that
it has accepted every single recommendation from the
members of the taskforce. I have also accepted every
recommendation that applies to central Government.
One recommendation was that the ministerial taskforce I
chair should meet less frequently for the reasons that I
outlined in my statement, and I have accepted the reasons
given by the taskforce. To ignore it would not have been
the right approach. Having said that, it is absolutely
right that we maintain scrutiny so the ministerial
taskforce will continue to meet, but the hon. Gentleman
knows that Department for Communities and Local Government
officers are also working with the council, taskforce
members and others. The work of the taskforce continues, as
it regularly meets the council, council officers and
community representatives. The hon. Gentleman will know
that the fire Minister is also the Grenfell victims
Minister and meets the victims almost weekly, and that the
Minister for Housing and Planning has regular surgeries
with the victims.
-
(Walsall North)
(Con)
I chair the board of a housing association in the west
midlands, so fire safety is clearly at the top of my
agenda. I recently met Brian Sofley of ASSA ABLOY UK to
talk about his recommendations to improve fire door safety.
Will my right hon. Friend update us on the progress of the
independent review into building regulations and fire
safety?
-
The review’s work has begun, and there was a call for
evidence from Dame Judith Hackitt, the leader of the
review. I believe that she has received almost 300
responses to that call for evidence, much of which will be
about fire safety. I have not seen any of that work at this
point—rightly, because it is an independent review—but I
know that Dame Judith is looking very carefully at the
issues, including fire doors.
-
(Cumbernauld,
Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I join
him and the shadow Secretary of State in thanking the
taskforce members for their work. The report rightly
recognises that the people of Grenfell and north Kensington
were utterly failed, including by a sluggish and chaotic
response in the aftermath of disaster.
I have questions on two issues, the first of which is
rehousing. I share the utter dismay at what the report
calls a “painfully slow” speed of progress. The Secretary
of State has rightly recognised that his Government must
not shy away from a share of responsibility, so is he
satisfied that there are sufficient staff working on, and
sufficient resources being invested in, rehousing? Are
families having sufficient opportunities to meet staff face
to face to discuss options, rather than being left alone to
search for possible opportunities? What support will the
Government provide for increased housing costs, if that is
what is takes to find and secure suitable accommodation?
The Secretary of State will be aware that there have been
criticisms of the nature of some housing offers. Will he
tell us how many offers have been refused because
properties were located too far from a family’s previous
home, and how many have been refused as being unsuitable?
On the immigration amnesty, it is welcome that the Home
Office has strengthened what was previously a miserly offer
to now include at least the prospect of indefinite leave.
But why not simply allow for indefinite leave right now?
Surely that is the only way to ensure that all undocumented
survivors feel able and safe to take up the support that
they so desperately need. Surely that is, quite simply, the
right thing to do in these tragic circumstances.
-
The hon. Gentleman asks whether I am satisfied that there
are enough resources and staff for rehousing. All the
resources that the council needs for rehousing are in
place, including support from other councils and from the
Government. It is not an issue of there not being enough
people on the ground to work on housing needs. Cost is also
not an issue at all. The council has already made some £230
million of its reserves available to acquire new
properties. It has significantly increased the number of
new permanent properties it has acquired—the figure is now
more than 300—and it will continue to add to that list for
the foreseeable weeks and months ahead.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the immigration system
changes that we announced to help the victims of Grenfell
Tower and Grenfell Walk. The Immigration Minister’s recent
announcement was welcome. It is the right and proportionate
response, which gives the families certainty and comfort.
-
(Braintree)
(Con)
Hopefully, the tragedy at Grenfell Tower will provide us
with opportunities to learn some serious lessons. Will the
Secretary of State ensure that the lessons learned about
the immediate response and about working with volunteers,
as well as the lessons that the taskforce harvests, are
circulated to other local authorities via London councils
and the Local Government Association and to the London
Resilience Forum and other local resilience forums, so that
we never have such a sluggish response again to a tragedy
of this scale?
-
I agree very much with my hon. Friend—when it comes to
London governance, he speaks with great experience. One of
the lessons learned from this tragedy will certainly be the
need to help all councils—not just those in London—with
their resilience and response in any civilian emergency
they might face, and that process is certainly going on.
-
(Ealing North)
(Lab)
The Secretary of State is rightly concentrating on the
human face and the human cost of this tragedy, and I pay
credit to him for that. However, the structure is also
important. Every day, thousands upon thousands of people on
the Hammersmith and City line and on Western Avenue have to
see this smoke-blackened vertical charnel house—this modern
Gormenghast—jutting into the sky. Some local people are
saying to me that they would like the building to be
dropped and for some sort of memorial park to be built
there, perhaps. Others are saying that when the building is
no longer a crime scene it must be made habitable again.
Does the Secretary of State have a view, and, more
importantly, does he intend to consult the local community
on the long-term use of the site of Grenfell Tower?
-
What happens to the site is a very important, but also very
sensitive, issue. What ultimately matters is not my view—or
the hon. Gentleman’s, if I may say so—but the views of the
community, and particularly the survivors. The survivors
are being consulted, and that consultation will continue.
