Building Safety

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

We have been working closely with local authorities ever since the Grenfell tragedy. We have supported them with advice and funding so that they can draw up lists and provide data on buildings over 18 metres—we have provided them with £4 million for that—and we should be in a position to publish that data in March, which is the deadline that we set local authorities. We have also created the protection board, which is designed to take that work to another level—bringing together the fire and rescue services, the Home Office and my Department with local authorities to assess, on a priority basis, the fire safety of those buildings that have not yet been assessed.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

Would the Secretary of State like to take this opportunity to apologise to all residents and those in privately owned blocks who still are living with this unsafe Grenfell- style cladding wrapped around their homes, when the Government set their own target of December 2019 to have this cladding removed? Will he apologise in particular to those in a social housing block in my constituency, Castlemaine, where this work has been delayed—it has been held up by chaos—and Wandsworth Council is not taking responsibility for ensuring that the work is done and done to a high standard?

[Robert Jenrick]

I am sorry to hear about the example that the hon. Lady raises, and I will look into that if she could give me the details after this statement. Since becoming Secretary of State, I have taken action to ensure that the remediation fund moves forward at pace. We now have a named contact working with every one of these buildings. I review the lists regularly, and we have made a great deal of progress. We have now reached the point, as I have said, where every building is within the system and is working with my Department. The only ones that are not are those that emerged only recently as having ACM cladding. I hope that we will now, finally, make rapid progress.

Grenfell: Government Response

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

On the last point, the hon. Gentleman may be aware that we are conducting an examination of some of the evidence around office-to-residential conversions. The point he makes is one that I have heard, which is why we are pursuing the issue further. He makes various other points about his constituents and residents. If there are particular points he wishes to make to me, my ministerial colleagues and I stand ready to respond to him. His call for action is one that I hear and will respond to.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

Two years on from the Grenfell fire, thousands of people are still living in homes wrapped in unsafe, dangerous cladding. My constituents are living with unnecessary stress, anxiety and worry due to the unsafe cladding on their blocks. The Secretary of State says that the funding has now been made available for those living in privately owned blocks, but there is no deadline or timeline set for the removal of the unsafe cladding. Will the Secretary of State today confirm what timeline is being set, not just for local authorities but for the owners of private blocks, to ensure that unsafe cladding is removed more quickly?

[James Brokenshire]

As I indicated in a previous answer, we intend to make it a condition of the funding that there is a clear timeline and that actions are shown to be taken in terms of the work that is needed. It is not that there is a lack of intent or urgency, but some of the works required are highly complex and it is therefore difficult to set a hard deadline in the way the hon. Lady wants. However, her call for action and urgency is one that I hear loud and clear. That is the way in which we intend to operate the fund.

Winstanley Estate Regeneration

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Friday 22nd March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have secured this important debate.

There are few places that show the severity of the Government’s housing crisis more than Battersea. It is a wonderful, vibrant and diverse constituency, home to active and truly inspiring communities, but under the Conservative council for decades and the Government for the past nine years, it has been hit hard by the housing crisis. Planning and policy decisions have prioritised unaffordable homes, not the social and genuinely affordable housing that Battersea so desperately needs.

My constituents see countless luxury blocks rising around them. In Nine Elms, they see one of the largest regeneration projects in Europe, but there is not a single social home. At Battersea power station, they see a £9 billion development that contains just 9% of so-called affordable housing, and even those homes are being built half a mile away on an old industrial site. This is not building mixed communities for the social good of the many; it is building for private profit for the few.

I fear that the Winstanley and York Road estates regeneration is another example of a development that works for the few, but is not there to meet the needs of the many living in the constituency. The £1 billion regeneration project is being undertaken by Wandsworth Council, in partnership with developer Taylor Wimpey. There is no doubt that the estate is in need of serious investment. It is one of the most deprived areas in the borough and in the top 1% most deprived in the country. It has been neglected for years by Government and council alike.

