English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Joe Powell Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lewis Cocking]

I suspect it is an issue faced by Members across the Chamber, and I completely agree with the hon. Lady.

Where the amendments go wrong is that the Government plan to give the regulations to local transport authorities, rather than district councils. At the moment in my area, district councils do parking enforcement. We will have one authority with powers to enforce measures on pavement parking, and one authority with the parking and enforcement teams, which does not seem like a joined-up approach. We should not have to wait for local transport authorities, combined authorities and metro mayors to be in place. The Government could have brought forward simple legislation to give councils that are outside London the same powers that London councils have, so that they are able to issue penalty charge notices—yellow tickets—and control pavement parking throughout the country.

Finally, I will address consent for local government reorganisation. I am sure that lots of hon. Members have been out and about speaking to their constituents in the local election campaign, but not one resident across my constituency has spoken to me about consent for local government reorganisation. Not one of them wants to be put into a combined authority, to have a mayor or to move into a unitary local government system. I was on the Bill Committee, and we saw no evidence that the changes to local government structures will bring about more money for local councils or better services for residents. It is just the Government using their powers to force local government reorganisation in this country. That is why local councils have replied to letters from the Minister—they have been forced to do so.

These measures are an important part of the Bill, and we should allow local people to have a say over what structures they have in their local communities. I do not think any of us will go out in the local election campaign, speak to residents on the doorstep and hear them say, “What I really want in Broxbourne, Lewis, is for you to change the local council structures. I want a devolved mayor and a combined authority.” People actually want more effective local government that is connected to the people. [Interruption.] I can hear chuntering from Labour Members, but there is no evidence that any of that will save any money.

In fact, Conservative-run Broxbourne council has the lowest unparished council tax in the country, but through the measures proposed in the Bill by this Government, my constituents will be forced to pay more and higher council tax. I am not in favour of more taxation. The best people to spend their money in Broxbourne are the residents rather than the council, so I urge the Government to accept those Lords amendments and listen to local people.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), my former colleague on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. This Bill is packed full of exciting measures, but in the interests of time I will speak about just one measure: my support for Government amendment 80 to introduce gambling impact assessments.

Many hon. Members will be familiar with what has become almost a gambling takeover of high streets across the country. What used to be a rarity is now all too common: slot machine casinos, often open 24/7, strategically located in some of the poorest neighbourhoods in the country, crowding out other local businesses, despite often vociferous local opposition. When residents and councils try to resist, it is often futile. The companies have become experts at manipulating the planning process. They submit applications, withdraw them and then reapply, and they oppose even the smallest restrictions to their operations. That grinds down local opposition and forces councils to spend money on legal battles that they could lose, so we can see why the incentives have been to give up and grant permission.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

In Crystal Palace in my constituency, I am campaigning against a 24-hour gambling casino. The community do not want it and the company that applied for the casino was fined £1 million in January for failing to safeguard vulnerable people. Does my hon. Friend agree that ending the “aim to permit” rule and placing a presumption to reject in specific areas would force my Conservative-run council and others to listen to residents and to make themselves clear?

[Joe Powell]

I, too, have been frustrated by my Conservative-run council for not taking a more proactive approach to resisting applications. I am sure that the Minister will come back to my hon. Friend on “aim to permit” as a next step, but for today, I think the gambling impact assessments will be a useful tool.

To admit defeat and to accept the continued and inevitable decline of our high streets, whether through dodgy shops not paying their tax, the involvement with serious organised crime that we know exists or the adult gaming centres that I have mentioned, is defeatism. The Bill starts to reject that defeatism. I know that lots of my constituents in Kensington and Bayswater are passionate about this issue.

[Anna Dixon]

As my hon. Friend describes, there are many vape shops across my constituency. Does he believe that in the future, powers similar to those on gambling impact assessments could be brought in to create healthier high streets through licensing powers not only for gambling but for vape shops?

[Joe Powell]

My hon. Friend is right that pride in place has to mean pride in our high streets. That means tackling all sorts of different illegality and supporting the independent businesses that might take on those premises, as it is obviously no good to just have empty premises and the high street being devoid of anything, so there has to be a strategy. The Government have a high street strategy that the Minister is working on for later this year.

I want to briefly talk about one case study. Residents in Earl’s Court have provided a textbook example of community organising to resist adult gaming centres. Two already operate—Admiral and Silvertime—alongside two traditional betting shops, which themselves now make approximately half of their revenue from machine gaming. However, those companies are not satisfied with their current footprint—they want more. Admiral is trying to move to a 24/7 operation, but was refused permission to do that last year after the Earl’s Court Society and other residents’ groups joined local councillors and me to push back, but we still expect an appeal. Silvertime has purchased a former bank site opposite the tube station, which would significantly expand the footprint and give it a prime site with triple the frontage. Just last week, after a major local campaign, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea officers recommended refusal, which was endorsed by the planning committee. That is a rare win, but an appeal is again likely.