My view is that nothing should happen to the site until
survivors far and wide have been consulted and their views
properly taken into account. There is a difference of views
among survivors—that has come out recently in some
engagement the council has had—but it is important to keep
up that engagement and to listen to the survivors
carefully.
-
(Taunton Deane)
(Con)
First, I applaud the meticulous approach that the Secretary
of State has taken and the insightful report he has brought
to the Chamber today—a great deal of work has gone into it.
One area that is highlighted is the need for better skills
in the council. Will he outline what skills ought to be
used to deliver and to help in the aftermath of this
tragedy and what the Government are doing to help?
-
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. She is right that
one of the key recommendations of the taskforce’s members
concerns skills. They talked about skills in some detail:
they highlighted not just having appropriate skills
training for the officers of the council, but making sure,
for example, that councillors, as well as some of their key
officers, have had training in emotional support services.
That is one of the most important takeaways from this
report, and I am pleased that the council has fully
accepted this and the other recommendations.
-
Mr (Tottenham) (Lab)
It breaks my heart that many of these people—over two
thirds of them—will not be housed by Christmas. Given that
the taskforce has found the council to be so inept, is it
not right that the Secretary of State should have brought
in commissioners? What guarantees can he now give these
families that they will be housed? The general tone of
today’s statement has lacked the urgency and compassion
that are still required.
-
The right hon. Gentleman raises the importance of housing
and rehousing, and that is absolutely right—those are a
priority here. If I may say so, I do not agree with his
recommendation. To have brought in commissioners would have
made what is already a tough situation even more difficult
in terms of helping the victims of this tragedy. I ask him
to reflect on the fact that whatever happens in terms of
housing, it must be led by the victims.
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, there were 151
households in Grenfell Tower and Grenfell Walk, and there
are now 204 households to deal with because many of them
have wanted to change their family structure, and that has
been listened to. It is very, very important that the
rehousing is done at the pace of the victims, that they are
given choices, and that if they are not happy with any of
those choices, they are given more choices. That process
continues. No family should be forced to leave emergency
accommodation; they should leave it only when they are
happy with what has been offered. It is right that we
listen to the victims during the whole rehousing process.
-
(Corby) (Con)
I was very pleased to hear that the council has accepted
the taskforce’s recommendations in full, but how quickly
will those recommendations be implemented, and what
oversight will there be?
-
The council accepted the recommendations very quickly; it
did not take too much time to consider them. It had a
meeting, went through them, and accepted every single one.
That is a good start. As for how the implementation will be
monitored, first, the taskforce itself will help to oversee
it and report back to me again in the new year, but also,
through my Department and my officials, I will oversee each
one of the recommendations and make sure they are
fulfilled.
-
(Battersea)
(Lab)
Will the Secretary of State outline what is being done for
those suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder
following this tragedy and explain how they are being fully
supported?
-
Psychosocial support—emotional support —is one of the most
important things being offered, through the NHS, voluntary
services and other organisations. I wanted to make sure
that everything that is being done is appropriate and being
offered at pace. That is why I held a recent roundtable
attended by a Health Minister and by the Minister for
Policing and the Fire Service, who is the Grenfell victims’
Minister, to make sure that we are reaching out in every
way we possibly can. This needs to be kept under review
because needs change over time, and I am determined to do
that.
-
(Carlisle) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State confirm that those affected
directly and indirectly by the tragedy are being properly
listened to? Are Ministers in regular contact both with
individuals and groups?
-
Yes, I can confirm that. Of course, those people must be
listened to by the council and by any other providers of
public services, including central Government —my Department
and others. My hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and the
Fire Service is the Minister for Grenfell victims and
regularly meets victims in the wider community. My hon.
Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning also regularly
meets community members and others on rehousing needs, and I
regularly have such meetings myself.
-
(Eltham) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State saying, “as long as I am in
public life, I will do all I can to ensure that the failures
of the past are not repeated”, but had we learned the lessons
from the Lakanal fire, we would have done so before this
tragedy happened. One of the recommendations is that where
fire safety officers recommend it, sprinklers should be
retrofitted. We have the Budget coming up in a couple of
weeks’ time. Will the Secretary of State make representations
to the Chancellor to make funds available to local
authorities to fit sprinklers in tower blocks?
-
I have already told the House that in terms of the fire
safety work that is required for other social buildings,
whatever work is deemed essential by the respective council
or housing authority should be carried out, and the
Government will provide support and flexibility to make sure
that it is.
-
(South Suffolk)
(Con)
My right hon. Friend was right to say that the victims of
this terrible fire were let down by the system, but that is
potentially also true of those who still reside in high-rise
blocks that may have been fitted with substandard cladding.
Will he update us on the very important building regs review
and explain how that is going to help us understand how these
inappropriate fittings took place in the first instance?
