Building Homes
Joe Powell Excerpts(6 days, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I welcome the statement and especially welcome what the Minister said about affordable homes, given the dismal numbers that were provided under the Conservatives. Those 1.3 million people on the waiting list deserve a voice in our planning system too, and I only wish the Opposition would recognise that.
What approach will the Minister take when there are multiple local plans, for example the London plan and the London borough plans? How will the targets be worked out between those different plans?
Matthew Pennycook
As my hon. Friend may know, the new method produces a figure for London of nearly 88,000. That is more than double recent delivery, and it constitutes the biggest proposed percentage increase against delivery in any region in the country by a significant margin. We expect London to step up and improve its housing delivery record. As for my hon. Friend’s specific question, it will be for London and the Mayor to consider how the aggregate local housing numbers are distributed across the whole of London. Because there is a spatial plan in the form of the London plan, the targets for individual London boroughs need to be viewed in that context. The same cannot be said for other parts of the country.
Grenfell Tower Inquiry
Joe Powell Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
It is now more than seven and a half years since 72 people lost their lives at Grenfell Tower in my constituency in north Kensington. It was a greater loss of life than any terrorist attack in London’s history. That is seven and a half years of no justice, and seven and a half years of no meaningful change. It was a tragedy that was entirely preventable, and entirely foreseen. To our shame as a country, and as the recent fire in Dagenham showed, it could happen again today.
As the Grenfell inquiry sets out, the fire occurred because individuals and organisations were systematically dishonest, put profit before lives and were part of a system and culture that too often denies agency and power to those living in social housing in this country. I pay tribute to the next of kin, bereaved, survivors and our community, many of whom have joined us here today, for their resilience and strength in continuing to fight for truth, justice and change. I know that with each hearing, each story, each Government announcement and each new promise of change, they are forced to relive the horrific events of that night, and I know that today will be painful, too. Their voices must remain at the heart of this Government’s response and of all future decisions about Grenfell. I hope I speak for the whole House when I say to them that justice will only truly be served when there are criminal prosecutions and those responsible pay the price.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s apology on 4 September on behalf of the British state, and I thank Sir Martin Moore-Bick and the whole inquiry team. The report is an important step in uncovering the truth of what happened that night, who was responsible and what must be done to ensure that such a tragedy is never repeated, but the path to justice is long and we are far from the end. In recent meetings with the then Minister for Courts and Legal Services, my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander) and the Metropolitan police, I have been clear that our community is watching and waiting. I urge all involved to remain focused on expediting the process as much as possible.
I fully understand the frustration that it has taken this long. On 24 June 2017, then Ministers Alok Sharma and Nick Hurd wrote to bereaved families. They said:
“The inquiry will not delay the conclusion of the Police inquiry…If criminal proceedings result from these investigations…we would not expect them to be delayed by the establishment of the public inquiry.”
That has clearly not come to pass. Justice has been delayed, but it must not be denied. While we wait for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to complete their work, there are actions that must be taken now. Companies identified in the report, such as Arconic, Rydon, Kingspan and Celotex, must be excluded from public contracts while criminal investigations are ongoing. I thank the Secretary of State for her commitment to that, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) that local authorities across the country should be encouraged to follow suit.
Justice is about more than contracts and criminal charges, and it goes beyond Grenfell. Across the country, up to a million people are still stuck in unsafe buildings. They are victims of the building safety crisis. The National Audit Office has just reported that, on current trends, it will take until at least 2037 before the last unsafe building is remediated, at a cost of £16.6 billion. I therefore welcome the Government’s announcement today that they will speed up the remediation work, that developers will be forced to double the pace of fixing the crisis and that building owners who sit on their hands will be subject to severe penalties. That is right, because while residents wait, they also pay the costs.
