Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 17th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call shadow Minister.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Well, what can one say about that last 20 minutes, apart from that it must have felt far more persuasive when the Minister practised it in the mirror this morning, but I do congratulate her on the birth of her grandson.

I will start by thanking their lordships for the extensive and forensic scrutiny to which they have subjected this complex and demanding piece of legislation. I put on record the appreciation felt on these Benches for the tireless work of our noble Friends, Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Lady Taylor of Stevenage, ably assisted as ever by Ben Wood and the whole Labour Lords team.

This Bill has been with us for some time now. First published in May 2022, it has progressed slowly against the backdrop of significant political and economic turbulence, the responsibility for which lies squarely with the Conservatives. It has survived an unprecedented degree of ministerial churn: three Prime Ministers; four Secretaries of State, albeit one a retread; four Housing and Planning Ministers; and four Levelling Up Ministers. With so many minds on the Government Benches having grappled thoughtfully with the implications of each of the Bill’s many provisions, one might have hoped that it would have been significantly improved and that its worst features would have been substantially mitigated, if not removed altogether. Sadly, despite the addition of scores of new clauses and a large number of new schedules to the extensive number it already contained, the Bill remains not only eclectic but deeply muddled. It is a rag-tag mix of measures—some sensible, but many more ill-considered or downright damaging—that attempt but fail to render coherent a Tory levelling up, devolution and planning agenda that is anything but.

In the eight months that the Bill was considered in the other place, the Government were forced to give way on a variety of fronts. I am glad that, in a range of areas, the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) and I made in Committee last year have been partially accepted.

However, although the Government’s concessions have rendered the Bill slightly more palatable, they have not resolved the fact that it still contains a range of measures, from the new infrastructure levy to community land auction arrangements, that are riven with flaws. We regret the fact that Ministers did not reconsider their inclusion entirely. It will now fall to a future Labour Government to halt, review or rescind each of them.

We do not have an opportunity today to attempt, again, to address many of the more problematic parts of the Bill but, as a result of the prodigious efforts of noble Lords in the other place, we have a chance to make a number of important changes that would modestly improve the Bill and, in so doing, enhance outcomes for local communities across the country. It is with that objective in mind that I turn to a selection of the unusually large number of amendments that the other place has sent to us for consideration.

Lords amendments 1 and 10 relate to the levelling-up mission set out in part 1 of the Bill and the distinct, but related, third round of the levelling-up fund. They seek respectively to ensure that the missions and the fund application process are properly integrated and that round 3 of the fund takes place not only in a timely manner but on the basis of a reformed application process. We support both.

The Opposition’s views on the Government’s levelling-up missions are well known, but, if we are to give statutory force to a statement setting such missions for a period of no less than five years, it is right not only that it comes into effect soon after the Bill receives Royal Assent but that it is accompanied by a statement detailing the application process for round 3 of the levelling-up fund, including transparent criteria so that the two can be fully aligned.

Similarly, our criticisms of the levelling-up funding process are a matter of public record, but, if the fund is to be the primary means of delivering priority local infrastructure projects for the foreseeable future, it is right that steps are taken prior to the opening of round 3 to simplify the application process and to reduce the onerous requirements and resources it presently involves.

We recognise that, by tabling an amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 10, the Government have sought to enshrine in the Bill an assurance in respect of round 3 of the levelling-up fund. However, not only is the content of the proposed statement left completely undefined, but the proposed amendment in lieu fails to achieve one of the central objectives sought by their noble Lords, namely that such a statement be published within the same timescale as a statement on the levelling-up missions so that the two processes, which are clearly connected, fully complement each other. For those reasons, we cannot support the Government amendment in lieu and we will support Lords amendment 10, along with Lords amendment 1.

The question of whether the Government’s proposed levelling-up missions are comprehensive enough to reduce inequalities between and within regions has arisen since the White Paper was first published in February 2022. Lords amendments 2 and 4 seek to augment the 12 missions set out in that document by requiring the addition of separate missions relating to child poverty and health disparities. We welcome the Government’s acceptance that addressing the impact of economic and social disparities warrants a greater focus in respect of levelling-up missions and that they have tabled amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 2 and 4 to that end. However, in our view, the requirement that Ministers “must have regard” to these disparities in the preparation and review of all the missions falls some way short of the implications that establishing dedicated new missions on child poverty and health disparities would have for life chances across the country. For that reason, we cannot support the Government amendment in lieu and will support Lords amendments 2 and 4.

We also support Lords amendment 22. We remain firmly of the view that there are circumstances in which virtual or hybrid meetings are necessary or useful, and that their use could help to reduce barriers to public engagement, particularly in relation to the planning process. As we argued in Committee last year, a number of organisations, including the Planning Inspectorate, already enjoy the freedom to offer such meetings as they deem necessary, and there is widespread support for putting local authority remote meeting arrangements on a permanent footing, including from the Local Government Association, Lawyers in Local Government and the Association of Democratic Services Officers. The Government have offered no compelling reason why this amendment should not be incorporated into the Bill, and we therefore urge the House to support it.

As the Minister will know, the establishment of a new tier of national planning policy in the form of national development management policies, and their precise relationship and standing in respect of local development plans, has been a point of contention throughout the Bill’s passage. The Opposition feel strongly that it cannot be right that national policies that will have a far greater impact on local communities than any existing national policy statement and that have significant implications for the status and remit of local planning can be developed without an obligatory and defined public consultation and parliamentary approval process. Lords amendment 44 stipulates such a process, including minimum public consultation requirements and a mechanism for facilitating parliamentary scrutiny based on that which currently applies to designating a national policy statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that people deserve to have their voices heard and to decide for themselves who they want to represent them as their police and crime commissioner?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is right. As I was about to say, we believe that this change is clearly driven by political expediency and is intended to facilitate the transfer of the PCC functions in the west midlands to its Mayor prior to the elections that will take place in May 2024. This is the latest attempt to achieve that end—a provision enabling the Mayor to expand the boundary of the West Midlands Combined Authority without the consent of the constituent authorities, having been defeated in the other place on 13 July. Lords amendment 273 does not engage with the substantive issue of whether a transfer on this basis is appropriate. All it seeks to do is to delay the point at which the measures contained in clause 59 come into force, so that this not insignificant change can be enacted in a considered manner after the next set of elections take place. The amendment has our support.