For context, the neighbourhood of Earl’s Court has five specialist hostels for people with complex needs and three methadone dispensing chemists. It has long been a hotspot for antisocial behaviour and crime. It is also an area dense with schools, with thousands of children passing through the area on their way in every day. A young man I met recently, who wanted to remain anonymous, said that on every lunch break, his friends remove their uniform and head to these gaming centres. He also said that the peer pressure to participate is exceptionally high. It is no accident that Admiral and Silvertime are attempting to expand in this area, but my message to them is clear: we do not want their adult gaming centres, full stop.

[Ben Coleman]

As my hon. Friend will know, my constituency neighbours his. In my constituency, the North End Road area of Fulham is a designated gambling vulnerability zone and has been identified as such by the council. It borders the Clem Attlee and West Kensington estates, which are both in the bottom deciles nationally for deprivation and income. That is no coincidence. The council is doing what it can in the current legal framework, but does he agree that councils remain constrained by the law and that this Bill will help?

[Joe Powell]

I completely agree. I was with councillors from Brent and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) earlier today, and they have similarly tried to use creative methods to restrict these places opening, but they have really struggled, so they really welcome these impact assessments.

In the interests of time, let me say that it is my sincere hope that these gambling impact assessments will start to tilt the balance back to communities and away from these companies. These formal assessments must help communities like Earl’s Court, where too many gambling venues already exist and the harms are already clear to see. We need these preventive powers, not just reactive regulations and law enforcement to clean up the problem after the fact, so I strongly support Government amendment 80 and look forward to the day when it comes into force.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We now have a three-minute speaking limit.

Proposed Visitor Levy

Joe Powell Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Gentleman is a wise man, and he anticipates a point I will come to very shortly.

Under the previous Government, candidly, there were increases to air passenger duty, rises in visa charges, the introduction of the electronic travel authorisation at a price of £10, and of course the loss of VAT-free shopping for tourists. The new Government are not just carrying on with those things, but adding cumulatively to those costs at a significantly greater rate. They are doubling the price of the ETA, which will now be £80 for a family of four. In fact, ETAs and visas are now both considerably above European price levels—considerably so, in the case of visas. On ETAs, unlike others, we do not give even a discount, let alone an exemption, for children or for people over 70. The Government have also cut the marketing budget for VisitBritain by 41%.

On top of all that, they now propose to bring in a bed tax. What is that bed tax? We do not know. It could be many things. It could be per room or per person. It could be a fixed percentage of the room rate, a fixed amount or tiered fixed amount. If it is a tiered or fixed amount, what amount? In truth, however, whatever amount is set initially is probably pretty irrelevant. Let us not forget that air passenger duty started at a rate of £5 and £10 and now ranges between £15 and well over £200. Will children be discounted or exempt?

The consultation talks about giving powers to a mayor; what about places that do not have a mayor? What will the scope be? Will it include sleeping in a tent? Will it include holiday camps, static caravans, scout camps, school trips, pilgrimages, hostels, homestays or sleeper trains? We do not know the answers to any of these questions right now.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Gentleman knows the answer!

[Joe Powell]

I wanted to add one important category that he did not list, which is short-term lets and Airbnbs.

[Damian Hinds]

That was my next sentence!

[Joe Powell]

He will know that in my constituency there is a very high concentration of Airbnbs—I have not read his speech in advance—which have contributed to antisocial behaviour, rubbish put out on the wrong day, and even breaches of leases, which can cause fire safety and insurance issues. I welcome the introduction of this levy, partly because it will help to collect a contribution from the short-term lets in my constituency.

[Damian Hinds]

Mr Efford, that really was my next sentence, because there are questions about short-term lets, and about second homes in Cornwall and so on. On the short lets issue—whether rents are being pushed up is sometimes another concern with short lets—this levy is not going to solve that problem. The Government will need to do something structurally different if they want to address those short lets questions.

Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics

Joe Powell Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I am aware of that important concern. I am happy to make sure that he gets an appropriate meeting to discuss it.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

I welcome the report; it is game changing. I agree with the Secretary of State’s logic that leaving a window open for dodgy money to flood into this country would have been totally irresponsible, so I welcome the swift action. My specific question is about recommendation 2 on company donations. We have learned from the Premier League’s attempt to enforce financial fair play that, unfortunately, revenue can be manipulated very easily—for example, sponsorship can allow clubs to buy players that they otherwise would not be able to afford. I welcome Rycroft’s recommendation that we switch to profit to ensure that only genuine companies that make a profit in this country can give donations. As the Government respond in full to the report, will the Secretary of State take a close look at that recommendation?

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support. He is quite right; Philip Rycroft was very clear in his reasoning on that point. The objective is to prevent shell companies from being set up to funnel dark money into British politics. It is not to prevent British companies that are just going through a difficult year or two from making donations themselves.

Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill

Joe Powell Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

One hundred and five months ago, 72 people lost their lives in a tragedy that was foreseen and entirely preventable. Today we remember them. We pay tribute to their families, to the bereaved, to the survivors and to the community around the tower who have suffered so much, and we recommit to truth, justice and lasting change in Grenfell’s name.

