Business of the House

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Lucy Powell

Thursday 17th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

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

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

The Labour manifesto contained a pledge to recognise Palestine. Subsequently, the Prime Minister has said that the Palestinians have an “undeniable right” to recognition, but something is holding him back. Could we please have a debate in Government time to examine the fact that all our Arab allies are saying that recognition is now a prerequisite for peace in the middle east, so that the House can vote to support the Prime Minister in taking this very significant step?

[Lucy Powell]

We absolutely do support recognising Palestine as a state, which is an indelible right of the Palestinian people. It is absolutely critical that we achieve a long-term, two-state solution in the middle east that recognises both Israel’s right to exist as a safe and secure country, and the Palestinian people’s right to have a Palestinian state that is also safe, secure and free. That is what we are working towards internationally and with our allies across the world, and it is something that I know the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister spend a lot of their time dealing with. We have Foreign Office questions coming up next week, and I know that the Foreign Secretary is keen to come to this House as often as possible to update Members on what is happening in the middle east. I am sure these issues will be debated further.

Business of the House

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Lucy Powell

Thursday 18th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her election, on being here and on asking her first question in this place. That is always a daunting process, but I hope she now feels that she has the confidence to go on. She has raised an important matter which I know has been raised by others in the past—namely the challenges faced by rural schools with, in many instances, diminishing pupil rolls—and I think she should raise it again during next week’s education debate.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I was pleased to hear the Leader of the House say earlier that town centre regeneration remained a priority for the Government. May we please have an urgent statement from a Minister about the status of levelling-up fund grants? As the Leader of the House may know, towards the end of last year, Andover in my constituency was awarded £18.3 million to kick-start the regeneration of its town centre. Since then, a memorandum of understanding has been signed and some money has changed hands, and on that basis Test Valley borough council has made significant contractual and budgetary commitments, but there now appears to be an inexplicable delay in progress with the grant. We have to ensure that the money is spent by the early part of 2026. I should be grateful if the Leader of the House could provide some clarity, not just for Andover and for me, but for other Members who are similarly affected.

[Lucy Powell]

I will certainly seek to obtain some clarity for the right hon. Gentleman on that issue. As he will know, this Government are prioritising town centre redevelopment and “brownfield first”, and our planning and infrastructure Bill that was announced yesterday will include reforms of compulsory purchase order and land value issues, which will enable local authorities to acquire, for instance, derelict or empty properties that they need for town centre regeneration at a more appropriate value. That will unlock significant investment, which I hope will benefit the project to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.

Tower Blocks: Dangerous Cladding

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Lucy Powell

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

My right hon. Friend raises what sounds like an alarming situation. Where people’s homes are concerned—whether it is about safety, the future of their homes or, indeed, demolition—I urge all those in authority to be as transparent as possible. It can be extremely debilitating, concerning and worrying for any resident to have the future of their home mired in uncertainty. I hope that he gets the clarity that his residents need.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

If the Minister was one of my constituents in the X1 block in Manchester, I am sure that, like them, he would have woken up this morning feeling not only worried and scared, but furious—furious at the way in which the matter has come to light, and furious that there is still, after all this time, no accountability, no transparency and no recourse for the people affected. We urgently need legislation, which must also cover leaseholders who, like those in many of the blocks in my constituency, cannot sell their homes because of the fear that they will have to pay the cost of recladding. This has got to stop.

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Lady is quite right; given the story on the front of the paper, anyone who lived in that block would be worried. We have reassured ourselves that the Greater Manchester fire and rescue service is satisfied that everybody resident in that block is safe tonight, and that there has been sufficient engagement by the owners and managing agents to make sure that the temporary measures that are in place are adequate to keep residents safe.

We understand that there is work under way. I believe that that work has been contracted, but it is yet to be made clear who will pay. We will put pressure on the owners and managers of that building, as we are doing with all owners and managers, to make sure that it is not the leaseholders who pay. At this stage, we are not ruling out any particular measure for making sure that that is the case.