Social Housing Bill [Lords]

Joe Powell Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

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

The housing crisis in Kensington and Bayswater is one of the biggest drivers of inequality in our community, with overcrowding, damp and mould, families stuck in temporary accommodation, and a lack of options for people with accessibility issues. It is a huge drag on life chances and opportunity, including for children.

The issue is not helped by Conservative-run Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea receiving a C3 rating from the Regulator of Social Housing—a staggering failure nearly 10 years after the Grenfell Tower tragedy, in which the inquiry found major failings at the council. It certainly would not be helped either by an entirely arbitrary £4 billion cut in housing benefit, which would dramatically increase homelessness, require the local authority to spend more on temporary accommodation and dramatically change the socioeconomic make-up of communities such as mine. It is a truly shameful policy. I will happily take an intervention from Conservative Front Benchers if they want to defend it, but it certainly would not address any of the issues we are talking about today.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

My area is probably like my hon. Friend’s, in that local housing allowance does not nearly meet market rates. Market rates are well above the national average, and wages in my area are below it, so does he agree that the Conservative policy of capping local housing allowance and the lack of social housing building over the past decade have exacerbated the issues we are now seeing in our constituencies?

[Joe Powell]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, that policy would increase homelessness and would be entirely self-defeating, because it would just shift the bill to local authorities that would then have to deal with the problem, rather than tackling the problem, as we are doing today through this Bill. What we actually need is more social and genuinely affordable housing, and I welcome the steps this Bill takes to address the issue, because there is no doubt that unchecked right to buy has contributed to the problem.

The measures in the Bill are sensible and will make a difference. They build on policy changes that the Government have already made, including making permanent the retention of 100% of right-to-buy receipts. However, the implementation of these measures in communities such as mine will obviously be vital. In many of our council estates and buildings, the current owners of right-to-buy properties are actually open to selling. That is partly because of estate regeneration costs and concerns about service charges and quality, and because unlike other private leaseholders, those leaseholders may not necessarily benefit to the full extent from the easier path to commonhold and resident-run buildings that the Government will be bringing in for leaseholders in general. I would welcome further information about how local authorities can be supported to buy back properties in blocks where the council is already the freeholder.

I fully understand that this is an admission of the failure of the historical right-to-buy policy, and the situation certainly would not be helped by retaining the three-year eligibility requirement that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), supported in his speech. Changing the requirement to 10 years makes much more strategic sense for councils, because it incentivises both those buy-backs and investment in new council housing.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

My constituency is in the borough of Ealing, where 3,000 families are in temporary accommodation and 7,500 are on the housing list. Some 9,000 homes were sold off under the right to buy since the 1980s. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill strikes the right balance between continuing social mobility for long-standing tenants while protecting homes for those most in need?

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Powell]

I do agree. We have to increase supply in any way we can, and my point about buy-backs is that they demonstrate the false economics of the system. Councils are buying back at a premium, and often they have to buy back only for temporary accommodation—because that is where the costs are so high—rather than for lifetime secure tenancies, which is what we need.

We also have a real challenge on housing association disposals, which I know other Members will speak to. The classic examples are Victorian-era street properties in North Kensington and Notting Hill. I am hearing of accelerated sell-offs as housing associations raise revenue to deal with their recent challenging financial situation, given remediation costs and the requirements to improve standards. Given that the Government have now backed the sector with access to the building safety fund, a 10-year rent settlement, low cost loans and more, I hope that those disposal numbers will drop. I know from experience that those homes in my constituency are unlikely to be replaced in the same community.

The new four-week period for housing associations to notify the council is therefore extremely welcome, but it must lead to more purchases by local authorities of these properties. I would therefore welcome further information from the Minister on what impact he expects these notification periods to have. What guidance can be provided to housing providers, given their independence, to make it clear that private sector sales should be a plan B? What support will local authorities have to purchase these properties?