This Bill is important, and I thank the Government for introducing it and giving it the time for what I hope will be a smooth passage. A fitting memorial is essential, and the Bill will help that to come about. The Grenfell site is the last resting place for many, and it remains a symbol of injustice. Every day when I leave my home to come to work in this place, I see the tower slowly receding from the west London skyline. I understand the fear that when the tower is gone, that stark physical reminder of unfinished business will also recede. We cannot let that happen.

I want to thank the members of the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission, and the independent co-chairs, for their work in advancing a design. As the Secretary of State said, it is not easy work, but it is vital for it to remain independent of local and national Government, and to engage widely with bereaved people and survivors as the work progresses so that they feel heard and included. I know that residents are watching the deconstruction process closely. This has to be done with the utmost care and transparency—for the bereaved families, for whom the tower is sacred, and for the community who are understandably anxious about local impacts. The Bill also makes provision for the preservation, archiving or exhibition of materials from the tower and site, which is essential. Transparency and clear communication on decisions are the only way in which to ensure trust in this process, between the Department, the commission, and the bereaved and survivors.

Although the work on a memorial continues, truth and justice cannot come soon enough. Last week, the Metropolitan police team leading the investigation reassured me that they still expect to hand over files to the Crown Prosecution Service in the autumn, with the CPS expected to make charging decisions in spring 2027. Ministers in the Home Office have told me that the Government’s special grant will continue, to ensure that the investigation team—one of the largest in the history of the Met—will be able to make the timeline work. I ask for the Minister’s support in ensuring that representations are made to the judiciary to begin planning now for what could be extremely complex and interlocking criminal trials. A further delay for many years due to the Crown court backlog would add insult to injury for the bereaved families and survivors. The victims have waited almost nine years, and they deserve justice to come as swiftly as possible following any charging decisions.

While we await criminal justice, accountability should hit the culpable companies where it hurts them: their bottom line. I ask every procurement officer around the country to think twice before using any of the companies cited in the inquiry report. New powers under the Procurement Act 2023 give more scope for discretionary exclusion provisions. It is shocking that at least two contracts currently exist between NHS trusts and Rydon, and I urge all public bodies to do a full audit of their contracts, including those with subcontractors and supply chains, and to make sure that those companies are not included. It is good news that, through the Procurement Act, the Government have introduced new powers to exclude companies on grounds such as professional misconduct, and I hope that procurement officers will start using them.

Beyond truth and justice, and beyond a physical memorial, many people affected by Grenfell tell me that they want to see lasting systemic change. Can any one of us here tonight truly say that, approaching nine years after the fire, the pace and depth of change in this country have been sufficient? In a statement to this House on 22 June 2017, the then Prime Minister said that

“long after the TV cameras have gone and the world has moved on, let the legacy of this awful tragedy be that we resolve never to forget these people and instead to gear our policies and our thinking towards making their lives better and bringing them into the political process.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2017; Vol. 626, c. 169.]

I agree with those words from Baroness May.

On 4 September 2024, the current Prime Minister said:

“In the memory of Grenfell, we will change our country; not just a change in policy and regulation, although that must of course take place, but a profound shift in culture and behaviour, a rebalancing of power that gives voice and respect to every citizen, whoever they are and wherever they live.”—[Official Report, 4 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 314.]

I agree with the Prime Minister, too. The question is how we meet those goals to ensure that reality matches the rhetoric. I thank the Secretary of State, the Minister for Building Safety and their predecessors—my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), who is on the Front Bench—for their cross-Government work to push for change.

On 25 February, we had the first annual report from the Government on progress on implementing the inquiry’s recommendations, and I welcome the progress on construction product regulation, on evacuation plans for disabled residents, on improving the functioning of the Building Safety Regulator, and on streamlining ministerial accountability. I was really pleased to hear the Secretary of State confirm that he is supportive of the idea of having a national oversight mechanism to ensure that lessons from inquests and inquiries are properly accounted for. It remains a tragic truth that if the preventing future deaths report on the Lakanal House fire in 2009 had been acted on by the then Government and the London fire brigade, Grenfell could have been prevented. Instead, recommendations sat on a shelf and an opportunity to save lives was missed. I hope that we can soon get clarity on how that mechanism can be set up.

For me, it is not about diminishing the Government’s right to accept or reject recommendations, or outsourcing accountability from Parliament to an external body. Instead, it is about ensuring that our inquiry and inquest landscape works as intended, and that we are not wasting time and money and retraumatising victims through exercises that do not lead to meaningful change. I hope the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—the Hillsborough law—will herald a much-needed shift in the state’s openness and accountability when tragedies happen, and it will be all the stronger if a national oversight mechanism sits alongside it.

The London fire brigade has made important progress in learning the lessons of Grenfell, although the risk in high-rise buildings remains, as we have seen in London and around the world in recent months. I thank those officers who continue to put themselves in harm’s way to save lives. Beyond the scope of the inquiry’s recommendations, one element of Grenfell’s legacy of permanent change and a memorial for this country is the hugely significant Awaab’s law, which is now in place. It means that emergency repairs will be investigated and actioned within 24 hours, with a statutory timeframe for hazards that risk harm. I also welcome the steps to professionalise social housing management, but there is still more to do.