-
In the first instance, we have been getting advice from the
expert panel, which was set up days after the tragedy, on any
immediate action that we need to take. That has included the
work that has already been done to test buildings and to test
some of the systems panels. The wider lessons for building
regulations and fire safety are the subject of the work being
done at the moment by Dame Judith Hackitt. I expect an
interim report within weeks, and we will look to act on that
report before we receive her final report.
-
(Dewsbury) (Lab)
I note that the Secretary of State did not update us today on
the progress of the testing regime. Will he provide a further
update on that, in terms not just of our important high-rise
residential blocks, but of other public buildings including
hospitals, schools and perhaps shopping centres?
-
The reason why I did not cover that in my statement is that
it was about the response to the taskforce report, but I am
happy to give the hon. Lady some more information now. As far
as social housing buildings—that is, social housing towers of
more than 18 metres high—are concerned, 169 have been tested
through the building safety programme, and 162 of those have
failed the test. I believe that that is the last update;
nothing has changed since the previous update that I gave to
the House. She also asked me about other public buildings.
Fifteen public buildings, 60 private buildings and 26 student
residential buildings have been tested and failed.
-
(Boston and Skegness)
(Con)
Sir Martin Moore-Bick asked the Government to look at wider
social housing issues, and I am pleased that the Government
accepted that recommendation. To build on his answer to the
hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), will the Secretary
of State tell us a little more about what the Government are
doing to identify problems with social housing, which
potentially go far wider than the area that immediately
surrounds Grenfell?
-
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that area. There are
many lessons to learn from this terrible tragedy, on matters
including the quality of social housing and the treatment of
residents who have legitimate complaints. That is one reason
why I announced the social housing Green Paper, on which we
have begun work. In preparation for that Green Paper, I have
asked the Housing and Planning Minister to meet as many
social housing residents as he can, across the country and in
different types of social housing accommodation, so that we
listen carefully and learn the lessons.
-
(Bath) (LD)
I, too, thank the Secretary of State for his update and for
making the report of the taskforce available, and I thank the
taskforce for its work. I accept that the recovery work is
very sensitive, but clearly pace is an issue. Although the
emotional recovery of people who are affected by the tragedy
takes as long as it takes, there is some urgency about the
physical recovery, if I may call it that. Do we not need a
timescale for the phased rehousing of all who have lost their
homes, so that we do not find ourselves sitting here this
time next year and talking about the people who have still
not been rehoused? Some urgency about the timetable and a
phased process to bring some focus to the rehousing of those
affected would be very welcome.
-
I assure the hon. Lady that there is a huge deal of focus on
rehousing. I do not think that there should be an artificial
timescale; the timescale should absolutely be led by the
needs of the survivors and the victims, so that they move on
in terms of housing when they are ready. We need to make sure
that they are all offered choices of permanent housing, and
that no one is forced to make a choice at all. If a handful
of families are still not ready to meet housing officers and
others to talk about their needs, they should not be forced
to do so. Rehousing the survivors should be an absolute
priority, but the timescale should be set by the survivors
themselves and no one should be forced into anything.
-
(Mid Worcestershire)
(Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving such a
comprehensive and compassionate statement. He has said that
he is not sure how long the taskforce should stay in place.
It is clearly doing some very important work. Does he
envisage that at some point some responsibilities of the
taskforce will transition to other bodies?
-
Such a change may well be necessary in the future, but it is
certainly not necessary yet. I am very pleased with how the
taskforce has operated so far—in looking at issues in detail
and coming back with a proper, thought-through, detailed and
independently minded report. That is why I want it to stay in
place. No taskforce is in place forever and there may be a
need for further changes at some point, but we are not ready
for that because I want to make sure that the council follows
through on all its recommendations, after which we may take
another look at this.
-
(Harrow West)
(Lab/Co-op)
Ministers have been consistently complacent since Grenfell on
one of the broader strategic lessons of that disaster, which
is the need for more support for and, crucially, more
investment in social housing, particularly in London. Will
the Secretary of State tell the House whether the Government
have yet decided to lift the draconian curbs on borrowing by
local authorities to invest in more social housing?
-
As I mentioned moments ago, I have asked for and started work
on a social housing Green Paper looking at many of the issues
that I know are important to Members of this House, including
the hon. Gentleman. When it comes to resources for social
housing, this of course needs to be constantly kept under
review. Let us see what the Green Paper says, but the
Government have recently announced an additional £2 billion
for social housing, which I would have thought he welcomed.
-
(Easington) (Lab)
rose—
-
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
The prize for persistence and good humour goes to .
-
I sincerely thank the Secretary of State for his statement,
and the shadow Minister for his response. I also thank the
taskforce for its recommendations, which the Secretary of
State now wishes to press ahead with and implement as
speedily as possible. Will he clarify one particular point?
It has been reported that Michael Lockwood is due to leave
his position as site recovery manager to join the Independent
Office for Police Conduct. Will the Secretary of State
indicate the timescale for appointing his successor?
-
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. It is correct
that Michael Lockwood will be leaving his position; he is
still in the position at the moment. This information has
been shared by Mr Lockwood with the community; he has built
up a strong relationship with members of the community, which
is very important. I do not believe that he has set a final
date for leaving, because one of his roles will be to make
sure that a replacement is found and put in place before he
moves on.