In a block of flats in Earl’s Court, just two miles south of Grenfell, a recent fire inspection found flammable rendering. The insurance premium has gone up from £15,000 a year to £375,000 a year, meaning an extra £400 a month in service charges for leaseholders. While leaseholders face this increasing cost of living crisis, and the fear of living in buildings that are unsafe, the insurance industry has so far failed to tackle the problem. The Association of British Insurers committed to bringing down costs, but the experience of my constituents shows that it is not working. I am delighted that the Government have committed to working with insurers to consider urgently how bills can be reduced during remediation programmes. That cannot come soon enough. I know that Members from across the House will have their own horror stories of leaseholders who cannot sell and cannot move on with their lives, who are caught in the middle between freeholders, developers, managing agents and all levels of government. My test of this Government’s plan and whether it will be deemed a success is whether it brings this merry-go-round of buck-passing to an end.
I know that the Government are also considering their formal response to the inquiry, including ending the chaotic and fragmented regulatory system. Accountability for building regulations should be streamlined under a single Secretary of State. We need one regulator—a high-quality, well-resourced public body reporting directly to that Secretary of State—and we need robust product regulation. Currently, only a third of construction products are regulated. Instead, all construction products should be subject to regulations to ensure safety and public trust.
This inquiry is just one of many recent high-profile public inquiries into state injustices, whether that is Hillsborough, the Post Office, Windrush, infected blood or LGBT veterans. I welcome the Government’s resolve to righting the wrongs of the past and tackling the injustices that the previous Government largely failed to budget for. Time and again, we have seen a pattern of inaction and too many lifesaving recommendations from public inquiries and inquests ignored by corporate bodies and Departments, and that failure to act has had fatal consequences. Had the coroner’s regulations following the Lakanal House fire, which claimed six lives, been implemented, it is likely that the Grenfell Tower tragedy would have been prevented.
The previous Government dragged their feet on implementing personal emergency evacuation plans for disabled people in phase 1, so I welcome the Government’s announcement today on the next steps to protect disabled tenants. Such examples have convinced me that we must consider an independent oversight body, answerable to Parliament, to track the implementation of inquiry recommendations and prevent avoidable deaths. I welcome the commitment to passing the Hillsborough law duty of candour to ensure that public authorities and officials act in the public interest, with openness, honesty and transparency about their actions, decisions and failings.
Nowhere is the need for candour and oversight more evident than with the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which failed residents in the years leading up to the Grenfell fire, on the night of the tragedy and in its aftermath. The inquiry determined that RBKC bears
“considerable responsibility for the dangerous condition of the building”,
highlighted a
“persistent indifference to fire safety”,
and found that RBKC’s response was
“muddled, slow, indecisive and piecemeal”,
with it
“ill-equipped to deal with a serious emergency”,
exposing a complete failure to protect and serve the community for whom it was entrusted to care. Even today, many north Kensington residents still rely on community groups for essential support and services. In stark contrast to the failures of RBKC, the community acted decisively and heroically on the night of the fire and in its immediate aftermath. I am proud of how our community responded to the fire and continues to support residents across north Kensington.
But this is not just about one council; it is about a culture of neglect and disrespect that impacts millions of people living in social housing across the country. Some 60% of my casework in Kensington and Bayswater relates to slow repairs, damp, mould, overcrowding and poor communication from landlords. On Saturday, I visited a council estate close to Grenfell and spoke to many residents, including a woman who has been in temporary accommodation for 19 years out of the borough and who has had to chase relentlessly to get her move back home, and a resident with an extractor fan that has been broken for years, despite multiple surveyors coming to assess the job.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for making such a powerful speech on behalf of his constituents. What he has described reflects all our inboxes. Does he agree that to address residents’, tenants’ and leaseholders’ concerns in a timely manner with good customer care does not cost any money?
Joe Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The waste of councils’ and housing associations’ precious resources and the waste of people’s time in taking time off work and disrupting their lives to deal with the inefficiency and repairs is something that we have to fix. I am really hopeful that incoming legislation such as Awaab’s law will help with that.
The case study from Saturday is a good example. A constituent is forced to open the windows to prevent mould coming into her home, which means that she has paid thousands extra in energy bills over the past few years while she waits for the council to fix the fan. On the Lancaster West estate, where Grenfell is located, there are concerns that the promise from all levels of government for a modern 21st-century social housing estate will not be fulfilled.
