Oral Answers to Questions

John Healey Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I recognise the concerted work and effort that is going on to deliver homes and infrastructure through the local plan in his area. He rightly says that combined authorities with strategic planning powers will be able to introduce a strategic infrastructure tariff, but charging authorities can already pool their community infrastructure levy receipts to fund infrastructure jointly. We are updating the guidance to make that clearer, but I would be happy to continue that discussion with him.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

In the midst of today’s political chaos, I wonder whether it is worth questioning the Secretary of State at all, as Cabinet members do not seem to be told what Government policy really is. Just as this Government are failing on Brexit, they are failing other big tests, such as taking on vested land interests and fixing the housing crisis. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Select Committee Chair, has just said, the Secretary of State’s own figures show that the price of land can soar hundredfold when planning permission is granted. That profiteering by landowners and agents pushes up the cost of the homes we buy and the rents we pay, and it blocks building the new low-cost homes we need on a big scale. After nearly nine years in government, why has the Secretary of State not put a stop to this?

[James Brokenshire]

It is a bit rich for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about policy, given that his own side has very little policy to show at all on a range of issues. He asks a fair question about building the homes that our country needs, which is why it is right to highlight to the House the 222,000 additional dwellings in the past year. That is profoundly about not only building the homes our country needs, but about ensuring that we are looking at viability and getting these issues of land value capture addressed—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is impossible to describe the extent of my gratitude to the Secretary of State, who is among the most courteous Members of the House, but I say very gently to colleagues that we have a lot of questions to get through. We therefore need short questions and short answers so that we can reach people lower down the Order Paper, because I am more bothered about the Back Benches than I am about the Front Benches.

[John Healey]

The Secretary of State tells us to wait till next year, but he may not be in government next year. In truth, this is a Government who delay and duck the big decisions on housing because they are too dysfunctional and too divided, just as they are on Brexit. His own Members know that their policy is failing and want action taken on land costs, so will he change the law so that the Government can work with councils to compulsorily purchase land without paying for landowner speculation, then use the savings to cut the costs for first-time buyers and renters? Even if the Secretary of State cannot get the backing of the House for his Brexit deal, he would get it for a radical plan to make the land market work for the benefit of the many, and not the few.

[James Brokenshire]

Our policies are not about the many, not about the few; they are for everyone in terms of delivering on our housing agenda. Yes, we will consult on the new draft amended community infrastructure regulations, and I look forward to having the debate on them. It is this Government who are taking action to build the homes that our country needs. We will certainly take no lessons from the other side.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Healey Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

As my hon. Friend will know, we are consulting on the implementation of a ban on inappropriate leaseholds on homes, which are the core of what we are discussing. Legislation will come forward once we have seen the responses to our technical consultation, and there will obviously be plenty of opportunity for colleagues to debate the matter further.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

I start by formally echoing the Secretary of State’s comments about Sir Jeremy Heywood. Many of us were privileged to work with Sir Jeremy, and he was an exceptional civil servant who gave outstanding service to this country. Our deep sympathies are with his wife and family at this time.

As we have heard, many of us have constituents who bought their home but then found that they do not own it and feel ripped off by unfair leasehold contracts. When we hear, repeatedly, that leasehold buyers did not choose their own solicitor, were wrongly told that they could buy their freehold cheaply at any time, or found out later that they had to ask and pay freeholders for permission to own a pet, change their carpets or build a conservatory, the individual cases add up to something bigger. The Government must act, just as with other mis-selling scandals, such as on pensions, mortgages or payment protection insurance. Will the Secretary of State today back an inquiry into this systematic mis-selling to leaseholders?

[James Brokenshire]

I recognise and appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about Sir Jeremy Heywood. I know that that message will have been heard throughout the House.

The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s investigation into leasehold is live, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman recognises the seriousness with which we take the issues that he and others have flagged, and the troubling matters that pertain to some of the practices within the leasehold market. That is why I am taking action.

[John Healey]

It is not the Select Committee’s action that counts, but the Government’s action, which has been too weak and too slow and, critically, largely overlooks the plight of existing leaseholders. An industry survey shows that six in 10 leaseholders did not even know what being a leaseholder meant until after they had bought, and that nine in 10 regret having bought a leasehold at all. Those are classic signs of mis-selling—it is a national scandal. I will give the Secretary of State another chance: when will he stand up for leaseholders and launch an inquiry into mis-selling?

[James Brokenshire]

Nobody is ignoring the issue. That is not only why we are legislating to address the inappropriate use of leasehold for new homes, but why I have underlined today the requests that I have made of the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Competition and Markets Authority. We recognise that there are serious issues, which is why we are taking action. We want to ensure that leaseholders’ concerns are heard and fully understood, and that redress can be provided.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Healey Excerpts

Monday 23rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

As my hon. Friend will know, the Government have provided a £5 billion housing infrastructure fund to ensure that more homes mean better, not more stretched, local infrastructure. The draft national planning policy framework does make it clear that local authorities should ensure that the necessary infrastructure supports developments that they approve.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

So many people’s dream of buying their own home has been dashed, yet the number of new low-cost homes built for first-time buyers has halved since 2010. Why?

[James Brokenshire]

I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are dealing with what has been a broken housing market—something that has existed over many years, with that lack of investment—which is why this Government are committed to investing £44 billion on the home building agenda in the coming years. That is about transforming life chances, and actually delivering the homes that our country needs and such opportunities for generations to come.

[John Healey]

This Government have had more than eight years to do the job, and what they are doing is not working. Home ownership rose under Labour, but has now hit a 30-year low under the Conservatives. We cannot just stoke prices with tax cuts and home-buy loans; we need to build more low-cost homes to make home ownership more affordable. More than three years on from the Government promising 200,000 cut-price starter homes, why is the total number so far built zero?

[James Brokenshire]

Last year, we saw the homes that are being delivered at a high, and that has not been any greater, other than in one year, over the last 30 years. The right hon. Gentleman glosses over Labour’s record, but what did we see when Labour was in power? House building—down by 45%. Homes bought and sold—down by 40%. Social housing—down by 400,000. However, there was one thing that kept going up: the number of people on the social housing waiting list. It is this Government who are determined to deliver.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I know that the shadow Secretary of State wanted to raise a point of order, which he has promised to do with commendable brevity.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have just had over an hour of oral questions on the day before the long summer recess, yet we have had no update from the Secretary of State on a number of promises he made about when important policy announcements would be made. On 9 May, he said:

“The Government will bring forward a Rough Sleeping Strategy in July”.

It has not been published. On 11 June, he said:

“we’ll be publishing a Social Housing Green Paper by recess.”

It has not been published. On 9 July, he said that he would come forward with the finalised national planning policy framework before the summer recess. It has not been published. What assistance can you give me and the House to make sure that, when promises are made by Ministers, they are honoured, and that important policy announcements are not dribbled out over the recess when this House is not sitting and cannot scrutinise them?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his attempted point of order. I do not wish to treat it with levity because it is a matter of the utmost importance. He seeks assistance from me and asks what I can do. I suppose I ought to begin by saying what I cannot do. I cannot delay the summer recess; the summer recess will be a fact. It is not entirely without precedent for Ministers to issue policy announcements during periods of recess. The Secretary of State is in his place and will have heard with crystal clarity what the right hon. Gentleman said. If the Secretary of State wants to give any earnest of his good intentions in this matter, he can do so, but alternatively he can remain—and apparently is remaining—glued to his seat, from which the right hon. Gentleman, Sherlock Holmes-style, must make his own deductions.

Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation and Liability for Housing Standards) Bill

John Healey Excerpts

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mrs Wheeler]

I, too, congratulate everyone on the Bill team and all the lawyers who have been working on this matter. This is a sensible amendment that the Government accept and are very happy to support.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on a Bill Committee for the first time, Mr Wilson. In the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North introduced the first group of amendments, perhaps I may deal with amendment 4 but also speak a little more widely. That may help you decide, Mr Wilson, whether we should have a clause stand part debate and how wide it should be.

I underline the Opposition’s continued strong support for the Bill. It sets out exactly the legal changes that Opposition Front Benchers tried to introduce two years ago into the Housing and Planning Bill. We were resisted at that time, which is why in January I warmly welcomed the Minister and the Conservative party’s change of approach. I also welcome the willingness of the Government to set up a second Committee to deal with the bottleneck that we had regarding private Members’ Bills that have reached this stage.

I pay tribute to the work that the Minister and her officials have done. They have not taken this private Member’s Bill and filleted it, as sometimes happens. On the contrary, on amendment 4 they have proved willing, as they suggested on Second Reading, to extend the basic provisions on the responsibility of landlords to make and keep fit for human habitation—not just to make repairs—to common parts as well. I strongly welcome that.

I, too, pay tribute to the advisers that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North has had in Giles Peaker and Justin Bates. They are among the finest housing lawyers in the country. The Committee and the House are very fortunate to have their unremunerated commitment and expertise behind the Bill.

Above all, I cannot let this opportunity go by without paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North. This really is the Buck Bill. This is not a hand-out Bill from Government, or a Bill prepared by an outside organisation and thrust into the hands of a Member who has come out high in the private Member’s Bill ballot. My hon. Friend has worked for a long time to develop the content of, and the case for, the legislation. She has also worked for some time to build the coalition of support behind the measures, which includes the Residential Landlords Association and the National Landlords Association.

The Bill is a really important step forward. My hon. Friend has mentioned the scale of the desperately bad, indefensible housing that too many people, as tenants, have to put up with across the country. You will be familiar with that, Mr Wilson, from many cases in your own part of the north-east. The provisions in the Bill are long overdue.

Finally, I say gently to the Minister that I am so glad that the Government have shifted their view and accepted, in this small way, the need to regulate more strongly a market that the Prime Minister herself described as “broken”. I hope it will be a first step towards some of the other changes that are clearly necessary, such as longer tenancies, controls on rents and greater licensing of private landlords. Will the Minister give us an indication of when mandatory electrical safety checks will see the light of day, given that they are already part of legislation? They would be a great complement to the provisions that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North is leading on for us today.

[Mrs Wheeler]

I have nothing further to add, other than to say that we support the amendment.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Amendments made: 4, in clause 1, page 2, line 28, at end insert—

“( ) Where a lease to which this section applies of a dwelling in England forms part only of a building, the implied covenant has effect as if the reference to the dwelling in subsection (1) included a reference to any common parts of the building in which the lessor has an estate or interest.”

This amendment would extend the implied covenant as to fitness for human habitation in cases where the dwelling forms a part of a building to any of the building’s common parts in which the landlord has an estate or interest.

Amendment 5, in clause 1, page 2, line 38, at end insert—

“‘common parts’ has the meaning given by section 60(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987;”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 4.

Amendment 6, in clause 1, page 3, line 7, after “(4)” insert “, (4A)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 7.

Amendment 7, in clause 1, page 3, line 20, at end insert—

“(4A) Section 9A applies to a periodic or secure tenancy that comes into existence after the commencement date on expiry of a term of a lease granted before that date.”

This amendment would ensure that the implied covenant as to fitness for human habitation will apply to a periodic or secure tenancy that comes into existence after the date on which the Bill comes into force in a case where the tenancy arises out of a fixed term tenancy granted before that date.

Amendment 8, in clause 1, page 3, line 45, leave out

“and Liability for Housing Standards”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 15.

Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 4, line 2, at end insert—

“9C Application of section 9A to certain dwellings occupied by agricultural workers

(1) This section applies where under a contract of employment of a worker employed in agriculture—

(a) the provision of a dwelling for the worker’s occupation forms part of the worker’s remuneration, and

(b) the provisions of section 9A (implied term as to fitness for human habitation) are inapplicable by reason only of the dwelling not being let to the worker.

(2) There is implied as part of the contract of employment (in spite of any stipulation to the contrary) a term having the same effect as the covenant that would be implied by section 9A if the dwelling were let by a lease to which that section applies.

(3) The provisions of section 9A apply accordingly—

(a) with the substitution of ‘employer’ and ‘employee’ for ‘lessor’ and ‘lessee’, and

(b) with such other modifications as may be necessary.

(4) This section does not affect—

(a) any obligation of a person other than the employer to repair a dwelling to which the covenant implied by section 9A applies by virtue of this section, or

(b) any remedy for enforcing such an obligation.”

This amendment, which replicates section 9 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in relation to the new implied covenant, is consequential on Amendments 1 and 2.

Amendment 10, in clause 1, page 4, line 3, leave out subsection (3).

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 1 and 2.

Amendment 11, in clause 1, page 4, line 11, leave out sub-paragraph (i) and insert—

“(i) after ‘house’, in both places where it occurs, insert ‘or dwelling’;”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 1 and 2.

Amendment 12, in clause 1, page 4, line 15, before “any” insert

“in relation to a dwelling in England,”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 1 and 2.

Amendment 13, in clause 1, page 4, line 27, after “habitation” insert “of dwellings in England”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 1 and 2.

Amendment 14, in clause 1, page 4, line 27, at end insert—

“( ) In section 302 of the Housing Act 1985 (management and repair of houses acquired under section 300 or retained under section 301), in paragraph (c)—

(a) for ‘section 8’ substitute ‘sections 8 and 9A’, and

(b) for ‘does’ substitute ‘do’.”—(Ms Buck.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 1 and 2.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

We are debating clause 2 stand part. Clause 2(2), which I am glad to see survived the joint work with the Department, states:

“This Act comes into force at the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which it is passed.”

The Minister and her team will be not only working on the content of the Bill, but planning and anticipating its implementation. When does she expect Royal Assent, and therefore the Act to come into force?

[Bob Blackman]

I echo the appreciation and thanks expressed to the hon. Member for Westminster North for introducing the Bill. She tabled an amendment to my private Member’s Bill that helped vulnerable people being offered accommodation by local authorities, to ensure that their homes were fit for habitation. That was a complementary move, and I strongly support today’s Bill.

I have a few questions for the Minister, which I will ask now rather than intervening when she rises to speak. My first question complements what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said. One concern is that tenants who complain of the poor standard of the accommodation in which they live may be subject to retaliatory evictions. Clearly the Government must take action on that, or the teeth of the Bill will be irrelevant. Will the Minister ensure that the Government consider how to prevent retaliatory evictions? Will she also look at the issue of the guidance that the Department gives local authorities on enforcement? That is another key aspect of the Bill.

Thirdly, will the Minister look at the concerns that have been raised by a number of tenants’ groups and representatives of organisations that are looking at the degree of tolerance of homes that are unfit? I raised with the hon. Member for Westminster North the concern of who defines fitness. It is clear when a place is terribly bad, but electrical dangers can be unseen and the tenant may not have the knowledge to be aware of them. How is that to be determined? It is part and parcel of what we want to do to ensure that tenants are safe and clear.