The pace of remediation has been too slow. Whereas other countries have completed their work, we still have close to 2,000 buildings above 11 metres where work has not begun. I welcome the target of making sure that has happened by the end of this Parliament, because the cladding scandal has trapped people in unsafe buildings for years. They are unable to sell their properties or to move their families, and are taking on more and more debt from interim fire safety measures, with developers either no longer around or unwilling to take responsibility. If the Government plan to introduce stronger requirements to get this issue sorted, they will certainly have my support.

Can we really say that, almost nine years on, social tenants have the power, agency and respect that they are entitled to? Certainly not from my casework in Kensington and Bayswater, and I expect that many Members from across the House have had a similar experience. I believe that a stronger tenant voice at a national level would help provide input into policymaking, alongside the bodies representing councils and housing associations, the regulator and the ombudsman.

That change needs to happen at a local level, too. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has repeatedly pledged to change the culture of how it engages with residents, yet last September the independent regulator found that the council’s housing department is “seriously failing”, and it has been given a C3 rating because far too many homes are not of a decent standard. Just think about that for a moment: a council that is culpable for a disastrous refurbishment in which residents were ignored, resulting in 72 deaths, is unable to meet basic standards of decency for our residents nine years later. That is not what culture change looks like in practice.

The residents on the Lancaster West estate, which surrounds Grenfell, tell a similar story. They were promised a model 21st-century housing estate in the aftermath of the fire. Progress has been made but, again, it has been too slow. They will welcome the memorial—I am sure they all want a fitting tribute—but as we pass this Bill tonight, they will ask: if the money can be found for a memorial, can it not also be found to ensure that their lives are not disrupted for years to come? RBKC has had questions to answer on this project, and residents and the Government have rightly demanded answers. Any request for additional money must be accompanied by proper oversight and accountability of RBKC and of the Lancaster West project. I am glad that council officers have confirmed that they welcome this approach, and I hope the Minister can reassure me that a solution will be found, so that residents are not left in the lurch. I thank Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care, and in the Department for Education, for their additional funding, which has enabled bespoke Grenfell services to continue. They are sorely needed.

I welcome this Bill. A fitting memorial is essential, but justice will not be served until the individuals and companies responsible for the fire and for the deaths of 72 men, women and children have their day in court. As we approach the ninth anniversary, the police investigation is still ongoing, companies implicated in the fire still have their hands on public money, hundreds of thousands of people are living in unsafe homes, and thousands of my constituents are still being let down by inadequate housing services. We need to see charges, we need to see accountability and we need to see further systemic change—not just for the bereaved survivors and for the community around the tower, but to make sure that a disaster like this never happens in our country again.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Representation of the People Bill

Joe Powell Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. That is not currently part of the Bill, but I am always happy to keep the position under review. We want to remove obstacles to those seeking to vote and stand in elections. These measures include absent voting and a new power to obtain information to help people to understand the election process better.

The first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, but in these times of profound change, that includes acting to defend our democracy. There are too many loopholes that allow foreign money to enter and seek to influence our politics. For instance, British voters face more stringent rules when donating to political parties than companies do—even shell companies and companies that are not based in the UK.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Steve Reed]

I will give way to my hon. Friend later.

We know already that illicit finance can damage people’s trust in politics, and maintaining the confidence of the electorate is imperative. That is why we are requiring stronger checks on significant donations, requiring more transparency from those making donations and ensuring that only companies with a legitimate connection to the UK can donate to those involved in UK politics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but the existing arrangements covering Ireland will continue.

[Joe Powell]

Is the Secretary of State aware of companies such as Mercantile & Maritime UK Ltd, which made a donation of £500,000 to the Conservative party before the 2019 election despite being owned by a Monaco-based Canadian individual who has subsequently been accused of continuing to trade Russian oil during the war? Will this Bill outlaw such donations?

Grenfell Tower Annual Report

Joe Powell Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell)—take your time.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

As we approach the ninth anniversary of the Grenfell tragedy, bereaved survivors in the community are still rightly advocating for truth, justice and change on behalf of the 72 people who lost their lives in an entirely preventable fire. I pay tribute to all those who have joined us again in the Gallery today and those who are watching this statement. I know that the whole House will agree with the Secretary of State that criminal accountability cannot come soon enough. In the meantime, I welcome this annual report and the progress being made in many areas, from building safety to social housing management.

We know that, too often, lessons have not been learned from public inquiries and the implementation of recommendations has not been transparent and accountable. I would welcome an update from the Secretary of State on the proposal for an oversight mechanism to ensure that recommendations are actually implemented.