Following the 2011 London riots, the council finally acknowledged that neglect, recognising that poverty and inequality were driving social alienation and discontent. That is what triggered the plans to regenerate the estate, and it could have been an opportunity to build the genuinely affordable and social homes that Battersea needs. It could have been an opportunity to tackle the housing waiting list and to home some of Wandsworth’s thousands of homeless children. That is what it could have been, but that is not what the council is pushing. There has been a welcome replacement of existing homes, including council homes, and the new leisure and community hub, which includes a much-needed leisure facilities centre, a community centre, a library and a children’s centre, is also welcome. However, the proposals will have no meaningful impact on Battersea’s desperate housing need. Instead, they mark a worrying change in the social mix of the Winstanley and York Road estate.

At present the vast majority of homes on the estate are council houses, but of the proposed nearly 2,000 extra homes, just three—0.15 per cent of the additional homes—will be council homes, while nearly 90% will be unaffordable private housing. That is more than 1,500 new unaffordable homes, taking the total number of private homes to more than 1,750. As part of the scheme, there are set to be 100 homes with so-called affordable rents—we know that, at 80% of market rates, they are unaffordable to many people—222 intermediate homes and 86 shared-equity homes, but this means the social mix will be radically changed. At present, nearly 70% of the estate is made up of social housing tenants; when the project is complete less than 20% of the estate will be for social rent. The social make-up of the estate will be transformed in what people have described as social engineering.

When Wandsworth Council has nearly 7,000 families on its housing waiting list, when 2,000 families are homeless, including nearly 3,000 children living in temporary accommodation, when private rents are soaring and when rough sleeping has rocketed by 150% in the last year alone, for a £1 billion development to have just 0.15% of its additional properties being council homes is totally inadequate. It is an insult to the many people in housing need.

Let us think for example of a family who have been to see me over just this past month. They have been in temporary accommodation for five years—a family of seven squeezed into a three-bedroom flat. Mould is destroying the walls and aggravating their five-year-old’s asthma. When they raised this with the council, they were told to open their windows even though the heating in the home had broken. This is no way for a family to be forced to live. Dire housing situations like this are all too common, and my concern is that the additional genuinely affordable housing is so low in the regeneration because the council has not put the interests of its residents at the forefront.

The reported rate of return of the project is 35%, which is double the industry average. Hundreds of millions of pounds will be made in profit from this regeneration plan at a time when many in Battersea are struggling. And the concerns with the regeneration do not stop there. Residents of Ganley Court, which is set to be demolished in the later stages of the regeneration programme, have raised serious objections. Their concerns cover a number of issues. They have come to see me at my surgery on several occasions. In the proposal’s first phase are huge tower blocks: two towers that would stand at 77 and 120 metres high, dwarfing Ganley Court, overlooking their properties and denying their privacy. A further concern is that in phase two of the project Ganley Court would be demolished, with freeholders offered new properties in the development, but merely with shared equity, losing their outright ownership.

Residents have repeatedly raised these concerns with the council, only to be given unhelpful, sometimes misleading information. They feel betrayed by their council and feel that the proposals do not give them a fair deal. And forgotten in the proposals are existing private renters. I know of families who have rented on the estate for 10 years and whose children go to the local school, but their block will be demolished, with no support or rehousing. They will be uprooted and disrupted, while their private landlords will be offered a new property. That is not fair and shows that it is not a project for the many.

Unfortunately, the regeneration scheme fits into a long history of the council supporting unaffordable private housing. Last year, 90% of the houses built in the borough were unaffordable private homes. Less than 3% were council homes, and over the past eight years, for every 20 unaffordable private homes the council has allowed to be built, it has built less than one council house. This is not house building to meet demand or to protect vulnerable people; it is house building for the benefit of the few.

But this is, sadly, no surprise from a council that for decades has favoured developers over the interests of residents. It was Wandsworth Council that launched a right-to-buy scheme before it was national policy, even then refusing to replace the properties it sold, and under the Tory Wandsworth council, 24,000 council houses have been sold, deepening Battersea’s housing crisis.

On house building, central Government have also failed. Across the country, there has been an 80% fall in new social rented homes and a 50% fall in new affordable homes for ownership. There has been a total failure to replace homes bought through the right-to-buy scheme, with only one being built for every four that are sold. Just as is happening in Battersea, the Government’s failure to build housing to meet social need has driven a social crisis. In nine years, rough sleeping has doubled, child homelessness has increased by 70% and 120,000 children are now living in temporary accommodation. More than 1 million people are now privately renting, and we know that private rents have soared.

