Housing

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

This has been a short but good debate—quality not quantity. We have heard from Members across the country from the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). To pick out a few, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) spoke with great authority, as always, about the need for real revenue funding and for a substantial change in the private rented sector. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) was absolutely right that we should look at locked-in discounts for first-time buyers. He will be pleased to hear that this is indeed a Labour policy, and if he votes Labour at the next election, his idea may well come to fruition. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) talked about the need to tackle climate change through housing and how important the role of modular housing is.

The Government are not just failing to address the housing crisis; they are actively making it worse. I do not know whether it is incompetence, mismanagement, complacency or deliberate policy, but this Government are wilfully exacerbating the housing crisis. Whether it is homelessness, private renting, leasehold, home ownership or fire safety, the story is always the same: things are getting worse, not better. The problems can be traced to bad Government policies. In government, Labour managed to successfully tackle these issues. As a Government in waiting, Labour is the party with the solutions to these problems.

Things are getting worse, not better. Rough sleeping has doubled. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) that rough sleeping has gone up by 333% and that someone is dying every fortnight. Only 6,500 homes for social rent were built last year. Home ownership is supposed to be the thing the Conservative party cares about, but nearly 1 million young people are unable to access it. My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) was absolutely right to talk about the overwhelming sense of injustice felt by leaseholders.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) talked eloquently about the plight of permitted development—something the Government want to increase. The problems can be traced right back to the Government. Ministers have stretched the term “affordable housing” to breaking point, to include homes that are let at up to 80% of market rents. We are building the wrong homes, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said.

The Government have repeatedly ignored fire safety advice that sprinklers are essential. They have also ignored advice following the Lakanal House and Grenfell Tower fires and refused to intervene in other blocks with aluminium composite material cladding. We have 40,000 people still trapped in deadly buildings. We have also lost more than 170,000 affordable council homes through poorly designed policies.

In government, Labour managed to successfully tackle these issues. As a Government in waiting, Labour is the party with the answers to solve these problems and the ability to deliver the change we need. It is the Government’s job to solve the housing crisis, and it is the Government’s shame that they have failed. This country has a right to expect better, which it will get under a Labour Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing (Kit Malthouse)]

We have already invested £10 million in the Chelmer Waterside development in my hon. Friend’s constituency, but she is still insatiable for more Government funding for her fast-growing constituency. As she knows, HIF bids are a competitive process, but I will look carefully at the proposals put in by Chelmsford; and, given her support, let us be hopeful of success.

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

New figures today show that 40,000 people are still trapped in privately owned blocks wrapped in Grenfell-style aluminium composite material cladding. That is 40,000 lives on hold—weddings cancelled, mental ill-health rife—because people are trapped in properties that cannot be sold. The Prime Minister repeatedly said that she rules nothing out, so when will the Government finally say, “Enough is enough,” set up a loan fund for private blocks and get the job done?

[James Brokenshire]

I firmly recognise the stress, strain and anguish that so many people continue to live with as a consequence of ACM cladding on the outside of a number of these blocks. A growing list of companies, such as Barratt, Mace and Legal & General, are doing the right thing and taking responsibility. In addition, warranty providers have accepted claims on a number of buildings. I urge all owners and developers to follow the lead of those companies and step up to make sure this work is done. This is a priority for me; I know the work needs to be advanced more quickly, and I am considering all other options if it is not.

Fire Safety and Sprinkler Systems

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on securing this debate. Given that the call for evidence on approved document B of the building regulations ends on Friday, this debate is exceptionally timely, and I hope that the Minister has listened carefully to the wise words of the secretary of the all-party fire safety rescue group. Hon. Members are clearly as one on the need for change, and that case has been made conclusively this morning.

The need for urgency percolated through everybody’s speeches. The hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) said that this “nonsense” must not go on, and the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) asked whether property is more important than people’s lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad) said that Grenfell 2 is “in the post”, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) said that we should consider the cost and that this issue is a “no-brainer”. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) said that we have kicked the can down the road for too long. We heard sensible arguments from all those who contributed this morning, including on the important need to protect firefighters as well as residents, and the fact that modern sprinkler systems can be installed at less cost and with less damage if they need to be used.

