Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement
Meg Hillier Excerpts(4 days, 11 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome this commitment to local government and recognise that the Minister has a big job to do in addressing the challenges that have arisen because of the last 14 years—not least in local government audit. I welcome what seems to be a commitment to embracing the Redmond review. Will he give more detail about what will replace the Office for Local Government?
Jim McMahon
Most in the sector would agree that Oflog—the Office for Local Government—had a vague remit that was an expensive way of gathering data. In the end, if it were to be developed, we could risk mission creep whereby its remit would verge into the areas that local authorities so disliked about the former Audit Commission. We are trying to get the right balance between the early warning system that enables us to see which individual councils are under stress, and, importantly, noting any developing systemic threats or themes for which central Government might have to take much earlier action. We want to rebuild that early warning system.
However, we are absolutely clear that we are not replacing the Audit Commission. For one, it was hugely expensive, and we need to ensure that any money goes to the frontline of local public services. Honestly, councils do not need inspectors going in to mark their homework when they should be trusted to get on and do the job well. People understand what the National Audit Office is, so we hope that they will understand and see the benefit of a local audit office, and that it will be embraced by the sector.
Grenfell Tower Inquiry
Meg Hillier Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are continuing to see what measures we can take, and I have taken nothing off the table. I am working with my officials to make sure that those who are responsible are the ones who pay, not taxpayers.
Important progress has been made since 2017. Fire and rescue services are better trained and better prepared for large-scale emergencies, improvements have been made to local authority building enforcement, and a poor culture among tenant housing associations is being tackled through regulation. However, we must go further. If you speak to those who live in unsafe buildings, it does not feel like there has been progress—it does not feel like progress to them. They still feel trapped, powerless in the face of a system that is not designed for them, so this Government are acting.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
As my right hon. Friend has just said, many of my constituents feel very trapped, so I welcome the acceleration of action. However, does she have any timeframe—or will her Department be working up a timeframe—for when that action will have an impact on constituents? Some of mine will be facing bankruptcy because of the challenges they have been facing. I should declare for the record that I am a leaseholder.
Angela Rayner
The absolute deadline we have put forward as part of our remediation acceleration plan is 2029, but we want to go much further. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), and I have met with developers and others, and we continue to push really hard on this issue—it has been one of our No. 1 focuses.
Kevin Hollinrake
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, as I did during much of our work on the Select Committee. One of Martin Moore-Bick’s recommendations was exactly that: that all test results should be published, not just the ones that support the safety of the product. That would go a long way towards ensuring that the true safety of the products is established.
The BRE findings highlight a shocking betrayal of trust, and a callous disregard for public safety, driven by financial gain. The report also identified severe leadership and management failings within the London Fire Brigade. It described a chronic lack of effective management, an undue focus on processes, and a complacency among senior officers regarding the brigade’s operational efficiency. Those weaknesses hindered the brigade’s ability to respond effectively to the crisis, and underscored the need for systemic reform and improved leadership in fire services.
To address those failings, the phase 2 report made far-reaching recommendations, including the establishment of a single construction regulator; centralising fire safety responsibilities under one Secretary of State, to end fragmentation across Departments; regular updates to approved document B, to keep fire safety regulations current; and the creation of a chief construction adviser and a college of fire and rescue to ensure high standards in fire safety training and practices. We fully support those recommendations and urge the Government to implement them swiftly and effectively. We will scrutinise their progress to ensure that the necessary reforms are delivered without delay.
Some have questioned the pace of the remediation efforts. I think the Secretary of State was right to do so. I emphasise that the remediation efforts prioritised the highest-risk buildings, and by July 2024, 98% of high-rise buildings with the most dangerous, Grenfell-style ACM cladding had either completed or started work. On the remaining buildings, enforcement action is being taken against non-compliant owners. The complexity of the buildings and legal disputes over responsibility have caused delays. Nevertheless, all building owners must step up, take responsibility, and act swiftly to address the issues, or face the consequences of their inaction. It is important to note that the building regulations regime was established under the Building Act 1984, and fire safety reforms were introduced by other Governments in previous decades, as the Secretary of State acknowledged.
From 2010, the coalition Government sought to remove unnecessary bureaucracy, but fire safety and building safety were explicitly excluded from those reviews. The inquiry acknowledged that key safety regulations, including the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 were excluded from deregulation initiatives. Under our leadership, safety was never treated as red tape. Nevertheless, as the report confirms, mistakes were made by Ministers and officials on our watch. The frequency of changes under Governments of different political stripes, and the frequency of changes in housing Ministers and Secretaries of State, would not have helped. I hope that Parliament may learn that lesson for the future. Since 2017, the Conservatives in Government led comprehensive reforms of building compliance and fire safety. Measures introduced include the Fire Safety Act 2021 and the Building Safety Act 2022, which created the Building Safety Regulator to oversee stricter compliance with standards.
Dame Meg Hillier
One issue that arose at an early stage, about a year after the tragedy at Grenfell, was the need for fire safety surveyors. These people are experts and take about three years to train. In retrospect, does the hon. Gentleman not think that a lesson for future Governments of any colour is to look at such issues at an early stage, because we still have a shortage of those people now in 2024?
Kevin Hollinrake
I agree. Mistakes were made—there is no doubt about it. As the phase 2 report recommends, there should be greater oversight and regulation of people who proclaim themselves to be experts in these fields. I agree with the hon. Lady’s points.
Accountability must remain a cornerstone of our response. Those who knowingly cut corners on safety to maximise profits must face justice. We call on the Metropolitan police and the Crown Prosecution Service to pursue criminal charges against those responsible, be it through a deliberate act, a willingness to look the other way, or gross incompetence. Companies implicated in such wrongdoing should not receive future public contracts. Let us be clear: this was not the responsibility of any single Government, Minister or official. As the report sets out in its opening paragraphs, failures occurred over decades, involving Administrations of all political colours. We must approach these difficult questions with the honesty and determination that they deserve, ensuring that we learn the lessons of the past to protect lives in the future.