-
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department
for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office
(Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, with the permission of the House, I would
like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable
friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government in the other place:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a
Statement on the independent Recovery Taskforce, which
is working with the Royal Borough of Kensington and
Chelsea in the wake of June’s tragic fire at Grenfell
Tower.
The people of North Kensington have been failed by
those who were supposed to serve them. They were failed
by a system that allowed the fire to happen, and they
were failed once again by a sluggish and chaotic
response in the immediate aftermath.
It was clear that, if RBKC was to get a grip on the
situation and begin to regain the trust of residents,
it would have to change and change quickly. That
started with a change in leadership of the council, new
senior officers, and new support brought in from other
councils and central government. To ensure that that
translated into a better service for the victims and
people of North Kensington, and to assure me that the
council would be capable of delivery, I announced on 5
July that I was sending in a specialist task force.
The task force is made up of experts in housing, local
government, public services and community engagement. I
deliberately appointed independent-minded individuals
who would not hesitate to speak their minds. I have now
received the first report from the task force,
reflecting on its first nine weeks on the ground. The
report has been shared with the right honourable
Gentleman opposite. I will also be placing copies in
the Library of the House, and it will be published in
full on GOV.UK.
It is clear from the report that progress is being
made, that much-needed change has happened and
continues to happen, and that the council today is a
very different organisation from the one that failed
its people so badly back in June. The task force is
satisfied that RBKC, under its new leadership,
recognises the challenges it faces and is committed to
delivering a comprehensive recovery programme. For that
reason, it does not see any practical advantage from a
further intervention at this time, which would risk
further disruption.
But while the green shoots are there, the report pulls
no punches about the fact that there is still
significant room for improvement. The task force has
identified four key areas in which the council needs to
step up. The first is pace. The speed of delivery needs
to be increased—more work needs to be done more
quickly.
The second area is innovation. The scale and impact of
the fire was unprecedented in recent history, but RBKC
is relying too much on tried and tested solutions that
are not up to the task. The council should be much
bolder in its response.
The third area is skills. Too many of the officers and
councillors working on the response lack specialist
training in how to work with a traumatised community.
This needs to change.
The final area, arguably the most important going
forward, is a need for greater empathy and emotional
intelligence. The people of Grenfell Tower, Grenfell
Walk and the wider community have already suffered so
much. Yet the task force has heard too many accounts of
that suffering being compounded by bureaucratic
processes that are not appropriate, when so many deeply
traumatised men, women and children have complex
individual needs. So a greater degree of humanity must
be put at the heart of all RBKC’s recovery work.
I have discussed these recommendations with the
council’s leadership and they have accepted them all
without question. Culture change is never quick or easy
to achieve in any organisation, but I am in no doubt
that the leadership and staff of the Royal Borough of
Kensington and Chelsea genuinely want to do better. It
is their community too, and they desperately want to
help it to heal.
I am particularly encouraged that the council is now
drawing on NHS expertise to secure specific training
for those front-line staff responsible for providing
direct support to the survivors. I have assured the
council that I will continue to support it in building
capacity. However, I have also made it clear that my
support will not be uncritical or unqualified. I expect
to see swift, effective action to deal with all the
issues highlighted in the report. I am not taking any
options off the table if progress is not made, and I
shall continue to monitor the situation closely.
Until now, one aspect of that monitoring has involved
weekly meetings, chaired by myself, that bring together
Ministers from across Government and senior colleagues
from RBKC. Although these have proved effective, the
task force has expressed concern that meeting so often
is beginning to become counterproductive. The time
required to prepare properly is cutting into the time
available for front-line work. As a result, the report
recommends that we meet less often. I have accepted
this recommendation. However, let me reassure the House
that this does not mean our priorities are shifting
elsewhere, or that the level of scrutiny is being
reduced. It is simply a matter of ensuring time and
resources are focused to the maximum on those affected
by the fire.
One area to which the House knows I have been paying
particularly close attention is the rehousing of those
who lost their homes in the fire. While I have always
been clear that rehousing must proceed at a pace which
respects the needs, wants and situations of survivors,
I have been equally adamant that bureaucratic inertia
must not add delay. Clearly, some progress is being
made. The latest figures I have from RBKC are that 122
households out of a current total of 204 have accepted
an offer of either temporary or permanent
accommodation. Seventy-three of these have now moved
in, of which 47 households have moved into temporary
accommodation, and 26 households into permanent
accommodation.
However, the report is also clear that that the process
is simply not moving as quickly as it should. RBKC’s
latest figures show that 131 Grenfell households are
still living in emergency accommodation. Behind every
one of these numbers, there are human faces. There can
be no doubt that there are families who desperately
want a new home but for whom progress has been
painfully slow. Almost five months after the fire, this
must improve. Responsibility for rehousing ultimately
lies with RBKC. However, in central government we
cannot shy away from our share of responsibility. I
expect the council, in line with the task force’s
report, to do whatever is necessary to ensure
households can move into settled homes as quickly as
possible. I will continue to watch closely to ensure
this is done.