Moving briefly on to shared ownership, I welcome the Minister’s close attention to the operation and effectiveness of shared ownership. Ministers will know about the case of Shaftesbury Place, because I have raised that building near Earls Court before. It has approximately 30 shared ownership flats that have experienced a twenty-onefold increase in building insurance due to a disputed fire risk assessment. The shared ownership leaseholders have consistently raised issues—broken security gates, cleaning, unauthorised access requests and late accounts—with the management of the building by Notting Hill Genesis,. In many ways, these residents are experiencing the same challenges that many leaseholders have with managing agents in the private sector, for which I hope the Government will introduce a new independent regulator. Can the Minister assure me that how housing associations manage shared ownership properties will be considered not only under forthcoming leasehold reforms, but in the Department’s work to review the challenges of shared ownership?

I welcome the new measures in this Bill to keep victims of domestic abuse safer, and I look forward to seeing those powers used by landlords.

Clearly, there is no one solution to the housing crisis in a community like mine in Kensington and Bayswater, but today’s Bill is an important step forward, and I strongly welcome it.

Representation of the People Bill

Joe Powell Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Liam Byrne]

Let me start with a word of thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), who is not in her place, who said quite rightly that an awful lot has changed since the Bill was first introduced to this House. Indeed, a lot has been revealed over the course of the summer. In fact, reporting in The Times, The Sunday Times, the Financial Times, The Guardian and Byline Times has now revealed 37 different questions around the finances of the Reform party, but no doubt we will find there is an innocent explanation for all of it.

No doubt there is an innocent explanation for why Mr George Cottrell passed $2 million through US-based crypto exchanges just a day or two before he moved the money to his mother, who then went on to make big donations to Reform. No doubt we will learn that Mr Cottrell was in fact on the electoral register when that money was passed. No doubt we will discover that his mother, Fiona Cottrell, declared and did not disguise the fact that the money had ultimately come from her son. No doubt there will be an innocent explanation for why loans to Reform through Britain Means Business were reclassified as donations, even though the party treasurer was not told about that. No doubt there will be an innocent explanation for why the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who—surprise, surprise—is not in his place, did not declare a £5 million donation before he was elected to this place and went off to lobby the Governor of the Bank of England on behalf of his cryptocurrency allies. No doubt it is a complete coincidence that the man who has given Reform half of its fortune—more than £25 million—made his fortune in the crypto industry.

No doubt there is an innocent explanation for all of that. I very much hope that absolutely no offences have been committed. No doubt there is an innocent explanation for all of it—and no doubt it will stink to high heaven to the British public.

I very much hope that all of that has been above the law, but that is not the test for political finance regulation in this country. It is not enough to be above the law; conduct must be above suspicion. And right now, the conduct of political finance in this country is not above suspicion. That is why the measures in this Bill are needed, and that is why it will be madness if we do not use this Bill to once and for all eliminate not just cryptocurrency donations, but the cryptocurrency system from British politics.

I welcome the moves that the Minister has made and the commitment she has made at the Dispatch Box this afternoon to continue to listen to the debate and ensure that the rules under the Bill are as tight as possible. However, the revelations in the newspapers over the summer underline why we must be as hard and as tough as possible. The truth is that right now, the amendments that the Government have tabled to the Bill are full of holes. Under those rules, it would still be possible to move money through digital tokens; it would still be possible to move money through memecoins like the $BRITAIN token; and it would still be possible to aggregate it, convert it into conventional currency and then donate it, for example, to Restore Britain.

We know that this is not some speculative feature of the system. We know that donations that have gone to Reform have been routed through cryptocurrency exchanges like Radom. Now, I have nothing against Radom; it is clearly wholly committed to transparency, which is why it has moved its domicile from Poland to the Cook Islands—that beacon of transparency. With risks like that multiplying, why on earth would we leave loopholes open?

The effect of new clause 34 would be to ban off-ramping, ban new forms of digital currency transactions and ban memecoins, which are exactly the kind of measures that Ministers now need to bring forward. If we want to take the crypto system out of political finance, this is what we need to do.

The final point I want to make is about a larger hole in the Bill, which I hope we will square up to over the course of this debate. There are now Members of this House who are making more out of ad share revenue than they are from their salary. If Elon Musk decided to write a cheque to a political party, under the terms of this Bill it would be outlawed. If he decided to retweet something and generate tens of thousands of pounds in ad share revenue, it would be allowed.