While I am on my feet, I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Healey Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I am sure that we were all horrified to see the terrible fire at the Glasgow School of Art. We should think about what that iconic building has meant to so many people over the years. The hon. Lady highlights the issue of sprinklers. May I be clear on that: for existing buildings, it is for the building owner to decide whether to fit sprinklers retrospectively, as part of a fire safety strategy? Obviously, it is for building owners to make those determinations, but, clearly, it can be an effective safety measure, as part of an overarching strategy.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, you and I and other Members of the House were privileged to be part of the Grenfell silent walk with survivors and supporters last Thursday. They, like this House, want Ministers to take every action necessary to prevent such a fire ever happening again, yet, since Grenfell, 1,319 suspect cladding samples sent to the Government’s testing centre have been refused testing, as Ministers say that they will only test the aluminium composite material the Minister spoke of earlier. Why?

[James Brokenshire]

I will happily look into what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The Building Research Establishment’s focus has obviously been on the ACM material that has been at the forefront of concerns to ensure that, in both the public and the private sectors, that can be tested so that where cladding does not meet the necessary standards, it is dealt with and remediation steps take place. I will certainly look in greater detail at the point that he has made.

[John Healey]

That simply is not good enough from the Secretary of State. The BRE does what Ministers tell it to do. We know that other cladding and insulation materials have been found unsafe. We know that the Hackitt review has confirmed that the whole building regulation system from end to end is, as she says, not fit for purpose. Since Grenfell, Ministers have been too slow to take responsibility and too slow to act. This Conservative dogma of “hands off” is delaying the Government action necessary to deal with this national disaster. Will he give local authorities powers to demand that testing and recladding are actually done? Will he release the details that he holds on tower block owners who will not do this work, and will he set a deadline, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) says, for all landlords to make their buildings safe or make it clear that Government will step in and then make them?

[James Brokenshire]

I firmly recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the urgency of the situation, which is why we have committed an additional £1 million to local authorities to identify the sites. In my time as Secretary of State, we have made an additional commitment of £400 million to the social sector to ensure that we get on with this remediation. I am intent on pursuing that level of action and focus to ensure that a sense of safety and assurance is given. Since the publication of Judith Hackitt’s report, I have announced that we are pursuing a consultation to bring into effect a ban on combustible cladding. The right hon. Gentleman and the House should be in no doubt that this Government gives priority to the issue, and we will continue to pursue that approach.

Draft Client Money Protection Schemes for Property Agents (Approval and Designation of Schemes) Regulations 2018 Draft Client Money Protection Schemes for Property Agents (Requirement to Belong to a Scheme etc.) Regulations 2018

John Healey Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2018 General Committees

[Mrs Wheeler]

I thank my hon. Friend for his interesting question. I will come to it in the rest of my speech.

Making client money protection mandatory will ensure that every tenant and landlord has the financial protection they need. It will bring the property agent sector into line with others where client money is held, such as the legal profession and travel operators.

Before I set out the detail of the regulations, I want to establish the legislative context. The Housing and Planning Act 2016 provided powers for the introduction of client money protection requirements. Following Royal Assent, the Government invited Baroness Hayter and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill to chair a client money protection working group. The working group reported in March 2017, and its recommendation to make client money protection mandatory was accepted by the Government. The Government consulted on implementing mandatory client money protection in November 2017, and there was broad support for our proposals.

I will now introduce the two sets of regulations. The first set—the approval regulations—establishes the procedure for Government to approve privately run client money protection schemes. The second set—the requirements regulations—requires agents in the private rented sector to belong to one of those approved schemes if they handle client money. These two sets of regulations, which together provide the framework for client money protection, are the subject matter for debate before the House today.

I turn first to the approval regulations, which require any client money protection scheme to be approved by the Secretary of State in order to operate. This is to ensure that all schemes meet minimum standards and offer sufficient financial protection. The Government do not intend to create their own scheme at this time. That would be unnecessary, given the number of schemes in the market already. However, the regulations allow the Government to do so in future, so that any protection can be maintained in the unlikely event that the market ceases to offer provision.

In order to obtain approval, client money protection schemes must meet certain conditions, including those that are designed to ensure that landlords and tenants can easily obtain compensation. The scheme administrator must ensure that it has procedures in place so that valid claims are paid as soon as reasonably practicable—I love that word. It cannot make deductions from those claims. The scheme administrator must also hold a level of insurance cover that is appropriate given the amount of client money held by its members. Schemes must put in place arrangements so that in the event of the scheme closing, their members would be notified and transferred to an alternative scheme.

The approval regulations also establish minimum standards that must be set in scheme rules. They include requirements for members to hold money in a separate client account; to have written, transparent procedures for handling client money; and to maintain adequate records.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way in her explanation of what she describes as the approval regulations. What would be her success or failure criteria, which would trigger the Government’s re-thinking of the matter and their implementation of the provision in the regulations for setting up their own scheme?

[Mrs Wheeler]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. We do not anticipate any failure, particularly because the schemes are backed by insurance. It is, however, a matter of form that the Government always provide in regulations that they can react, should the need arise.

Scheme rules must also require members to hold an appropriate level of professional indemnity insurance cover, to ensure that client money protection schemes are not overwhelmed with claims. The first port of call for a consumer making a claim should be their agent and their agent’s insurers; I hope that that somewhat answers the right hon. Gentleman’s question. Finally, schemes must provide key information to the Department on a quarterly basis to enable us to monitor their performance. If a scheme’s standards are not maintained, its approval can be withdrawn.

[John Healey]

Before the Minister moves on, if the Department requires, and will receive, quarterly reports on the activity and the performance of each of the schemes, will she undertake to make that quarterly performance information public?

[Mrs Wheeler]

I will come to that in my closing remarks. I turn to the requirements regulations, which will require all property agents in the private sector to obtain membership of a Government-approved client money protection scheme by 1 April 2019. Those agents will need to meet increased transparency requirements, publish details of scheme membership and inform clients when they lose cover.

The Government recognise that robust and effective enforcement is essential to the implementation of mandatory client money protection. Agents that fail to get client money protection may be subject to a financial penalty of up to £30,000. Those that do not meet transparency requirements will face a penalty of up to £5,000. The regulations level the playing field by ensuring that it is not just reputable agents that offer protection.

For those agents that do not yet have client money protection, we anticipate that obtaining it will not be disproportionately burdensome. Indeed, the average annual fee for cover is only between £300 and £500. It is important to highlight that these requirements apply only where landlord and tenant money is held by a property agent, and so is at risk. Agents can instead choose to eliminate the risk by, for example, allowing tenants to pay their rent to the landlords directly. The new requirements should therefore not deter new entrants to the market.

Hon. Members may be aware that we have committed to introducing a new regulatory framework for letting and managing agents, and to prohibiting letting agents from charging fees directly to tenants. Mandatory client money protection will be an important part of this regulatory framework, which will give landlords and tenants assurance when using an agent. I will close there and answer the questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and to have the Minister back in her place on the Front Bench.