In 2019, we find ourselves in the sorry position of knowing that our fire safety and sprinkler regulations are woefully inadequate, and almost two years on from the Grenfell Tower fire, we are still waiting for the Government to act. Seventy-two people died in the Grenfell fire, and that fire and its aftermath exposed a litany of fire safety failures across thousands of buildings. Hundreds of blocks are draped in flammable Grenfell-style ACM cladding, and many more are covered in other types of flammable material that is as yet untested. There are tens of thousands of faulty fire doors, and a huge discrepancy in the provision of sprinklers. We also know that warnings came years earlier. The coroner’s investigation into the Lakanal House fire recommended in 2013 that sprinklers be retrofitted in social housing, and similar calls were made by members of the all- party fire safety rescue group in the same year. In 2016, a building regulations review was promised by the Government but never delivered. The London Fire Brigade stated:

“It is deeply concerning that on the two occasions in recent years when the Government has looked at reviewing sprinklers legislation or guidance it has been in the wrong direction—seeking to weaken rather than strengthen it.”

As has been said many times this morning, no one has died in a fire where a sprinkler system was installed, yet in England sprinklers are a legal requirement only in new residential blocks that are more than 30 metres tall.

Labour party research found that more than 96% of tall council tower blocks in London do not have sprinklers—a huge number. Although 3% of those blocks are now looking to install sprinklers, the vast majority have no plans to do so because they do not have funding. Installing sprinklers at Grenfell would have cost a few hundred thousand pounds. Croydon’s fully retrofitted stock post-Grenfell cost £10 million, and Birmingham has projected a cost of approximately £30 million to retrofit more than 200 blocks. Despite repeated calls from local authorities and the Prime Minister’s promise that the Government will do “whatever it takes” to keep our people safe, no funding has been provided by central Government for sprinklers. We do not pretend that these changes come without cost—of course they have a cost, but what is the price of safety? As we have heard, the rules in Scotland and Wales are more comprehensive, and a multitude of experts have called on the Government to reduce the height requirement for sprinklers, and to extend that requirement to other buildings.

The problem goes wider. Over new year, the Shurgard fire exposed our backward laws and regulations on fire safety across the board. Shurgard operates in Belgium, France, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands, where sprinklers would have been required by law in a warehouse the size of the one in Croydon. In this country, however, there are no such requirements, and the property of nearly 2,000 people got burned.

I do not need to list the individuals and organisations calling for change. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith listed RIBA’s excellent four pillars for reform, including a requirement for sprinklers and automatic fire suppression systems in all existing residential buildings above 18 metres. In addition to the questions raised today, will the Minister listen to RIBA and implement its sensible set of policies? Will the Government extend their ban on flammable cladding to schools, hospitals and care homes, and introduce a requirement for sprinklers in schools and hospitals? Will they consider a fire safety fund that is available to help council and housing association landlords with the costs of retrofitting sprinklers and other urgent remedial work? Two years on from the Grenfell fire, will the Government understand the need for urgent action, get a grip on the situation and act, so that we can hold our heads up high and say that we have done what we could to stop such a tragedy happening again? There has been much talk in other places of the “Malthouse compromise”. If the Minister were to act today to prevent future deaths, we would call it anything he wanted, and we would thank him for it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

A smörgåsbord, I am sure.

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

We need to build new homes but they must be the right homes. In 2017, the then Secretary of State the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) said:

“It’s unacceptable for home buyers to be exploited through unnecessary leaseholds”,

and added that “enough is enough”. He said that real action was needed and announced that the Government were banning the sale of leasehold homes. Last summer the current Secretary of State promised no new Government funding schemes for leasehold homes, yet the Government’s own figures show that Ministers are pouring hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money into a state-funded racket by subsidising large house builders for the sale of leasehold homes through Help to Buy—some 17,000 homes over five years, half of which have been sold since the Government promised to ban that. Can the Secretary of State tell us: have the Government forgotten what they said, has he changed his mind, or can he let us know when he will deliver on his promises?

Residents of Leisure Park Homes

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin, and to speak in this debate. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) made a convincing case for the need for protection of leisure park homes. She also painted a lovely picture of her constituency. Is it any wonder that people want to go to the rolling hills of the north downs and retire there? What a terrible thing it is when they find that it is not quite what they expected.

We heard tales of pitch fees increasing, and about the culture of fear and mis-selling. The right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) rightly asked who some of the people running these homes are, and what can be done about the problems. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked why nothing had been done, when he has been raising these issues for some years. The hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) talked about people feeling almost “stateless”, which is a strong and apt word.