Finally, Lords amendment 329, which was tabled by Lord Best, would require local plans to identify the scale and nature of local housing need and to make provision for sufficient social rented housing so that homelessness and the use of temporary accommodation can be ended. The importance of this matter cannot be overstated. As a result of the reduced supply of genuinely affordable homes over the past 13 years, more than 1.2 million households languish on local authority waiting lists; millions of families are trapped in overcrowded or unsuitable properties; and, to our shame as a nation, the number of households in temporary accommodation, many of whom contain young children, surpassed 100,000 for the first time this year. National planning policy is clear that local plans should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing, but we know that the true extent of local housing need, and in particular the need for social rented housing, is not often reflected in them.

We strongly support the principle that underpins Lords amendment 329: that local planning authorities should be required, rather than encouraged, to properly identify local housing need and plan to meet it. We recognise that the Government have made an important concession with their proposed amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 329, which would ensure that local plans must take account of an assessment of local housing need, including affordable housing need. However, the Government amendment in lieu falls short, in failing to require local planning authorities to plan to accommodate that identified need. For that reason, we are minded to support Lords amendment 329 today, with a view to encouraging the Government to consider whether they can move a little further on this matter.

[Rachael Maskell]

Having served on the Bill Committee for six months, I have to say to the Minister that I found it really disrespectful that she would not take my intervention; I am here to scrutinise the legislation. I say to my hon. Friend—the future Housing Minister—that I welcome our adoption of these measures to ensure that we get the right tenure, not least because of the housing crisis that I see in my constituency. Let me push him further by asking whether we will accept the principles of Lords amendment 46 on healthy homes and the built environment, because we know that housing is about not just bricks and mortar, but the environments in which people live.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I thank her again, as I did at the time, for the many months of work that she did on the Bill Committee. She is right to raise the point about healthy homes; we fully support the principles of that campaign. We disagree with the Government’s suggestion that the issue is already well addressed, and I gently encourage the Minister to continue the conversations that I believe the Government are having with Lord Crisp and the other proposers of that amendment in the other place.

To conclude, while we welcome a small number of the concessions that the Government have felt able to make to the Bill, we believe that most do not go far enough. This unwieldy and confused piece of legislation is flawed on many levels. We have an opportunity today to make modest but important improvements to it. On that basis, we urge the House to support the many reasonable amendments that the other place has sent to us.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Father of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is essential that we boost the number of new homes built each year for private sale, but just as important is the need to significantly increase the supply of new affordable homes to buy and rent. The National Audit Office has confirmed that the Government’s target for its flagship 2016 to 2023 affordable homes programme was 250,000 starts by March 2023. Can the Secretary of State explain how on earth the public can trust this Government to address the housing affordability crisis when recent figures reveal that they have failed to deliver on their share of that target outside London?

[Michael Gove]

The significant increase in the affordable homes programme that I outlined earlier is the means for that to be done, but the difference between us is that we have a target for social and affordable homes, while Labour has none.

Nutrient Neutrality: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Oh, sorry. It has taken so long, I thought we must have moved on to Back Benchers. I call the shadow Minister.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As a result of the Government’s failure over many years to make decisive progress in tackling the main sources of problem nutrients, namely farming and waste water treatment works, the requirements for nutrient neutrality in sensitive river catchments present a challenge to securing planning permission for new housing development. It is therefore right in Labour’s view that the operation of the rules around nutrient neutrality is reviewed with a view to addressing problematic delays and increasing the pace at which homes can be delivered in these areas.

However, we have serious concerns about the approach that the Government have decided on. Not only does it involve disapplying the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, but it does not legally secure the additional funding pledges to deliver nutrient management programmes and does not provide for a legal mechanism to ensure that housing developers contribute towards mitigation.

I put the following questions to the Minister: what advice did the Government receive from Natural England about potential reform of the laws around nutrient neutrality? Did it offer a view on the Government’s proposed approach? Given the amount of mitigation currently available in the pipeline, which is estimated at allowing for approximately 72,000 homes, did the Government consider an approach based on the habitat regulations assessment derogation and a revised credit mitigation system to front-load permissions and provide for future compensatory schemes? If so, why did they dismiss that option? What assessment have the Government made of the impact of their proposed approach on the nascent market in mitigation credits, and investor confidence in nature markets more generally? Why on earth do Ministers believe developers will voluntarily contribute to mitigation under the proposed approach?

Finally, the Government claim their approach will see 100,000 planning permissions expedited between now and 2030. Given that house building activity is falling sharply and the pipeline for future development is being squeezed—not least as a result of housing and planning policy decisions made by this Conservative Government—what assessment has the Department made of the number of permissions that its disruptive approach will unlock within the first 12 months of its operation?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions and remarks. I take them to mean that he will support the measures when they come before the House. I am delighted to hear his support for our sensible, practical and pragmatic approach to unblock much needed housing across the country. He asked about our engagement with Natural England; we have had detailed discussions. He asked about the current legal framework; we have looked at and discussed a number of options to make the changes, and we are taking what we believe is the right approach to unblock planning permissions more quickly than the current situation allows.

The hon. Gentleman referred to nature markets; he is right to highlight the groundbreaking work we are doing across that piece. We are continuing with our commitment to those nature markets, which are a very important part of the Government’s plan to keep our environment, protect it and leave it in a better state than we found it. That is what the Conservative Government have always been committed to and continue to be.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have spoken to developers, who, of course, support our objectives. We have very constructive dialogue with the developers, who are happy to contribute. We will have those discussions with industry, as I am sure he has heard from developers, because I know he has spoken to them all. We are on the side of those builders. It is important to say that the developers most affected by the disproportionate ruling from the European Court of Justice are not the big developers but the small and medium-sized enterprises—the small builders—some of which have gone bust. It is right that we stand behind them.