If we look at the cold hard numbers, and if we go beyond all the spin, the truth is clear: in Westminster and Wandsworth, the Tories have presided over this housing crisis. The housing market is broken. It is failing the families crammed into homes that are falling into disrepair, failing the children who are moved from temporary accommodation to temporary accommodation, failing the young professionals who spend half their income on soaring rents and, most of all, it is failing the most vulnerable: those who are sleeping on our streets.

There is a national housing crisis, but it does not have to be this way. Rather than being just another example of regeneration that serves developers, the Winstanley and York Road regeneration could serve local people. Labour knows that if regeneration projects are to be successful, they must be supported by local residents. That is why we believe that all estate regenerations should hold ballots. That has not happened with the Winstanley and York Road regeneration. The council has refused to carry out a ballot, as it is fearful that residents would reject its proposals. It claims that such issues are too complex for residents and does not trust their knowledge and experience. But if the council were to hold a ballot and to trust in its regeneration project and its residents, it could apply to the Mayor’s affordable housing fund and access up to £50 million for genuinely affordable housing, which could add more than 100 council homes to the project.

Since the Mayor’s introduction of ballots as a funding condition, we have seen their success. So far there have been five estate ballots, all in favour of the proposed plans, including the High Lane estate in Ealing, where the council, the Mayor’s office and local residents worked together to improve the local community. This approach could be taken with the Winstanley and York Road regeneration, to access funding that would make a genuine difference. I am pleased that Greater London Authority is currently scrutinising the viability assessment, and we await its findings. Elsewhere, we are seeing housing developments that will make a real difference, such as the Holloway Prison development, where the Mayor and Islington Council have worked together to provide 1,000 new homes, including 600 genuinely affordable homes with at least 400 at social rent.

For the housing crisis to be solved, we need a change in policy and a change in Government. Labour’s plans are to build 1 million new homes, including 500,000 council homes; implement rent controls; require ballots on all estate regeneration projects; provide indefinite tenancies for private renters; and end rough sleeping, with ring-fenced housing for those sleeping on our streets. These polices will make a real change. It is the bold, radical programme that we need. The people of Battersea deserve so much better than they are being offered. They deserve a housing market that works for them.

To conclude, does the Minister believe that it is acceptable for only 0.15% of the extra properties in the £1 billion Winstanley and York Road regeneration to be council homes? Does he share the council’s view that residents cannot be trusted to judge for themselves whether regeneration will work for them? Does he agree that residents should be balloted on regeneration projects? Finally, does he believe that the council should pursue all funding options, including applying to the Mayor for GLA funding, to secure much-needed, genuinely affordable homes as soon as possible?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)]

It is a pleasure to wind up the debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) on securing it. I welcome the chance to respond to the points she made.

I start by recognising that a home is more than simply bricks and mortar. A home provides safety, comfort, financial security and a community for residents. That is why this Government are building the homes our country needs so everyone can afford a safe, decent place to call their own—and we are helping more people on to the housing ladder.

I note the points that the hon. Lady made about the Winstanley Estate, but I have to tell her that because a formal planning application has been submitted to Wandsworth Council for the Winstanley and York Road Estate development, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on it on the Floor of the House, so as not to prejudice the Secretary of State should the application eventually end up in front of him. Although I cannot answer her questions precisely, I hope she will bear with me, because she raised some broader points about affordable housing that I would be very happy to address.

Building more affordable homes, including those for social rent, is a priority for the Government. Since 2010, we have delivered more than 407,000 new affordable homes, including more than 293,000 affordable homes for rent. We also recognise that a mix of affordable tenures is required to meet the needs of a wide range of people. That is why, through the affordable homes programme, we have made £9 billion available for affordable home ownership, affordable rent and social rent.

The hon. Lady talked about the importance of councils building, and alongside the £9 billion we have lifted the housing revenue account cap to help them build more. That should enable councils to deliver up to 10,000 homes a year in the short term.

To turn to Wandsworth in particular, I am pleased to say that it appears to be a very high-performing borough in terms of overall housing delivery. It is achieving numbers of new homes significantly in excess of its local plan targets and it has made significant and welcome commitments to delivering new housing stock through the HRA. I pay tribute to its leadership and energy in providing the homes its community needs.

