Business of the House
Debate between Lucy Powell and Joy Morrissey(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
I shall. The business for the week commencing 3 February includes:
Monday 3 February—Second Reading of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill.
Tuesday 4 February—Debate on motions to approve the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2025 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025, followed by debate on motions to approve the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veteran’s Relief) Regulations 2025 and the draft Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2025.
Wednesday 5 February—Motions related to the police grant and local government finance reports.
Thursday 6 February—General debate on Government support for coalfield communities, followed by a general debate on financial education. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 7 February—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 10 February will include:
Monday 10 February—Second Reading of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill.
Tuesday 11 February—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Arbitration Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 12 February—Second Reading of the Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords].
Thursday 13 February—General debate. Subject to be announced.
The House will rise for the February recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 13 February and return on Monday 24 February.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call Joy Morrissey, I think it appropriate to wish her a happy birthday.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I hope that the House will join me in offering thoughts and prayers for victims and their families following the collision this morning when an American Airlines plane crashed into the Potomac following a collision; but I believe that the Leader of the House will join me in rejoicing at the return of more of the Israeli hostages today.
It is an honour to respond to the right hon. Lady. Serving with her on the Modernisation Committee, I have observed the energy that she puts into bringing this House into the second quarter of the 21st century. We are lucky to have someone so persuasive in her position, someone who really listens to Members. [Hon. Members: “But—”] No buts, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I approach this session of business questions in that spirit. One innovation that would be very welcome would be a commitment from the Leader of the House to providing our dates for Opposition day debates, which we have still not received. Another extremely welcome innovation would be the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero finding time to reply to numerous letters sent by Opposition Members; perhaps the Leader of the House could persuade him to do so, but perhaps she would have more luck with the Chancellor.
As each week passes, our constituents face more and more negative consequences from the Chancellor’s disastrous Budget. Last week the Office for National Statistics revealed that there had been a staggering 47,000 drop in employment in December, the sharpest fall since the pandemic. Job vacancies have also collapsed. The day before the Chancellor’s Budget, in which she launched her attack on British businesses, there were 858,000 job vacancies in our economy; now the number has fallen to just 740,000, a drop of 14% in just two months. I know that she is proud of being the first female Chancellor, but would it not be even better for her to be known as the Chancellor who was brave enough to change course? Because of her Budget, business confidence has collapsed. Because of her Budget, growth has collapsed. Because of her Budget, employment is falling and unemployment is rising. Because of her Budget, UK gilt yields are at an eye-watering level. Because of her Budget, mortgage rates are now rising, despite her promise that she would bring them down.
We have seen a glimmer of hope with the Chancellor’s U-turn on her non-doms policy, which has caused some of the UK’s biggest taxpayers to flee her socialist nightmare. It is a welcome U-turn, but I feel for the Leader of the House and for Labour Members. I cannot imagine that they ever thought they would be explaining why a Labour Government had U-turned on punishing non-doms, but not on punishing pensioners. Will the Leader of the House seek to persuade the Chancellor to be bold, change course again, and spare British pensioners, farmers, businesses, workers and households from more economic pain?
May we have a debate in Government time to explore the many areas in which a Chancellor U-turn would indeed be welcome? If not, will the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor to be bold and U-turn on punishing pensioners, and reinstate their winter fuel payment? Will she ask the Chancellor to be bold and U-turn to spare family farms that have put food on our tables from her tax raid? Will she ask the Chancellor to be bold and U-turn to save businesses that create jobs, wealth and growth in this country from her catastrophic national insurance tax raid? Will she ask the Chancellor to be bold and U-turn on her 1970s-style tax and borrowing spree, to protect the households that now face rising mortgage costs because of her? That is a task that I hope the Leader of the House will agree is in the interests of the House, its Members, and the people of this country.
Lucy Powell
All our thoughts are with those affected by the air crash in Washington DC. The scale of this tragedy is still unfolding, and we send our deepest sympathies to all those involved and those still carrying out the rescue operation.