It is essential that RBKC, residents and Ministers agree a plan to complete the refurbishment with transparency and accountability on budgets and timelines, because those residents have been living on a building site for far too long. It is not enough just to talk about change. Until the tenants of RBKC and the housing associations in my constituency are treated with respect and have access to what they are entitled to as a right, they will lack trust in the institutions that are meant to serve them. Just last week, the regulator found one of our major housing associations, Notting Hill Genesis, to be non-compliant after an inspection revealed governance failings and poor health and safety outcomes for tenants.
I do not want just to criticise; I want to help RBKC and our housing associations to find solutions. In the new year, we will be launching a new campaign on social housing quality in Kensington and Bayswater, because I want our community to be a trailblazer on how to implement Awaab’s law on damp and mould, how to enforce the new decent homes standard and how to break people out of the doom cycle of endless emails, phone calls, missed appointments and subcontractors even to get simple repairs done. If we cannot get it right in Kensington and Bayswater given Grenfell, given our amazing community organisations and given that we are on the frontline of the nation’s housing crisis, what hope does the rest of the country have? Central to the campaign will be the voice of tenants. I extend an open invitation to anyone who can help to join our campaign and make a practical difference for the community.
It has been over seven years since the bereaved, the survivors and the local community endured a tragedy that changed their lives forever. I will continue to advocate in this place for truth, justice and lasting change, and for Grenfell bereaved and survivors to be heard. Their dignity and resilience have held up a mirror to us as a nation, forcing us to confront a fundamental question: do we truly give everyone an equal voice in how this country is run?
The opportunity is for the Government—a mission-led Government—to focus on service and give people a real say in decisions that affect them. We cannot afford to continue with nearly a million people sleeping in unsafe buildings. We cannot afford another Grenfell Tower. True justice means criminal charges for those responsible, a complete culture change with respect for every tenant, and every child in the country growing up in a safe and decent home. That must be the legacy of Grenfell.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am not in favour of taking building control away from local authorities, but if we go down the route recommended by the hon. Gentleman, we will not succeed in making buildings safer, not least because of the shortage of capacity in the sector. If it is decided that there cannot be any private sector building control surveyors, there will be even less capacity, and remediating all this will take even longer.
An approach that relies entirely on local government or a state body of building control risks worsening a situation that we are already experiencing. The building control workforce is ageing, and recruitment struggles to keep up with demand. Restricting private sector competition would exacerbate these problems, driving skilled professionals not back into local authorities—because they cannot afford them—but into consultancy roles in which they would be working for the construction companies directly, not inspecting what those companies are doing. Rather than narrowing the pool of inspectors, we should be raising the standards of building control across the board.
Private sector approved inspectors were already subject to a strict licensing regime through the Construction Industry Council approved inspectors register, with a code of conduct, regular auditing and a complaints process. Moreover, the local authority, not the private sector building control sector, was responsible for the problem at Grenfell. Our recommendation suggests a fully integrated building control service involving both local authorities and registered building control approvers working to common standards within a framework designed to promote continuous improvement. That, I think, is the right answer. To deal with high-rise blocks, multidisciplinary teams would be set up to perform the building control function, recruited on the basis of proven skills and experience from both public and private sectors on a level playing field without the choice being biased in favour of the former. That, I submit, should be the Government’s objective.
We welcome the steps taken to require all building inspectors, whether working for local authorities or registered building control approvers, to be individually registered by the BSR, but further steps can and should be taken to drive up standards and to maximise much-needed capacity. However, recommendations 113.37 and 113.38 in the final report of the inquiry could undermine this process. Implicit in recommendation 113.37 is the assumption that it is inappropriate for private sector commercial organisations to be involved in building control work at all, although no evidence is advanced to support that assumption. It is an assumption that many people make, but there is no evidential basis for it. Recommendation 113.37 proposes that there should be a panel to consider the matter, which I hope will happen, but if it decided to ban private sector building control, that would seriously aggravate the capacity problem.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I will certainly give way, because this is a crucial point.
Joe Powell
I simply wanted to ask for a clarification. Surely the issue, which was raised earlier, is that there is a conflict of interests when you are paying to have your product assessed. As we know from Sir Martin’s report, there was a cover-up of testing results. If you accept that, how do you get around the “conflict of interests” issue?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I am not going to admonish the hon. Member for using the word “you”, but, Sir Bernard, you have now spoken for longer than both Front Benchers put together, and many other Members wish to get in.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Joe Powell Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
May I start by thanking the Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), for meeting me over recess to discuss the Bill. I know that he will be closing the debate later today.