While we have made significant progress, the journey is far from over. As we look to the future, we must acknowledge the hard questions raised by the report about past governance. Those failures occurred over decades, involving Administrations led by Labour, the coalition Government, and Conservative Governments. This was a systemic failure, which requires an open and honest response. Our party’s record demonstrates our commitment to making things right. We took swift action after the tragedy to establish the public inquiry, launch the independent review of building regulations and fire safety, and allocate significant resources to remove unsafe cladding from high-risk buildings. The Fire Safety Act 2021 implemented recommendations from phase 1 of the Grenfell inquiry, and the Building Safety Act 2022 overhauled existing regulations, setting up the Building Safety Regulator to oversee stringent compliance measures.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am very happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman and to welcome the Secretary of State’s announcements today about accelerating all of this and ensuring that action is taken much more quickly. I hope that that will result in much quicker action for his constituents.
I was addressing the first major recommendation in our submission to the inquiry, which is that there should be established an independent building safety investigation branch of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, reporting directly to the Secretary of State. That removes any possible conflict that investigations have with any other part of the system. The idea that the Health and Safety Executive or the new Building Safety Regulator should be conducting investigations is absolutely fine, but we can never guarantee that they will not come across a failing of their own and be conflicted in that investigation. The public will not have confidence in any investigation that they conduct unless there is an independent investigation that looks at all the elements of the system. The Hackitt review rather overlooked this issue. It failed to underline how future fire incidents would be investigated. This is a gap that is still to be addressed.
The current system of resort to public inquiries, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green confirmed, takes far too long. I feel for those who were caught up in the tragedy directly. They have waited far too long. An air accident investigation rarely takes more than a few months because the capability exists. In the Grenfell case, the Housing Ombudsman still felt that
“residents’ complaints were dismissed and devalued.”
I think the inquiry was overwhelmed with so much material and so many different elements. In a way, its terms of reference were too wide to be able to capably come up with a comprehensive set of safety system recommendations.
It is also notable that although there was an inquiry into the Lakanal House fire, we had another inquiry into Grenfell. Public inquiries do not seem to resolve problems. A building safety investigation branch would transform that. It would operate independently, modelled on similar bodies for air, marine and rail. These bodies have proven their worth in both the rail and aviation. No public inquiry has taken place into an aviation accident since 1972 and there has not been a public inquiry into a rail accident since the Ladbroke Grove inquiry, because people have confidence in the new independent arrangements. They conduct rapid investigations. They focus not on blame, but on understanding failures and issuing binding recommendations for the future.
Dame Meg Hillier
The hon. Gentleman has spent a lot of time in this House thinking about how systems work. Does he not think that there is now an argument for the Government to have a proper review process of all coroners’ recommendations and all public and other inquiry recommendations, so they do not just get responded to in the moment and then not followed up in the months and years that follow?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am sure that may be a very good suggestion, but the point I am making is that we need an apex to our safety system. Whatever else the Government do to remediate the safety system as it exists at the moment, they need an independent safety investigator as the apex of the system, which is like a guardian angel over the whole system. The hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater said there should be—I think I quote him correctly—an independent oversight body. Well, this is the body he seeks. It would be constantly looking for risks in the system, not just investigating accidents, and following up directly with the Secretary of State to say, “This has not been done.”
Crucially, the independence of the bodies is what commands public confidence. They also provide a very significant capability that no other regulator can do—a safety investigation body is not a regulator, of course. They provide a legal safe space where anybody can go and say anything without fear or favour. Witnesses have protection and, if necessary, anonymity, so they can openly speak without fear of retribution of being sued or the words they give in evidence being used against them in court. This creates a culture of openness that accelerates the learning process while maintaining accountability.
The introduction of a BSIB would not trespass on any other part of the safety system, such as the HSE or the Building Safety Regulator. It is an essential additional capability which needs to exist, otherwise we do not have that ultimate check over the whole system. Regulators, if necessary, can still run their investigations, as I was saying before. The safe space in the safety investigator does not protect anyone from legal culpability, as we saw when the air accidents investigation branch investigated the Shoreham air crash. It passed a file to the police, because it believed there had been negligence. The pilot was prosecuted. The safe space does not protect someone from wrongdoing.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), and others, and I very much welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s written statement today, and her speech highlighting why the Government are acting and what they are doing.
We know that this was a systemic failure over many generations and across many parts of Government. In fact, in 2018 the late James Brokenshire issued a ministerial direction to civil servants to ensure that the original money was spent to remove the most dangerous cladding. I spoke to the senior civil servant who had had to go back and speak to predecessors about what had gone wrong, but no one had seen this coming. So I say to the Deputy Prime Minister that if there is a bigger lesson in this, it is about how the Government manage risk and watch for the unintended consequences of actions. Even with all the problems nobody intended that such things would happen, but that is what can happen if we do not keep our eye on the ball, and I hope my right hon. Friend will take that back to the heart of Government.
The impact in my constituency has been immense. Hackney as a borough has the second largest number of unsafe buildings in London, with the London Fire Brigade showing that 93% buildings in Hackney are at high risk—a larger figure than all other London boroughs except Tower Hamlets, as we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran). We have 72 buildings that are over 18 metres tall. Together, Hackney and Tower Hamlets in the heart of east London account for almost a quarter of the buildings in London with fire safety failures. I invite the Minister to meet us in any of our constituencies, or indeed in this place, to talk about what can be done across east London, because the impact is terrible. Insurance premiums have gone up massively. Many of my constituents who are leaseholders face bankruptcy. The mission to achieve change by 2029 will be too late for some. There is also disruption to their lives. They are unable to move on, and are putting off having a family. Their lives are on hold while they wait for the matter to be resolved.