We have got to recognise that over the last five years £200 million has been assembled to build a media political complex on behalf of a party that thinks there is a problem with foreigners but not with foreign money. Frankly, it is time that we eliminated that kind of politics, argument and system from our country.

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

I join others in warmly welcoming the Democracy Minister to her place. I know that the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee will miss her excellent chairing, but it is great to have such a strong ally on these issues in Government.

We have returned to this place after a summer when barely a day has gone by without another political funding scandal on the front pages. As the previous speaker referred to, there have been accusations of impermissible foreign donations, undeclared donations, undeclared gifts, conflicts of interest, undeclared assets, foreign interference and more.

I doubt that anyone in this House could say with confidence that we currently have the right safeguards in place to ensure that dodgy money is kept out of our politics and that sufficient transparency is in place so that the public can judge whether a politician is acting in their interests or in the interests of foreign-based billionaires. That is why this Bill is so important and why so many of the measures in it are welcome.

I am delighted that following the Rycroft review there are amendments to strengthen the Bill, including: the cap on donations from overseas electors; the new residency test to close the potential loophole of people coming back to meddle in our politics; the moratorium on crypto, which will ensure that companies can only donate up to the value of their post-tax profits; and the swift recent action we have seen to look at lower caps on how much parties and candidates can spend during regulated periods. These are all really welcome steps that will help to limit the influence of big money and curb foreign influence.

We have to be alive, though, to the constantly evolving nature of this threat and to ensure that our electoral traditions are not open to abuse. In that spirit, I have a couple of suggestions. I do hope that in the Electoral Commission’s review of spending limits, per the Government amendment, it could also be asked to look at whether the whole concept of the long and short campaign is working to keep spending in check. Candidates have already been selected by parties for the next general election, and many more will be in place by the end of this year, but the long campaign regulated period does not kick in until 4 February 2029. That means, in many cases, more than two years of further uncapped spending, with declaration of interest rules only formally in place for the year before an MP is elected and nothing for candidates who do not win.

This is really important because we know that the reality of modern politics is that campaigning never switches off. I am glad that in this country we have avoided the money-pit of TV advertising that the United States has, but social media means that vast sums of hard-to-trace money can be spent promoting a candidate or party outside of these regulated periods. I am fully supportive of the Government’s intention to bring down the spending cap, and I think that a thorough look at these regulated periods would help to deliver that goal and ensure that capping spending works permanently, not just in those limited periods.

I am also glad that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister have been clear that this Bill is the start of the political reform agenda and not the end. Unfortunately, many of these big money interests and foreign states with malign intent are very good at finding loopholes and working around our laws, and they will continue to do that and adapt once these new laws are enforced. To avoid that risk, the Electoral Commission could also look at donation levels that are currently uncapped to ensure a further check on big money interests.

I welcome the Democracy Minister’s positive engagement on this topic, and I hope that there may be a way to use this Bill to review that issue and build consensus while ensuring that we do not have to wait for a further legislative route in this Parliament, which we all know would be challenging. In that spirit, we do not need legislation to talk about the national commission—we could do that immediately.

As I said, I hope the Bill is the start of the new Administration’s political reform effort and not the end. We all know the context, with plummeting trust, the influence of big money and the fact that many of our voters feel that their politicians are serving not them but other interests. I know that the Minister is committed to going as far as possible. The Bill is in really good shape—it has been strengthened—and I hope that in the summing up from the Dispatch Box we might hear about next steps to take it that little bit further.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was absent from the House for some time to attend a Delegated Legislation Committee. It is a privilege to speak in the debate, because it is the ultimate manifestation of involvement in our democratic process. The policy paper that goes with the Bill says:

“The right to participate in our democracy is a defining aspect of our national identity”.

What that speaks to is equal citizenship: that every citizen, no matter from where, who is on the electoral register in the United Kingdom should be able to have the same right to elect those who make their laws, whether that is for a council, a devolved institution—if they have one—or the Parliament of this United Kingdom. Those who make our laws, whoever they are, should be subject to the right of every citizen to elect them.