Although I cannot answer the hon. Lady’s specific question about the nature of the affordable housing in this development, so as not to prejudice the planning application, it is worth putting it on record that the new development will have 35% of the building for affordable units.

[Marsha De Cordova]

Does the Minister agree that, as it stands, the proposal for the Winstanley and York Road development does not meet the London plan standard?

[Rishi Sunak]

It would not be appropriate for me to comment on whether any particular planning application meets any standard, but 35% is in excess of the local authority target of 33% for affordable housing developments. Indeed, there is a tripling of housing supply overall and an increase in affordable housing in the development in question. Of course, that will be decided in a formal planning application.

We talked about estate regeneration, and I agree with the hon. Lady that estate regeneration, done the right way, can create new and improved homes and communities for the people who live there. The Government published a new national estate regeneration strategy in December 2016 and, as she said, estate regeneration works best when the community is at the heart of the project. Residents must be key partners in any regeneration scheme and they should have opportunities to participate from the start, developing the vision, design, partner procurement and delivery.

[Marsha De Cordova]

I am pleased that the Minister recognises that residents need to be at the heart and the centre of all regeneration. Does he therefore agree that ballots should be carried out on all estate regeneration projects going forward?

[Rishi Sunak]

I am a localist, and although the Government provide overall guidance and direction for local authorities it is of course right that they determine how exactly to engage best with their communities in each and every circumstance. My understanding, reading through some of the material, is that in this instance there has been extensive engagement and consultation with the residents in question by the local authority.

We, of course, as a Government, have set out our expectation that estate regeneration should have the support of a majority of the residents whose lives will be affected. My team have been informed by Wandsworth Council that the majority of Winstanley Estate residents who responded to the options consultation chose a more extensive regeneration approach involving the demolition and development, refurbishment and new community facilities that we heard about.

It is also important to set out clear commitments on how the regeneration process will work and the housing options available. We believe that all existing tenants should have the option to return to the estate, and I am pleased to say that, as was acknowledged by the hon. Lady, Wandsworth Council has said that all council tenants will be offered an alternative home at social rent within the regeneration area. I am sure that that is warmly welcomed.

In addition, the estate regeneration national strategy sets out our expectation that disruption to residents should be minimised. Indeed, Wandsworth Council has informed my officials that a phased approach is being undertaken at the estate so that, where possible, residents are moved only once, from their current home to their new home. Furthermore, Wandsworth Council has stated that resident homeowners will also be able to take part in an equity share scheme. It is important that these home purchase options are made available, because residents should be given the opportunity to change tenure.

Although I cannot answer specifically every question posed by the hon. Lady, given the planning application that is in force, I hope she sees that I agree with her that local regeneration can deliver better-quality homes; additional homes, both for affordable rent and for market sale; and improved facilities for the community, as I believe she acknowledged is happening in this case. Good regeneration requires the strong leadership of local authorities and the engagement of residents. It is right that that happens and I am sure that she will make sure it continues to happen throughout the process. Of course, this approach does benefit from central Government support, which many communities have received, not least with the expanded affordable homes programme and infrastructure funding.

On that note, I thank the hon. Lady for bringing these matters to my attention and that of the House, and wish her well as she ensures that the planning application proceeds with all these considerations being borne in mind.

Question put and agreed to.

Fire Safety and Sprinkler Systems

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered fire safety and sprinkler systems.

It is a pleasure to see you presiding this morning, Mr Gray. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for providing time for the debate, which the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) and I requested on behalf on the all-party parliamentary fire safety rescue group. It is good to see a number of members of the group present to support the debate. I am also grateful to various organisations for their briefings, including the Library, the London Fire Brigade, the Fire Brigades Union, the National Fire Chiefs Council, the Fire Protection Association, the Business Sprinkler Alliance, the Association of British Insurers, the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

This is the first dedicated debate on this subject since 2014, when the first ever Fire Sprinkler Week took place. Several colleagues who were present at that debate are here again today. Although this is the first dedicated fire sprinkler debate since then, sprinklers have been mentioned many times in other debates over the intervening years, not least because of the Grenfell tragedy. The all-party group has been campaigning strongly on various matters, especially since the 2013 coroner’s report on the Lakanal House fire. The four key issues are: a full review of approved document B to update building regulations and fire guidance, which is well overdue; an assessment of the progress made in deploying fire sprinklers in Scotland and Wales, which is clearly affording better protection to homes and businesses in those countries, leaving England behind; a reversal of Government guidance on fire sprinklers in new build schools; and a requirement to install fire sprinklers in all domestic dwellings, especially new high-rise buildings, and the retrofitting of them in all high-rise buildings, especially post Grenfell. I will look at the first three briefly before focusing on the last item.