If the hon. Member for Lichfield and the Minister look at the consultation document on client money protection schemes, they will see that the total funds held by what the draft regulations call “regulated property agents” are estimated to be around £2.7 billion at any one time. The consultation document states that only around 60% of those agents are members of voluntary schemes, and that suggests that around £700 million or £800 million is held by agents that are not part of a scheme. That helps to underline the case for the draft regulations.

[Michael Fabricant]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his helpful comments. No doubt we will hear from the Minister about this, but does the right hon. Gentleman have any indication of how many actual failures there have been? Yes, that money is unprotected, but where are the examples—there must be some—of money not being passed on?

[John Healey]

If the hon. Gentleman reads Lords Hansard from 17 March 2016, he will see that my colleague Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town, who led for Labour on the Housing and Planning Bill—as the Minister mentioned, that contains the parental provisions for the draft regulations—in pressing the case for a compulsory scheme rather than the existing voluntary scheme, cited several examples of property agents pocketing money, from landlords as well as renters, and going missing. Baroness Hayter cited six or seven obvious, recent cases, but there is a track record of hundreds of such cases in recent years, which underlines the case for the draft regulations. I encourage him to look at that debate, although the Minister may well give him other examples.

I was diverted before I had started. The Minister has introduced two draft regulations, so will she confirm which four housing regulations she will repeal? It is important for the Committee, before it approves the draft regulations, to understand the consequences for provisions or protections in other fields. If she cannot do that, will she confirm whether the Government’s policy of two out, one in for regulations, which has been their policy for several years, is still in place or whether it has been dumped?

As the Minister said, the draft regulations derive from the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which was given Royal Assent in May 2016. I happen to have led from the Front Bench the opposition, inside and outside Parliament, to that Bill. The draft regulations are, in many ways, a ghost from the past. This debate reminds me of many of the debates we had during the long proceedings on that long Bill. I am reminded, too, of the 19 defeats the Government suffered on it—double the total number of defeats on all the Bills in the previous Session. Of course, that does not count the concessions that the Government made during proceedings on the Bill, which led us to withdraw amendments that we might otherwise have pressed to votes that we might well have won.

That is the background to the draft regulations. Pressed by Labour, both in the Public Bill Committee in this place and in Committee and on Report in the other place, the Government were prepared to talk and to consider this issue further, so, although it very well might have done, it did not register as defeat No. 20.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill was pretty poorly put together from the start? If the Government had discussed things in more detail from the start, it might have been improved.

[The Chair]

Order. We do not need the hon. Lady’s rereading of the original Bill. We are considering the statutory instruments in front of us today, not the Bill itself. Perhaps the shadow Minister will return to that subject.

[John Healey]

I am grateful for your instruction, Mr Gray. I think my hon. Friend is too generous in her description of that piece of legislation. Compulsory client money protection schemes were the subject of debate, and the case for them was pressed strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) in this House and by Baroness Hayter in the other place.

I welcome the fact that, after Royal Assent, the Government were prepared to set up the working party that the Minister mentioned, and to have it chaired jointly by Baroness Hayter and Lord Palmer. That marked a welcome move in the Government’s standpoint beyond the unthinking dogma of the Minister’s predecessor. Of the proposal to make these schemes mandatory, as these regulations do, he said that he was concerned that requiring letting agents to belong to a client protection scheme

“would be a step too far and would overburden a market that is perfectly capable of self-regulation”––[Official Report, Housing and Planning Public Bill Committee, 10 December 2015; c. 719.]

I am glad to say that, two and a half years on, the Minister has made it clear that the Government’s mind has changed. As she said, when the working group reported in March 2017, its first recommendation was that

“The Government uses its powers in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to make Client Money Protection mandatory”.

That is very important background to the detail of this legislation. In some respects, the regulations represent the implementation of a welcome part of that Act. Flagship parts of the Act—starter homes, the forced sale of council housing and the extension of the right to buy to housing associations—

[The Chair]

Order. We really must stick to the two statutory instruments in front of us, not the rest of the Act.

[John Healey]

Of course, Mr Gray. I appreciate that, but I want to use those examples to make this point: in 2016, the Government won their legislation— although it was heavily amended—but we won the arguments. Those arguments underpin the case for the regulations.

[The Chair]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman says what he says in such an elegant, amusing and charming way that it is very difficult to interrupt him, but it is important that we keep this debate purely to the two statutory instruments that are before us. We have had some fun discussing the background to the Bill in general over the past couple of minutes, but we should now focus entirely on these two statutory instruments and nothing else.

[John Healey]

Thank you, Mr Gray.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is spelling things out really well. What we really want to say is, “We told you so.”

[John Healey]

I have never understood why my really talented hon. Friend hides himself away in the Whips Office. He has quite clearly demonstrated how effective he would be speaking from the Front Bench, rather than simply sitting on the Front Bench.

That was perhaps a rather long preamble. What I really want to say is that the Opposition welcome these regulations, because they cover the ground that we urged on the Government previously. In a way, they make good a gap. Solicitors, other professionals and even estate agents are required to have money protection schemes in place. We have a mandatory money protection scheme in place for renters’ tenancy deposits. The regulations are well overdue, and they are welcome because of that. Many of the better firms in the industry have backed this for some time. The Association of Residential Letting Agents, the British Property Federation, the Association of Residential Managing Agents, the ombudsman and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee have, for some time, all been of the view—as have the Opposition—that this is a necessary step.

In the end, the principled case for these regulations is surely that there is no real market in letting agents for renters. Renters cannot shop around for their letting agent, because they do not choose the letting agent who is responsible for the home that they rent and live in, or for the home that they want to rent; that decision is for the landlord. People have no choice about that, because they choose the property and not the letting agent. The draft regulations are a well overdue and welcome recognition of that fundamental point.

[Catherine West]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have a large number of cowboys in the industry? There is no other way of putting it.

[John Healey]

We do. I have been known to describe some parts of the private rented sector as the wild west, to pick up on her analogy. The draft regulations are narrow; they are a welcome but small step in a market that may leave the majority of renters satisfied at the moment, but that contains some significant rough or rogue practice. The measures will, in a small way, help to make the market fairer and better for landlords and tenants. One of the important secondary arguments in favour of these regulations is that they will clearly benefit landlords as well as tenants.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I want to reinforce the point just made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green. It is good news that the Government are bringing forward the draft regulations. They are overdue. Good agents in the industry are given a bad name by the cowboys out there, and these measures will reinforce the efforts of local authorities that introduce licensing schemes to tidy up the whole sector.

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right. He knows—although I do not wish to try your patience, Mr Gray—that I am a strong advocate of licensing schemes for landlords, but those are for landlords and the measure we are discussing is for regulated property agents.

The real question is to what extent the draft regulations will work. Will the regulations do the job, and will they work well enough? I have a number of questions for the Minister—[Interruption.] She sighs, but I am afraid that is her job, as it is my job and that of the Committee to ensure that regulations we may accept or approve are up to the job that she says she wants done.

The Minister said in her opening remarks that the draft regulations must provide robust and effective enforcement. On the question of enforcement, how was the figure of £5,000 as the maximum fine for failing to display the details of scheme membership decided, and is it sufficient? How was the figure of £30,000 as the maximum fine for failing to register in a scheme decided, and is it sufficient?