I am afraid that one consequence of the Government’s prioritisation of this Bill is that, because my Committee has no members, I cannot yet speak as its Chair, but I very much look forward to doing so, and I thank the House for electing me to this important role.
The Bill is of great importance to many people in my Vauxhall and Camberwell Green constituency and to millions of renters across the country. Too often they feel the sharp end of a market that is not working for them. They can suffer inflation-busting rent rises under the threat of eviction. They can end up waiting far too long for repairs to serious problems. Data from Shelter highlights the fact that almost one in three households in my constituency lives in the private rented sector. In 2001, the number of households in private rented accommodation was 8,129. By 2021, that figure had increased to more than 13,178—a staggering 62% increase in just 20 years.
We have spoken about affordability and rent increases. This issue is pushing so many people into debt and putting them at risk of homelessness. According to Shelter, the average monthly rent in August 2024 in England was £1,327, but the figure for Lambeth is almost twice the national average at over £2,210. We all know that wages are not rising in line with this increase. The reality facing many private renters today is that they can be evicted with only two months’ notice, often needing to find thousands of pounds to cover moving costs and deposits on a new property.
We have touched on the fact that most private landlords are good. The majority of them are providing a good service, and they play an important role in our housing ecosystem. The majority of them take their responsibilities seriously, but for far too long a minority of rogue landlords have been able to exploit loopholes in legislation to treat tenants in a frankly unacceptable way. The Bill must put an end to that, and provide tenants with the certainty and security they deserve.
In 2019, when I first stood for election, the Conservative manifesto promised to end no-fault evictions, yet half a decade later, renters are still desperately waiting for a fair deal and they cannot afford to wait any longer. I think about the emails that I have received since the start of the cost of living crisis, with constituents facing rent rises of between 20% and 30%. One constituent even emailed me to say that their rent had doubled in just one year. They said:
“I am a private renter. I’m particularly concerned about unfair rent increases. I am 47 and have lived in the same area for most of my time in London, but despite the huge amount of properties that have been built in the area, none is affordable to buy and few are affordable to rent.”
He goes on to say:
“I rent privately and my rent has been increasing faster than my salary. At this point in my life, things should feel more secure. If you want to truly end no-fault evictions, you need to address extortionate rent increases which are as good as an eviction for many.”
I know that many colleagues across this House have received similar emails, which highlights why this Bill is so badly needed.
It is critical that the Government act urgently on this matter, so I welcome the speed with which they have delivered this Bill to the House. It shows how seriously they take the private rented sector. Although this Bill is similar to the Renters (Reform) Bill, which was introduced under the previous Government, there are a couple of important differences that further improve the offer to private renters.
The raising of maximum fines in multiple areas, such as discrimination against those with children or those who are on benefits, is a step in the right direction, although the Renters’ Reform Coalition has called for an even larger fine to act as a proper deterrent. I hope the Secretary of State will take that on board.
The introduction of clause 55 outlawing rental bidding is also important. Since the general election in July, I have been contacted by tenants who are facing bidding wars. A person is told that they are going to view a rental property, and then, when they turn up, they are told that 45 other people will be viewing it with them and that the property will go to the highest bidder. That is just unacceptable.
I also welcome the extension to the protected period for no-fault eviction grounds and the required notice periods where these grounds are used.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the unintended consequences of section 21 is that people often do not report damp and mould or the repairs that they need for fear of eviction, because they will be pushed into finding a new tenancy, which they simply cannot afford?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is really important. I give credit to the previous Government for Awaab’s law, which tackles the problems of damp and mould in the social housing sector, but it is vital that we have the same protections for private tenants who, frankly, live in squalor. We have seen emails from people talking about black mould. That is not acceptable. Housing benefit is being paid for those properties. We need to make sure that tenants are renting the right properties.