When I announced the creation of the task force, I said
it would stay in place for as long as it was needed.
Based on this first report, there is still much to be
done, so the task force will remain in Kensington and
Chelsea for the foreseeable future. I have asked the
task force to ensure that proper action is taken on all
the fronts they identify, and to come back to me in the
new year with a further update, which I will of course
share with the House.
I must of course thank the four expert members of the
task force, Aftab Chughtai, Javed Khan, , and Chris Wood,
for their tireless efforts. Last week I read the right
reverend James Jones’s excellent report on the
appalling experiences of those who lost loved ones in
the Hillsborough disaster. It is a sobering piece of
work, reminding us that,
‘the way in which families bereaved through public
tragedy are treated by those in authority is in itself
a burning injustice’.
We saw that all too clearly in the hours and days after
the Grenfell fire.
The clock cannot be turned back and the woeful
inadequacies of the early response cannot be undone.
But I can say, once again, that for as long as I am in
public life I will do all I can to ensure that the
failures of the past are not repeated and the people of
Grenfell Tower get the help and support they deserve.
The Hillsborough families had to fight for a quarter of
a century to get their voices heard, to be taken
seriously and to be treated properly by those in
authority. We cannot allow that to happen again. I will
not allow that to happen again. The public inquiry
established by the Prime Minister will play the major
role, but for its part, I am confident that the
continued work of the task force will also help ensure
that the survivors receive the support and respect they
deserve”.
5.25 pm
-
(Lab)
My Lords, I refer the House to my interests in the
register as an elected councillor for the London
Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local
Government Association. I am grateful to the noble
Lord, , for
repeating the Statement made by his right honourable
friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government in the other place. I also pay tribute again
to the public sector officials—from the police, the
fire service and the ambulance service to the NHS and
local and national government—along with the faith
groups, the charity and voluntary sectors, and the
community in North Kensington, for the way that they
have all supported families as they recover from this
appalling tragedy.
As I have mentioned before, within the public sector
there is not one group of heroes and then another group
of workers that deserves to be attacked. That is
unfair. I remind the House of the treatment of
firefighters by the Foreign Secretary when he was the
Mayor of London, which is a case in point. Some of the
comments he made when he was mayor are shameful. He
should apologise for what he said about these heroes,
but all we get from him in this area is silence. He is
not a politician usually noted for being quiet; he is
usually very happy to give his views on a range of
subjects, but strangely not on this one. I say again:
come on, MP, your apology to
the firefighters of the London Fire Brigade for your
ill-informed and hurtful comments is long overdue.
The people of North Kensington were failed by those
elected to serve them. Therefore, the change of
leadership in the authority is welcome, and I wish the
leadership well in the important work that they are
doing. The former chief executive of my own borough,
Barry Quirk, has been installed as the new permanent
chief executive of Kensington and Chelsea Council. He
will provide much-needed stability and leadership for
the council staff. He is a very able man and the
council has chosen wisely in this respect.
The report of the recovery task force highlights some
serious problems that need to be overcome. At some
point, consideration will have to be given as to
whether this authority can continue in its present
form. That is not a decision for today or next week,
but Ministers must keep it under review and not take it
off the table. What we cannot have happen is that as
the authority fades from our attention, the old ways,
habits and failures return. If the structure is beyond
saving then other options will need to be considered to
ensure that all residents of the borough are properly
served. The governance arrangements are of concern to
us all. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell
me whether the new leadership has offered a seat or two
in the cabinet to the opposition. I have mentioned that
a number of times before and it would be a welcome
step.
I take the point about the frequency of meetings of the
ministerial recovery group and the pressure that it
brings, and agree that it should be reduced. However,
it is welcome that the council will remain very much in
the sight of the department. Will the Minister tell us
what the department has done specifically to help the
new chief executive bolster the capacity and capability
of the senior staff team? There are some very able
people working in his department and elsewhere in local
government, in London and across the country. What
support has his department given to the authority to
aid this work?
I fully understand that we want to give people time to
be rehoused in a permanent place rather than having to
move again. However, as the Minister said and as the
report highlights, the pace is slow. What analysis has
the department undertaken to see why this is the case?
If it has not done any work on this, why not? What are
the barriers to rehousing people permanently and what
has the department done to remove them? Can he give the
House an example in this respect? I do not believe that
people want to carry on living in hotel rooms for any
longer than is necessary.
I agree that there is a greater need for more empathy,
emotional intelligence and humanity as we move forward.
It is just a tragedy and a terrible indictment that
when it is the richest borough of one of the richest
cities in the world, and in the fifth-richest country
in the world, a Minister in 2017 has to come to the
Dispatch Box and say so.
Just because you are less fortunate, because you are
poor or because you live in a council property does not
mean that you should have fewer rights, be less
respected or have your views taken into account any
less. But that is what the local community has clearly
felt and experienced in Kensington and Chelsea, which
is shameful. I am pleased that the task force will
remain in place for the foreseeable future and that
nothing is to be taken off the table. I join with the
Minister in thanking the task force and specifically
the four expert members for their work and
comprehensive report. There is serious work to be done
to support the victims and the local community on the
long road to recovery. I wish everyone well in that
task. They have my full support and gratitude for the
work they are doing.