This week saw the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. No one could ever forget visiting Auschwitz-Birkenau, as I did with young people from my constituency with the Holocaust Educational Trust. We must never forget. I join the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) in welcoming the further release of hostages in Israel and Gaza today.
Members will have noticed that Mr Speaker is not in his Chair today. I can assure them that he is not taking up a new acting role on the set of “Emmerdale”. He is instead celebrating the life of another northern legend, at the funeral of Lord Prescott.
I welcome the hon. Member for Beaconsfield to business questions, on her birthday. I very much welcome working with her on the Modernisation Committee. I have found her contributions to be greatly valuable and enlightening, and I know she does a really good job as a Whip and a constituency MP, supporting colleagues across the House. Given her contribution today, she could perhaps give a few tips to the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), when he returns, because she has taken a very business questions-style approach. I will follow up with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if there are issues with correspondence.
The hon. Lady raised issues around the economy. I will gently remind her of a few stats. Inflation is down now, thanks to this Government. Wages are growing at their fastest rate in three years. We have created more than 70,000 jobs since we came into office, and business investment is at its highest level in 19 years. PwC has just rated the UK the second best place in the world to invest after the US. The International Monetary Fund and the OECD both predict that Britain will be Europe’s fastest-growing major economy in recent years.
This Government are getting on with the job, and it has been another week of delivering the change that people voted for. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill will be introduced today, with real action to tackle small boats and smuggling gangs, in contrast to the Conservatives’ costly Rwanda gimmick. The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill gets its Second Reading next week. Despite promises from the Conservative party, it failed to bring that forward. That important piece of legislation will address the huge cost of fraud in our welfare system.
We have taken major strides to get growth going, taking the difficult, bold decisions that the hon. Lady asked for, many of them on issues that have been raised in business questions over recent weeks. They include the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, creating the UK’s answer to silicon valley; the redevelopment of the huge site around the Old Trafford football ground, which even I can welcome, as a City fan; and, thanks to the tireless campaigning of Mr Doncaster Airport himself, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), and my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson), their airport is set to become thriving once again. We are backing airport expansion across the congested south-east.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) will be over the moon that we are investing in Cornwall’s mineral industry, which he has raised with me many times. We are giving the go-ahead to the lower Thames crossing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) has long championed and raised with me. We are supporting Port Talbot and Teesside through the advanced fuels fund and Wrexham and Flintshire through the advanced manufacturing investment zone. We are building nine reservoirs—the first in 30 years—to provide water for new homes.
We are reviewing the Green Book, to enable better public investment and growth outside London and the south-east. We are taking difficult decisions, some of which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield raised, because we had to fix the foundations to get our country growing again, so that we can invest in the public services that people desperately need and voted for at the last election.
Business of the House
Debate between Lucy Powell and Joy Morrissey(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
I did not know that so many people come to Cleethorpes for Armed Forces Day—it sounds like a real occasion. I will certainly make sure that the Ministry of Defence hears my hon. Friend’s plea. Cleethorpes sounds like a very good place for National Armed Forces Day in 2026.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The Leader of the House may be aware that the Deputy Prime Minister has called in a planning application for the Marlow film studio, which had already been rejected by thousands of local residents, planning officers and the council. This is the wrong development in the wrong place, so will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on how the views of local people on planning can be retained before the Labour party concretes over the entire green belt?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry, but I disagree with the hon. Lady’s characterisation. This Government are unashamedly pro-house building and pro-cutting the red tape that stands in the way of business and business investment in our creative industries, our technologies and our transport, but we are absolutely on the side of local people as well, which is why our planning reforms put local voice and local plans at their centre. We have had debates on the issue, and I am sure that we will have many more in the coming weeks.
Building Safety Bill
Debate between Lucy Powell and Joy MorrisseyWednesday 21st July 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Building Safety Act 2022 View all Building Safety Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Leaseholders have very little recourse and, from the announcements today, their passage of recourse remains incredibly uncertain.