When it comes to the performance of Kensington and Chelsea council, many residents are highly sceptical about progress given that, according to the independent regulator, it has a seriously failing housing department and, according to the local government ombudsman, the third worst record on complaints. On the Lancaster West estate itself, there is uncertainty over the budget for completing the promised works. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea will remain under close central Government scrutiny and that he will do all he can to broker a solution so that residents of Lancaster West—the people who least deserve to suffer—do not wait years more for their own safe and healthy homes?

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and congratulate him on being such a powerful voice for his constituents and all those who have suffered and died as a result of the tragedy of Grenfell Tower. He has rightly earned respect from Members across the House for the dignified way in which he has carried out his role as a representative for the community.

The Government are very keen to make sure that we learn the lessons and implement the report. We will continue to publish quarterly reports to update the whole House, and indeed members of the public, on the progress that we are making. Work is continuing across Government, including in my Department, on setting up a national oversight mechanism to make sure that the recommendations of this and other inquiries do not just sit on shelves, but get implemented and inform improvement in the way that we deliver public services, including, in this important case, fire safety.

I had the opportunity to visit the Lancaster West estate with my hon. Friend. The Government have made £25 million available to allow work to continue on upgrading and improving the estate. He will be aware that we have concerns about the council’s delivery capacity and cost control. I am in contact with the leader of the council about those concerns in the hope and expectation that we can address them together, but the interests of the residents of the estate must come first for all of us.

Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding

Joe Powell Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Helen Hayes]

My hon. Friend makes the point about the recovery grant very well. I will come on to some practical suggestions for what the Government could do to alleviate that situation in the short term.

Council tax equalisation, such that the grant is now based on each area’s share of the national tax base and not actual local tax levels, penalises low tax base, high-needs areas like Lambeth and Southwark. The business rates reset will wipe out historical strong growth in some inner-London boroughs, and falling numbers of children will also have an impact through the children’s formula, even though need is growing and increasingly complex.

The risk is that our councils are left in an increasingly precarious situation and are forced to make impossibly hard choices about local services in the face of increasing need. Having agreed the final funding settlement—it is welcome that it is for three years, which gives our councils more certainty—there is more for the Government to do to help councils bring down their costs and reduce need, so that service delivery is manageable within the resources that are available.

On behalf of my councils of Lambeth and Southwark, I have a number of asks of the Minister. Our councils desperately need help with the costs of temporary accommodation. The average cost of temporary accommodation in London has risen by 75% over the last five years, and the number of people seeking help with their housing has also increased dramatically, yet the amount that the Government pay councils to subsidise temporary accommodation has been frozen since 2011. Will the Government work towards increasing the subsidy so that it is closer to the actual housing costs that our councils face?

Temporary accommodation is the least stable form of housing and it has terrible consequences for residents. I have known many constituents to get up at 5 am to travel long distances by bus to keep their children in the same school and give them some stability. Those costs could be saved if more residents could afford to rent privately, yet the freezing of the local housing allowance has made that increasingly impossible. Will the Minister work with her counterparts in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury to increase the rate of local housing allowance to stop private renters from needing temporary accommodation? Some of the £5 million that is spent every day by London local authorities on temporary accommodation would be much better deployed keeping residents in stable homes through the local housing allowance than propping up the most awful situations in temporary accommodation.

With the application of the £35 million cap, councils in receipt of the recovery grant currently face a cliff edge. For Lambeth council that will mean, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) said, a loss of £47.5 million over the next three years. If the cap was removed for just next year, it would give the council an additional £11 million to reduce the savings that it is currently having to plan for. Will the Minister consider that?

Councils have expressed concern to me about the Government’s assumptions about the level of council tax receipts. Will the Minister work with councils to ensure that the assumed level of council tax receipts closely matches actual council tax collections? The social housing crisis requires that new social homes are delivered at pace. In my constituency, we have council and housing association-owned sites with planning permission that are not currently being delivered because the soaring inflation caused by the Liz Truss mini-budget priced them out of viability.

The Government’s commitment to invest £39 billion in social housing is very welcome, but will the Minister ensure some of that funding is urgently made available to London boroughs that have sites that are ready to build? We urgently need that.

The overnight accommodation levy is very good news for London but it must be apportioned to where it is most needed. Will the Government mandate that at least 50% of the funds raised by the levy are retained locally by London boroughs to cover the costs incurred by services affected by tourism and to support local growth?

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

The Government are looking at how the overnight stay levy might be used, and there is some really welcome potential, for example where major events in London happen in one local authority but impact many. I completely agree with my hon. Friend on the 50:50 split. Does she agree that that could help to smooth out some of the longer-term funding issues coming out of the settlement, by providing additional capital that councils could use, for example, on public realm and public safety works?

[Helen Hayes]

I agree completely. The levy is a really important source of additional revenue into London, and it is so important that it is spent where it is needed. That does mean allowing councils to retain some of the receipts—I would say 50%, as London Councils is calling for—in order for them to do exactly that.

Exceptional financial support was designed to be a temporary intervention to support councils with acute financial pressures, but the consequence has been a growing number of councils running structural deficits. Will the Minister set out in greater detail how the Government intend to support councils to exit EFS so they are not held back by growing deficits?