I concur with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) about housing associations, but in the interests of time I will not repeat them. Some of these properties are owned offshore or have opaque ownership. That is one of the reasons that James Brokenshire issued a ministerial direction. He realised that one of the buildings with the worst cladding had had 89 owners since it was built. If there is one thing that the Government can do, they can stop our homes becoming vehicles for offshore finance. That is why 2029 is a challenge.
The National Audit Office report that has been cited says that we will not see changes until 2035. With the construction industry in its present state, and all the other pressures that the Government will face when trying to invest in infrastructure, I would love to hear from the Minister how we will ensure that we have the right construction skills in this country and, if it is what is required, that the Government will allow migration in order to ensure that we have the right skilled people in place.
Finally, I will highlight a wider issue about how we support families affected by fire. On 5 June this year, during the election campaign, a fire gutted a building on Dalston Lane in the Pembury Estate, with 36 households escaping with just the clothes on their back. Of those households, 10 are still in temporary accommodation—the Peabody housing trust did a good job in the early days of getting them housed—and many are still living in hotel rooms. Someone who is in her 90s is trying to be offered a place by an estate agent. Today, I launch a campaign, which other Members are welcome to join, to require landlords to have a wider set of plans to help tenants in the aftermath of a fire or other crisis. Yes, there is the immediate challenge—happily, there were no fatalities on Dalston Lane—but the ongoing impact on residents is immense, with mental health challenges, disruption to their lives and trauma. We need a holistic approach to supporting tenants and residents in those situations, and every landlord should be required to have that model.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
This evening’s debate has been appropriately serious and wide-ranging, and I will open by thanking the many who have enabled it to be just that: the excellent journalism of the BBC, which has ensured that not just the initial fire, but the inquiry and the lessons learned from it have remained at the forefront of public debate; and the survivors, the supporters of Grenfell United, some of whom are here tonight, and the many others who contributed to the inquiry process and to ensuring simply that Grenfell remained at the forefront of the public mind. I also thank Sir Martin Moore-Bick, who chaired the inquiry. I know it was the subject of some criticism when he was first appointed, but when we read the phase 2 report and consider everything that led up to it, we can see that it is a serious piece of work that puts us in a position to make good decisions about what needs to change.
It is our parliamentary duty to consider these most serious of matters. We need to ensure that we get it right for the sake of the survivors and the families of victims, but also for all the other people who have been spoken about in the Chamber this evening: those who live with anxiety about their own personal safety and circumstances, and those with a stake in the system, who need to ensure that the legislation that has flowed since the tragedy, and the actions that the new Government will need to continue, are fit for purpose. To that end, I confirm that the Opposition will support the Government to implement the proportionate and necessary measures that are required to keep the public safe.
Many Members across the Chamber have said that those who have intentionally cut corners on building safety need to be held to account, and the Opposition agree. While it has taken a long time, the inquiry process has gathered really good evidence, which will provide the Metropolitan police and others that may be involved, including the Crown Prosecution Service, with the beginnings of the evidence base needed to hold specific individuals to account through criminal charges and to pursue action against those developers and contractors who we now know clearly and fraudulently cut corners on building safety for their own financial gain. It has been said very clearly that we also need to ensure that the bigger businesses—the big corporates—that may have condoned that action need to be excluded from profiting from future public sector procurement activity.
There will be further lessons to learn from the inquiry. I pay tribute to a number of Members who made very serious and considered speeches. The hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) talked about the rise of the tenant management organisation. That is example of where there will be difficult questions for all parties and Government Departments to consider. The purpose of the previous Labour Government in introducing arms-length management organisations was to create a mechanism by which additional funding could be put forward to enable a higher standard to be achieved in the social housing sector.
However, I also know—the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation is a good example of this—that that created an additional barrier of governance between the local authorities, which in most cases were the freeholders of the properties in question, and the tenants, who in theory gained additional control through the creation of boards to oversee what happened in their buildings. However, as the phase 2 report spelt out very clearly, effective governance often failed to materialise. Instead, there was often mutual finger pointing, with each thinking that somebody else was responsible for the critical fire safety issues. Those lessons about governance, however difficult they may be for both sides of the Chamber, must not be glossed over.
It is clear, as has been set out, that the Government intend to take robust action. It is the Opposition’s contention that they have solid foundations to build on. As the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) set out, James Brokenshire—the then Minister, since sadly deceased—set out swiftly after the fire, once some initial information about its causes was available, that £400 million funding was to be made available to social housing providers and local authorities in 2018 to ensure the swift remediation of social housing settings with the most high-risk cladding on the exterior.
That was followed with legislation: the Fire Safety Act 2021, the Building Safety Act 2022 and the Social Housing Regulation Act 2023. Each was designed, as the process of inquiry was progressing and as other evidence came to light, to ensure that we were addressing, as far as we could, those things that we were legally able to do at each of those stages, first on the basics of fire safety, and then on to the broader lessons emerging about building safety and ensuring that social housing regulation—in what is a diverse sector—was fit for purpose.
Dame Meg Hillier
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I want to repeat the point I made earlier, to see if I can get a response this time. We knew at various stages that there needed to be skilled people, from surveyors to contracting, to carry out the remediation work. Looking back, does he regret that perhaps some of that effort was not put into developing those skills earlier, so that constituents of ours who are still waiting for remediation could perhaps have had it done more quickly?