Cost of Living: Private rented sector

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

As ever, Dr Huq, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair.

I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) on securing this incredibly important debate and on his powerful opening remarks. He has served in this place only for a relatively short time, but he has already made a considerable impact. His commitment to advocating for all those at the sharp end of the acute housing crisis has helped and will continue to help to ensure that it remains a prominent consideration for the House.

I also thank all those other hon. Members who have participated in this afternoon’s debate. I particularly commend the compelling contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton), and for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter)—I hope that I pronounced that last constituency correctly.

I also want to take the opportunity at the outset to express the Opposition’s thanks to all those organisations that have done so much to keep the issue of renters’ reform on the political agenda, particularly the 20 organisations that form the Renters’ Reform Coalition.

The cost of living crisis remains the most pressing issue facing households across the country. Against the backdrop of static inflation and rising core inflation, prices in some areas are easing, but remain high by historical standards. Pay is now rising, despite a cooling labour market, but continues to fall in real terms. Direct cost of living support for households is being scaled back, and the Government have overseen one of the biggest tax rises in a generation. As a result, families are continuing to feel the squeeze, and many are cutting back on essentials, withdrawing savings and racking up debts.

All the evidence suggests that private renters are particularly hard hit. Data released by the Office for National Statistics only on Friday, made clear that renters are nearly five times as likely to be financially vulnerable compared with mortgage holders or outright homeowners. According to that analysis, as many as four in 10 renters are finding it difficult to pay their rent. Renters are more likely than mortgage holders to cut spending on groceries and other essentials, to run out of food, and to be behind on energy payments.

The pressure on private renters reflects, at least in part, the sharp increase in rents over the recent period, owing to the mortgage crisis this Conservative Government presided over, as well as the general shortage of lettings, an issue rightly highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston in his comments relating to overall supply. According to the ONS, private property rental prices across the country rose 5% in the 12 months to May 2023, the biggest increase since the national data series began in 2016, with rent rises most acute in London.

We have heard several statistics in the debate, and other analysis suggests that the situation could be even more dire, with property website Rightmove suggesting that rents have risen nationwide by 9.4% in the past year, and by an eye-watering 14% in Greater London. The combination of all those pressures means that the situation for many renters is nothing short of dire. According to Shelter, almost 2.5 million are either behind or constantly struggling to pay their rent, an increase of 45% since April 2022. An analysis produced by the debt advice charity, StepChange, suggests that private renters are twice as likely as the general population to be in problem debt.

With renters across the country at breaking point, and many falling into arrears and at risk of eviction, they urgently need the long-term security and better rights and conditions they have been promised by this Government. After so many years of waiting, the Government finally published the Renters (Reform) Bill on 17 May. Yet, two months on, the Bill has not had its Second Reading and will not have it before the summer recess. That means, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd mentioned, we will not get a chance to consider it before September.

The Government’s justification for the delay, as suggested by the Secretary of State at departmental questions last week, is that a “fit-for-purpose impact assessment” was required to be available before progressing the legislation. No one disputes the need for a fit-for-purpose impact assessment to accompany the Bill, as we subject it to detailed scrutiny. We welcome the fact that the regulatory policy committee declared it green rated as of 3 July. However, it is frankly laughable for a Government that published the impact assessment for the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill the day before Third Reading to suggest the absence of a fit-for-purpose one is the sole reason that Second Reading of the Renters (Reform) Bill was delayed.

Whatever the reason for the delay, with a green-rated impact assessment now available, there is no reason whatsoever that we cannot begin to progress this long overdue and desperately needed piece of legislation. Will the Minister confirm to the House, and all those renters following our proceedings today, that the Renters (Reform) Bill will finally have Second Reading in the weeks immediately following the House’s return after the summer recess? Can she also reaffirm the commitment she made in response to a question from journalist Vicky Spratt at the Renters’ Reform rally on 21 March, to the effect that the Government will ensure that the abolition of section 21, and presumably therefore the passage of the Bill in its entirety, will be completed this autumn?

As the Minister will know, the Opposition were supportive of the proposals published in the “A fairer private rented sector” White Paper last year, on the basis that they provide a solid foundation for overhauling the private rental market, and we welcome much of what is in the Bill. However, we do have some concerns. We were troubled, for example, that the proposed legally binding decent homes standard for the private rented sector, and the ban on landlords refusing to rent to those in receipt of benefits or with children, commonly known as “no DSS” practices, are not in the Bill.

The explanatory notes accompanying the Bill state:

“The Government is carefully considering how to implement these policies and intends to bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity within this Parliament.”

The Minister confirmed to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee last Monday that separate legislation was not required, but that the Government intended to introduce both measures, along with stronger enforcement powers for councils, through the Renters (Reform) Bill. Can she confirm today that that is indeed the case? Will she provide the House with an assurance that the changes will be considered and scrutinised in Committee, rather than tabled as detailed amendments just prior to Report, thereby allowing for only limited scrutiny, as her Department has done with other pieces of recent legislation?

Lastly, the Minister will know that the Opposition regret the fact that important elements of the White Paper are missing from the Bill as published, including powers to limit the amount of advance rent that landlords can ask for and measures to expand rent repayment orders to cover repayment for non-decent homes. Can she tell us whether the Government are open in principle to amending the Bill to include those measures and to address its other well-known and well-understood deficiencies and loopholes, not least the inadequate means of redress provided for challenging extortionate within-tenancy rent hikes, or is it the Government’s intention to resist such attempts to strengthen this important piece of legislation?