Let me start with what is in the Bill. The first major change sets up the building safety regulator, a key recommendation of the Hackitt report. The regulator will oversee “higher risk buildings,” which have been defined as essentially over 18 metres. The Select Committee raised questions about whether the scope should be extended. The Fire Brigades Union says that 11 metres or four storeys would be a safer threshold, as that is the threshold that firefighters can reach with their ladders. The Secretary of State himself said last year that we should not rely on
“crude height limits with binary consequences,”
that do not
“reflect the complexity of the challenge at hand.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 24.]
The two-tiered system this Bill creates is particularly stark when we look at privatised building control, which will continue to operate below 18 metres. The Hackitt report recognised that choice over building control inspection is a major weakness in the current system, allowing cosy relationships to flourish between developers and the private inspectors they pay handsomely.
The regulator will be the building control body for taller buildings, but not for those under 18 metres, even where other risks could remain. The Government should think again about their arbitrary definition of high-risk buildings.
Secondly, this Bill establishes clear responsibilities for building safety throughout a building’s life, in a golden thread of information. Lack of transparency was a key issue identified in the Hackitt report. The Grenfell inquiry has exposed how some building owners belittled residents as troublemakers rather than keeping them informed about the safety of their homes. The new system must be fully open and transparent to residents and leaseholders.
The need for transparency extends to the testing regime, which the Hackitt report found to be opaque and insufficient. While the Bill sets a framework for the regulation of construction products, the Government have kicked the issue of product testing down the road. This must be re-examined.
Thirdly, the Bill sets up limited mechanisms to recoup costs from developers, through legal action and a levy. The principle of the polluter must pay should apply to the building safety scandal. Labour has long been calling on the Government to take stronger action against developers who cut dangerous corners.
Extending the period in which a developer can be sued is welcome, but residents in many buildings will not be able to take advantage. The relationship of leaseholders and developers is like David and Goliath. Legal action is uncertain, expensive and risky, requiring money that leaseholders simply do not have. It also requires that a company still exists to sue, yet many have disappeared. What is more, given what we know from the Hackitt report and elsewhere, in how many cases can all the blame be legally pinned on a developer, given the failures of the regulatory regime at the time? Very few, I would imagine.
Finally, the Bill makes some changes around the new homes and social housing ombudsmen. After significant delay, some social housing reforms have finally come through, but how will the Secretary of State ensure that the social housing regulator has real teeth?
Although there are things we welcome in the Bill that will improve building safety into the future, there are, as I am sure we will hear from Members across the House, serious concerns about what is missing and the way in which ruinous costs for remediation works will still fall on leaseholders. What began as a cladding scandal after Grenfell has now led to a total breakdown in confidence in most tall and multi-storey buildings. This has now become a building safety crisis affecting hundreds of thousands of people. Young, first-time buyers have gone bankrupt. Couples have put having children on hold. Marriages have broken down. Life savings and assets have gone. Retirements have been ruined. The mental health and financial toll is incalculable.
Fundamentally, the Bill betrays leaseholders who will still face life-changing costs for problems that they did not create and who are trapped in unsellable, uninsurable and unmortgageable homes, notwithstanding some of the Secretary of State’s announcements today, which I fear will do little to resolve the situation. Two Prime Ministers, his two immediate predecessors and the Secretary of State himself have all said that leaseholders should not pay. I agree—I think we all agree in here—so why does the Bill not say it? On at least 17 different occasions in this House, they promised, even to their own Back Benchers, that they would protect leaseholders. We heard during the passage of the Fire Safety Act 2021 that the Building Safety Bill was the place to do so, so where is it? It is not in there.