Finally, the announcement yesterday on SEND deficits is very welcome. It is a clear recognition that the current costs of SEND provision are totally unsustainable. Writing off 90% of SEND deficits will only help if the forthcoming SEND reforms are properly funded and designed such that they are financially sustainable. What is the Minister doing with the Department for Education and the Treasury to make sure that councils’ statutory SEND responsibilities are properly funded when the schools White Paper is published?

Our councils and councillors are a crucial part of the bond of trust between local residents and the politicians and governments that serve them. We cannot leave our councils in the position in which the Conservatives were happy to leave them, with no answer to the needs of their local populations because they do not have the resources to deliver. Our local residents need and deserve clean streets, well-kept parks and open spaces, good-quality road services, good adult social care and effective children’s services, good-quality homes in the social rented sector, and proper support for children with SEND. They deserve nothing less, so that they can trust that government is there to deliver for them. We owe it to our dedicated, hard-working colleagues in local government to support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing the debate, in which hon. Members have raised some important issues. She posed some questions that I will come to in my response. She mentioned that I served on the London borough of Southwark just before she was first elected to the best borough in London. She is right that a bit of my heart will be forever in Camberwell.

I learned a lot during those years, but local government has changed in the 20 years since I was first elected. Poverty in London has also changed, along with the services that boroughs try to provide. In a moment of shock and surprise, I find myself in agreement with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). He rightly characterises a situation faced by councils where costs are spiking, often because of policy failure not of their making, whether those are the costs of homelessness, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, or the costs associated with SEND mentioned by many hon. Members, to which I would add adult and children’s care.

We have fundamental issues to tackle and many of the policy levers lie in this place, not in town halls. We all need to own our responsibilities on that front. We continually need to rethink how we approach this issue. It is a shame in many ways that I could not introduce some of my colleagues in other parts of the country to this discussion. Hon. Members will have seen in the press that I have been variously accused of robbing the north to send money to the south, and now robbing London to send money somewhere else—the north or the midlands, I do not know.

In fact, the consistent theme in the funding settlement is the Government’s attempt to reconnect council funding with deprivation. I will come to the detail of that, because we are committed to making long-overdue changes to council funding. This is the first multi-year local government finance settlement in a decade, which, as Members have mentioned, will make a huge difference.

[Joe Powell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I will make some progress. Yesterday’s announcement keeps our promise of a multi-year settlement, because local communities in London and elsewhere deserved better than the out-of-date funding allocations not aligned with need, which meant poorer public services and slower growth, particularly for those dealing with the consequences of poverty.

We are making changes to how councils are funded. Many of these are changes that the public, local government partners and Parliament have long called for. We consulted four times on these changes, and we are grateful for the engagement from all corners, including from hon. Members in this debate. The engagement has informed our approach at every stage. The settlement confirms multi-year funding, our pledge to realign funding with need, and our commitment to end wasteful competitive bidding and to simplify funding.

The Government have an important role as an equaliser for local government income, and we are directing funding towards the places that are less able to meet their needs through locally raised income, which will enable all local authorities to provide similar levels of services to their residents. However, that is true notwithstanding the major differences in spiking demands around the country.

Following the provisional settlement consultation, the Government have announced an additional £740 million in grant funding as part of the final settlement, including a £440 million uplift to the recovery grant, bringing total investment over the multi-year settlement to £2.6 billion. Of that £2.6 billion, £400 million is supporting places in London that suffered the most from historical funding cuts, and there is an additional £272 million to bring the total investment in homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years to £3.5 billion—including over £800 million in London as part of our national plan to end homelessness.

That is a significant investment in the capital’s homelessness services, which is much needed, as has been mentioned by Members from across the House. It takes the total new grant funding delivered through the annual settlements for 2026-27 to 2028-29 to over £4 billion. Since coming to power, we have pledged a 24.2% increase in core spending power by 2028-29 when compared with 2024-25, worth over £16.6 billion. It is a significant uplift in the spending power of councils.

According to analysis by the Department, as a result of our reforms, nine in 10 councils will receive funding that broadly matches their assessed need by the end of the multi-year settlement, up from around one third before our reforms. In 2028-29, the most deprived places will receive 45% more funding per head than the least deprived.

[Alison McGovern]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) first.

[Joe Powell]

As the Minister knows, where we have pockets of high deprivation in London, one concern is protecting those communities. When the settlement was announced, it was very clear that the Government’s expectation was that things like council tax support should not be the first thing that councils looked to. Does the Minister agree that the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea cutting £441,000 of council tax support to our lowest income families as its first decision is not the right way to go about building a sustainable budget for the future?