The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) talked about his role with regard to previous legislation, and made a really important point about the need to protect the tourism industry. Anything that we do must not damage that. The hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey) told us that his area is second only to Skegness in its concentration of caravans, and we must listen to what he has to say.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I am very sorry that I was not here earlier; there were distractions in the House. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is incredibly important to draw a distinction between sites that are badly run and badly managed, where bad practices are endemic, and really well-run sites that have had zero complaints over many years? For example, there is Pinewoods in my constituency, near Wells-next-the-Sea, Searles park in Hunstanton, and McDonnell caravans park. We have a number of really well-run sites with no history of complaints whatever. We need to find a way of ensuring that we drill down and protect those people who need protection, while not damaging those well-run sites.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I agree with that completely. The poor form tarnishes the whole industry, and people who are doing things well do not, on the whole, object to changes to regulation or legislation because they are already doing what they should be. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.

As we have heard, there are lots of problems that we need to try to fix. Residents in leisure park homes are not afforded the limited protections of mobile home owners on sites with residential planning permission. They do not have the special protections under the Mobile Homes Act 2013, as we discussed. In the Opposition’s view, it is right to call for protections to be extended to residents living permanently in leisure park homes. We should also ask why residents are being sold permanent homes in leisure parks that do not have residential planning permission. It is unclear how widespread that practice is. Perhaps the Minister can tell us her sense of the scale of the problem, and what the Government consider the issues to be.

The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent talked about the protections afforded to residents of park homes through the 2013 Act, but it is worth emphasising that abuses are still happening across all park homes despite those changes in law. There is a need for wider reform. Organisations such as the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign and the Park Homes Policy Forum have worked for years to expose the exploitation of park home residents, which is still ongoing. Park homes have been described to me as

“like leasehold bullying, but with criminal thuggery thrown in.”

We know that 62% of leasehold home owners feel as if they were mis-sold them; I would not be surprised if a similar, or higher, number of park homes residents felt the same way. Just as there are leaseholds with onerous ground rents, park home owners can be charged extortionate pitch fees that can increase rapidly each year. As with leaseholds, hidden clauses in park homes contracts can cause significant hardship down the line; residents have limited routes of redress when things go wrong, and any enforcement is often affected by a lack of transparency and opaque structures.

However, unlike the situation with most leaseholds, park home owners also report, as we have heard, experiencing or being threatened with violence and other illegal activity. We saw that most prominently in the disgraceful treatment of Sonia McColl, a leading campaigner for park homes reform. After campaigning for action on rogue park owners, Sonia had to sell her park home and move due to death threats. She then, astonishingly, had her entire home stolen while waiting for it to be delivered to her new site. She was made an OBE for services to society, but I think society has let her down. I asked her what issues she would like to raise with the Minister; she wants to know, first, when the consumer prices index instead of the retail prices index will be used to calculate the increase in pitch fee, and secondly when independent research will be done on the 10% commission payable to site owners on the sale of residence properties. She will be happy to share the Minister’s response with the 30,000 residents on her database.

I want to give the Minister time to respond, so I will say only a little more. The Government have recognised the systemic problems with park homes, and have promised to legislate on areas such as pitch fee reviews, but they have not done so yet. They have been promising for some time to get a grip on the wider leasehold scandal, but there has been no primary legislation on it. Stronger laws are worthless if they are not enforced; I am sure that the Minister will talk about the duties of local authorities, but in their own recent analysis the Government admitted that the 2013 licensing and inspection powers are not being applied because of a lack of dedicated resource in councils. That is not really a surprise, given the billions of pounds of cuts made to local authorities under this Government.

I hope that the Minister will outline when her Department will introduce the legislation that was promised back in October, and will say how she will support councils that are too strapped for funds to enforce it. The Conservative party claims to be the party of home ownership, but here we are again, talking about homeowners being exploited, mis-selling, exploitative contract terms and excessive fees and commissions charged to residents who were told that they were buying a home, with all the rights and freedoms that that affords. This is the third time today that the Government have been challenged by a member of their own party about the treatment of homeowners on their watch. I look forward to hearing when they will act on their promises.