Oral Answers to Questions
Meg Hillier Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, and I am sorry to hear about Paul’s experience with that particular property management company—an experience that will, I know, be reflected in the experiences of many others across the country. There are two existing routes to redress in such circumstances, the property redress scheme and the property ombudsman scheme, to which people can submit complaints. I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman to set out in full the various sources of advice and support and the avenues for redress that his constituent might pursue before we bring in more fundamental changes to the regulation of the sector.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I should draw the House’s attention to the fact I am a leaseholder subject to service charges, as are hundreds of my constituents. There is very often a real lack of transparency and accountability from service providers. Bills are not very clear, and it takes quite a lot of effort to understand them. The Government could regulate, but will the Minister use his convening powers to encourage service providers to do better, prior to discussing legislation that could take a very long time?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am more than happy to look into what more can be done by convening to get the various interested parties around the table. The Government are committed to implementing the provisions of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, which includes measures to increase the transparency and standardisation of service charges and empower leaseholders in that way.
Temporary Accommodation
Meg Hillier Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I am so grateful to have the opportunity to bring the subject of the crisis of temporary accommodation to the House of Commons today. I thank the Minister for her time and attention this afternoon. Having first met at the ballot box in Bethnal Green and Bow in 2019, it is great to meet here again, at the Dispatch Box.
It means a lot to me to raise this issue today on behalf of my constituent Kelly and her family. Kelly is a proud mum of three, wife to Devon, and a fighter. After being served with a section 21 notice by her landlord, Kelly and her family were forced to leave their home. She was determined to find a new home in the private rented sector but faced so many barriers. One was that many landlords required her to find a guarantor whose salary bracket was not one shared by folks in her network. Another was that many landlords demanded six months’ rent in advance. For someone like Kelly who receives universal credit, having six months’ worth of Eastbourne private sector rent in the bank—to pay so much up-front rent—would disqualify her from universal credit in a heartbeat.
Despite pulling out all the stops to find a new home, having been displaced from their previous one, Kelly, her three children and their stepdad Devon have been backed into the corner of homelessness—into temporary accommodation until a longer-term home can be found via the council or the private rented sector. This accommodation is too small to cater to their aspirations and their needs, especially those of Kelly’s awesome teenage son, Joseph. This is a combination that, by its very nature, is temporary and not secure; accommodation that forces families to exist, not live, and that could not feel further from a home. That is not fair. I have taken up Kelly’s case, and my team and I are working hard to support her, but what I find so extraordinary about Kelly is that in the midst of unspeakable hardship she is so often zooming out and reflecting on just how broken the whole system is, and she has been a tireless advocate for reforming it. A week or so ago, she said:
“Josh, take me to Parliament, and we’ll speak about it up there!”
Days later, I secured this Adjournment debate, which enables us to do exactly that.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. It is an important issue, and I agree that it is admirable for someone in such circumstances to pull out and see the bigger picture. To add to that bigger picture, in the borough of Hackney, half of which I represent, the forecast cost of temporary accommodation is £54 million this year, and there are eight primary schools’ worth of children, equivalent to 1% of our population, living in temporary accommodation. I am sure that the hon. Member would agree that the position is unsustainable, and I congratulate him again on bringing it to the attention of the House.
Josh Babarinde
I could not agree more, and I will come to the costs of temporary accommodation later. The hon. Lady knows as well as I do that the National Audit Office described the situation as unsustainable. It needs a resolution, which is why today’s debate is so important.
On securing the debate, I called Kelly, shared the news, and she said in reply:
“What needs to be said is going to be said in the place it needs to be said to the person it needs to be said to. You are the right person to say it, Josh.”
It is therefore so humbling to welcome Kelly and her son Joseph to the Public Gallery. I hope that I am the right person, that I say what needs to be said, and that I do not let Kelly and families like hers down. With her blessing, I have shared some of Kelly’s story today. She is just one of the 117,450 families who are in temporary accommodation in this country right now. That is a 12% rise compared with last year. Heartbreakingly, more than 150,000 children are living in temporary accommodation, which is enough to fill 5,000 classrooms.
Josh Babarinde
I absolutely would encourage that. There needs to be more co-ordination between local authorities, educational settings and health and care settings. Many have advocated for a notification system in order to aid the knowledge of those situations, so that they can be addressed.
The circumstances are devastating, and we hear from hon. Members who have made interventions that that is the case in their patches too. Shelter estimates that more than two thirds of people in temporary accommodation have inadequate access to basic facilities—to cook, for example. Many food banks, including mine in Eastbourne, supply kettle packs, because many families in temporary accommodation are unable to cook or heat the food that they get from a food bank in any other way. Isolation is also a consequence, especially for those who are placed in temporary accommodation miles away from their support networks, or where the rules of their accommodation ban visitors. Most shockingly, according to the Shared Health Foundation analysis of the national childhood mortality database, temporary accommodation has been a contributing factor in the deaths of 42 infants since 2019. We cannot go on like this.
Not only is that unacceptable on a human level, but as I said earlier, the National Audit Office has been clear that the situation is unsustainable for local authorities—especially mine in Eastbourne. In my hometown, the number of families in temporary accommodation has doubled since 2019. That, combined with our food bank becoming the busiest Trussell Trust food bank in the country—it distributed more food parcels per head than any other in the UK—led to my campaign to declare a cost of living emergency in Eastbourne. It was the first place in the UK to do so, and that unlocked emergency support for those struggling most.
The surge in temporary accommodation led to the financial cost to the council jumping from £2.2 million in 2019 to the £5 million projected for this year.
Dame Meg Hillier
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his indulgence in giving way again. He is right to cite the National Audit Office’s excellent work to shine a light on the issue. Does he agree that if we turned those many millions spent on temporary accommodation into money spent on good-quality affordable social housing, we would go a long way towards solving this problem?