As I said to the hon. Member for Lichfield, the Government’s consultation document makes clear the scale of funds held by agents that are not their money but are held on behalf of landlords and renters in different ways—£2.7 billion. Set that alongside some of the big companies in the field, such as Foxtons, which expects lettings income in 2017-18 of about £66 million—Countrywide expects total earnings of 10 times more than that—and that puts into some perspective the question of maximum, not automatic, fines of £30,000 and £5,000. There are real questions about whether that will be sufficient sanction, or deterrent, for companies in the field. After all, two out of five of them could already be doing something through voluntary schemes, but are not doing so. Is the level of fine sufficient to do the robust, effective enforcement job that the Minister talks about?

The Minister may say that landlords can be fined, for example, for overcrowding their houses up to a similar maximum level, but landlords can also be banned from being landlords in the worst cases. Those worst rogues may be the cowboys talked about by my hon. Friends. Why is there no similar provision in these regulations, and what consideration did the Minister give to a similar—let us use what seems to be the term of the moment this week—backstop power? Finally on fines, why write the figure into the draft order? That clearly means that it is then fixed, unless and until the House decides to legislate again to alter, and perhaps necessarily to raise, those fees.

On enforcement, who will enforce the draft regulations? I encourage the Minister to turn to regulation 5(1) in the requirement regulations—in her terminology—which says:

“It is the duty of every local authority in England…to enforce the requirements of regulations”.

Paragraph 7.18 of the draft explanatory memorandum says:

“Local authorities will be responsible for enforcing these requirements.”

Which part of local authorities will do the enforcement? Will it be trading standards? That is my assumption, because the transparency provisions in place at present under the voluntary CMP schemes are enforced by trading standards. If that is the case, not every local authority has a trading standards department. As the Minister will know from representing South Derbyshire, which is a two-tier area, not every authority has the powers of a weights and measures authority. What will be the enforcement capacity and role of, for instance, district councils in two-tier areas?

On enforcement, I will mention the costs. I looked carefully at the draft impact assessment—I do not know if the Minister signed it off—but I could not see any estimate of costs to the local authorities responsible for enforcement. Will she tell the Committee how much the Department has calculated that this will cost the local authorities that have effective and robust enforcement? Clearly, the draft regulations contain a provision for local authorities to retain any fines levied. Has she calculated how much she expects local authorities to be able to levy through these provisions on a stable annual basis? Finally, has the Department applied the new burdens principle to this new duty of enforcement, which, if the draft regulations are written correctly, will apply to every local authority? That seems clearly appropriate to me.

Finally, the experience of implementation—particularly of important measures over the last eight years—has reinforced the case that the Government are often very bad at doubling back and assessing whether what they have done has actually worked. I encourage the Minister to give the Committee an undertaking that, say, 12 months after the draft regulations come into effect, she will review the way they are working and will report to the House, so that we can see whether the case she put to the Committee in support of the draft regulations has been realised and the regulations are working as intended.

[Mrs Wheeler]

What a pleasure it was to hear those three extra questions, further to the three earlier questions. I thank you for chairing the debate, Mr Gray. I also thank the Committee Clerks and the Doorkeepers and everybody who has been involved in organising it, and I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions.

To address some of the points raised, there have actually been only a small number of cases in which claims have been made against existing CMP schemes. The reason why we are going forward with the draft regulations is that this is a growing sector, and so claims may sadly increase in the future. The point of the draft regulations is to protect people involved in this area. We are finishing off the original legislation.

[John Healey]

Does the Minister accept that the measure of why the regulations are needed is not complaints against members of current schemes? The basis for the regulations is that those not in schemes are stealing money, keeping money and sometimes prosecuted for doing so when it is not their money. That is why it is so important to have mandatory schemes to fill the gap. The problem is not with schemes and members of them making complaints. The biggest case for the regulations is to fill the gap where no schemes exist and members are operating as regulated property agents without regulation.

[Mrs Wheeler]

Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is completely correct. We want a level playing field across this area of work. To answer his first three questions, the intention is to designate a governmental scheme only if market provision is insufficient. There is no indication at present that that is likely, but it is good and prudent practice to put that measure into legislation, should the need arise.

It would not be appropriate to publish quarterly, as the information would contain some commercially sensitive information. However, the Government will scrutinise and challenge if standards are not met. As regards the housing regulations and what might be repealed, to repeat myself, these statutory instruments finish off the 2016 legislation, so it is not a matter of deleting other areas of legislation.

[John Healey]

The Minister is right, but my question was whether the Government’s policy of two out, one in on regulations is still extant.

[Mrs Wheeler]

That is not a matter for today. This is a matter of closing the original 2016 legislation.

[John Healey]

I am sorry, but it must be a matter for the Committee. It must be relevant to the two regulations that the Minister is asking the Committee to approve. If Government policy requires that four regulations, probably in the housing field, must be repealed as a result of what we might approve, that is clearly a matter for the Committee. I am asking a simple question: does the Government still have a two out, one in policy on regulations? Yes or no is the only answer that is needed.

[Mrs Wheeler]

I repeat my answer from before: we are closing the legislation that came in in 2016, exactly as we said we would. I will give the right hon. Gentleman no other answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Wheeler]

As the hon. Lady knows—we have also made a great point of this in the Tenant Fees Bill—the £5,000 fine and the £30,000 fine will remain with councils, and we expect councils to be able to fund services because of such fines coming in.

[John Healey]

May I encourage the Minister to get her head together with her colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak)? He dealt with that point, which she is right is relevant to the Bill that has been considered in Public Bill Committee today. He made it clear to that Committee this morning that every local authority will have an enforcement role, not that a lead authority would be appointed to do that job for them in some areas. I will not press her for a definitive answer now, but may I suggest that there may be a difference in the view we are getting on the same day from two Ministers from the same Department? Perhaps they could get their heads together and get it clear for both pieces of legislation and write to members of both Committees.

[Mrs Wheeler]

I would be delighted to answer the right hon. Gentleman now. This is a different piece of legislation under different law—the 2016 Act. This is consumer focused, which is why it is about trading standards. It is not a matter of housing, where we are worried about enforcement and environmental health issues, which is why district councils are getting involved in that Bill. This is completely different.

[John Healey]

As the Minister said, the discussion this morning was about client money protection. It was not about environmental or housing standards; it was about the very issue that is also relevant to the Tenant Fees Bill.

[Mrs Wheeler]

The right hon. Gentleman obviously had a very lenient Chair, who allowed Members to stray into that area on the Bill this morning. We are now talking about this Bill and this matter. As regards the figures of £5,000 and £30,000, we believe that those figures are high enough, particularly given that it is per individual case of failure, not over the course of a year, so we agree that that is the correct level. As it happens, it does also mirror the other Bill, which I will not mention again.

Grenfell Tower

John Healey Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for honouring his commitment to make this statement following our Opposition day debate and for giving me early sight of it this afternoon.

In this anniversary week, we remember the 72 people who lost their lives through the Grenfell Tower fire, and we will not forget our special duty as Members of Parliament to do right by them and by those who survive them.

Directly after this national disaster, the Prime Minister was right to make the first statement to the House herself, and she had the whole House with her when she pledged that Grenfell residents would have all the help and new homes they needed and that every necessary step would be taken to stop this ever happening again. Imagine the reaction if the Prime Minister had said instead, “One year on, more than half of Grenfell survivors will still be stuck in hotel rooms or temporary accommodation; more than 300 other tower blocks around the country will have the same Grenfell-style cladding, yet only 10 will have had it removed and replaced; there will be more tower blocks in private hands that have still not been tested; and, astonishingly, the Government will still not know how many high-rise tower blocks there are in the country.” In truth, Ministers have been off the pace and too slow to act at every stage for 12 months, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s admission of that this afternoon. The Government’s response has not been good enough, and it is still not good enough. The time for warm words is long past. More action, not more apologies, is needed now.