Private renters have waited long enough to secure a fair deal. The case for transforming how the rental sector is regulated, and for finally levelling the playing field between tenant and landlord, is indisputable. The case for reform existed before the cost of living crisis, which has now made it an urgent imperative. The Government must act, and must act boldly. I look forward to listening carefully to the Minister’s response.

Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords]

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 17th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dehenna Davison]

The hon. Gentleman is, as ever, a fantastic champion for Northern Ireland and its people. We will, of course, continue to have conversations with the relevant bodies in Northern Ireland, because it is important that social housing, wherever it is provided within the United Kingdom, is up to the appropriate standard. I know he will continue to champion that cause.

In closing, I would just like to put on record one final time my and my Department’s heartfelt thanks to Grenfell United and all other stakeholders for their strong constructive engagement on this critical legislation. I hope that, following today, we will see it on the statute book incredibly soon.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

I intend to be brief, because the sole amendment we are considering is entirely uncontentious.

As you will no doubt recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Opposition welcomed the concession the Government made in the other place last year with regard to professional training and qualifications, and the resulting addition of clause 21 to the Bill. Having pressed in Committee for that clause to be strengthened, we also welcomed the Government’s amendment to it, which was tabled on Report earlier this year on the basis that it largely assuaged our concerns. We support Lords amendment 13B in lieu of Commons amendment 13, as do the relevant trade bodies and tenant groups including Grenfell United and Shelter, whom we once again commend for the role they played in convincing the Government to incorporate qualification requirements in the Bill.

Lords amendment 13B is a technical amendment that has three main effects. First, it will ensure that the qualification requirements in clause 21 capture relevant managers working for organisations which deliver housing management services on behalf of a registered provider. Secondly, it will ensure that contractual agreements between registered providers and delegated services providers and relevant sub-agreements contain terms stipulating that their relevant managers should have, or be working towards, a specified qualification in housing management, thus enabling registered providers to take action against delegated services providers that are not compliant. Thirdly, the amendment expands on definitions of services providers and specific roles, and provides for consultation before setting a standard and before giving a direction to set a standard.

We agree with their lordships that the changes are necessary if we are to ensure that the sector as a whole delivers high-quality professional services of the kind social tenants deserve and rightly expect. I want to put on record our thanks to my noble Friend, Lady Hayman of Ullock for bringing the need for this amendment to the Government’s attention and for her efforts more generally to improve the Bill in the other place.

It is our sincere hope that once the House has agreed this minor but necessary change today, this important and urgently needed piece of legislation can quickly receive Royal Assent so that we can overhaul the regulation of social housing and better protect the health, safety and wellbeing of social tenants across the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections etc.) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2023 General Committees

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I thank the Minister for the detailed explanation she has just read into the record.

The Opposition welcome this instrument and do not intend to oppose it, although we do bemoan the fact that it has proven necessary for the Government to bring it forward. After all, these regulations consist mostly of technical amendments to regulations previously made under the Building Safety Act after it came into force. For example, regulation 10 amends the definition of resident management companies to ensure consistency across the relevant regulations. Surely, the need for such basic definitional alignment could have been anticipated in the drafting of the previous regulations. We appreciate fully that these are not simple matters, but the fact that this Committee is having to meet this afternoon to rectify what are largely obvious deficiencies and omissions in the drafting of the previously approved regulations does not exactly inspire confidence in the Government’s approach to leaseholder protections and the building safety crisis more generally.

During the passage of Building Safety Bill, we warned about the consequences of rapidly overhauling what was already a complex and technical piece of legislation in order to reflect the Government’s belated change of approach. Indeed, I remember arguing when we considered Lords amendments to the Bill in April last year that it was deeply problematic that this House had so little time to carefully consider or properly scrutinise substantial changes to the legislation. As I said at the time,

“this is no way to make good law”—[Official Report, 20 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 191.]

Our concerns persist when it comes to the regulations before us. What assurances can the Minister give us that, in rectifying the deficiencies and omissions in previously approved regulations, the same errors will not recur in respect of the many other building safety instruments that we still need to consider?

While the bulk of this instrument concerns technical amendments to recently approved regulations made under the Building Safety Act, there are some noteworthy new provisions. I would like to press the Minister for specific information on one in particular: regulation 4, which adds Homes England to the list of interested persons who may seek remediation orders and remediation contribution orders under sections 123 and 124 of the Act. Leaving aside the obvious question of why it was not included from the outset, particularly given that it administers the building safety fund outside London, the addition of Homes England to the list of persons who can seek an RO and an RCO raises several questions.

First, is it the Government’s intention that, following the passage of this instrument, Homes England will largely or wholly take over the Department’s functions when it comes to applying to the first-tier tribunal for ROs and RCOs? Secondly, if that is the intention, do the Government expect this transfer of responsibility to lead to an increase in the number of such orders being applied for, beyond the extremely small number of orders that the Department is presently taking forward? Thirdly, will Homes England be provided with any further funding in order to fulfil this new responsibility—perhaps some of the £1.9 billion of allocated funding that the Department recently returned unspent to the Treasury?

As I have suggested, while there is good reason to believe that the need for them could and should have been anticipated, the instrument contains a series of perfectly sensible refinements to previous regulations, the effect of which should be to streamline the landlord certificate and leaseholder deed of certificate process. As the Minister has made clear, the draft regulations include provisions specifically requiring a landlord certificate to be served within four weeks of a landlord becoming aware of a new leaseholder deed of certificate containing information not included in a previous landlord certificate; changes to the information required to be included in a landlord certificate; and changes to the time period within which a landlord must share a copy of a received leaseholder deed to any RMC, RTM or named manager or else be prevented from recovering costs.

We take no issue with any of these measures. However, we regret that, although the instrument makes these necessary changes, it is a missed opportunity to resolve a number of other glaring deficiencies in the Building Safety Act that the Government really should have resolved by now. Let me give the Committee two brief examples.