What I bring to the debate is the situation in Northern Ireland. That is how it used to be—until 2021, my constituents had the equal right to elect, whether at council, Stormont or Westminster, those who were making their laws—but under what we now call the Windsor framework, in Northern Ireland we are denied the right to elect those who make laws in 300 areas of law. Those laws are not made in this place and they are not made in Stormont. They are made in a foreign Parliament, elected by no one from the United Kingdom.

That takes me back to that founding, underlying principle: the right to participate in our democracy is a defining aspect of our national identity. New clause 122 and amendment 152 bring that matter to the House’s attention by suggesting that unless and until there is an equality impact assessment in respect of the whole United Kingdom’s participation in all aspects of democracy, the Bill should not have effect.

Let me put it to the House like this. The Bill proposes that a 16-year-old in Cardiff, London or Edinburgh who has paid no tax and who has never served their country has full franchise on all aspects of law—they can elect everyone who makes rules governing their lives—but a 67-year-old veteran in Northern Ireland who has paid tax all his life and who has served his country, or any other citizen, is denied that right to elect those who make his or her laws in over 300 areas of law. That is the inequity that I respectfully suggest the House needs to face up to.

Foreign Interference in UK Politics

Joe Powell Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Samantha Dixon]

As I have set out, the Government’s position is that there is a role for financial political donations that have been given in accordance with the rules, to enable British politics to flourish.

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

People want politicians to serve their interests, not those of billionaires or millionaires based overseas, whether they are in the US, Russia, Thailand or, indeed, Montenegro. The revelations of the last few days have shown how important it is to update our rules. Can the Minister confirm that corporate political donations through shell arrangements or foreign-linked entities, with no link to or interest in Britain’s prosperity, will no longer be possible under the proposals?

[Samantha Dixon]

Yes, I can.

Grenfell Tower Fire: Ninth Anniversary

Joe Powell Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

This Sunday will be the ninth anniversary of the Grenfell tower fire. With thousands of others, I will join the silent walk on father’s day to remember the 72 people who lost their lives in an entirely preventable and foreseen tragedy, and to support families who lost parents, siblings and children in unimaginable circumstances.

I know that for the bereaved and for survivors, and for our community in Kensington and Bayswater, this is always a difficult time, because nine years on, there has been no criminal accountability for those responsible; nine years on, the pace of change at local government and at national level is too often too slow; and nine years on, the cladding crisis still affects hundreds of thousands of people across the country. I pay tribute to all those who continue to advocate for truth, justice and change for Grenfell, and to everyone across the country affected by this national scandal.

But it would be a mistake to give up hope. The Metropolitan police said last month that it will hand over files to the Crown Prosecution Service in September this year and that the CPS will make charging decisions by the 10th anniversary in 2027—20 organisations and 57 individuals could face criminal charges, and potential offences under consideration include corporate manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter, fraud, health and safety breaches, and misconduct in public office.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

Justice delayed is justice denied. It is great that the Met has now come to this position. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should try to ensure that the cases are fast-tracked in our criminal system so that justice can now be speeded up?

[Joe Powell]

My hon. Friend is right. We have seen, in recent history, that with events of national significance—from Southport to the recent disturbances on our streets—the criminal justice system has moved really quickly because of the importance of showing that justice is seen to be done. I hope that once the CPS has made its decisions, we will do everything we can to ensure that the court capacity is in place to deliver the trials as soon as possible. I hope the Minister can reassure us that the investigation will continue to be fully funded and that that planning is already taking place with the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice so that the cases are prioritised. If those trials take place, which I obviously hope they will, they will be some of the most complex ever held in the UK. I therefore hope that consideration is also given to a special court or a Nightingale-style court. I know that is being looked at.

Corporate manslaughter convictions are incredibly rare, so it is essential that those responsible face the full force of the law. I also believe that it is completely wrong for any company cited in the public inquiry still to be receiving public contracts. In December I uncovered dozens of contracts with implicated companies, including two current NHS contracts with Rydon, the main contractor for the refurbishment, which was cited in the public inquiry. I urge all public bodies to do a full audit of their contracts, including subcontractors and supply chains, and publish exactly what they find. It is good news that this Government have introduced new powers to exclude companies on grounds such as professional misconduct. Now is the time for procurement offices to start using them.