On rehousing survivors, Grenfell residents feel that they were failed before the fire, and many feel failed since. They were promised permanent new homes within a year, but only 82 of the 209 households are in permanent new homes. On the wider Grenfell estate, only 39 of 127 are in permanent new homes. The dossier released today by the North Kensington law centre catalogues the defects in the new homes that have been offered, which include damp, delayed repairs and tenancy terms different from those for the homes people lost in the tower. The Secretary of State told the House on 16 May that he was

“establishing at pace what further action could be taken, by the Government or by the council, to speed up this process.”—[Official Report, 16 May 2018; Vol. 641, c. 314.]

However, he has told us nothing more today. What further action is he taking? What deadline has he set for all survivors to be permanently rehoused so that they can begin to rebuild their lives? Without a deadline, more words of regret will simply ring hollow to the still homeless residents of Grenfell Tower.

Turning to the safety of the other high-rise blocks around the country, after 12 months only 10 of more than 300 with the same Grenfell-type cladding have had it replaced, despite the Prime Minister’s promise to

“do whatever it takes to…keep our people safe.”

We welcome the funding for social housing tower blocks, which was pledged under Labour pressure, and we welcome the Secretary of State’s intention to ban combustible material on the outside of high-rise blocks, which was also pledged under pressure.

May I keep up the pressure following the statement this afternoon and persuade the Secretary of State to go further and take the action that is now needed? Will he accept that sprinklers must be retrofitted in high-rise blocks, and will he set up an emergency fire safety fund to help council and housing association landlords with the costs? Will he publish in full the details that the Department holds on the location, ownership, testing status and evacuation policy of all high-rise blocks confirmed unsafe? Will he make it clear to private block owners that they, not residents, have the legal duty to pay for replacing dangerous cladding? Finally, will he strengthen councils’ enforcement powers and sanctions so that they can act when private landlords will not make their buildings safe? That is how we honour the promises made in this House. That is how we ensure that, as the Secretary of State said today, when we say never again, we mean it.

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his response. I can say to him that, yes, we are very firmly focused on the outstanding issue of those needing to move into permanent accommodation. Since my last statement to the House, I have been pressing the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and its contractor. It is fair to say that, as I indicated in the initial response, the council had issues with its contracting that meant it needed to replace its contractor. The council has had a new contractor in place for a number of months that is making important progress on ensuring standards are met in respect of accommodation for those needing to be rehoused and that, actually, there is a firm element of personalisation in that accommodation to ensure that, when residents move in, they can see the care, thought and attention that has been put into the accommodation to make it a home and so that they can feel stability and safety in those new homes.

The right hon. Gentleman made a number of other points in respect of high-rise blocks and the various steps that have been taken over the course of this year. I point him to Dame Judith Hackitt’s comprehensive report on building safety, which gives a real sense of this Government’s commitment to making sustained change on building safety, and, equally, to my decision to go further in respect of banning combustible cladding and to the consultation I will launch next week.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about mandating sprinklers, and I underline to him that, since 2007, building regulations guidance has stated that all new high-rise residential buildings over 30 metres must have sprinklers. Sprinklers can be an effective safety measure, but they are one of many such measures that could be adopted. As Dame Judith Hackitt points out in her report, no single fire safety measure, including sprinklers, can be seen as a panacea.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me to provide details on the list of properties, which is something he has raised before, and there are particular safety concerns around that. In respect of his point on private owners, if he listened to what I have said he would know that I have stated on a number of occasions a very clear message on the responsibility of private owners, and I have underlined to a number of building owners and developers their responsibilities and the need to take action. We have also ensured that local authorities have the appropriate powers to investigate further, as I have previously indicated to the House.

The right hon. Gentleman’s broader point is a very relevant one, on remembering and honouring the victims of this appalling tragedy—one that, across this House, we all fully recognise—and the need for us to work together to ensure that appropriate changes are put in place. I certainly will not shrink from that, and I will certainly work with him on bringing forward changes. He knows that substantive changes have come from the Hackitt review, and I intend to publish further proposals on building regulations before the summer recess. I will certainly be updating the House on that again before the summer recess because, in honour of all those who lost their lives, we must get this right, and that is what the Government intend to do.

Tower Block Cladding

John Healey Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on the action taken and planned by the Government with respect to residents in tower blocks with dangerous cladding, following the Grenfell Tower fire.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)]

We are remembering those who lost their lives in the tragedy at Grenfell Tower today as the public inquiry opens. I know this will be an incredibly difficult time for all those affected. The whole House will join me, I am sure, in sending them our thoughts and prayers. I am determined to ensure that no community suffers again as they have done.

To that end, in the days since the fire, my Department has worked with fire and rescue services, local authorities and landlords to identify high-rise buildings with unsafe cladding; to ensure that interim measures are in place to reduce risks; and to give building owners clear advice about what they need to do over the longer term to make buildings safe. Remediation work has started on two thirds of buildings in the social housing sector, and we have called on building owners in the private sector to follow the example set by the social sector and not pass on costs to leaseholders. I will be holding the first roundtable with representatives from the private sector this week and repeat what I said last week: if the industry does not step up, I am not ruling anything out.

My predecessor and the then Home Secretary asked Dame Judith Hackitt to carry out an independent review of building regulations and fire safety. I welcomed her final comprehensive report last week, which called for major reform. Having listened carefully to the arguments for banning combustible materials in cladding systems on high-rise residential buildings, the Government are minded to agree and will consult accordingly.

In addition, the Prime Minister announced that the Government will fully fund the removal and replacement of potentially dangerous aluminium composite material—ACM—cladding on buildings owned by social landlords, with costs estimated at £400 million. I will be writing to social sector landlords this week setting out more detail.

It is vital that people living in buildings like Grenfell Tower are safe and feel safe. I am confident that the work we are undertaking and the important reforms triggered by the Hackitt review will help to restore confidence and provide the legacy that the Grenfell communities need and deserve.

[John Healey]

As the Secretary of State has said, on this first day of the commemoration hearings at the Grenfell Tower inquiry, we remember the 72 people who lost their lives. We will not forget our special duty as Members of Parliament to do right by them, so it is a matter of deep regret that I must drag Ministers to Parliament again to explain their response to the Grenfell Tower disaster.

The Government have been off the pace at every stage since the fire. More than eleven months on from Grenfell, how is it that two thirds of Grenfell survivors are still in hotels or temporary accommodation? How is it that the Government still do not know how many private tower blocks are unsafe? How is it that only seven out of more than 300 tower blocks across the country with the same Grenfell-style cladding have had it removed and replaced? How can it be that Ministers offered money to councils and housing association landlords for re-cladding costs and finally agreed to consult on a combustible cladding ban only last week?

Many people will have learned only yesterday that the London fire service has fundamentally changed its safety advice to residents in blocks still wrapped with the same Grenfell-style cladding. In place of “stay put” if a fire breaks out—strong advice given for decades to all residents in all tower blocks across the country, including those in Grenfell Tower—the London fire brigade now says “get out” directly. Do all fire brigades now give the same advice? Do all residents in all blocks with unsafe cladding know that? I say to the Minister that more action, more clarity and more urgency are required from the Government.