The first example concerns the gap in the Building Safety Act that exists for those leaseholders who need to extend or vary their lease on or after 14 February 2022. The Minister and her officials are well aware that any leaseholder granted a lease extension or variation in a block of flats after that date does not benefit from the protections provided for under schedule 8 to the Act, even if the surrendered lease had the benefit, with the effect that leaseholders are being advised by the Government to try to persuade their landlord to apply those protections as contractual terms. The Government have stated on the record that they are

“looking to legislate to resolve this issue as soon as parliamentary time allows.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 May 2023; Vol. 829, c. 1392.]

Why are the Government not using this instrument to address that shortcoming?

The other example concerns the circumstances in which the costs of remediating relevant defects in relevant buildings can be charged back to leaseholders. As the Minister will know, in the recent case of Adriatic Land 3 Ltd v. Leaseholders of Waterside Apartments, St James Court West, Accrington, the first-tier tribunal held that the service charge protections under schedule 8 to the Act were not retrospective. As a result, those landlords who, seeing the writing on the wall, quickly sent out demands for service charges to cover the cost of remedial works before the Act came into force on 28 June last year have seemingly got away with passing on significant costs to leaseholders. The Government are surely not expecting individual leaseholders or groups of leaseholders to fund litigation to settle the law, so why are they not using this instrument to clarify that the provisions of schedule 8 are retrospective?

In addition to the specific questions that I have put to the Minister about regulation 4, I would be grateful if she explained why these and many other unresolved issues are not being addressed in this instrument, and if she provided further detail on whether and when they will finally be addressed.

Freehold Estate Management Fees

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this important debate, and on the well argued remarks with which she opened it. I thank the hon. Members for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), and for Buckingham (Greg Smith), for participating. In their compelling and thoughtful contributions, they highlighted, among other points, how widespread across the country problems associated with estate charges and fees are.

As in the debate last week on freehold and leasehold reform, hon. Members usefully brought the issue to life by detailing the impact of estate charges on homeowners living in developments in their constituencies. The accounts we have heard today, and many others I have heard from colleagues over recent years, illustrate vividly the abundance of problems associated with new build estate charges and fees; they are well known and well understood. They include excessive or inappropriate charges levied for minimal or even non-existent services; charges imposed for services that should, by right, be covered by council tax; charges that include costly arbitrary administration fees; charges hiked without adequate justification; and charges levied when residential freeholders are in the process of selling their property.

There is often a startling lack of transparency about what services are covered by service charges, estate charges and fees charged to long leaseholders in blocks of flats, but residential freeholders on privately owned and managed estates clearly suffer from inadequate transparency in other unique respects. As was said at the start of the debate, it appears to be fairly common for residential freeholders not to be notified of their future liability for charges early in the house buying process, and many learn of their exposure only at the point of completion. I listened with great interest to the suggestions about solicitors and conveyancers. As the Minister noted in the debate last week, even where notification of future liability is given in good time, many contracts do not specify limits or caps on charges and fees.

As the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire said, there also appears to be a particular issue with fragmentation on privately owned and managed estates, which further exacerbates the general lack of transparency and potential for abuse in respect of charges and fees. It is not uncommon in blocks of flats, particularly older ones, for ownership and management to become fragmented over time, but on privately owned and managed estates, even relatively new ones, residential freeholders frequently have to navigate scores of management companies, each levying fees for services.

Underpinning all those issues of concern is a fundamental absence of adequate regulation or oversight of the practices of estate management companies. They are deficient in many important respects, which is one reason why fundamental and comprehensive leasehold reform is urgently required. Leaseholders have at least some protections and rights that enable them to challenge the charges and the standard of service they receive, but residential freeholders have no equivalent statutory rights.

No hon. Member in this debate has claimed that the present arrangement is not inequitable, or suggested that there is anything other than a pressing need to give residential freeholders on new build estates greater rights and protections. Indeed, I would go so far as to submit that the House appears to be of one mind on the matter.

[Richard Fuller]

The shadow Minister is making some very good points, but in the spirit of evolving the debate, I want to ask him a question. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) talked about council tax, and mentioned, as I did, that people are being doubled charge. If there are reforms to be made, would the hon. Gentleman favour giving residents of estates that levy estate management charges the opportunity to hand back responsibility to the local authority in any circumstances?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman pre-empts a point that I will come to later. There is an issue with local authority adoption, but if he is not satisfied with my comments, he is more than welcome to intervene on me again.

The question is not, “Should we do anything?” but “Why have no concrete steps been taken over recent years to give residential freeholders the rights and protections they clearly need?” The Government have recognised publicly for at least six years that there is a problem, and that they need to act to address it. As has been said, and as the Minister clearly understands, in their December 2017 response to the “Tackling unfair practices in the leasehold market” consultation, the Government made it clear that they intended to

“legislate to ensure that freeholders who pay charges for the maintenance of communal areas and facilities on a private or mixed use estate can access equivalent rights as leaseholders to challenge the reasonableness of service charges.”

That commitment was repeated in the Government’s June 2019 response to the “Implementing reforms to the leasehold system in England” consultation, and successive Ministers have echoed it numerous times since then in the House.

Indeed, the Minister, who has responsibility for housing and planning, has been clear in several debates this year that the Government intend to create an entirely new statutory regime for residential freeholders based on the rights that leaseholders have. That would ensure that estate management charges must be reasonably incurred, that services provided must be of an acceptable standard, and that there is a right to challenge the reasonableness of charges at the property tribunal.

Given that there are almost certainly over a million residential freeholders across the country whose lives are being blighted because the practices of estate management companies are not adequately regulated, the Opposition urge the Government to find the time, in what remains of this Parliament, to legislate for freeholders’ protection. At a minimum, that legislation should ensure equivalence between the regulation of estate charges and the regulation of leasehold service charges.

This criticism is not directed particularly at the Minister, but it is incredibly frustrating for hon. Members from across the House, and for members of the public who have a stake in a given outcome, to hear Ministers assure us time and again that long overdue legislation will be taken forward “when parliamentary time allows”, especially as the House has frequently risen early in recent months because the Government’s legislative agenda is so light. There is a strong cross-party consensus on the need for urgent legislation to tackle the problem, so let us get on and progress that legislation.