-
(LD)
My Lords, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my entry in
the register of interests as an elected councillor in
the borough of Kirklees and as a vice-president of the
Local Government Association. I welcome today’s
Statement on the interim report of the task force.
However, I draw attention to one of the four priorities
that were set by the Secretary of State for the work of
the task force—that it would,
“ensure that all the immediate housing needs resulting
from the fires are fully and promptly addressed by
RBKC”.
But we have heard today in the Statement and the
interim report that the number who have been
permanently rehoused is pitifully low. Four months
after the dreadful fire at Grenfell, only 26 of 204
families have been rehoused permanently and 130 are
still in emergency bed and breakfast accommodation. I
find that disgraceful and a tragedy; I hope that the
Minister will be able to tell us why those figures are
so low. The full report also asks for an immediate
strategy and agreed targets for rehousing. It would be
good to hear from him whether that has been done,
whether targets have been set and what they are. That
is the most important feature of the aftermath of this
dreadful fire.
The second point that I would draw attention to is that
the report, I am pleased to say, makes no immediate
recommendation about the future of the tenant
management organisation. Fears have been expressed in
the media by residents that disbanding the TMO would
lead to avoidance of effective scrutiny of its actions
or inactions, and the avoidance of potential
prosecutions. Can the Minister confirm whether that is
the case? Will the TMO remain in place until the report
of the Prime Minister’s inquiry and for any
consequences of that inquiry?
The third issue that I raise is not referenced in the
report, which is strange. It is the consequences of the
fire and the impact on those families in the adjacent
tower blocks. For example, what action is being taken
to have the fire hazard panels replaced? What
government contribution will be made towards their
replacement?
Lastly, the final recommendation in the interim report
talks about the awful consequences of having the burnt
tower remaining in place. It recommends:
“Covering the Tower: Management of the site is not
currently the responsibility of RBKC. Nevertheless we
would strongly recommend that those responsible for it
accelerate covering the Tower. It is reprehensible that
it has remained uncovered for so long”.
It then gives a timetable for it to be done by December
2017—in six weeks’ time, perhaps. That is unfortunately
not mentioned in the Secretary of State’s Statement,
but it is an important step towards a healing process
and I urge the Minister, if he is not able to reply
this afternoon, to give us a written response.
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the
noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their responses and I
will try to deal with the points that they raised.
First, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in his
tribute to the public sector. I wholeheartedly agree,
as he knows. We have been here before, but it is
certainly worth restating the continuing role played by
the public sector and the role that it obviously played
in the immediate aftermath of the fire—the fire
service, the ambulance service, the police, the whole
of the public sector and local government—along with
the voluntary sector, the local community of North
Kensington and many individuals who went along to help.
It showed our country and our society at our best. I
thank the noble Baroness for also making that tribute.
I certainly also echo what the noble Lord, Lord
Kennedy, said about Barry Quirk, who is doing excellent
work in helping in relation to Grenfell.
I will try to deal with the points raised. First, the
Secretary of State has made it absolutely clear on
behalf of the department and the Government that all
options are on the table for the future. The task force
has recommended that at this stage commissioners are
not appropriate, but that does not mean we have taken
that option off the table. Of course, it is a
possibility for the future if we feel it necessary. But
the report makes the point that significant progress
has been made, although more progress is needed. The
Government have accepted the report in full, which
covers the comments about the clothing of Grenfell
Tower, which I wholeheartedly agree needs dealing with
in very short order. I will come back to the timescale,
if I may. But to restate, the Government have accepted
all the recommendations of the task force as, to be
fair, has the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea,
in relation to those comments addressed to the borough.
As the noble Baroness made clear, the clothing of the
tower is not the responsibility, as things stand, of
the local borough.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about working with
the opposition party, or parties, in the Royal Borough
of Kensington and Chelsea. That is something for them,
but we would very much encourage the council to look at
how to work together. It is obviously far better if
parties work together, as we have been doing in this
House, so I would certainly encourage that.
As to how we as a department have bolstered—an
appropriate word used by the noble Lord—in this
context, we have certainly been helping with housing
issues and encouraging the appropriate use of the NHS,
and with community engagement. Staff are still there; I
spoke to some this morning and that work goes on. He
talked about the barriers to rehousing. Once again, as
he knows, this is a complex position in the Royal
Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. We can push for and
ensure that there is a speedier response, and the task
force recommends that. The Royal Borough of Kensington
and Chelsea will make an announcement about the
appropriate strategy as we move this forward. But some
things, in all fairness, are more difficult. Some
families have moved into temporary accommodation, and I
think in some cases to permanent accommodation, then
changed their minds. We are keen to listen to what
local people want so we have sought to honour that
because feelings are still very raw. Sometimes people
feel that they want to move close to the tower and then
change their minds, understandably. So there are
barriers other than the process arrangements set by
local government and central government.