When will the Secretary of State publish a clear national statement on evacuation policy? When will he confirm when all tower blocks be re-clad? When will he get sprinklers retrofitted—the Opposition and fire chiefs have argued that they are needed? When will he make public the location, ownership and fire safety status of all high-rise blocks at risk? The information is held by the Government, but Ministers are keeping it secret. We know that the Secretary of State knows—he is the new Secretary of State—that more action and greater urgency is needed. When will we get it?

[James Brokenshire]

May I underline what I said in my opening comments about the importance of remembering and reflecting on the very moving testimony that has already been provided in the public inquiry? It is right that all those affected are able to share their memories of those who lost their lives and, indeed, that there should be no time limit on that process. We all need to reflect extremely carefully on the testimony given.

The right hon. Gentleman raises many points, a number of which we dealt with last week during the debates on Grenfell Tower and during my statement on the Hackitt report. He knows that I have been very clear about wanting to speed up the process, which is why I said last week that it is not a question of waiting for the final recommendations to be fully implemented, and it is why I took the steps that I did in relation to combustible cladding and other issues such as the use of desktop studies. I have outlined that although the consultation on desktop studies closes later this week, I will obviously not hesitate to ban them if they cannot be used safely.

The right hon. Gentleman highlights the advice from the fire authorities. Obviously, we are guided by the National Fire Chiefs Council on these matters, and the London fire brigade has given its advice in that regard. He mentions sprinklers. I would underline the points that I made last week—that is, we have given certain advice regarding the provision of sprinklers on new blocks of over 30 metres in height, but for existing buildings it is for the building owner to decide. As Dame Judith Hackitt rightly pointed out in her report, no single fire safety measure, including sprinklers, can be seen as a panacea.

I have already outlined the further steps that we are taking regarding remediation. We gave further instructions to local authorities last week to further empower them to take action in respect of identifying buildings. There is no lack of urgency on my part or on the part of my Department when it comes to moving forward with addressing these issues and underlining and recognising the serious concerns that have been expressed. Equally, I have underlined our desire to do the right thing in relation to fire safety. We will be taking the actions that I outlined last week and underlined again today to ensure that we are following this through and pursuing it rigorously.

Building Regulations and Fire Safety

John Healey Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement this morning. I join him in thanking Dame Judith Hackitt and her team for all the work that they have done on this review. This is, as she says, a complex and confusing area.

Our building safety system catastrophically failed the residents of Grenfell Tower and has proved to be comprehensively flawed when over 300 other tower blocks around the country are wrapped in the same dangerous, unsafe cladding. Dame Judith said this morning:

“This is a broken system and it needs to be fixed.”

But while there are some welcome reforms in her report, it will not do that. Why no ban on combustible cladding and insulation? It really beggars belief that the report continues to give a green light to combustible materials on high-rise blocks. I say to the Secretary of State: do not consult on it—do it. Seventy-two people died in Grenfell Tower. Australia had a high-rise fire in 2014; it now has a ban. Dubai had a high-rise fire in 2015; it has a ban. We must do the same. We owe it to the Grenfell residents and we owe it to residents living today in other tower blocks with the same Grenfell-style cladding. The Secretary of State was here yesterday when MPs on both sides of the House argued for this. Even Dame Judith Hackitt was reported this morning as saying that she would support the Secretary of State if he did this just after ruling it out, of course, in her own report.

There are some steps that Dame Judith recommends that are welcome and that would help, such as clearer duties on those responsible for building safety and new ways for residents to have their concerns heard and acted on. I have to say, however, that too many sections of this report read like an industry insider urging reform without rocking the boat, referring to “culture change”, “clearer guidance”, a “less prescriptive system” and “greater responsibility” from some of those who have been cutting corners to cut costs in the current system.

I say to the Secretary of State that this is a missed opportunity to set clear-cut new standards that ensure that a disaster like Grenfell Tower can never happen again. With regard to what is not in this report, will he explain why and what he is going to do about those matters? They include not only having no ban on combustible cladding systems, but having no bar on desktop studies for safety clearance without testing, no plan for fitting sprinklers, no timetable for new safety regulations in legislation and no powers or tough enough sanctions to compel private block owners to get fire tests done and then get vital safety work done.

The Secretary of State cannot simply hold this report at arm’s length and say it is out for comment and consultation. This review was commissioned by the Government, with a chair picked by the Government, working with support from Government staff. He says that in principle he accepts the recommendations. While I agree that he can endorse some of the recommendations, he must reject others that fall short and he must act where recommendations are missing. If all he does in practice is accept the recommendations, the division of opinion in this House will not be between his side and ours, but between both sides and his Front Bench. This is not a matter of party politics; it is a matter of public safety, public confidence and, above all, a national response that measures up to the tragedy—the national tragedy—of the Grenfell Tower fire.

[James Brokenshire]

While I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s kind comments on the words of Dame Judith and her team in what I think is a comprehensive report—looking at the end-to-end system and at culture, but also making recommendations on strong enforcement and criminal sanctions—I urge him to look at it very carefully before rushing to judgment on all its different sections. He may not agree with certain sections, and he is entitled to take that view, but I think he will recognise the real intent of someone who is independent and has significant health and safety experience to bring about a shift in a system that, as we mutually accept, is not fit for purpose.

This report will no doubt be subject to further debate, and it is important that there is time for feedback on each of the different recommendations and points that are made, because of the complexity, depth and detail of them, so that we get this right. With a shared sense of what is cross-party and what is cross-community, that is absolutely what we want to achieve. That is why it is important to get feedback on and input into the report’s recommendations.

I underline this Government’s seriousness of intent. That is why I have today said that we will consult on the banning of combustible materials—I look forward to bringing the details to the House in due course—and why I have said what I have about desktop studies. I want to inject a sense of pace into the process. I have acknowledged that the legislation that may flow from this will take time, and we want to work with parties across the House to ensure that it is got right. Equally, however, I recognise that there are steps that may not require legislation that we should get on and take, and I am committed to taking that forward as Secretary of State.

I encourage Members on both sides of the House to look carefully at Dame Judith’s comprehensive recommendations. They should recognise that, on the issue of cladding systems, she acknowledges:

“A clearer, more transparent and more effective specification and testing regime of construction products must be developed. This should include products as they are put together as part of a system.”

We also recognise that, and we are bringing forward the consultation I have announced in my statement today so that we can actually make the difference we all want by making these changes and ensuring that our system and our high-rise buildings are safe.

Grenfell Tower

John Healey Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the commitments given by the Government that all survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire of 14 June 2017 would be permanently rehoused within one year, that all other tower blocks with dangerous cladding would be made safe, that councils would get the funding needed to carry out remedial work and that there would be significant reform of the current system of building regulations; and calls on the Government to make good on those commitments, to lay a report before Parliament and to make an Oral Statement by 14 June 2018 setting out how it has met those commitments and discharged its wider duties in response to that national disaster.

I am conscious of the indication that you have given to the House, Mr Speaker.

Eleven months on from the terrible fire at Grenfell Tower, we remain shocked by those searing images on the night, by 72 lost lives, and by the charred black carcase of a building that still stands. Many Members in all parts of the House, Mr Speaker, were deeply moved again by the testimony of the survivors and families whom we met when you threw open Speaker’s House to Grenfell United last week. Our common commitments in the House remain absolute: to make certain that Grenfell residents have the help and the new homes that they need, to make certain that all who are culpable are held fully to account, and to make certain that any measures that are needed to ensure that such a disaster can never happen again are fully implemented.