Fire Safety and Cladding

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of fire safety, which is of great concern to many people in my constituency and throughout the country, particularly since the Grenfell Tower fire 19 months ago. The debate is happening somewhat earlier than we envisaged. I hope that means that there will be more opportunities for other Members to participate, because I know that the issue affects many constituencies.

I want to cover two areas: first, the major fire that happened at the Shurgard self-storage centre in my constituency on new year’s eve; and secondly, fire safety and the use of flammable cladding in residential and other buildings throughout the country, about which there has been great disquiet since the Grenfell Tower fire.

The fire at the Shurgard self-storage centre was massive. More than 1,200 people had stored their goods and possessions in that facility, which was one of the largest in London. When I was first alerted to what had happened, my first thought was, “I hope everybody is safe,” and it was reassuring to hear that there had been no loss of life. However, a couple of weeks later I had the opportunity to meet a group of Shurgard customers who had lost everything they had put in storage at that facility. The scale of loss, devastation and harm that that caused cannot be overstated. The losses were enormous.

As with all self-storage centres, the Shurgard facility was marketed as a safe place to store goods. It was even advertised as a place for those who had suffered a bereavement to store the belongings of a loved one.

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important debate to the House. Constituents of mine had their goods burnt in the Shurgard fire. I am sure that hon. Members will be interested to know that, having advertised as “safe and secure”, since the fire the Shurgard website has removed 35 mentions of that phrase. Its use is nothing short of mis-selling.

[Mr Reed]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for her intervention. It is telling that Shurgard saw fit to remove all the language about safety from its website after the fire. I hope that, during the debate, we will expose the fact that the facility was far from being as safe as it was marketed to its customers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reed]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am also interested in the insurance aspects of this case, including whether people were wrongly advised by the self-storage company about the level of insurance that they should have taken out and, indeed, whether there was mis-selling of insurance. I have contacted the relevant authorities—the Financial Conduct Authority and others—to seek their advice. I hope we can bring that issue back to the Chamber at the appropriate time, and I would be delighted to work with my hon. Friend on that, since he has an interest in it.

I return to my attempt to establish the extent of the harm that has been caused to people’s lives by the fire. I met another woman—a customer—who had stored in the facility her mother’s and her grandmother’s ashes. One simply cannot imagine what it would feel like for an individual to lose something of such enormous human value to them.

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is giving way generously. On that terrible point, last weekend I met some people who were affected, and I have a constituent whose pictures of her deceased children were burned. These things are so irreplaceable and so sad. People really did believe that their things would be kept safe, and that everything would be okay. We cannot emphasise enough what a horror they have been going through.

[Mr Reed]

I am grateful again to my hon. Friend for her intervention. One really cannot exaggerate the pain that has been caused. When anybody puts their most beloved and treasured possessions in a facility and are assured that it is safe, they deserve to know that it actually is safe. I met an artist who had lost a lifetime’s artworks, which she had created. I met a DJ who collects first-edition reggae albums on vinyl. All of that is gone in the fire, all of it irreplaceable. No money can replace that.

Of course, many businesses today keep their stock in facilities like these, and many businesspeople have lost their stock. Even if it was properly insured, the short-term loss of that stock means that they have lost a whole quarter’s trading, which is enough to put many small businesses under. I really do think that the Minister needs to consider what emergency support is available for the people facing real hardship and crisis as a result of the fire.

Many colleagues have raised concerns about the level of fire safety at the Shurgard facility, and I share those concerns. When I met a group of customers, that was one of the biggest areas giving them cause for concern that they raised with me. A customer putting their possessions in a self-storage facility would assume that there had been some effort, when designing it, to prevent the spread of fire, should a fire take hold. In fact, the walls in the individual units in this facility did not go right up to the ceiling—there was a gap between the top of the unit and the ceiling—so a fire that started in one unit could quickly and easily move into the next, and then the next and beyond. It seems to me shocking that these facilities are built without designing in measures to prevent the rapid spread of fire.

Customers using that facility reasonably assumed that a sprinkler system was installed in case of fire. In fact, there is no sprinkler system in that facility, and there is no requirement for self-storage units to have sprinkler systems. Another point is that Shurgard did not ask their customers to report or keep a record of what they were storing in that self-storage facility. Someone could put all their most treasured possessions in the unit they were renting, but the next-door unit could be filled up with barrels of oil or something equally flammable, and nobody would ever know.