It remains the case that we want 300 potential houses.
That is the target of the Royal Borough of Kensington
and Chelsea, and I am sure that the council will say
more on this when it makes an announcement shortly,
specifically about how we get there by the end of the
year. That is broadly the number of permanent homes
needed. In fact it is more than is required but one
feels the need for a bit of a cushion. If I am not
wrong, I think that there are around 160 available at
the moment, which leaves another 140 to be brought on.
There has to be, and to a degree there has been, a
cultural change on the part of the borough. In
fairness, I do not think that any local authority would
have been able to take on this sort of challenge
without making some incredible changes. Some of those
have happened in Kensington and Chelsea, although
clearly more still needs to be done.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about
households that were living not in Grenfell Tower or
Grenfell Walk, but in the walkways. There is still a
need for them to be permanently housed as well. Again,
I think the feeling among many of those families is
that they do not want to move back until the tower is
properly clothed, which goes back to the point that she
rightly picked up on. She also raised the issue of the
tenant management organisation. We do not want it to
disband because of the possibility—I should state that
it is important that we get this legally right—of
prosecution. There needs to be the possibility of
prosecuting authorities and individuals, and therefore
from that point of view its status will remain. I say
that without prejudice to anything that is found in the
inquiry or by the CPS. In terms of running the housing,
of course the organisation was removed immediately and
we have not yet made a decision about what fresh
arrangements will happen. Again, we will want to look
very carefully at all the options for future housing
arrangements for Kensington and Chelsea. We are not
saying that it will be a, b or c because it is
something that needs to be looked at. The point was
picked up in the task force report, and it remains the
case that all options are open.
I have written something down in my own handwriting
which I cannot remotely read. I hope that noble Lords
will forgive me if I pick up the point in the
write-around later. I turn to the timescale for the
tower, which was raised by the noble Baroness, and
where the work needs to be done by December 2017. As I
say, the department and the Government have accepted
all the recommendations, so we are looking for that to
be completed within the timescale. I reiterate that the
Secretary of State has made that absolutely clear on
behalf of the Government.
5.42 pm
-
(LD)
My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president
of the Local Government Association. I should like to
address the issue of emergency planning. It has become
clear from this report that the Royal Borough of
Kensington and Chelsea did not have an operational
emergency plan in place when the Grenfell fire broke out
in June. The Statement does not actually tell us whether
there is one in place now, or whether officers are being
employed in the council to deliver one. However, on page
three the report states:
“This intervention has not had the benefit of an
inspection that would identify specific failings in a
local authority and would precede a statutory
intervention”.
Will action be taken to assess the robustness of
Kensington and Chelsea’s emergency planning, which is a
statutory requirement? Also, can the Minister say what
advice his department will now give to other local
authorities about emergency planning arising from the
lessons being learned in Kensington and Chelsea?
-
I thank the noble Lord for his question in relation to
emergency planning. He will be aware that one of the
terms of reference of the inquiry is the actions of the
local authority and other bodies before the tragedy, so
it certainly will be picked up by the inquiry. Further to
that, what we obviously want to ensure, and no doubt the
House will totally support this, is that all the lessons
from this are learned by all local authorities and public
authorities. We would wish the message to go out and we
will ensure that that happens. The messages from this are
to be learned by local authorities for the future,
including in relation to emergency planning along with
many other issues.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, I declare my local government interests as a
councillor in Newcastle and as an honorary vice-president
of the Local Government Association. I thank the
Secretary of State and the Minister for the tone and the
content of the Statement that has been made today. It is
clear that there is a great deal going on, and a great
deal more to be done. However, I should like to ask about
the general situation in the country. What is going to
happen about the installation of sprinklers up and down
the country? That is a key issue. I am not expecting an
immediate decision, but is there a timescale within which
it is likely that a decision can be made?
In addition to that, to what extent are the Government
engaging with the owners of other multi-story buildings;
that is, housing associations and privately owned blocks
that are not in the social housing sector? Presumably all
of these blocks will need the same checks that were
lamentably lacking in the case of Grenfell if we are not
to see, unfortunately, some kind of repetition. It is not
a matter that can be resolved quickly, but the sooner we
start on it, the better. I hope that the Minister can
give us some assurances in those respects.
-
I thank the noble Lord very much indeed for his typically
generous comments about the tenor of the Government’s
response to this dreadful tragedy. He asked specifically
about the position on sprinklers. Perhaps I may restate
something that has been said before, but it certainly
bears restating: the Dame Judith Hackitt review is
looking at building regulation and fire safety and it
will certainly be considering this issue. I have also
just looked at the terms of the inquiry and it is in
there as well, so I have reassured myself that it is in
place. Obviously we will await the results of these two
independent inquiries. It is for them to make their
recommendations and we would expect to carry them forward
and regard them with appropriate seriousness.