The Bill will increase security for tenants, and help deal with those big deposits that they have to save for. However, as some colleagues have highlighted, the success of the measures in this Bill will come down to enforcement. In its report on the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill, the predecessor Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee found that measures making it easier for tenants to challenge rent rises in a first-tier tribunal could increase the workload of our justice system. We all know that our justice system is struggling under the backlog, and that backlogs are far too common. It is critical that the Government’s good intentions do not result in a system that tenants simply cannot access because of those lengthy backlogs. We cannot send tenants to tribunals if it ends with them being further frustrated by the judicial system. Will the Minister please tell me what work is under way to ensure that the tribunals are ready for this change in the law and can cope with the increase in cases?
The previous Committee also warned that levels of implementation could vary massively between different councils. The large number of landlords in this country can make enforcement in the sector quite challenging, particularly when local authority finances are so stretched. Although the introduction of the private rented sector database will help, we could see unscrupulous landlords fall through the cracks if there is not stringent enforcement by councils. The Bill will place new regulatory powers and enforcement responsibilities on local authorities.
The Minister is well aware that our councils are facing significant funding pressures. The Local Government Association reports that due to inflation, wage pressures, and cost and demand pressures, English councils face a £2.3 billion funding gap in 2025-26. What steps is the Minister taking to work with councils to ensure that there is sufficient enforcement of this legislation and that councils are properly resourced to carry out their new responsibilities effectively?
Finally, will the Minister please confirm whether the housing ombudsman will run the new private rented sector ombudsman, so that tenants can access justice in disputes? When I met the housing ombudsman, he mentioned that a number of cases that were brought before him were allowed when an appeal was made, so there is already failure at a local level. We also have to consider the fact that so many private renters are afraid to challenge their landlord because of the fear of eviction. We need a strong ombudsman to help them get the justice that they deserve.
I look forward to working with the Minister as this Bill progresses through Parliament. I hope that he will address the points I have made and ensure that we have a sector that works with our tenants, recognising how much they pay, and provides them with security, so that they no longer have to fear being evicted through no fault of their own. Thank you.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
It is a great privilege to follow that excellent speech. The Renters’ Reform Bill is potentially transformative for Kensington and Bayswater, as it is for the whole country. Nearly 45% of my constituents are now private renters—a huge increase in the last decade and now the biggest tenure type by some distance. Those renters pay the highest rents in the country: an average rent of £1,600 per person. A rental property in my constituency now averages £3,400 a month.
Yet despite the fact that those renters pay an increasing proportion of their take-home pay each month in rent, I have been inundated since the general election with cases of constituents facing the major challenges that colleagues have already highlighted—section 21 evictions, damp and mould, slow repairs, unaffordable rent hikes, bidding wars and a feeling of insecurity and lack of power that never leaves a person under the current rules.
I think of my former constituents Jean and Jack Franco, who lived with their mum in a rental flat in north Kensington. After eight years of never missing a rent payment, they were served a section 21 notice by an anonymous overseas landlord and given just weeks to leave. All their attempts to challenge the decision and engage the landlord failed. Their request for just a few more weeks to find a new home was denied. The council were unable to help them, so Jack and Jean had to leave with their mum for a new part of London as rents in my constituency are so unaffordable.
The letting agent told the Francos that the owner wanted to sell the property, but today that property is still being rented out, but at twice the rent that the previous family were paying—a back-door eviction by an anonymous landlord that this Bill would have stopped. I also think of the constituents who I met, along with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister, around the table in north Kensington; they could not even bring themselves to report the challenges with the condition of their flats for fear of a section 21 notice that could leave them on the streets, sofa surfing or scrambling for temporary accommodation. This renters’ Bill is also for them. I want to focus on one critical area of implementation, the landlord register, which is a huge opportunity to give renters, landlords and local authorities the information they need to ensure that standards are upheld and new rights can be enforced. I note here my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I have worked on a number of new government registers in recent years, including the public register of beneficial ownership and the register of overseas entities. It is crucial to design them in a way that is as transparent as possible and does not create loopholes.
I ask the Secretary of State and the Minister to look at the detail of what will be in that register, including landlord and agent contact details, details of past enforcement action, eviction notices, safety information, information about accessibility and the rent being charged. If we include all those things, we will have a genuinely useful register that will promote accountability and genuinely drive up standards.
