Homelessness

Karen Buck Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

Quite honestly, I do not know where to start. For the thousands of people who will sleep out tonight, the level of the housing market is a long way from their concern. If the hon. Gentleman does not like the points that I am making and regards them as political point scoring, let me give him some straight facts. Directly as a result of Ministers’ decisions over the last 10 years, 86,000 households are now homeless and in temporary accommodation—up 71%; 127,000 children have no home—up 75%—and many are placed in temporary accommodation miles from their school, their friends and their community; and 4,600 people are sleeping rough on the streets—up 165%. Of course, every charity working in the homeless field and every expert knows that this is a huge undercount of the true scale of street homelessness. Just today, in a new report from St Mungo’s, we learn that 12,000 people who were homeless last year also went without the drugs or alcohol addiction help they needed.

At a time when perhaps some of the old certainties in politics appear to be in flux, one thing is certain and one thing remains true: the legacy of every Conservative Government is high homelessness, and the job of every Labour Government is to fix the problem.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend also believe that the rise in homelessness is connected with the continuing fall in the number of social housing properties, which actually fell by a further 17,000 in the last year alone?

[John Healey]

I do indeed. The Government published statistics yesterday that, in a sense, show the very scale of the point my hon. Friend rightly makes. When I stood on the other side of the Chamber as Labour’s last Housing Minister in 2009, 120,000 more social rented homes were let in that year than last year. That is an indicator of how short social housing is and how chronic the crisis that we face is.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 1 Report

Karen Buck Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), I woke at 5 am on that terrible night to phone calls from friends and colleagues who were at the scene of the fire. They were watching events that they had never imagined could happen in one of the wealthiest and most developed countries in the world. Those calls came partly because mine is the neighbouring constituency and Grenfell Tower is only a few hundred yards from the constituency border, but also because Grenfell Tower was in my constituency before the 2010 boundary changes and I obviously knew it well. We have a shared community across much of north Westminster and north Kensington.

We must make sure that, with the passage of two and a half years and a new Parliament, we never forget the sheer horror of what people saw and experienced. Tribute has rightly been paid to the dignity and courage of the survivors, the families and the community, but we must never forget what happened. We must not let the passage of time dull that experience, and we should not lose our sense of urgency.

Some of us gathered only 24 hours after the fire, even before Parliament had properly reconvened after the 2017 general election, to discuss what action needed to be taken. There was a palpable sense of urgency, including from the Government, about what must be learned from the fire and how similar events must be prevented. As has been acknowledged, including by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), that sense of urgency has unfortunately faded.

The steps that needed to be taken, either to serve the survivors in their desperate need for rehousing or to protect the interests of the thousands of people who live in high-rise blocks, both private and social, across the country, have not been implemented. Although it is completely right that the inquiry has to take what time is necessary to be sufficiently rigorous and make sure that the lessons learned are the right ones, there are steps the Government can take, and should have taken in that intervening period. They have failed to do so. We must demand and require that the Government act quickly where they can.

I wish to make three quick points, because many important points have already been made and I do not want to replicate them. The first relates to the issue of sprinklers, which has been referred to in this debate already. We know from the recommendations of the Lakanal House coroner’s report that sprinklers can be supported and should be implemented. We know from the Government that the installation of sprinklers in new builds is being encouraged, and that the height requirement for sprinklers to be installed in new builds is rightly being reduced. That is good and I support it, but why is that same approach not being applied to the retrofitting of sprinklers in existing blocks? How can this be justified? Why are residents in blocks that already exist not being awarded the same level of protection, given that we know from the experience in Australia, where a broadly similar fire occurred, that sprinklers can be effective?

Progress on implementing the retrofitting of sprinklers, left to local authorities, has become mired in complications. We know that Wandsworth Council’s decision to go ahead with sprinklers was overturned in the first tier tribunal only a couple of weeks ago. Unusually, I give credit to Westminster Council—its former leader, the new hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), is in her place—as it was intending, and still potentially is, to go ahead with the retrofitting of sprinklers in high-rise blocks. That has been delayed because of the complexity of multi-tenure property.

I raised that issue yesterday during the statement and I wish to expand upon it for a moment today, because I think the Government fail to understand that there is not a binary division between private blocks and social housing blocks. The latter are, almost without exception, multi-tenure. There are 15 high-rise social housing tower blocks in my constituency. Those blocks contain within them at least a third—sometimes a half or even more—properties that have been sold under the right to buy. Some of those properties are now in the hands of management companies or corporate landlords, and some of them are owned by overseas companies. Some of them are privately tenanted and some of them are owned; some of them are still owned by those who had the original right to buy. Almost all of them have different leases. So there is massive complexity there and at the moment the legislative framework simply does not allow local authorities to go ahead, even if they wish to and have put the money aside to do so, with carrying out the necessary works to retrofit sprinklers and, in some cases, fire doors—reference has also been made to alarm systems. That has to be sorted out. Two and a half years on, it has not been. So even the local authorities that are willing are not able to go ahead with that work. The Government simply must understand that and take necessary action to move this forward.