Before I conclude, I will draw three important issues to the Minister’s attention, and I ask her to address them when she responds to the debate. First, on the Opposition Benches we take the view that we need to ensure that residential freeholders can more easily take control of their estate management company or companies. To be clear, that is conceptually distinct from the reform proposals made by the Law Commission in its 2020 report on exercising the right to manage.

There are a number of ways in which residential freeholders could be empowered to take over estate management functions on any given estate, but what is important at this stage is the principle. Could the Minister assure the House that when the Government legislate, it is their intention to provide residential freeholders on privately owned estates with a statutory right to manage?

Secondly, we believe that specific measures are required to protect residential freeholders from being evicted from their home due to a failure to pay estate charges and fees—or rent charges, as they were historically known. The Government committed in 2020 to repealing section 121 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which enables this practice to continue. Can the Minister confirm that the Government remain committed to doing so when they legislate?

Thirdly—this point has been raised by several hon. Members in the debate, and the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire challenged me on it—we feel strongly that residential freeholders deserve far more certainty about the circumstances in which communal areas and amenities on privately owned estates should be adopted by local authorities, and by water companies in the case of sewage infrastructure, and the timescales within which such adoption should take place.

Let me be clear that we sympathise with local authorities that are reluctant to adopt roads and common services of poor quality. However, some authorities refuse to adopt areas and amenities, most commonly roads, that are built to an acceptable standard unless an excessive fee is paid by the developer. There is a general need to drive up built environment standards across new build estates, so that councils do not have to pick up the long-term cost of repairing and maintaining them. However, we also need further clarity from the Government on if and when local authorities are required to take forward adoption, thereby saving residential freeholders from the type of fees that the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire referred to in his intervention. Does the Minister agree with us on that point, and if so, can she at least give us a sense of the Government’s thinking about what steps might be taken in that regard? I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to those questions, and to the debate as a whole.

New Housing: Swift Bricks

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, as ever, Sir Edward, and to respond to this important debate on behalf of the Opposition. I thank Hannah Bourne-Taylor for creating the petition and the members of the public who signed it in such large numbers. It is unsurprising but nevertheless still heartening to see so many people mobilise against the decline of nature across these isles and in particular in defence of the swift.

I recognise, as several hon. Members have, the contribution made over many years by local swift conservation groups across the country. The various initiatives they have collectively developed and implemented have made a difference, and they deserve to be commended for their work. I thank the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee and thank all hon. Members who have participated. It has been a debate defined by a series of passionate, thoughtful and informative contributions.

The debate has fallen to me to respond to as a member of the shadow Levelling Up, Housing and Communities team because it ostensibly relates to a technical planning matter. However, as the debate has made abundantly clear, the specific issue we are considering touches on a far broader range of concerns. As hon. Members have alluded to, when we weigh in our minds the case for specific measures such as swift bricks, context is everything. It is for that reason that Labour starts by recognising that the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, with analysis from the Natural History Museum suggesting that with an average of only 53% of our biodiversity left, the UK is in the bottom 10% of the world and the last in the G7 when it comes to the state of ecosystem biodiversity. It is unarguable that more must be done to protect and enhance our natural environment.

Labour fully appreciates how sharply breeding swift numbers across the country have declined over recent decades—as hon. Members have mentioned, they are now on the red list of birds of conservation concern in the UK. The precise reasons for the rapid decline of the species are complex. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), have alluded to some of them, but the loss of available nesting sites, largely through home renovation, insulation and demolition without sufficient alternatives being created, is undoubtedly a significant contributory factor. In our view, it is essential that as part of efforts to increase biodiversity net gain, we drive up rates of swift brick installation in new build properties—not only in houses but, quite rightly, in other public buildings across the whole of England.

The question is therefore not whether the Government need to do more to halt and reverse the decline of the swift population in the UK, or whether swift bricks would make a significant difference to swift numbers and other red-listed species. This tension has featured throughout the debate. The question is rather whether it is necessary, in order to boost swift numbers in the UK, to mandate the incorporation of swift bricks into all new build properties, as opposed to taking steps to better encourage and incentivise their roll-out.

Our instinct when it comes to achieving biodiversity net gain, including the specific 10% BNG target in all new developments that will apply from November this year, is to allow for maximum local discretion. It is local communities and their representatives that are best placed to determine what specific measures are appropriate on any given development site. As such, we certainly have a degree of sympathy with the Government’s position that local authorities and developers should not be compelled to include swift bricks in every single housing unit that they respectively authorise or construct.

However—there definitely is a “however”—we are deeply concerned about current swift brick installation rates. To the best of my knowledge, no agreed estimate of the total number of swift bricks needed to restore the swift numbers lost over recent decades exists, although I know that some people have made estimates. But there is little doubt that the numbers currently being incorporated into new buildings each year are lower than they need to be if we are to address the decline of swift numbers in the UK. That is not to overlook the tangible progress that has been, and is being, made in various parts of the country. We appreciate that many local planning authorities and communities have already included specific provisions relating to swift bricks in their local development and neighbourhood plans and associated supplementary guidance. We recognise that many new residential developments across England are incorporating large numbers of swift bricks.

However, it is undeniably the case that those incentives remain the exception rather than the norm—not least because, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), swift bricks and other species-based features are not explicitly included within the metric for calculating biodiversity net gain. The result is that swift brick coverage across the country, estimated at fewer than 20,000, remains far too limited at present.

Labour therefore takes the view that current national planning policy and guidance on the matter, which essentially amounts to listing swift bricks as one of the many small features that can measurably increase biodiversity and recommending them as part of best practice local design guides and codes, is insufficiently prescriptive. Although we do not believe that local discretion should be overridden lightly, we intend to reflect carefully on the arguments made in favour of making swift bricks mandatory in every new home built in England, and we certainly do not rule out such a measure in the future.