This game-changing Bill should also not be seen in isolation. The most exciting thing about today is the Government’s commitment to attacking our housing crisis from multiple angles: planning reform to build 1.5 million new homes, including the biggest increase in social housing in a generation; learning from Grenfell, and speeding up the remedial work up and down the country; accelerated implementation of the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023, including Awaab’s law; a new decent homes standard for social and private housing; a crackdown on dirty money in luxury property; and an end to the feudal leasehold system. This is a comprehensive—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Member will know that there was a time limit, on which he is beginning to stretch my patience.
Short-term Lets: Regulation
Joe Powell Excerpts(3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing this debate and giving the subject the attention it deserves. We obviously share a border, but we also share an office in this place that, with its high ceilings and windows, comfortable sofas and views of Whitehall, I am sure would fetch a very high price if it were a short-term let. I hope we can agree that we will not be doing that in our period of sharing an office.
When I was knocking on doors during the general election campaign, the issue of short-term let regulation united constituents in South Kensington, North Kensington, Bayswater and Lancaster Gate. That was due to the current effective free-for-all with weak rules that are barely enforced, leading to issues that had very real and personal consequences for them and their families. It was not just the antisocial behaviour, noise and associated crime, but the violations of building insurance, mansion block rules and tenancy agreements, which had very real impacts on service charges and their day-to-day living in flats. I therefore agree with many of the speakers in the debate that there must be a middle ground where we can find sensible regulation that allows a destination like Kensington and Bayswater to continue to welcome millions of tourists from around the world, but with a system that can also help tackle our housing crisis.
To give hon. Members a sense of the scale of the problem, I share councils—Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster—and it is estimated that more than 5% of properties in both those council areas have been listed as short-term lets. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, the latest estimate in Westminster is 13,000. It is therefore important that any proposed changes related to change of use do not lock in those numbers, and that we sequence the reforms correctly.
There are some things that work and I praise the councils that, with limited tools, have been able to take some steps on enforcement, especially in Westminster. Kensington and Chelsea agreed a deal with Airbnb that would share data around some council blocks, so that leaseholders and council tenants in those blocks who might be in breach of their tenancy could be investigated. However, that also struck me as unfair when we have 40% of our residents in the private rental sector, where there is very little regulation.
As for solutions, I join others in calling for the Government to consider a licensing scheme, while thinking carefully about some of the lessons already learned. For example, the 90-day rule is totally unenforceable. With multiple platforms listing properties, and very small and limited—even non-existent—resources in local authorities to enforce the rule, we must ensure that fees are paid into the system to help cover the enforcement cost for local authorities, so that the cost is proportionate. We must also ensure that each property—not just each host—is registered, because individual properties have different consequences. This is an important part of tackling our housing crisis. I am delighted with the Renters’ Rights Bill, introduced yesterday, and I believe that if we also brought in a complementary package of reforms, it could make a real difference for constituencies such as mine.
Building Safety and Resilience
Joe Powell Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I would like to put on the record the thanks of my constituents in Kensington and Bayswater, which includes the wider Grenfell community, for the cross-party support last week when the phase 2 report of the Grenfell inquiry was published. We thank the Minister and the Government for making time today and for committing to future time, and we thank the Prime Minister for his statement and heartfelt apology on behalf of the British state for what happened. He spoke for us all, including the Leader of the Opposition.
The Grenfell legacy obviously has lots of dimensions, but one of them is building safety. I urge Members to remember the 72 victims of the fire, whose legacy has to be fixing this crisis. After the report was released, there were three immediate actions that the community wanted me to advocate in this place. The first was about criminal prosecutions, which is not a matter for discussion today. However, as the Justice Secretary mentioned in questions yesterday, it is important that we ensure that the court system is prepared for any potential decisions that come through the Metropolitan police and CPS process, and that court backlogs and the complexity of any potential trials do not result in even further delays to justice.
Secondly, the accountability of the companies is not just about criminal investigations; it is about their role in public procurement and paying for remedial work. We need to continue to push on that. Finally, we are discussing policy changes today to ensure that this never happens again, but the pace of change has been far too slow. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said, that is partly due to the culture of how tenants—social housing tenants, in particular—are treated and about their agency and power and respect. There are tens of thousands of people up and down the country who are still going to bed in buildings that are unsafe.