The Government are hiding behind the various inquiries after Grenfell: the public inquiry, the Dame Judith Hackitt review and the police criminal investigation. There is almost a standard response: “Let’s not anticipate their conclusions.” I say almost, because the Government did not wait to pronounce on cladding. They recognised that there was urgency and made a decision, which was a good job. That means that we do not have to wait for everything. On approved document B, the all-party parliamentary group was told in 2011 that the review would be completed and published by 2016-17. Not only was that not the case, it had not started properly, and Dame Judith is now overseeing a lot of that work.

In Scotland and Wales, better protection is now required for commercial coverage, and in Wales for domestic dwellings. On schools, last Friday the Government launched a call for evidence on “Building Bulletin 100: Design for fire safety in schools”. In 2007, the Labour Government issued revised guidance that encouraged new schools to be covered by fire sprinklers, but the coalition reversed that guidance. Whereas previously the number of new schools that were being sprinklered rose to 70%, after the coalition’s reversal that figure dropped back to 30%.

However, the main issue—the issue that I want to focus on, that is uppermost in the minds of the public, and on which the Government can take action—is the retrofitting of fire sprinklers in high-rise buildings and sprinklers in all homes. It has been well documented that sprinklers were considered for the Grenfell refurbishment at a cost of around £200,000 from an overall budget of nearly £10 million, but were not fitted. What a mistake. Had Grenfell been a new building, it would have been a requirement. If the Government think that sprinklers are needed for new buildings, why not for those already built, where the majority of people living in high-rise buildings actually reside?

Turning to the points raised by those who supplied briefings, the London Fire Brigade said that sprinklers save lives; they are not a “nice to have” or a luxury. The London Fire Commissioner, Dany Cotton, has said repeatedly that they are a “no-brainer”. They are highly effective in detecting fires, suppressing fires rapidly and raising the alarm. Sprinklers are not expensive; if included at the design stage, they can cost as little as 1% of the total build. There is also overwhelming public support for sprinklers. It is deeply concerning that in recent years, on the two occasions when the Government have reviewed sprinklers, protection has moved in the wrong direction: first, in 2013 through section 20 of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939, and secondly in 2016—resulting in less coverage, not more.

The Royal Institute of British Architects calls for a requirement for sprinklers systems in all new and converted residential buildings, as is already required in Wales, and in all existing residential buildings above 18 metres. It states that the urgency for change in building regulations is simply not as evident in England as in our neighbouring countries.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that, given the urgency, the retrofitting of sprinklers should be a priority for the Government, and that they should not wait for any outcomes of reviews? There is overwhelming evidence that we need to act now.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, for whom I have some affection, having been an operational firefighter in Battersea for 13 years. I will come back to her point later, because it is central to the issue that I am raising.

The ABI states that in the UK no one has ever died from a fire in a fully sprinklered building. It recommends that sprinkler systems be fitted by qualified engineers, using accredited systems and equipment, to a recognised standard. The ABI has also commented on sprinklers in warehouses, care homes, schools and high-rise buildings.

The National Fire Chiefs Council wants sprinklers to become a requirement in all new high-rise residential structures above 18 metres, and wants student accommodation to be included. It says that where high-rise residential buildings exceed 30 metres, there should be a requirement to retrofit sprinklers when those buildings are scheduled to be refurbished—and should be retrofitted regardless of future refurbishment plans where such buildings are served by a single staircase.

Back in 2014, we debunked the myths about fire sprinklers as depicted in TV adverts, drama productions and movies. The issue of cost has also been successfully challenged; the cost has been shown to be much less than was claimed by opponents. The tragedy of Grenfell is screaming out for Government action. To delay further is an abdication of responsibility at best, and criminally irresponsible at worst.

In 2014, the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler), who is now the Housing Minister, said:

“I am proud to be an ambassador for the Derbyshire fire and rescue service…I am delighted to tell everybody in today’s debate that my local council, South Derbyshire…will be building new council housing because of the changes to housing funding, and because of that, it will be installing sprinklers in all the new council houses and council properties that it builds in future.”—[Official Report, 6 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 181WH.]