The noble Lord also asked about the position of blocks
other than those which are within local authority
control; he specifically asked about housing association
and privately owned blocks, and perhaps by inference
other government blocks—there are some in the health
sector and in education that are subject to the same
principles that are being carried forward on testing and
so on. That is true of housing associations as well. On
private blocks, we have asked local authorities to follow
up in relation to the blocks in their areas and have
asked for a response from them. We will follow up on
those responses in due course.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I may follow up on a question put by my
noble friend on private blocks, and
which I have raised before in the House with the
Minister. Are local authorities required to hold
information on the specification of the cladding that has
been applied to private blocks where that cladding has
been the subject of approval by building control officers
in the local authorities where those blocks were built?
-
My Lords, if I may I will write to the noble Lord on the
specifics of his question. However, on the general point,
local authorities are being required by us to report on
all private blocks that may offend in relation to these
safety standards. As I say, I will get back to the noble
Lord on his particular point.
-
(Con)
My Lords, building on the comment by the noble Lord,
, in relation to
the terms of reference of the inquiry, it does not seem
that the systemic issue that this raises is actually
strictly within those terms of reference. It refers to
the arrangements that the local authority and other
organisations had in place to respond to complaints made
by residents in relation to the fire safety of buildings.
The question really raised the point about the systemic
issue. Although Grenfell was unprecedented, the strength
of the local authority not only in emergency planning but
in other areas to deal with this kind of incident was
lacking, yet there were other authorities which came to
the aid of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
which seemed to have maybe better senior management and
leadership. Do we need some form of stress testing of
local authorities to see whether they are up to
responding to this type of incident? As I read them, that
does not seem to be strictly within the terms of
reference of the inquiry.
-
I thank my noble friend. I have the inquiry’s terms of
reference in front of me. First of all, I am not sure
whether she was referring to the issue of fire
sprinklers; perhaps not. The inquiry covers the scope and
adequacy of the relevant regulations, legislation and
guidance. It also refers to the actions of the local
authority and other bodies before the tragedy, which puts
it in scope. I am sure that any inquiry chairman, if they
wanted to report, would regard that as in scope. I had
better not go further than that.
-
(LD)
My Lords, the Minister referred to culture. He used words
such as “empathy” and quite rightly said that changing a
culture is a very long-term project. Does he share my
concern—this is no reflection on Barry Quirk at all—that
local authorities must be tempted to put their efforts
into senior leadership and front-line services, leaving a
bit of a hollow in the middle? The culture has to go all
the way down, and the people in the middle contribute to
the culture. I am of course referring to the financial
position that many local authorities find themselves in.
-
I thank the noble Baroness very much. Of course, she is
very well acquainted with London local government, in
particular. In relation to the culture, without
prejudicing anything specific that is being looked at by
any of the inquiries, I agree with her that the culture
has to run throughout an organisation. She referred to
finance. Once again, without wanting to prejudice
anything in relation to the Royal Borough of Kensington
and Chelsea, I do not think finance is a major issue
here, certainly not in terms of the costs of finding
additional housing. We know the borough has the money for
that, so I think that would be covered. She made another
point, which I have now forgotten.
-
I was talking about local authorities focusing on senior
leadership and front-line services, leaving something of
a hollow in the middle. It is a much wider question than
one can deal with in an afternoon.
-
I am sorry, that was the point I picked up on. I agree
with her that culture has to be pervasive through the
whole organisation. I am sure that that would be picked
up, but again, that will be looked at by the inquiries. I
do not want to prejudge what they will find.
-
(Con)
My Lords, my noble friend has not said anything—I wonder
if anything is known about it—about the prevalence of the
habit that was exposed by the tower fire of tenants of
such social housing moving out and letting their
accommodation at an extraordinarily large profit to
themselves, which enables them to live in much better
accommodation somewhere else, and all sorts of people who
may have no entitlement whatever to social housing moving
in. Are we thinking a bit more about what should be done
about that?
-
My Lords, clearly those issues must be looked at at some
stage. I am sure my noble friend will appreciate that the
tenor of the department’s concern at the moment is
dealing with the grief, anguish and injury, and getting
people properly rehoused. I will make sure that he gets a
response about what is being done by the Royal Borough of
Kensington and Chelsea, but I think the Government are
right to ensure that the focus is on rehousing and
putting these people’s lives back together. That is not
to say that those issues are not important, but I do not
think they are as important as these issues.
-
(CB)
My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for not being in my
place to hear the earlier part of the Statement.
Nevertheless, I think we all know that local housing
authorities have certain powers of compulsory purchase of
properties. Can the Minister tell the House whether, in
his view, using those powers would speed up the permanent
rehousing of the displaced people and families?
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his question—and his
apology, which is accepted. On compulsory purchase
powers, the first point I would make is that compulsory
purchase can take quite some time. There is a degree of
urgency here, as has been indicated by the task force
response. I should also restate, although I think the
noble Lord was in his place by this stage, that the Royal
Borough of Kensington and Chelsea will come forward with
an announcement in short order about how it will give
more impetus to the issue. For the moment, from the
department’s point of view, compulsory purchase would not
be an appropriate response, partly because it would be
too slow.
|