However, as things stand, we are absolutely convinced that there is a robust case for the Government to consider revising existing national planning policy and guidance in this area, at least to create a presumption in favour of incorporating swift brick provisions within local development and neighbourhood plans and associated guidance. Under such an arrangement, and with swift bricks properly scored on the BNG metric system, the onus would at least be on local authorities and developers to justify not installing swift bricks in each instance across specific sites.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be making life so much more difficult for himself and for all of us. I honestly could not believe my ears when I heard him basically saying that he would not—yet, at least—support the position that swift bricks should be mandatory. It would save so much time rather than putting in place all these extra hoops. We know that this is urgent. We know that having a swift brick can do no harm even if a swift does not use it. We know that starlings might, or sparrows. I really do not understand where his reluctance is coming from.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but let me be clear—I hope I was clear enough: we certainly do not rule out mandation as a step in the future. As I said, my reluctance stems from the fact that our instinct when it comes to achieving biodiversity net gain is to allow for local discretion, and we do not think that should be overridden lightly.

Secondly—and I have heard some compelling arguments in the debate on this point—I want to be absolutely convinced on a practical level that there are no sites in buildings that will not be suitable for swift bricks, in the way that a mandatory system would not account for. That is why we think it is better to at least start in the way I have described. I take issue with the hon. Lady on the timeline. We could make both changes relatively easily; the NPPF is currently being consulted on, and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is stuck in the other place. We think it might be better to start, as a first step, by incorporating into national policy and guidance that presumption in favour of swift bricks, with a mandatory approach in reserve.

[Robert Courts]

I want to comment on the hon. Gentleman’s reservation about a mandatory target. I understand where he is coming from. In my own speech, I accepted that there will be some places where, because of the nature of nests that swifts like to use, mandation might not be appropriate. Could we not deal with that by way of guidance that would ensure that the impetus was there for this cheap, quick, easy step, while also ensuring that it was not wasted in certain circumstances?

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a reasonable point, which I will certainly take away and look at. Given the understandable questions put to me about mandation, I honestly do not think that we are too far apart when it comes to what I am talking about. We are talking about essentially amending national planning policy and guidance to make it a presumption that swift bricks are installed in every development and building unless a local authority or developer can justify an exemption being made. As I said previously to hon. Members, we will go away and consider; this is the first time that the House has debated this issue. We will go away and carefully consider whether we will require a move to a mandatory system in the near future if no rapid progress is made. As a first step, we are certainly convinced that the Government should do that.

In the time left to me, I will put a couple of questions to the Minister, which I hope she can address. First, as a number of hon. Members have said, it would be useful to know whether her Department has engaged, in the light of this debate—or at least intends to engage following it—with colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the specific issue of whether swift brick installation should be scored in the BNG metric. We really cannot understand why it is not, and there is a strong case for doing it.

Secondly, has the Minister’s Department or the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs produced an estimate of the number of swift bricks required to restore breeding swift numbers across the country? I do not know whether other hon. Members found that to be an issue in preparing for the debate—I certainly did—but there are no reliable estimates. Local conservation groups have made them, and people out there in the country have had a go at what they might be. Such estimates would be useful when contemplating whether we need a mandatory system or a presumption in favour—to know precisely the metric we aim to get to across England. Can the Minister respond to that question?

Thirdly, do the Government agree with the Opposition that swift brick installation rates are lower than they need to be to address the decline of swift numbers in the UK? Lastly, if the Government agree that current installation rates are too low but they believe that a mandatory approach remains inappropriate, do they at least accept that existing national planning policy and guidance is, as I have argued, insufficiently prescriptive to increase coverage at the speed required? Will they consider revising it accordingly?

Oral Answers to Questions

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is now over four years since the Conservatives promised to ban section 21 no-fault evictions. It needs strengthening, but the Government finally published a Renters (Reform) Bill in May this year. Given the desperate situation that many renters are currently facing, and the urgent need to provide them with greater security and better rights, why have the Government not lifted a finger to progress that legislation in the weeks since it was published?

[Michael Gove]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s desire to do more to help people in the private rented sector but, as he will have heard, we wanted to make sure that we had a fit-for-purpose impact assessment so that the House could reflect on the changes that we are making and the benefits they will bring.

Building Safety and Social Housing

Matthew Pennycook Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

The fire that engulfed Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017 killed 72 people—18 were children and many, as the Secretary of State said, were disabled. The inferno wiped out entire families, ripped others apart and traumatised a community. The fear that Grenfell residents must have felt on that night is truly unimaginable, and those who survived will be forever scarred by what they experienced.

In the days after the fire, as pictures of the smouldering and charred building were broadcast across the country and the world, there was a collective feeling across Britain that not only did we now have no choice but to confront issues that had been disregarded for far too long, but that the sheer horror of what happened would not allow us to forget. But the truth is that even events as traumatic as Grenfell will fade from our collective consciousness unless we work to ensure they are remembered. For that reason alone, this debate is essential. While we lament the fact that the Government did not ensure that it took place on or around the anniversary date, we nevertheless welcome the fact that we have the opportunity today to commemorate the fire and its victims, to consider again the circumstances leading up to and surrounding it, and to debate its wider ramifications.

On 14 June this year, I took part in the Grenfell silent walk, as did several other hon. Members present. As it always is, it was a profoundly moving experience. At the end of the walk, the magnitude of the human loss is brought painfully home as the names of each and every one of the 72 men, women and children who perished in the fire are slowly and methodically called out to those assembled in stillness. But this year’s walk felt different, because alongside the usual grief and loss, one could sense a palpable anger among the crowd of an intensity that I have not witnessed before. Listening to those who spoke at the rally near the base of the tower at the end of the walk, it was clear that that anger is borne not only from the ever-present knowledge that what happened could have been avoided if shortcuts were not taken, reckless and unforgivable decisions were not made, and repeated warnings were not ignored, but from the fact that, six years on, the prospect of justice appears so distant.