If it is good enough for South Derbyshire, why not for the rest of England? In the same debate, the then Fire Minister, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), proudly claimed that fire deaths were continuing to fall. Sadly, that is not the case now.

The Government, local authorities and housing associations that rent in the public sector should, as a matter of urgency, agree to install sprinklers as soon as possible in all their housing stock. All private rented accommodation should start planning to fit sprinklers in all new builds and during all refurbishments. Without sprinklers, some 300 people will die and thousands will be traumatised each year in domestic fires. Although most casualties occur in ones, twos or family groups, there is no guarantee that there will not be another Grenfell. The long period of fewer fires and fewer deaths has plateaued over the last five years, with cuts the most likely explanation.

Rough Sleeping

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Neil Coyle]

It certainly is. The universal credit training centre is at the London Bridge jobcentre in my constituency. The jobcentre staff do what they can with limited resources and time, but people come to see me because they have been failed by that jobcentre. A few weeks ago, a man in his fifties who could not even spell his own address came to see me. He had not been told about advance payments; he was told he would have nothing for six weeks.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic opening speech. He talks about some of the inherent problems with universal credit. Does he agree that the fact that it is digital by default ultimately prevents a number of people making applications, because they do not have access to online resources to make the initial application?

[Neil Coyle]

We are keeping up the trend, because I completely agree. People who have very little and who use certain mobile networks cannot call freephone numbers from their mobile phone, let alone use their phone to go online and fill in a form that they have to add extra information to multiple times, just to get it right.

Returning to Harry, who came to see me about his universal credit, he had no heating, electricity or food. He was told just to turn up at the council office. The council has not had a walk-in appointments system for years, yet the universal credit training centre in my constituency sent someone there, who they knew would not get help elsewhere.

There are massive failings. In my surgery sessions I have seen many people, and the number rises every year. Already this year, two homeless people—not just at risk of homelessness—have come to see me at my surgery. One lady, who is cleaner, was carrying all her belongings with her. She was still working and was sleeping on night buses. We are fortunate to have those—it is not the same in other parts of the country, where there is no opportunity to have somewhere warm and as safe as possible to sleep.

--- Later in debate ---

[Will Quince]

As I mentioned, the last Labour Government made several helpful interventions, but I genuinely believe that throwing money at the issue, which the Labour Government did as much as any of their successors, is not wholly the answer. It worked like a painkiller, masking the pain, but did not address the underlying condition.

[Marsha De Cordova]

The hon. Gentleman is making an incredibly long speech. It is not about throwing money at homelessness. It is the policy of austerity that has led to the rise in homelessness. That is just a fact.

[Will Quince]

I thank the hon. Lady for the intervention. I mentioned that the issue is in part about money, but it is not wholly about money; it is also about getting the right interventions in place. The hon. Lady may not have been listening entirely. I would very much welcome her coming to some of our APPG meetings, because then she would know that it is not just about austerity. Austerity may be part of the issue, because of course if we cut back on services up and down the country, everything has a consequence, but the reasons for homelessness and, in particular, rough sleeping are complex, varied and numerous. It cannot be put down to just one thing.

We need to address the availability of high-strength cheap alcohol on our high streets. I appreciate that doing something about that is not within the Minister’s gift, but I hope that she can take the issue away.

I know that this will be a controversial point, but we need to try to rechannel the generosity of the British public. Too many people are, understandably, giving money to people on the streets. My message to them is this. That generosity is incredible, but please direct the money to the amazing charities that work in our towns and cities up and down the country. By all means, support people with food, blankets and all sorts of other things, but not with money, because in too many cases, as we find if we speak to rough sleepers, it ends up going on drugs and alcohol, and sadly that is helping to perpetuate their rough sleeping. It is making the problem worse, not better, so I encourage people to support charities that are working on the ground and not to give money to individuals.

I want to come back to what the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) said. Yes, we can throw money at an issue, but unless we address the underlying cause, we will not solve it, and the underlying cause of this issue is that successive Governments have failed to build anywhere near enough social housing. That is as true of the last Labour Government as it was of the Government before them and of the Government before them. That is why I genuinely believe that, finally and most importantly, we need the most ambitious and largest Government social house building programme since the second world war. I refer the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) back to that rather punchy article on this issue.