Supporting High Streets

Joe Powell Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

My residents care deeply about our high streets. From Earl’s Court Road to Queensway, and from Notting Hill Gate to Portobello Road, those high streets have a lot of potential but were put through the wringer by the previous Conservative Government. We had empty units, unconstrained rows of slot machine casinos, and the rise of vape shops, candy shops, Harry Potter shops and barbers squeezing out legitimate businesses. Banks closed, with no coherent Government response, and neighbourhood police budgets were slashed. We have seen the rise of shoplifting, attacks on retail staff and, of course, wages flatlining for a decade. People have less money in their pockets to spend on the high streets, thanks to the mini-Budget. As revealed by London Centric, we have even had snail farms cropping up across the country to take advantage of tax loopholes. That is a symbol of the Tory economy: sluggish, brittle and hard-to-swallow molluscs taking up retail space and pushing out legitimate businesses.

Change is needed, and it is coming not just from the Government but from communities. I pay tribute to the residents and councillors in Earl’s Court who joined forces with me to block a 24/7 licence for an adult gaming centre. That is a precedent that I hope will apply to other casinos and slot machine proposals, and I welcome the Government introducing new powers to say no to new betting shops, vape shops and others that degrade our high streets. The planning system can prevent those outfits from opening in the first place, and I am encouraged to hear that Treasury colleagues are looking at how to step up enforcement. The National Crime Agency’s Operation Machinize hit hundreds of barber shops and other cash-intensive businesses suspected of illicit activity.

I was astonished that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), dismissed the arguments on tax evasion, given the harms that it causes to legitimate businesses. At one end of the spectrum, we have businesses linked to serious and organised crime, hiding the proceeds of the drugs trade and washing that money through our high streets. At the other end, we have VAT evasion, business rate evasion and dodgy trading practices. I commend Westminster city council for cracking down on the candy shops on Oxford Street and across our city—a pioneering council supporting our high streets where its predecessor failed.

I want to make the House aware of a particularly nefarious practice that has caught on. A shady organisation will pop up, with directors who have no idea what they are in control of. The organisation then fleeces the taxpayer and sells the public a dodgy product. Before it can be held accountable, the leadership changes and the organisation reappears under a new brand. This is not just the Conservative party’s strategy, but the practice of phoenixing. I welcome Treasury Ministers’ previous commitment to go further on this practice by boosting HMRC to include community harm in its evaluation of whether to take on cases, and encouraging the Insolvency Service to do more to get back taxpayers’ money. Adding those practices on enforcement and planning to the suite of other things that this Government are doing to support our high streets is the way that we will work with our communities to revitalise them and to bring their high streets back to life.

Property Service Charges

Joe Powell Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on securing this debate. I know that leaseholders across the country will be watching this debate very closely, because the cost of being a leaseholder has contributed to the cost of living challenges that so many of our constituents have faced for such a long time.

My leaseholder action group in Kensington and Bayswater, which the Minister kindly met with recently, regularly shares stories of escalating, unaccountable and untransparent service charges levied by managing agents that they have no control over. At worst, the current system can represent a cartel, with a broken market in which competition between managing agents is undermined by monopoly-type relationships with some freeholders and a broken connection between those who pay the bills and those who deliver the services.

The impact can be devastating. One of my constituents, Adriana, has taken her housing provider to tribunal three separate times simply to get clarity on how her service charge was calculated. Each time she has won, but the housing provider is still not providing the information; indeed, it is now offering to withdraw all the charges, rather than provide that information. That is not transparency: it relies on the assumption that the other residents, many of whom are elderly or financially strained, will not have the resources to challenge. Rather than giving up, Adriana now supports other residents in helping them to understand their rights and how to contest these unfair practices. Her determination is admirable, but it should not fall to residents themselves to protect one another from a system that is supposed to protect them.

Another group of residents who speak to me regularly about these issues, who live in a building called Shaftesbury Place, have been hit with crippling increases to their charges after a 2,489% increase in their building insurance premium. That annual cost, which is up from £15,000 to £375,000 a year, has been passed directly to the leaseholders through their service charges. The housing provider says that the freeholder procured the insurance—the residents have seen evidence suggesting otherwise—but the confusion over who procured the insurance and how the premium was calculated has left leaseholders caught in the middle. The justification appears to rest on a fire risk assessment that many residents believe is flawed, but the result is that ordinary homeowners, including shared ownership homeowners trying to climb the ladder, have been left with unaffordable bills and no clear line of accountability for how those costs have been allowed to spiral.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for explaining the problems so clearly, problems that are shared by my elderly residents in Aire Valley Court and Sutton Court in Bingley. They too have seen above-inflation rises in service charges and a lack of transparency about accounts, with no evidence to justify them. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is now time that we bring in licensing and stronger regulation of managing agents such as FirstPort?