We have already had a public inquiry that has laid out in stark terms why the fire happened and where responsibility lies, and I am glad that this Government have accepted the recommendations in full and that important progress is being made. It is important not to forget that. The last report shows that 20 of 61 recommendations are complete and 40 are in progress. I am glad that those include progress towards a single construction regulator, the expansion of product regulation, the introduction of residential personal emergency evacuation plans, the idea of a college of fire and rescue, and proposed changes to the statutory fire safety guidance in approved document B.

I am also pleased that, under Lord Roe in the other place, the performance of the Building Safety Regulator is improving, including signing off remediation works more quickly. I welcome the remediation Bill in the King’s Speech, on which I look forward to engaging in this parliamentary Session, so that we can address the outstanding unremediated buildings and the knock-on effects, such as crippling insurance bills for leaseholders.

I acknowledge all that progress, but there is one missing piece of the jigsaw: oversight and accountability. The online tracker for Grenfell recommendations is no doubt helpful, but Grenfell would not have happened at all if we had properly learned the lessons from the Lakanal House fire in 2009 and listened to the coroner’s recommendations. Instead, they sat on a shelf, and an opportunity to save lives was missed. We need a proper system of tracking and following up, not just on major inquiries that get a lot of attention here, but on all the inquests and investigations that lead to recommendations for change. That is why I continue to support the idea of a national oversight mechanism as a legacy for Grenfell.

On 25 February, the Secretary of State said in this House, in answer to my question:

“Work is continuing across Government, including in my Department, on setting up a national oversight mechanism”.—[Official Report, 25 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 363.]

I hope that the Minister can provide us with an update on that work and tell us when we can expect a decision to be made. Such a mechanism would sit alongside the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—the Hillsborough law—which I hope to see back here soon, as landmark reforms that put power in the hands of citizens: a real duty of candour for the state, a level playing field for legal aid, and clear deterrence for misconduct in public office. If we design those well, they will lead to fewer and shorter inquiries, more rapid lesson learning by the state and a culture shift towards openness, which can contribute to the rebuilding of trust in politics and in government in this country.

The culture shift that we need extends to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. I am deeply disappointed that the first decision of the Conservative leadership in the new council term last month was to remove an opposition chair of the housing scrutiny committee. Since Grenfell, that position has been promised to an opposition councillor. It is still unclear to me why or how that decision was taken, because avoiding scrutiny, especially for this council, which is so culpable for the fire, is an extremely bad look. I call on the leadership to think again and to reverse that decision.

Residents in RBKC know that the council needs scrutiny. The independent Regulator of Social Housing reported last year that the housing department was seriously failing, giving it a C3 rating. The council has the third worst complaints record in the country. It likes to say that it gets the basics right. Well, meeting the decent homes standard, so that everyone can have the minimum of a safe and healthy home, is surely a basic human right that any council should be delivering.

The Lancaster West estate surrounding Grenfell is a good example. After the fire, the promise was a model 21st-century housing estate, and that promise is still unfulfilled. I am glad that the Government have stepped in with an additional £8 million to ensure that there are no further delays to the current work, and that that will come alongside additional scrutiny on how that money is spent. I hope that the Minister can provide more details on how residents can be involved, including leaseholders and others, so that new oversight can be shaped by them and that they have confidence in the arrangement. I am also pleased that support was extended to NHS services through the period of the deconstruction of the tower, given the acute risk of mental health issues, and to five local primary schools to provide trauma-informed education around the community.

My final point is a simple one: with the passage of time, we cannot allow a return to business as usual before the fire. Already, we hear rumbles from parts of the construction industry and even, shamefully, some political parties, saying that Grenfell is somehow responsible for the slowdown in house building or that fire safety is a trade-off worth considering. There will always be policy choices for local and national Government to make, but putting life at risk should not be a trade-off we accept. I hope we can work together with empathy and respect—something I suspect Jo Cox would have wanted—and ensure that the legacy of Grenfell is that everyone in this country, regardless of class, race, geography or age, lives in a safe and healthy home.

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.

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.

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.

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.