Fire Safety and Cladding

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Reed]

I completely agree and am grateful for that intervention. Everybody who uses self-storage facilities needs to know that their possessions are safe when they put them in storage. We need to know that Shurgard and other providers of such services abide by the regulations, and that the regulations are sufficiently robust to provide the reassurances that customers deserve and need.

When I spoke to the group of customers, I found that the single biggest reason for storing possessions at the facility was being between homes. People were not just putting some spare goods into self-storage; they had left the place where they were living and had not yet moved into their new home, so everything they owned was stored at the facility. As a result, everything was lost; everything was destroyed in the fire. As one of them said to me, “It’s bad enough to lose a sofa, a bed or a sideboard, but at least you can replace those things. What about your keepsakes from loved ones who have passed away?” The company advertised its facility as a safe space to leave keepsakes for those who had suffered a bereavement. What about someone who has lost a lifetime of family photographs—all their memories of their family experiences and of the people they most love? A price cannot be put on that. It cannot be insured. If it is gone in a fire, it is gone forever and it is irreplaceable. The devastation, pain and stress of losing such things can be incalculable.

I met one family—a husband, his wife and their three children—who, because of benefit-system failings, had been evicted from the home that they rented just before Christmas. They had put everything they had into this Shurgard self-storage facility. They were penniless because of the problems with universal credit so they could not afford insurance. They have now lost absolutely everything that they owned. They have been left absolutely devastated, without any possessions at all, and they are living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That family need help, and they need it urgently, because they are facing critical hardship as a result of what happened.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. He has picked up on a crucial point—that the storage centre claimed that it was safe, and so on. Does he agree that when the Minister responds he should refer to the specific case of those individuals, who have lost everything because of the social system and are now living in a bed and breakfast? These must be considered special cases, in which the Government need to step in and act.

[Mr Reed]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention and completely agree with her. I hope that when the time comes the Minister is able to respond to that point. People who have been left in severe hardship as a result of what happened have had nowhere to go for the help that they deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reed]

I am sure that many people who keep their possessions in such self-storage centres will be astonished to learn that the multinational companies, where they are multinational, operate safer and more secure facilities abroad than they operate in the United Kingdom. That seems to me entirely wrong. I hope the Minister, when he responds, will explain to the House what he intends to do about conducting a review of the levels of fire safety in these facilities, and whether he believes there is a case for tightening those regulations.

Many, many people use these facilities. They are very common all over London, and we all know about them and have them in our constituencies. The customers include people who are between homes—moving from one place to another—either as buyers or as renters. Many newly built flats are very small and are built without adequate storage, so people use self-storage centres instead. If people have suffered a bereavement and have lost a relative, they need somewhere to store their possessions; we do not all have the space in our home to store these things. All those people need to know that their possessions are safe, and if the regulations are not allowing that to happen right now, the regulations need to change.

My concern is that the fact that the regulations are inadequate has created a race to the bottom in fire safety standards, as self-storage companies compete with one another on price. The way in which they reduce price is to reduce staffing in the facility and reduce the level of security and fire safety measures. They do so to minimise their costs, so that they may offer as low a price as possible. The only thing that will maintain minimum standards—and people need know what they are—is to ensure that there are adequate fire safety regulations for self-storage facilities. I am afraid that we do not have those at the moment.

Finally on this particular issue, does the Minister see the case, or the need for, providing specific help to people facing severe financial hardship—whether it be from the relevant public authorities, the Government, or even perhaps the company itself, which must bear some responsibility towards their customers for what has happened to them?

I will turn now, if I may, from the subject of self-storage towards wider issues of fire safety in residential blocks. The issue of cladding in particular has become very significant and of great concern throughout the House ever since the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower 19 months ago.

In today’s Prime Minister’s questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) reminded us that, days after Grenfell went up, the Prime Minister promised to do everything in her power to keep people safe. Since that time—19 months have passed—the Government seem to have done precious little in concrete terms to reassure people that they are safer now than they were then.