Josh Babarinde
The hon. Lady has a crystal ball, because she has again pre-empted something I will say later. I absolutely agree, and I commend her work in her former role as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, which I know took a deep interest in this matter.
Costs in Eastbourne have skyrocketed. In fact, the council has said that 49p of every £1 that the council collects in its share of council tax is currently spent on temporary accommodation. As a result, Eastbourne borough council has been forced to consult on incredibly tough saving decisions to avoid issuing a section 114 notice, and the picture is similar in other councils.
James Asser
The hon. Lady makes a valuable point. The figures are hard to believe; sometimes I have to check that I have not misread them or added a zero. As she highlights, the issue affects councils across the country and seriously adds to their financial problems. This is clearly unaffordable and unsustainable, even in the short term. We desperately need support, so that we can deal with the impact on councils’ budgets; they face huge pressures already.
As the hon. Member for Eastbourne pointed out through the example of Kelly, his constituent who is in the Public Gallery, the issue is the impact on families. Since the cost of living crisis began, when the supply of temporary accommodation slumped and demand soared in my borough, my advice surgery has seen a massive increase in casework. People have come to see us who have been living for months in a hotel room—a perfectly decent hotel room for someone staying three or four days, but not for a family of four or five people for months on end. They are living in a single room without cooking facilities. The impact on the parents’ mental health and the children’s physical health and educational opportunities was really quite serious. It is difficult to deal with the sheer numbers.
Dame Meg Hillier
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. I am old enough to remember when bed and breakfasts were commonly used for households who could not get permanent accommodation. That was rightly dealt with because it was a scourge on modern society. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are now slipping massively backwards because of the numbers he outlined, and that we need to find a quick solution, in order to support our constituents?
James Asser
My hon. Friend is exactly right. We have gone back from people in temporary accommodation living in flats to hotels being the only option. My council is desperately seeking alternative solutions, but the sheer scale of the problem makes that very difficult. As a fellow east London MP, the Minister will understand the problem and the issues that we face. I ask the Government to look urgently at financial support in the short term, so that we can try to deal with the immediate crisis, but we also need a long-term solution—a financial solution to help councils through these difficulties, and a long-term solution, a way to build social housing. My council is one of those pioneering the building of new social housing, but in the grand scheme of things, we are effectively talking penny packets, given the scale of the issue that we need to deal with.
I appreciate that we inherited this crisis. It has been exacerbated by the cost of living crisis, and seriously exacerbated by the difficulties that councils have faced as a result of the funding settlements that they have had over the past 10 years. They are juggling 10 years of austerity and the cost of these problems. However, it is a crisis that we have to deal with. I am confident that we can, but it is clearly something that we have to tackle as a matter of urgency, not just for the sake of our councils’ budgets, but to help the people who most need help.
Rushanara Ali
The hon. Member has highlighted some really important issues affecting the private housing sector—costs and supply—and the impacts that they have in different areas. I will come on to the action we have already started taking to make headway on those issues.
As we have heard, homelessness and rough sleeping have dramatically increased. In England, homelessness is now at record levels. In March this year, more than 117,000 households, including over 150,000 children, were living in temporary accommodation. In the hon. Member for Eastbourne’s constituency, on 31 March, 373 households and 419 children were living in temporary accommodation. It is shocking that children and families in this country in the 21st century are without a permanent place to call home, and have to live in horrific conditions where temporary accommodation is not of a decent standard. We all know of cases where that is deeply problematic.
Dame Meg Hillier
I am very pleased that my hon. Friend is in this post, because she understands the real issues. We have this ridiculous situation where families in my constituency in east London are being sent to other parts of the country, putting pressure on the housing markets and causing issues there. This vicious circle is costing the taxpayer—and households, our schools and our communities—dear. I am sure that she is moving on to what solutions may be available, and she has our support in finding those.
Rushanara Ali
I am incredibly grateful, and my correspondence box is piling up with the mix of issues that my hon. Friend points to. We need to work collectively to tackle these issues, because unless we deal with them in the round, one area’s issues will be transferred to another, which I know is not the answer. We need to address those issues, but it will take some time for us to gather the evidence and work with Members to tackle barriers.
Building Safety and Resilience
Meg Hillier Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rushanara Ali
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on this matter. I served on the Communities and Local Government Committee under his chairmanship many years ago and learned a great deal from his work. The Government have committed up to £400 million in grant funding for the removal of Grenfell-style cladding in the social sector, and social housing landlords can apply for the grant schemes in particular circumstances, but we are working with regulators and the sector to ensure that social landlords assess the progress of remediation work. There is much to do, and I look forward to working closely with him on that and the wider agenda.
Since 2017, some progress has been made, including the Building Safety Act 2022, which Labour supported. But what is clear is that the speed of work to fix unsafe cladding is not fast enough. The recent fires in Dagenham and Slough underlined the vulnerabilities that persist in our built environment. Since coming into office, we have met regulators and other industry partners to press for action to make buildings safe. We are contacting all metro mayors in England to ask for their support in driving forward local remediation acceleration plans, working in partnership with regulators.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment, which, in trying to put right these wrongs, is to one of the toughest jobs in Government. I wish her all the best.
One of the things that would help is to improve the skills throughput in the construction industry. In my constituency, only one large block has had its cladding completely removed, and that started five years ago—it has taken that long to deal with it—so those that have had no work started are way behind. One big brake on that is skills in the construction industry. What are the Government doing to improve and enhance skills in that sector?
Rushanara Ali
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention on this really important agenda. I will say more about the remediation action plan and our response. The Prime Minister committed to making sure that we respond to the recommendations of phase 2 within six months, and we will certainly be looking at those recommendations. The point she makes, which is very important, has been raised with me over the past few months. I am also familiar with those concerns as I raised them myself when we were in opposition.