If we put all that together, there were in effect no fire safety measures whatsoever in this facility. It was advertising a service as safe and secure for people to keep their goods in, but it simply was not. It was taking money from people, and then not providing the service that people expected. If things go wrong—and on new year’s eve in Croydon they went severely wrong—everything people owned would have gone: it would have been taken away, and they would have lost it.

Shurgard has been very clear with me—I have met it to discuss this—that it has complied with all UK fire safety regulations. I do not know whether that is true, but that is the point it has made to me. If what it says is true and it was fully compliant, those regulations need to be reviewed and tightened as a matter of urgency.

[Sarah Jones]

At the meeting with customers last weekend, they made two really interesting points. One was that Shurgard in other European countries would have to have sprinklers, because in other European countries there are regulations requiring a building of a certain size to have sprinklers, so the same company would have sprinklers in another country but not here. They also made the point—I do not know whether this is 100% accurate—that, about 40% of Europe’s storage is in this country. There is something about the nature of the cost of housing and the fact that people have to put so much stuff into storage, perhaps because of the value of land, that means our country has a particular problem in this area and needs to look at the regulations for the storage sector in particular.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reed]

I absolutely agree. The level of stress that this is causing is making some people so ill that they cannot continue to work. We cannot allow this to go on.

[Sarah Jones]

I am sorry to keep intervening—my hon. Friend is being incredibly generous—but I just want to make a point about waking watch. Having talked to the fire services, I know that it is not an ideal situation. The fire services are worried that companies have come out of the woodwork and started doing waking watch, but people are not always well-trained and there are not always enough of them on site. Waking watch is very much a temporary measure. To have 19 months of waking watch is expensive, but also not ideal, and we cannot be 100% sure that these people are trained and doing what they are supposed to be doing.

[Mr Reed]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. As the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) will know, residents in Northpoint Tower in Bromley face bills of up to £70,000 each. People simply cannot afford that, and the stress they suffer from receiving that bill and knowing that, unless they find a way to pay it, they will be left living in a block with potentially flammable cladding on, is simply unacceptable.

Freehold Estate Fees

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) on securing the debate and on her substantial work on the topic.

As we have heard, homeowners on private estates across the country are being fleeced through a system of spiralling fees, shoddy service, lack of choice and zero accountability. We know it is an issue that affects up to 1.3 million households and it is a problem that mirrors the exorbitant service charges and draconian standards facing leaseholders. It is a problem that the Government have had years to fix, but they have yet to do so.

We heard in colleagues’ eloquent speeches just how obscure some of the charges are. My right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) told us about the fence that would be looked at but not actually fixed. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) told us about the light that took six months to replace, but which was not replaced correctly. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) spoke powerfully about people’s sense of feeling helpless and powerless. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) about how developers are finding additional ways to fleece people and charge more and more. The Government have failed on a number of levels. I hope that today we can take a positive approach to the issues and take action on them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland made some very good suggestions. Homeowners have been raising the issue for a while. In 2016, the HomeOwners Alliance said that

“this new model has crept in without democratic scrutiny or discussion and over the past 10 years or so has become the industry standard.”

Back in 2017, the Government said that this was a problem and that they would introduce changes to the law. It is not enough to accept that there is a problem—we need to act.

The second problem is that, as discussed, when the Government published proposals to fix the problem, they did not go far enough. The Government say that they will give freeholders the right to challenge the reasonableness of charges or appoint a new manager, via tribunal, in the same way as leaseholders currently can. We know from the Government’s own repeated consultations on fixing the leasehold sector that the system currently in place for leaseholders is not working. People are not going to trial because they fear the complexity and potential cost of the process. Property companies turning up with teams of lawyers make an imbalance and a mockery of the system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) has previously calculated that the overcharging of leaseholders through extortionate service charges is up to £1.4 billion per year. Why are the Government presenting access to tribunals as the solution when that has abjectly failed to stop abuses in the leasehold sector? The Government admit that failure and in April last year they accepted that managing agents needed independent regulations. I understand that a working group under Lord Best is designing the new regulatory regime to cover aspects such as leaseholder service charges. Will the Minister confirm whether freehold estate management will be covered by the new independent regulator, and if not, why not?

The proposals set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland are much more likely to tackle the abuse of homeowners, with caps on estate charges, minimum standards and powers for residents to take over management of communal areas. That last proposal would mirror the system of commonhold for shared residential property. I hope the working group currently designing the regulatory system will consider those proposals.