What is more, legal advice on what is in the Bill says that the betrayal of leaseholders is even worse. As drafted, the Bill bakes in leaseholders’ potential liability. Our legal advice is that clause 124 provides very little additional protections. Their legal opinion is that this Bill in its totality, including clause 99, makes it
“more certain that remediation costs will fall under service charges”—
and be passed on. So on the Government’s fundamental promise to leaseholders, the Bill fails. No wonder they are furious, and bereft.
Of course, I welcome the building safety fund; it is a good thing, and it could provide a solution for many buildings. I have to commend the Secretary of State on getting £5.1 billion out of the Chancellor—he seems to have better negotiating skills than his boss, the Prime Minister. It is a lot of money and it could go some way to resolving the situation if it is properly used, but I do not understand why his financial commitment is not being met with the same zeal and determination to give it proper effect. His approach has so far been blighted by inertia and indifference and is now beset by increasing costs, relying on those in the industry who have created much of this mess to get us out of it. I have to tell him that it is just not working. Even his own Back Benchers accused him of “shocking incompetence”, and I feel that that view might be spreading after today’s shenanigans with his statement.
Let me explain: the scope of the fund is way too narrow and the deadlines for applying too tight, and yet it is being administered far too slowly, with just 12p in every pound of the fund allocated. At its current pace, it will be 2027 before the fund is even allocated. And because there is no grip on the wider issues, as we have been discussing today—such as risk, cost, work quality, accountability and sign-off—nearly all multi-storey buildings are now affected. Even when cladding is removed, a new, ever-growing list of additional seemingly necessary works are added. This means that innocent and drained leaseholders are constantly at the mercy of a system, with no accountability and no confidence in it, with an industry unable to take on risk, cornering a broken market for works, arguing over responsibility and unwilling to insure, mortgage or step up, all the while leaving leaseholders carrying the can. That is why this crisis is now affecting so many and costs keep going up. The truth is that all sense of appropriate risk has gone out of the system. The Secretary of State has talked about that today, and I have heard him say it many times before, but I am not sure what he is doing about it. Notwithstanding what is in his statement today, I still do not know whether this will provide the transparency, the recourse, or the scrutiny that leaseholders need. He says that there should be a clear route for residents to challenge. What would that route be? How would it work? What teeth would it have? He said that there will be more guidelines. What are they? When will they be published? Can we see them? Will this really have the effect that leaseholders need it to have, because time is a luxury that these homeowners simply do not have.
This is not just about the one-off high remediation costs that homeowners are facing today; it is that insurance premiums have gone through the roof, service charges are rocketing, and the waking watch, which we have heard so much about, and other costs are leaving leaseholders paying hundreds of pounds a month extra already.
Recent Government guidance has made the situation worse. Their advice note from January 2020 effectively brought all buildings of any height into scope of the dreaded EWS1 form. After today’s announcement, is that now scrapped? Does that guidance note still exist? [Interruption.] I do not know whether it is in the statement. I did not read it in there. The Secretary of State is pointing to it from a sedentary position. If it is in there, people need to know that now so that we can discuss it, and we should have known it before this debate; it is a very important thing to know. If he wants to come to the Dispatch Box to tell us whether that January 2020 advice note is now effectively scrapped, he can do so, because it is essential that people know that.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Joy Morrissey
I am not completely positive, but it did say in the statement that the EWS1 form should not be required in buildings of 18 metres, which is a welcome change. Common sense seems to be prevailing in this debate now. I welcome that announcement. Does the hon. Lady agree that this is something that we have been campaigning on for quite some time and that it is a welcome change to the legislation.
Lucy Powell
Well, it is not actually legislation. The hon. Lady is wrong about that. Yes, of course, we would welcome that. The crucial words that she said there were “should not”, not would not, and that is a different thing entirely. We still need to know on what terms that will be enforced, what recourse would a leaseholder have, and to whom, and what teeth will they have in order to put that into effect. Is it legislation? [Interruption.] I think the Secretary of State is trying to tell me that it is going to be legislation. [Interruption.] Oh, it is just down to the lenders. I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he wants to explain.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lucy Powell and Joy Morrissey(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)