I turn to enforcement action. Our message to building owners is clear: those who fail to make their buildings safe will face enforcement action. The funding is there: the Government have committed £5.1 billion to remove dangerous cladding, and industry is providing the rest. All blocks of residential flats above 11 metres now have access to a scheme to fix unsafe cladding. Qualifying leaseholders are protected by law from crippling bills for historical safety defects.
As the Prime Minister made clear in his speech in the House last week, we will take the necessary steps to speed this up. We are willing to force freeholders to assess their buildings and enter remediation schemes within set timetables, with a legal requirement to force action if that is what it takes to tackle industry intransigence. As I mentioned, we will set out further steps on remediation this autumn.
Rushanara Ali
The evidence shows that the risks tend to be in the high rise, and that has been the focus, but there are arrangements to ensure that lower-rise buildings with safety issues are addressed. We need to look at these issues in the round. It is important that we do not miss anything, but in the Department’s work so far, the bigger risks have been in the higher rise. I take the hon. Member’s point, and where there are issues with lower-rise buildings, we are very much willing to look at how we provide support.
Dame Meg Hillier
My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way to Members across the House. As she said earlier in her remarks and just touched on again, sometimes recalcitrant developers are really reluctant to pay and do not engage with residents. There is a danger that those residents will be left at the bottom of the heap as they compete for skills, products and so on. I am sure she is mindful of that, but is she able to give those residents any comfort about the pressure the Government can put on those recalcitrant developers, to help get on with the work and make them pay later?
Rushanara Ali
Having dealt with such cases in my own constituency, I am very aware of the challenges. The Prime Minister made it clear that if further action is needed we will take it, but we will use the existing laws and the powers we have to take action now. I assure my hon. Friend that officials are working closely with Members of Parliament to support them and their constituents, to ensure that action is taken. I hope that I can meet colleagues regularly to support them, with officials, to ensure that those who are intransigent do the work that they are required to do. We will take action, and we will work with Members to ensure they get the support they need.
In response to the recent fires in Slough and Dagenham, the Government are supporting local teams to assist those affected. Firefighters also attended a fire in my own borough—a high-rise building in Blackwall. I am very grateful to emergency workers for their bravery and quick response to those and other incidents. Following the fire in Dagenham, at a roundtable of regulators and partners the Deputy Prime Minister made clear that fixing unsafe buildings must happen faster.
Members across the House will share our resolve in wanting the findings of the Grenfell inquiry to be a catalyst for change. I want to assure the House that we will hold a further debate on the Grenfell inquiry report in the autumn, which I know many Members will want to contribute to. It will be an opportunity for them to share their insights, to discuss the specific recommendations that have been made and to work with us to bring about the change that is urgently needed. In the meantime, we will support the Metropolitan police and the Crown Prosecution Service as they complete their investigations and bring prosecutions.
This is about delivering justice and accountability, but it is also about treating everyone, regardless of where they live, with respect. In that spirit, we are listening to those affected. We are engaging with residents, local authorities, housing associations and others in the fire safety community to ensure that our policies and actions reflect the concerns of those affected. We are setting an expectation of industry to ensure that residents are listened to, protected and have peace of mind that action to make their homes safe is a matter of priority and taken seriously. Looking to the future, we will ensure that the security, health and wellbeing of residents and their wider communities will drive our mission to build 1.5 million new homes over this Parliament.
We will never forget the Grenfell Tower tragedy on that night in June 2017. Over the past seven years, the bereaved, survivors and the immediate Grenfell community have campaigned relentlessly to protect their fellow citizens, despite their personal loss and pain. As the Prime Minister said, in the memory of Grenfell we will change our country and we will bring the full power of Government to bear on this task, because that is the responsibility of service and the duty we owe to the memory of every single one of the 72 lives lost.
Oral Answers to Questions
Meg Hillier Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rushanara Ali
I know the hon. Gentleman did a great deal of work on this agenda in the last Parliament. This week, more than seven years after the Grenfell tragedy, the community will receive the public inquiry’s final report, and I hope its findings will help to provide the truth that the bereaved and survivors deserve. The Dagenham fire, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, must have had a traumatic impact on those people, as well as on the affected residents.
Today we have published a written ministerial statement setting out our actions in relation to the outstanding phase 1 recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry, and further work is under way to ensure that we can accelerate the work to make buildings safe. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman on this agenda.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Hundreds of my constituents live in leasehold properties with problems. I should declare for the register that I live in a leasehold property, although my developer funded the full cost of cladding removal. There is still a very long wait for those who are not yet in the queue, and one brake on delivery is the lack of skilled people in the construction industry. What work is my hon. Friend doing with other Departments to make sure that we develop the skills we need? Seven years after Grenfell, we still see some buildings where work has not started, so we do need to put our foot on the accelerator.
Rushanara Ali
This is a very important area and we are absolutely committed to increasing the skills and competence within the sector. The industry has actively responded to Dame Judith Hackitt’s challenge, but there remains significant work to be done to upskill industry members and prepare for the new regime. The Department and the Building Safety Regulator will support industry as they identify skills and capacity gaps, provide relevant training and set up accredited competence schemes. I look forward to working with colleagues who will all have an interest in speeding up remediation work and improving capacity in the sector.
Oral Answers to Questions
Meg Hillier Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jacob Young
I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss his campaign. Buses are the most popular form of public transport in our country. They are an essential element of our national transport system, playing a vital part in levelling up. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for acknowledging the huge amount of levelling-up funding going into Clacton and am keen to work with him to see how we can help people in Jaywick as well.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
My borough, Hackney, was successful in its bid for levelling-up funding, but there was a delay to the bid being put in, because the Government changed the timetable, and a delay to the final decision, again because the Government delayed the timetable, which has contributed—it is not the only factor—to a nine-month delay in the programme and getting the funding. Will the Minister look at that? Given that it is a Government flagship programme, is he not a bit disappointed that the timescale problems are down to his own Department?