The third failure of Government is that they have let a system develop whereby roads, green spaces and other public spaces are effectively privatised. Even those who are not being ripped off are effectively paying twice, as has been pointed out. They pay council tax, which contributes to maintaining communal areas under council control, and then they pay again for the private maintenance of their own areas. The Government could stop that all together—they should act. We have discussed who is at fault; I do not think we can blame councils, because of the 50% cuts in local authority funding under this Government and the £7.8 billion predicted black hole in local services by 2024-25.

Overall, the Government have been too slow, too weak and lacking in ambition. Today’s debate shows that the Opposition could do better across the board. The Government talk a lot about their credentials on home ownership, but today’s debate is just another example of their failing people who have worked hard to buy their own home. Eight years of Conservative failure on home ownership is exacerbated by this very contentious issue, which affects many people and on which the Government could act.

I want to end by quoting the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, who said that housing is being seen as an abstract investment rather than as the foundation of our families and communities. Homeowners want action and they want it now, and I very much agree with them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Lady rightly challenges on behalf of her constituents. What I would say to her very clearly is that 201 households from Grenfell Tower and the Walk need rehousing; 193 have accepted permanent offers and seven have accepted temporary offers; and 179 households have moved in. I accept that there needs to be more effort in relation to emergency accommodation and getting people out of hotels. Progress is being made and we will continue to support the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to do that and get people into permanent homes.

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

It is 18 months after Grenfell and a quarter of families are still not in permanent homes. The problem goes wider. We have found out that 16 out of the 20 tall tower blocks in Kensington, several within full view of Grenfell Tower, still do not have sprinklers, and only 4% of council blocks in London have sprinklers. Sprinklers are mandatory in new tall buildings because they keep people safe, but councils do not have the funds to retrofit social housing blocks. The Government have brushed away every single request for help as non-essential. Why do the Government continue to stigmatise and discriminate against social housing tenants?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Lady will know that one of the key elements of our social housing Green Paper was to break stigma, and I challenge very firmly to ensure that people in social housing are treated fairly and appropriately. She highlights the issue of sprinklers and is right that in relation to new builds, we have put firm requirements in place. We have said that if local councils require flexibilities to be able to assist with that and the management of those buildings, we will certainly consider that fairly, because our priority is to ensure that people living in high-rise blocks are safe.

Private Rented Sector

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. This is an important debate, and we have heard some really helpful contributions. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) for securing it and for his leadership of the Select Committee, and I thank the other Committee members who are here. All have raised important points.

I should be clear at the outset that, as hon. Members might expect, the Opposition agree with the Committee’s assessment that the majority of landlords are good. I do not think anybody questions that. They play an important role in the housing system and in our society. However, as the Committee’s report illustrates, the situation faced by a growing number of private renters is intolerable. Most of us here today will see in our constituency surgeries—I certainly do—the horrible things that too many people have to endure. That includes the 800,000 privately rented homes with at least one category 1 hazard, landlords cutting off electricity to vulnerable tenants, and letting agents demanding hundreds of pounds to do things such as view a property.

We need to keep in mind all the time what private renters want, and that needs to be the test for policy makers. I think there are two things: first, people want to rent a property fit to be called a home; and, secondly, they want the same rights and redresses enjoyed by consumers in lots of other areas of society. For many, the private rented sector undoubtedly fails those two tests. Standards at the bottom end of the market are poor. As Opposition Members have said many times, people have more rights when buying a fridge-freezer than when renting a property.

The report identifies some important failings in Government policy that have led us to this point. I will look at two broad areas: the lack of intervention and enforcement, and the imbalance of power between tenants and landlords. On the first, as the report demonstrates, outdated legislation and a lack of enforcement mean that the current system of setting and enforcing standards does not work. We agree that the current legislation is overly complicated. It has built up over many years and has become somewhat hard to navigate and dated. Penalties are not strong enough to deter bad practice, and fines are too small to incentivise legal action in the first place.

We have already heard about the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck). However, the Government could have helped its provisions to become law years ago by accepting Labour amendments to the Housing and Planning Act 2016. The fact that so little enforcement action is taken is all the proof we should need that the system is broken. As we have heard, Advice4Renters estimates that just 0.1% of landlords letting non-decent homes are prosecuted each year.