In my constituency—quite incredibly, given the history of Grenfell—we have one of those buildings that is not yet on the Department’s list. It underwent a fire inspection just a few months ago and flammable rendering was found. This is a good example of what many Members have mentioned. It is a building with approximately 50% social tenants and 50% shared ownership leaseholders, who have scraped together the money to get on the housing ladder and have now been hit with a £400 a month increase in their service charge, primarily driven by the dramatic increase in insurance after the fire inspection took place.
I agree with the shadow Minister’s call to look at the insurance market, because in that case there was not a competitive bid for insuring the building. I know there has been a discussion with the Association of British Insurers to see how we can bring down the costs, but I urge the Government to look at this, because in the short term, while we wait for the remedial work to take place, the situation is simply unaffordable for those leaseholders. I certainly think we need to look at the insurance industry. In addition, that building is another example of the merry-go-round of buck passing that we talked about last week between local government, national Government, developers, freeholders and housing associations.
We need clear timelines to speed this up, and I really welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment on that. We need incentives in the system—carrots and sticks—to ensure that we do not have these never-ending situations where leaseholders and tenants are unclear about when the work will be done. As the Minister said, the money is there, so this is about knocking heads together and making sure that, at an individual building level, we get the speeding up that we need. I will write to her about the specific building that I have mentioned.
Speeding up this work is obviously part of the answer, but the recommendations from phase 1 and phase 2 of the Grenfell inquiry are also relevant. They go beyond cladding, as the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) mentioned. I really welcome the Government’s announcement last week that residential personalised emergency evacuation plans for disabled people will be taken forward. It is a big frustration for many of my constituents that that did not happen under the previous Government. We look forward to more detail on what those PEEPs will look like. I urge the Government in the comprehensive spending review to look at funding, for multiple years, for social landlords to implement that and at a scheme to ensure that developers and freeholders cover the costs for private buildings.
We are all still digesting the full phase 2 report, and there will be time to go into it in more detail, but one recommendation that I urge the Government to think about straightaway is the streamlining of accountability in terms of ministerial responsibility and the regulator, so that we do not have a dispersed system between multiple Departments that makes it easy for things to fall through the cracks, as Sir Martin Moore-Bick made clear in his report. I hope we will have time to discuss that in detail.
Finally, on the question of who should pay, I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement that he will be writing to the companies and looking at exclusions in the public procurement process to ensure that companies referenced in the Grenfell report will not be able to access public tenders. I also put on the record my thanks to the golfer Shane Lowry, who yesterday—belatedly, but he got there in the end—removed the sponsorship of one of the companies mentioned. I will not mention it by name, just out of caution. More broadly, these developers clearly need to need to pay for the remedial work.
The campaigners have done an incredible job, as the Minister said in her opening remarks. Their ask has always been for truth, which we now have from the inquiry; for justice, which we hope will come from the criminal prosecution system; and for change, which it is on all of us in this House to deliver.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Peter Fortune to make his maiden speech.
Oral Answers to Questions
Joe Powell Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook
We are maintaining the existing strong protection for the best and most versatile agricultural land that is most important for food production. The line that we are removing from the NPPF was added in December 2023, and does not provide clear and meaningful guidance to authorities about what they should do, in addition to having that strong protection in place.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
On Wednesday, the phase 2 report of the Grenfell inquiry will be published, and I am sure that the whole House will join me in remembering the 72 residents who lost their lives in an entirely preventable tragedy over seven years ago. Four recommendations for central Government are still outstanding from the phase 1 report, including personalised emergency evacuation plans for disabled people. Will the Secretary of State update us on the progress in implementing the phase 1 recommendations in full?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this week will be very difficult for the community around Grenfell, including the survivors and those who lost loved ones. He is also right to say that there are outstanding measures from phase 1. The Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), made a written ministerial statement today that will hopefully show where the Government intend to go, but there is a lot that needs to be done. On Wednesday, the whole House will have a moment of reflection, and we will think of those at Grenfell in the coming weeks.