Jacob Young
I absolutely commit to looking at that. We have introduced the project adjustment request process, and I am more than happy to talk to the hon. Lady and her local authority about how they can utilise that to meet the changes that she outlines.
Draft Higher-Risk Buildings (Keeping and Provision of Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023
Meg Hillier Excerpts(1 year ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am aware that a number of regulations will flow out of the Building Safety Act, so could the Minister clarify whether disability and access information is recorded under this regulation? It is critical that there is a proper record of people who will need assistance when evacuating.
I should have declared an interest in that I am a leaseholder and live above the seventh floor in a leasehold block, and I have had recent experience of a fire drill when an alarm went off. But I represent many constituents living in affected blocks, which is my main interest today as their constituency MP. Sometimes, temporary disability is an issue. It is quite a challenge for a building manager to keep up to date with people who have broken an ankle and have a problem for only a few months, rather than people who have a regular problem. There are also important privacy issues for people with a disability who may need support and assistance, relating to how that might be recorded and dealt with differently from other information.
On data, a lot of blocks in Hackney have been sold to overseas landlords. There are landlords overseas and landlords in the UK—sometimes in London but often elsewhere. There are then the residents of those blocks—some are owners, and some are the tenants of those landlords. When the data is shared with the resident, there is reference to the redaction of personal data in some circumstances, as I am sure the Minister is aware. Could he explain who gets the full data? Is it the resident, and the landlord has some of it redacted? How will that work? There is an awful lot of personal information flying around here, and it is easy to see how there could be challenging GDPR issues.
To echo the points from my colleagues about the impact on leaseholders, the guidance suggests an estimated £15-a-month charge to leaseholders over a 15-year period. That works out at about £180 per annum for 15 years. I am interested to know how the Department modelled those figures. A one-off map of the building—if that did not exist beforehand—is one cost; it does not change. The change would be the personal information about residents—the names of people moving in—so that there is a record of who is living there, and information about access and disability where appropriate.
I know the Minister is quite hot on leasehold charges. As my colleagues have said, what efforts will be made to ensure that leaseholders, or indeed tenants, are not fleeced by charges? Where properties are tenanted, there will be certain restrictions. The Minister’s portfolio has shifted so I am confused about what is currently under his remit, but I hope he is able to shed some light on the impact on social rents.
Obviously, there is a cap on how much social rents can increase by, but if those extra pressures are put on local authorities, housing associations and other landlords, they will have to pass them on in some way to tenants through service charges. For a lot of tenants, service charges are wrapped up in rents. Can the Minister say anything about that, because £15 a month is not a lot for people in fancy, expensive leasehold properties, who, at the high end, are used to paying thousands of pounds a year in service charges, but others find it a challenge to find the extra £2 a month, or a week, for CCTV on their estate? What thought is going into that? There is a danger with bad leasehold companies, which manage properties badly and are not transparent about costs. It is easy to see how other costs could be hidden in this cost. What thoughts has he had on that?
Is there a review point? The impact assessment says that there will be no separate review, other than the review that is built into the Building Safety Act 2022. Could the Minister remind us—I am afraid this does not come to mind—exactly how that review will work? How can Members who represent affected constituents press for a review if we pick up, though our work, issues with how the provisions are applied?
Has the Minister given any consideration to the impact where a property does not have a plan? He will know about this, as a former Westminster City councillor. When I became a councillor, properties transferred to the council from the then Greater London Council often did not have proper plans. The plans available depended on when properties were built, and who the original landlord was. To what extent will plans have to be drawn up for buildings that never had them? In more recent years, and certainly since the tragedy of Grenfell, we have expected property owners to keep proper, clear building plans that are easily accessible and can be supplied to the fire and rescue services, and any other interested parties.
Lee Rowley
I work closely with the Building Safety Regulator. Its first job is to make sure that the rough number of buildings we are expecting to register have done so. For the past couple of months I have received data weekly, and slightly less frequently before that. The numbers are in the ballpark of how many we expected to register, so the first test has been passed. Now, it is a case of, over six years, working through the buildings, making sure that data is collected and used in a satisfactory way, and helping owners to make sure they are managing in a way that works. A substantial sum is going into the Building Safety Regulator, and from having worked closely with it, I think the indications so far—things may change—are that it is moving in the right direction.
To pick up a couple of other points, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch highlighted the very important point about disabilities and making sure that appropriate consideration is given to that issue. That is vital and it is a core part of our approach, but it is separate from the regulations before us, which are about a record of buildings, not of people who live in them. We have already consulted and we will bring forward separate measures on PEEPs—personal emergency evacuation plans.
Dame Meg Hillier
I thank the Minister for clarifying that. Does he have a rough timescale? I am asking not for a precise date, but for a range of dates when we might see that, because it is critical. I have a constituent who is particularly concerned about that issue.
Lee Rowley
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight that. When I speak to a number of the cladding groups, it is one of the areas that is, quite rightly, at the centre of the points that they raise. I am afraid that I will do that rather annoying thing and say that I do not have a date, but we hope it to be very soon.
Lee Rowley
I hope that would be the case. The Secretary of State sees this as a priority; we are in deep conversations with the Home Office on it, and I hope that we will bring it forward as soon as we can.
I will conclude with a couple of additional points. On the point about review, I reiterate that I am keen to receive any information or data from colleagues where they see problems or, indeed, good behaviour, so that we can feed that into the BSR. I will be happy to do that as soon as these things go in, because at that point we will be able to start to gather the body of data that indicates whether it is working in the way that we hoped or needs to be looked at.