The second point I wish to make concerns the issue of evacuation and stay put. The Government are proceeding with a review of that policy. I understand that policy and the issue about compartmentalisation. The question I have to put to the Government is: do they understand what the behavioural impact is on those residents who watched Grenfell burn, be it on TV or from the 15th and 20th storeys of the tower blocks in my constituency overlooking Grenfell? Do the Government understand how people will react in real-life situations if a similar fire occurs now? Two and a half years later, we are still not clear exactly what policy we are adopting. That policy may be different in different circumstances. The Government need to be really clear about how they are going to advise residents—fast-changing residents, residents in different tenancies and residents in private residential property, as well as long-standing tenants—to respond if an event occurs.

It is absolutely right that the policy of the fire brigade in these circumstances is central, but I put it to the Government that people have been advised by a Government Minister that it was lacking in common sense to stay in a burning building. How will those people react? How will the Government make sure that people are properly advised and informed about the latest policy?

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I wish to reiterate what the hon. Lady has said, having been the leader of Westminster City Council and very much involved in the aftermath of the Grenfell tragedy, helping to run the response centre. She is absolutely right about the confusion of the different tenures in many blocks. I am proud that in Westminster we have put sprinkler systems into our social blocks. Glastonbury House in my own ward in Pimlico is purely social tenure—it is an old people’s home—and we have put in sprinklers and that issue is now over, but she is absolutely right that we have this confusion.

We also have confusion about being able to go in, as the local authority, to check the fire safety of homes that have become privately owned under the right to buy. There has to be legislation that takes that into consideration and gives local authorities powers to go in and look at the fire safety of all tenures—not just social rented but also shared ownership. As we move on to more shared-ownership schemes to house more people across central London in particular, there will be an ongoing issue, so I ask the Government to act and I back what the hon. Lady says.

[Ms Buck]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention and hope that Ministers are listening, because that is cross-party consensus among people who have more experience than most of representing areas with multiple high rises with high levels of tenure complexity, and who are calling for action to be taken.

Finally, there has been talk in this debate, and certainly in the inquiry report and elsewhere, about the higher level of risk-assessment work that needs to be done, whether in terms of fitting sprinklers or other safety arrangements, and about the levels of inspections that need to be undertaken. I remain to be convinced that the Government have a proper plan for capacity for those people who will carry out that level of inspection. My worry is that even when the legislative change comes—it is too late, but it is coming—there will still be a bottleneck because the Government have not planned out the resource necessary to do the risk assessment and the inspection work. What assessment have Ministers made of the training and human resources necessary to ensure that we do not find that, even in the aftermath of legislation, we are still a year, two years or three years late in carrying out the work because there simply are not the skilled and trained people required to carry out the work?

There is a powerful responsibility on everyone in the House, but especially the Government, to honour the memory of those who died in the Grenfell fire by acting not just thoroughly and rigorously but swiftly, even at this relatively late hour, to make sure that measures are in place so that nothing like the Grenfell horror can ever happen again. It is clear from today’s debate that there is a long way to go. I hope that, when the Minister responds to the debate, he will be able to give some answers to those who have spoken and assure them that that lesson has been learned.

Building Safety

Karen Buck Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I welcome my hon. Friend to the House and will no doubt work closely with her on these issues in the years ahead. I think it was right to take the decision that height alone was too crude a measure and that we needed to consider this carefully and involve a whole range of factors, including the likely use of the building and the likely nature of the residents of that building, whether it be a hotel, student accommodation or something else. That is exactly what we are doing, and we will use the best possible expert advice to draw up a new regime.

We saw in the Bolton fire, where the building was 17.6 or 17.8 metres high—just a matter of centimetres away from the 18-metre threshold—that height alone was simply too crude a measure and that building safety needs to be proportionate to the building. Height is likely to continue to be a very material factor—perhaps the most material one—but a range of other factors now need to be considered.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

The issue of retrofitting sprinklers in social housing blocks seems to be less determined by risk assessment than by cost and the legal right to access those properties. We have seen Wandsworth Council lose its case in the first-tier tribunal. My council has suspended work on retrofitting because of a lack of clarity about rights of access. Can the Secretary of State tell us exactly what the policy is and whether he accepts that, in almost all social blocks, there are multi-tenures—there are private leaseholders—and there needs to be clarity about how retrofitting will be funded and what rights of access councils will have to private leasehold properties?

[Robert Jenrick]

I will take up the issue the hon. Lady raises with respect to rights of access so that I can give her the best possible advice there. With respect to cost, the position today, as it has been throughout, is that this remediation work is the responsibility of building owners. As I have already said now on a number of occasions, I am aware of the fact that clearly there are some leaseholders who will struggle to raise the necessary funds. We have precedents for this: we see, for example, homeowners who purchased their property through right to buy and who may then be presented with significant costs, perhaps by a council or a housing association. Measures have been put in place to help them through that process so that that is not a bar to doing the essential works that now need to be done. That is exactly the conversation I will now be having with the Treasury to see whether we can put in place some sensible proposals to help people in that situation.