[Marsha De Cordova]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is being generous with his time, for giving way once again. He rightly points out that, 19 months on, we still have many blocks covered in this cladding. Residents in my own constituency are living in an unsafe block, and they might have to pay tens of thousands of pounds for fire safety remedial work. Does he agree that it should not be the leaseholders who foot the bill, and that the Government need to intervene to ensure that freeholders or the Government themselves can implement it? They must take the pressure and the burden off leaseholders.

[Mr Reed]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I completely agree: the leaseholders seem to be the innocent party in all this. They certainly should not be forced to bear the cost, the stress or the worry of having flammable cladding on the place in which they live.

Govia Thameslink Franchise

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Joseph Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case on behalf of his constituents, who have suffered unacceptably as a result of the disruption that they have experienced. It is right that the industry and the Government have apologised for everything that constituents have experienced. We are working hard to ensure that the disruption comes to an end as soon as possible, and we are ensuring that there is compensation and a proper explanation so that lessons can be learned for the future.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

In May, GTR issued guidance to its staff instructing them to ignore the needs of disabled passengers if not doing so would cause a delay to trains. We know that that was discrimination against disabled passengers. Does the Minister agree that no rail operator should be discriminating against disabled passengers? In future, will all rail franchises ensure that all disabled passengers are treated equally?

[Joseph Johnson]

It is entirely right that the train operating company in question apologised for that incident. No disabled passenger should be treated in such a way. We must have a fully accessible transport system. The Department will shortly launch an inclusive transport strategy, which will ensure that that is the case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We keep these matters and the regime under constant review. If she would like to write to me on the specific things that she takes issue with, we will of course look at them.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

If the Government are serious about tackling rogue landlords, will the Secretary of State today back Labour’s plans to give local authorities the power to crack down on rogue landlords through private sector licensing, without authorities having to seek permission from central Government?

[Dominic Raab]

We are introducing the Tenant Fees Bill, which will not just make renting fairer but save tenants an estimated £240 million in its first year. My concern with Labour’s proposals is that Shelter has said that they would hurt some of the most vulnerable in our society.

Grenfell Tower

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

We will certainly be looking at steps that can be taken sooner rather than later in respect of the Hackitt review. As I said to the House when the review was published, while some of this will require primary legislation, not all of it will. Therefore, as we look at how to take this forward, I have charged my officials to set out what we may be able to do sooner rather than later, and where consultation may be required and where it may not, so that we can see progress and action. That is why I indicated then—and I will do so—that I would update the House before the summer recess.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

Leaseholders in my constituency are continuing to be beset with fear at having costs ranging between £40,000 and £50,000 passed on to them to carry out remedial and fire safety work, so this is my question: it is okay for the Secretary of State to say that, morally, people should not be doing this, but does he not have to take action? It requires Government intervention to ensure that these costs are not passed on to leaseholders.

[James Brokenshire]

I hear that message loud and clear. It was a message that was conveyed to me very firmly at the leaseholder roundtable that I convened to hear directly from those who are really suffering at the moment—the concerns, the risks, the fear, the anxieties that they have. I think industry is starting to listen. I indicated some of the progress that has been made, but that needs to be at pace. It is the landlords and the building owners themselves who should bear that responsibility and cost. As I have said, if that does not happen, I will keep all issues under review.

Tenant Fees Bill

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting that point. He will know that clauses 18 to 20 contain amendments to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, so changes have been put in place in a number of different ways.

The Bill protects tenants from paying unreasonably high deposits. Coming on to the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), we are capping deposits at six weeks’ rent. I stress that this is an upper limit and not a recommendation. We expect landlords to find an appropriate level on a case-by-case basis and we will provide guidance to that effect. In Scotland, tenancy deposits are capped at eight weeks’ rent. A cap of six weeks’ rent, in our judgment, offers a balance of greater protection to tenants while giving landlords the flexibility to accept higher-risk tenants. It will also give landlords adequate financial security, and we believe that is necessary to maintain investment and supply in the sector.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is capping deposits at six weeks’ rent. Does he not agree with me and many of the voluntary organisations that have provided evidence and information that it would be right to consider reducing the cap to four weeks?

[James Brokenshire]

The issue was considered by the Select Committee, and we have considered it carefully. We believe that six weeks’ rent as an upper limit strikes the right balance between providing tenants with greater affordability while ensuring that landlords have adequate financial security for their assets.