As for the final few questions, data sharing is a difficult area to get right. All data that is collected will be shareable with the Building Safety Regulator—otherwise, there is no point in having the regulator in the first place. Almost all data will be shared with the fire and rescue services—otherwise, again, there is no point in having it. There is a much more delicate interaction between the entity and the leaseholders. Obviously, the entity will need to collect the data, but a series of provisions in the guidance will try to manage that. Again, we will need to review that as we go through to ensure that it works.
On the point about older buildings, it is absolutely right to point out that whether we like it or not, ideally or not, there will be a paucity of data in certain places. Some data will need to be replaced—otherwise, there is no point having the regulations and collecting it in the first place if the questions of the fire and rescue service cannot be answered. People must be able to answer them—otherwise, it is not advancing the cause of safety.
The usual reasonable principle test is in all the regulations; therefore, the objective is to ensure that the data is available for when it is necessary. However, if people have gone through a reasonable process of trying to get it and they cannot get it until x day or they need to wait until a point in a cycle, or whatever, that will be for the usual processes of tribunals to judge. However, a reasonable test is brought into it, which is a proportionate way of saying, “You need to do this, but it may take a little bit of time”, or, “We need to work that through”.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings had a question about schedule 2. For obvious reasons, it will not be the case that residents moving in who have not made some kind of contractual arrangement to purchase the property will have access to all the data—otherwise, basically anybody would have access to it. However, they would be given that information at the point of a contract being signed, naturally. We would then hope and expect—I know that my right hon. Friend will appreciate this, as someone from a similar ideological view to my own—that it will be difficult to put rules around the level of data available in advance of that, but I expect that, through the sales process, responsible entities will want to provide a sufficient level of data to assure those seeking to purchase or take an interest in a property to be able to do so. If the data is not available or obstructions are found, it may signal an indication of the responsibility of those managing the building.
Dame Meg Hillier
The Minister is making some helpful points. It is clear that he is very much on top of this matter, so I echo the comments made earlier. It has been helpful to meet him to discuss issues at times.
On the issue of information, a lot of the properties in my constituency are tenanted—as I said earlier, the leaseholder is often living overseas or elsewhere—so we are reliant on the whole tenancy arrangement for information to be shared with the tenant. As far as I am aware—the Minister may want to have an exchange of letters about this—there is no absolute requirement on landlords to provide that document. Landlords must now provide 13 different documents to a tenant. The Minister has made general comments about fire safety and so on, but I do not recall anything specific about that document. Is there any further change in the rules or guidance for private landlords—they are the ones who would be in scope—that needs to happen as a result? It seems that there may be a small gap that is important and significant. What the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said was helpful.
Lee Rowley
I am happy to write to the hon. Lady to be absolutely certain that I have understood the point. We will get officials to write to her with that information. My understanding is that the combination of clear requirements; a clear, responsible entity that needs to respond to those requirements, whoever it is in the hierarchy and however complex the hierarchy is; and forms of redress that ultimately fall back to the Building Safety Regulator to say, “No, that is not acceptable” should cover everything. However, if it does not, we can work that through in an exchange of letters.
I think that covers what colleagues have said, and I thank them for their constructive comments. I look forward to making progress on this issue. Adding additional regulation is always challenging, and there are different views on that on different sides of the House, but even for someone like me, who tends to favour relatively low regulation, it is a reasonable and proportionate thing to do. We now need to ensure that it is right, and I am keen to get feedback from colleagues to ensure that that is the case in the months ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Meg Hillier Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
For all the sound and fury from the Secretary of State, he knows that the maths does not lie and that the Government have failed on their targets. They have downgraded their affordable housing targets, and have still failed on those. When will the Secretary of State bite the bullet and provide more properly affordable social housing for people in my constituency and others who simply cannot afford to buy their own homes?
Michael Gove
I withdraw the word “gangster”, Mr Speaker; I should have said “huckster”.
I will tell the hon. Lady who has downgraded their social housing targets: it is the hon. Lady herself. When she was running for the deputy leadership of her party, she said that she wanted 100,000 new social homes every year. What is the target now? Zero.
Birmingham City Council
Meg Hillier Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the appointment of Max Caller, who has a strong track record of making these difficult decisions and helping councils to turn around, but the Secretary of State will know that task and finish was a big part of what happened in Birmingham. Does he have oversight of which other councils are still doing that? Nearly 30 years ago, at Islington Council, we were looking at those issues and tackling them.
The big issue here—the elephant in the room—is local audit. Some 12% of audit opinions for the 2021-22 financial year have come in, even with the extended deadline. The permanent secretary and the National Audit Office have indicated that we need to focus on the current year and to forget previous years, but these canaries in the mine, these warning signs, were never heard because of the dire state of local audit. This has all been on his Government’s watch. Can he give us any reassurance that he really has a plan to get local audit back on track?
Michael Gove
First, I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words about Max Caller. He is a first-class professional, and I know he will do an excellent job with the other commissioners. Secondly, I think it is fair to say—I do not want to make a party political point—that the local audit situation requires both investment and leadership. One of the first things I sought to do when I arrived in the Department was to ensure that the Office for Local Government can play a system leadership role in helping to reform and improve that process. I completely agree with the hon. Lady on that.
The hon. Lady’s central point was about task and finish, which some Members may think sounds like a good thing. A task and finish group is a team that sets out to resolve a problem and dissolves itself when the problem is finished. It seems to be the model of what we should have in administration: not a permanent bureaucracy, but a taskforce. However, task and finish in Birmingham, and indeed in some other local authorities, has basically meant the binmen—the scaffies, as we would say in Scotland—knocking off early as soon as they had claimed that they had finished their task and yet claiming for their full working day. Again, it is not an effective way to run any public service.