Business of the House

Debate between Clive Betts and Lucy Powell

Thursday 17th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue. As I hope he is aware, there is a long-established convention and practice that the smaller parties have representation on Committees, especially Members from the devolved nations on their relative Select Committee. That process is still ongoing. Some names are mentioned on the order paper today, but they only relate to some of the places that are to be allocated. Those conversations are continuing through the usual channels. It is my understanding that there will be places available on some of those Committees for Members of the Scottish National party and some of the other smaller parties.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate about how we can build more social housing and improve accommodation for homeless people? She is aware that there is a homeless hostel in my constituency called Bevin Court. St Anne’s Community Services would like to improve and renovate the hostel, and pay for that by selling off some of the land and building social housing on it, which would require a change in the covenant by Government. Lawyers have spent 12 months arguing about this and got nowhere. I wrote to Ministers in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in the previous Government, but the matter was passed on to the Ministry of Justice. In this Parliament, I have written to the Ministry of Justice but it has been passed back to the Housing Minister. Will the Leader of the House intervene to try to get this important project off the ground, and simply get the change of covenant that the organisation is asking for?

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend raises a really important matter, and it sounds like that project is vital for creating more social homes in his constituency of Sheffield South East. I am really sorry to hear that he has been passed from pillar to post by different Departments, and this is exactly the sort of issue to raise in business questions. I expect Members to receive timely and helpful responses from Ministers, and I will raise the issue with the relevant Departments as soon as I leave the Chamber.

Building Safety Bill

Debate between Clive Betts and Lucy Powell

2nd reading
Wednesday 21st July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I am fully aware what an EWS1 form is, thank you. Its scope and its effect came about from the advice note that the Government issued in January 2020. If it is a matter for the lenders, what recourse do leaseholders have? There is nothing in the Secretary of State’s statement about recourse and accountability and where the buck stops. That is my central argument here. In the vacuum of leadership, everybody from insurers to mortgage lenders, risk assessors and others are too concerned about their liability, leaving thousands of buildings with endless fire safety requirements, some of which are potentially life threatening, but others are an unnecessary symptom of this crisis in confidence. Who is it that says which is which? Where does that sit? With whom does that lie? The Government cannot leave this to industry and the private sector to sort out. The market cannot sort this, because it is completely broken—the Secretary of State said today that the market was completely broken as if this was news to him. Yet he says that he will not intervene in that broken market. The power is with him to intervene if he wanted to. That is why we have been calling for a building works agency. I am talking about a crack team of engineers and experts appointed by the Government, going block by block, assessing the real fire risk and what remediation works are absolutely necessary; commissioning and funding those works from the building safety fund; and then, crucially, certifying the building as safe and sellable. This rigorous approach would also keep costs down, and the agency can then go after those responsible for costs. It has been done before in Australia and it can be done again here—if the Secretary of State was prepared to step up, lead and intervene rather than leave it to the broken market he describes.

[Mr Betts]

I keep reading this statement and I am not sure I am any clearer than I was at the beginning. The Secretary of State said that EWS1 forms are not needed on properties below 18 metres because there is no systemic risk across those sorts of buildings. What I am not clear about is whether the lack of systemic risk applies to cladding that is of limited combustibility. Is he now saying that there is no need to remove combustible cladding from buildings below 18 metres, or that there is a need? If there is, is not an EWS1 form needed as part of that process? If it is not, we still do not know who is going to pay for the work.

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Of course, there are also many buildings over 18 metres that do not have cladding and are still facing the issues of fire remediation works, some of which may not be necessary. I am not clear whose job it is to decide whether they are necessary, and therefore whether a building can be mortgageable and insurable once again and people can move on with their lives. I am still not sure of that and I still do not feel that the Government are really providing the leadership and intervention that is necessary.

There is huge strength of feeling on these issues, as we can see from the number of Members wanting to speak in this debate. The toll of this crisis is immeasurable. Innocent homeowners want us to work together, and I will work with anyone to protect them from these costs. I am not interested in party political point-scoring, as it happens, but the Government have to step up on these issues.

Returning to the Hackitt test, her ultimate test of this new framework is the rebuilding of public confidence in the system. She says that the people who matter most in all this are the residents of these buildings. The honest truth is that, through the omission of cast-iron protections for today’s leaseholders, this test will not be met. It is not enough to simply will the ends; the means need real determination and focus too. We will work with all sides to protect leaseholders and meet the Hackitt test.

Affordable and Safe Housing for All

Debate between Clive Betts and Lucy Powell

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Home ownership, especially for younger people, is now falling as well, so he should check his figures on that. This Queen’s Speech will do nothing for home ownership. It is a developers’ charter when it comes to planning; that is not what is wrong with our planning system at all. For those who cannot afford to buy their own homes, there is absolutely nothing in this Queen’s Speech.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I welcome my hon. Friend to her Front-Bench position and I am very pleased to see her there. Just to come back to the First homes arrangement, there is no argument about encouraging young people, particularly first-time buyers, to buy their own homes. Is not the problem with First homes that it is going to take the first top slice of any funding through section 106 agreements and therefore displace an element of social and other affordable housing for rent? That is the challenge with First homes: it displaces homes for rent.

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point.