This is a debate that we did not want to call and should not have had to call, but the House has to hear and debate what the Government are doing to honour those pledges to the Grenfell survivors and to residents in other high-rise blocks around the country. I welcome the £400 million that the Prime Minister announced during Question Time, moments before the start of the debate. Labour Members have argued for that from day one. Why on earth it has taken the Prime Minister 11 months to make such an important decision is beyond me, but I welcome it nevertheless. However, I defy anyone to say that they are satisfied when two in three of the Grenfell families are still living in hotels and temporary accommodation, when it has been confirmed that 304 other tower blocks across the country have the same suspect Grenfell-style cladding but only seven have had it removed and replaced, when more than 100 privately owned blocks have dangerous cladding and it is reported that none of it has been replaced so far, and when there may be other private blocks with suspect cladding that, 11 months on, have still not been tested.

The timing of this debate is therefore important. It is also important, in part, because we expect the Government’s Hackitt review of building regulations and fire safety to be published tomorrow. This is a chance for the Government to show their commitment to a complete overhaul of the failed system of building safety, and I will deal in a moment with the steps that Labour believes are necessary. Above all, however, it is a chance for the new Secretary of State to make good the other failings of his predecessor, and our motion calls on him to report to Parliament sometime before the anniversary of the fire on 14 June to explain exactly how the Government have done that.

Let me deal first with the rehousing of Grenfell residents. From day one, the Government backed Kensington and Chelsea Council to do the job. On 18 December last year, the then Secretary of State told the House:

“I am confident that the council is capable of that”.—[Official Report, 18 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 773.]

The council promised residents:

“We are committed to rehousing you to permanent social housing within twelve months.”

However, 11 months on, only one in three of the families are living in a permanent new home. No one wants to bring up children in a hotel room, and residents tell us about the defects in the properties that they have been offered: properties with damp and leaks, properties without enough bedrooms, properties that are not properly furnished, and tenancy terms that are different from those that they had in the tower.

The Government could have stepped in—should have stepped in—at any point in the last 11 months, both to help to make the homes that were needed directly available and to send in commissioners to help to run the council when it was clearly failing. They could have acted at any point, but they did not. I hope that when the Secretary of State responds to the debate, he will not give the same answers that we have heard for 11 months, and I hope that he will act to accelerate the pace of help and rehousing for the Grenfell families.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Constituents of mine observed that in the immediate aftermath, in the complete absence of any visible presence of representatives of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea or any sort of officialdom, it was people power—mosques, voluntary organisations and the like—that stepped into the void, along with, eventually, the London Borough of Ealing and SportActive, whose members you hosted in your rooms yesterday, Mr Speaker, and which runs the Westway sports and fitness centre. Does that not underline the need for better inter-agency and inter-borough partnerships should such a disaster ever befall us again?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and to be fair to Ministers some of them, like me and other Members, were down in Kensington very soon after the fire, and were overwhelmed by the good will there and the response of the community and the volunteers who came from all parts of the country. But Ministers were also embarrassed, as they conceded, by how poor and slow Kensington and Chelsea was from day one. I pay tribute to other councils, particularly London borough councils, that have since sent in good people to help try to get that bad council to do the job properly.

Let me turn to other tower blocks, because there are 65 local authority areas around the country with at least one block that has failed the safety test, is non-compliant, is unsafe and is unlawful. Directly after the fire, on 17 June, the Prime Minister caught the mood of the country and promised:

“My Government will do whatever it takes to…keep our people safe.”

But 11 months on, when more than 300 other tower blocks have this same dangerous Grenfell-style cladding but just seven have had it removed and replaced, things are not working.

We have thousands of families living in homes with unsafe materials tacked to the side, thousands of people buying and renting homes in these tower blocks, and others trying to sell their flats and finding that they are worthless or that their landlord turns around to them as leaseholders and says, “You’ve got to pay all the costs.”

I say to the Secretary of State that when people’s lives are at risk, it is the Government’s clearcut duty to get all suspect buildings tested and all the work done to make them safe, but that is not happening. For 11 months Ministers have refused to ensure that private block owners, not residents or leaseholders, pay for the urgent work that must be done; they have refused to release the location, ownership, and safety testing status of other high-rise blocks so that residents know where they stand; they have refused to confirm what materials are safe, meaning that landlords who have taken off cladding do not know what to put back up; and they have refused—until today, under Labour pressure—to help fund vital safety work in social housing blocks. Even now they have refused to fund what we and fire chiefs say is necessary to ensure safety: the retrofitting of sprinklers in all high-risk high-rise blocks. Only Ministers can make that happen, and the new Secretary of State has the chance to act where his predecessor would not and make good on the Prime Minister’s pledge of 17 June.

Finally, let me turn to the Hackitt review of building regulations, which is due tomorrow and has already been briefed to many people, including the press it seems.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman mentions compelling landlords to carry out remedial work to blocks with inappropriate cladding on the outside, and I understand the imperative and rationale behind that, but where there is not a contractual obligation on the landlord to do that—where the building is occupied by long lease holders—by what mechanism would he force them to have that work carried out?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman serves on the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government, and he puts his finger on an important question that only the Government can deal with. Are the powers to require testing clear? Are the powers of enforcement on landlords who will not do the right thing—will not test or will not make their building safe when it is confirmed as having suspect cladding—in place? There are question marks over that, and it is part of the action that the Secretary of State must now take. I also say to the hon. Gentleman that the principle of councils having the power to step in to take control or confiscate buildings where landlords are not doing what is required and they have had notice to do that is exactly the same principle that the Select Committee that he is a member of recommended in cases where private property owners are breaking the law and will not do what they are required to do and requested to do by local councils. The recommendation is that councils are then given the power to step in and do the work for them.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

rose—

[John Healey]

I will not give way again, because of the pressure on time.

We welcomed the interim Hackitt review in December because it clearly set out the comprehensive failings in the current system of building checks and controls. The warnings were there in 2013 in coroners’ reports to Ministers after two previous fatal high-rise fires, but Grenfell, and Hackitt’s interim review, confirm that nothing less than a root and branch reform of the current failed system is required. So I am concerned by reports that the Hackitt review will stop well short of that, but the new Secretary of State has the chance in today’s debate to make clear his standards for the new rules that are needed. The Opposition know that only an end-to-end overhaul of the system will make sure that people’s homes are safe, including ensuring that only non-combustible material is used for cladding and insulation on high-rise blocks—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

indicated assent.

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman is nodding strongly in agreement with that. The overhaul must also include a ban on desktop studies, which currently allow building materials to be deemed safe without a basis in testing; full disclosure of the location, ownership and testing status of all high-rise blocks; clear powers, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, for councils to enforce testing and the work that might be required; a publicly accountable system of building control; a presumption that private block owners are, as the Government have argued, responsible for paying to replace dangerous cladding; and tougher sanctions, including the backstop power for councils to take over a block where property owners are breaking the law and putting people’s lives at risk by not making their buildings safe.

For 11 months, Ministers have been off the pace in their response to Grenfell Tower, failing to act with enough urgency on almost every front. The next month, before the anniversary of the fire, is when the Government must finally make good on their promises to the Grenfell residents and to the country.