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Powell]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. There is now an overwhelming case for introducing mandatory professional standards—which I know the Government are bringing forward—and for considering what regulation might look like, whether that is a new regulator or expanding on the current system. It is clear that some of the suggestions that the Government have consulted on in their “Strengthening leaseholder protections over charges and services” consultation have the potential to deliver for residents such as mine and my hon. Friend’s. That includes a right to veto their property agent, and I hope the threshold for that will be set at a level that will work in places such as my constituency. With a large number of overseas and absent owners, reaching high thresholds can be challenging, so I hope the threshold will be accessible. My constituents would appreciate hearing from the Minister—or from a different Minister at a later stage—about our progress on tackling the issue of building insurance. It is a big issue, particularly for metropolitan Members of Parliament. Of course, that must go hand in hand with continuing on the path to full reform of the system. I was delighted by the High Court’s decision to comprehensively dismiss challenges to the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. That is a vital step that will enable progress towards implementing reforms that will make it easier and cheaper for leaseholders to extend their lease or buy their freehold. I hope it will smooth the way for a new Bill that will deliver on our manifesto commitment to leaseholders—to

“bring the feudal leasehold system to an end”

in this Parliament. I am incredibly proud of that commitment, and I know that millions of leaseholders watching this debate also want to see it delivered. It is something that previous Governments promised, but failed to deliver.

This Government have already taken decisive action to dramatically improve the rights of 4.6 million private rented households in England by abolishing no-fault evictions, increasing security in tenancies, and ensuring safe and healthy homes for all. We have taken action to dramatically improve the rights of 5 million social rented households in England by bringing Awaab’s law into force, guaranteeing emergency repairs within a statutory timeframe. Now, we have the opportunity to deliver on our promise to the 5 million leasehold households, too.

Building Safety Regulator

Joe Powell Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton South (Mike Reader) and for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) on securing this debate.

I start by briefly reminding hon. Members why Britain’s building safety regime needed such radical reform after the Grenfell Tower fire, which took place eight and half years ago in my constituency of Kensington and Bayswater, with 72 people losing their lives in an entirely preventable and foreseeable tragedy. The bereaved, survivors and our community are still waiting for justice. We hope it will come soon.

As the Grenfell Tower inquiry revealed, there were a litany of systematic failures that led to the fire—a failure to learn lessons from previous fires, most notably the Lakanal House fire in 2009; a failure of Conservative Ministers to update approved building regulations; a failure of manufacturers to produce safe cladding; a failure of builders and architects to ensure safe design; and a failure to spot risks on the part of local building control, who signed off an unsafe building. There are many more.

As many Members will know from their own constituencies, this problem stretches far beyond Grenfell. Today, more than 5,500 residential buildings contain dangerous, flammable cladding and fewer than half of mid and high-rise buildings have even begun remedial work. That is up to 1 million people still stuck in unsafe buildings, victims of the building safety crisis that is ruining lives.

Many of those residents have themselves suffered due to the performance of the Building Safety Regulator. Other Members have not yet mentioned that there are almost double the number of major cladding remediation projects awaiting gateway 2 approval than there are new builds. The housing journalist Pete Apps wrote today of a housing association-owned block that has been waiting since November 2023 to install new fire doors.

I welcome the new chair of the Building Safety Regulator, Andy Roe, being so candid last month with the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, of which I was a member up until this week. Mr Roe said:

“if we have not shown very significant change by the end of the calendar year, we run the risk of losing the complete confidence of everyone in the regulatory regime.”

That is why it is so important.

It has been felt in recent months that there has been something of a campaign about the Building Safety Regulator, and some of that campaign is driven by a desire to roll back changes in building safety introduced post Grenfell. I totally reject the false choice between safety and house building. I believe we need a regulator that works. That means being specific about what changes will make the system more predictable and faster, to help deliver on the Government’s housing goals, while ensuring that we do not compromise on safety.

I can assure hon. Members that I have never met anyone involved in campaigning for truth, justice and change for Grenfell who does not want to see this Government tackling this country’s housing crisis, including by increasing the supply of social and affordable homes that would get children out of temporary accommodation in constituencies like mine, which has some of the worst housing inequality in the country.

The question for me is not whether the BSR should exist, but how it can improve. I welcome its improvement in transparency. We can now get a breakdown of the reasons behind the delays.

We have already heard some really constructive suggestions. They include: hiring more registered building inspectors centrally, given that 27% of the backlog is due to a lack of registered building inspectors being able to get on to projects; engaging in predictable pre-application dialogue; having clearer guidelines for submissions; moving away from a staffing project model that relies on ad hoc multidisciplinary teams that take too long to form, which were described to our Committee as “dysfunctional” by Mr Roe; and perhaps even considering whether more minor improvement works, which are the majority of projects in the BSR, could be dealt with outside the scope of the full gateway process, to keep the BSR focused on the higher risk projects.

I welcome the Government’s decision to unlock the building safety fund to social housing providers, as well as the £39 billion for the affordable homes programme, the remediation action plan to devolve responsibility down to local level, so that we get that building-by-building conversation on fixing the cladding crisis, and the construction products regulation process. Those are all positive steps.

In closing, like other colleagues, I ask the Minister how much she is able to keep track of the hiring process for the 100 new staff, including the 15 new inspectors, who Andy Roe told us would be in place by the end of September. How do we deal with the skills shortage? What conversations is she having with the Department for Education to co-ordinate the construction skills package announced several months ago? Will that include the types of skills that we need for the BSR? Will the BSR moving under the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government deliver the additional transparency and accountability that we need on performance? I hope this debate can contribute to a better BSR that can tackle the building safety crisis and the housing crisis together.