On these Benches, we recognise, as we always have, the need to await the final report of the Grenfell Tower inquiry, but we understand the frustration and outrage that the community evidently feels as the years pass by without justice having been secured for their loved ones. The pursuit of justice will go on, as it must, yet the survivors, the bereaved and the wider Grenfell community, to whom the Opposition again pay tribute today, have always been clear that securing wider change and a lasting legacy is equally important to them. Amid all the setbacks and frustrations that they have experienced, it is important that we recognise that they have already helped to change things for the better. But when it comes to decisively and markedly improving standards in social housing and making sure that all buildings across the country are safe, there is still so much more to be done.

When it comes to improving the quality of social housing, tangible progress has been made over the course of the past 12 months. We pressed for it to be strengthened further, but we have worked with the Government to ensure the rapid passage of the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill through this place. Improved as it was by a number of Government concessions, we very much look forward to it receiving Royal Assent in the near future.

As the Secretary of State will know, operationalising that Bill will require a number of further measures, including determining the specific requirements that will flow from Awaab’s law; reviewing existing guidance on the health impacts of damp and mould in homes; and putting in place the new consumer regulation regime and updated regulatory standards. We would be grateful if the Government updated the House during the debate on progress on all those fronts.

While overhauling the regulation of social housing is a necessary step to improving its quality across England, legislation alone is unlikely to be enough. We recognise that many social landlords provide good-quality, safe and secure homes in which individuals and families can and do thrive. We also appreciate fully the challenging context in which social landlords have had to operate over recent years, including the significant costs of building safety remediation works, but we are convinced that many social landlords need to ask themselves difficult, but essential questions about the quality of some of the homes they provide and the service their tenants receive, as well as examining afresh their culture and processes. The recently published “Better Social Housing Review”, overseen by the National Housing Federation and the Chartered Institute of Housing, is a welcome development in that regard, and we look forward to seeing how individual providers implement its recommendations over the coming months and years.

We also recognise that progress has been made over the past year when it comes to addressing the building safety crisis. I particularly welcome the Secretary of State’s comments on product manufacturers. We encourage him to explore and exhaust all possible options that the Government have to hold them to account. In the course of the past year, some leaseholders have been given legal protection; some developers have entered into a legal agreement to remediate unsafe buildings that they have either constructed or refurbished; and some lenders have agreed to offer mortgages on blocks of flats with safety issues, but if we ask the hundreds of thousands of people still living in unsafe buildings across the country whether they expect the building safety crisis as it affects them to be resolved fully by this time next year or even this time two years hence, the answer we will receive from the vast majority is a resounding no.

The Secretary of State is right that all ACM issues on social housing blocks have been resolved, but we still do not know the full extent of the crisis as it affects social homes, because providers are ineligible to apply for support unless their financial viability is threatened. The overall pace of remediation across the country remains glacial. Shamefully, Grenfell-style ACM cladding, which should not be on any building in this country or any other country, is still present on 40 high-rise buildings in England six years on, and just 37 non-ACM buildings have been fully remediated out of the 1,225 that made applications to the building safety fund.

All the evidence suggests that only a small proportion of leaseholders in unsafe buildings have seen remediation works begin and a far larger proportion has no identified date for the commencement of works and no estimated timescale for completion, including many in buildings covered by the developer remediation contract. As a result, despite some lenders being willing in principle to offer mortgages, six years on from Grenfell the majority of leaseholders in privately-owned buildings are still trapped. Within their captivity, many are being bled dry by service charges that more often than not have escalated sharply as a result of soaring buildings insurance premiums. That is a scandal that the Government have singularly failed to step in and decisively resolve over multiple years, despite continuous pleading from Members from across the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I apologise for not being here for the first words of the debate. Can I confirm that the hon. Gentleman is saying that what leaseholders need is what social tenants have got: the problem needs to be identified and it needs to be fixed, and then the funding should happen? To wait for the funding is the wrong way round.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I hope the Father of the House will accept that we have argued consistently since the start of this crisis that the Government should step in and fund and then use their power to recover as we go forward, because too many leaseholders are trapped. That is not just in the context of this problem, but due to the wider inequities of the leasehold system, and we need to tackle that problem in due course.

[Richard Burgon]

I thank the shadow Minister for his thoughtful and detailed remarks. Taking him back to a point he made about ACM cladding, survivors of the Grenfell fire and the bereaved are keen to see ACM cladding banned globally. As he mentioned, it is on 40 blocks in the UK as it stands. Would he like to see it effectively banned globally and removed from those 40 blocks in this country?

[Matthew Pennycook]

ACM should not be on any building in England six years after the fire, and it is shameful that it is, but my hon. Friend is right. The Government should use their authority and the experience they have gleaned over the past six years to make the case worldwide, because this material should not be on any building. It is dangerous, and it should never have been put up in the first place.

While all trapped leaseholders are feeling the strain, in relative terms some are better off than others, because the Government made the political choice to provide some with legal protection from the costs of historic non-cladding defects, while leaving others exposed to bills that will not only lead to financial ruin in many instances, but will have a material impact on the progress of remediation in buildings where such non-qualifying leaseholders are large in number. Even at this late stage, I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider the arbitrary division of blameless leaseholders into those who qualify for protection under the law and those who do not, as well as beseeching him to ensure that the Government finally grip and drive from the centre an accelerated programme of remediation across the country.

To conclude, six years on from the horror of Grenfell, things have changed, but they have not changed anywhere near enough. If we are to ensure that everyone has a secure, decent, affordable and safe home in which to live, far more still needs to be done, and done quickly. If it is not, we will be back here again next year, marking the seventh anniversary of the fire, still bemoaning the fact that too many social tenants are being let down and too many buildings are not being made safe, with the lives of too many blameless leaseholders destroyed. We owe it to the survivors, the bereaved, the wider Grenfell community and the legacy they want to see established to ensure that that is not the case.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.