The Guardian revealed today that nine out of 10 local authorities failed to issue a single civil penalty notice against a landlord or letting agent last year. It is impossible to deny that the billions of pounds of cuts faced by local authorities have affected their ability to enforce through environmental health and trading standards. I accept the argument that we also need leadership in local authorities, but the extent of the cuts has been very significant and must inhibit what local authorities can do. The fines being so low means that there is neither a deterrent for bad landlords nor an incentive for councils to take action. We share the disappointment expressed by the Local Government Association and others that the Government ignored the Select Committee’s recommendations to improve enforcement through increased fines and powers.

The report was right to express concerns about the situation with landlord licensing schemes. I have seen the positive impact of such schemes in my own borough, where Croydon Council has issued more than 30,000 licences. It is wrong for the Secretary of State to hold a veto over councils wanting to tackle rogue landlords. The Secretary of State has blocked councils such as Redbridge from introducing borough-wide licensing. There is a clear contradiction: Ministers talk about standing up for renters, but their actions prove otherwise.

Let me turn to the imbalance in the private rented sector. The report is clear about the things that need to be done to make the rules fit for purpose and to ensure that they are enforced more, but there are deeper structural issues in the private rented sector. The Committee rightly points out that we cannot draw a clear line and say that there is a small minority of rogue landlords and everyone else is perfect. That would oversimplify the issue and ignore the structural problems that mean that a landlord does not have to be rogue or even breaking the law in any way to make tenants’ lives difficult. There is an imbalance that no court or enforcement authority can solve, because it is part of a system that is fundamentally skewed against private renters.

The system is stacked most heavily against those at the very bottom—that is clear. Permitted development and abuse of the local housing allowance in lockdown properties make a mockery of planning and welfare rules. That is a symptom of a broken housing market. We are failing so badly to build the homes that the country needs that the Government are essentially saying, “Anything will do.” Tenants, left with little or no choice, pay the price, but yet again the Government ignore the Committee’s valid recommendations on this topic.

We could talk more about what needs to be done about landlords refusing to rent to people on benefits. That issue comes up repeatedly in my constituency. I know that Shelter is trying to take some legal cases through the courts to affect that. I will not talk more about that now, but it really is heart-wrenching in constituency surgeries.

Retaliatory evictions are a real concern. They have been talked about today and were rightly raised by the Committee. When 44% of renters say that they will not negotiate over disrepair for fear of eviction, and when charities are having to warn people that raising a complaint might get them evicted, that is a structural failure in the system. We agree that the current protections are nowhere near robust enough to avoid retaliatory evictions or punitive rent rises. I have seen this happen to my own constituents, as we all have. Labour would go further than the Committee’s suggestion of extending the time limit for protecting tenants from section 21, which the Government seem not to be observing anyway. If we say that section 21 is unfair for those who have made a complaint, why do we accept it for those who have not complained? No-fault evictions are at the heart of the imbalance between tenants and landlords and should be scrapped entirely.

The Government have admitted that they need to do more. They say that they want to rebalance the relationship in the rented sector and give tenants access to redress. But given the record of the Government in relation to renters, people would be right to be sceptical. Consultations, calls for evidence or plans to introduce measures such as a housing court, ombudsman schemes or letting agent regulation are worth very little if they do not result in action. The Department has a bad record in terms of turning consultations into legislation: 185 housing consultations have been launched by the Department since 2010. Too often, consultation fails to translate into anything substantial.

The Government recently announced plans to look at introducing three-year minimum tenancies, which then appeared to be quietly dropped. There is little point in a housing court or ombudsman if tenants do not have rights to protect in the first place. The Department’s record on private renting so far has been to talk tough but under-deliver. The Government have blocked Labour’s proposals to amend the Tenant Fees Bill so that deposits could be capped at three weeks’ rent. As we have discussed, that would mean an average saving of £575 for tenants across England and £928 in London. The current six-week cap has the potential to cost tenants more: we know that the majority—more than 50%—of landlords charge four weeks’ rent as standard, so it would end up increasing people’s deposits and not saving them money.

[Mr Prisk]

The hon. Lady is setting out her party’s views on various issues. A number of people who are good landlords are very anxious about future rents. Would it be Labour party policy in government to cap them or index them?

[Sarah Jones]

As I was about to say, we would introduce three-year tenancies, and it would not be possible to increase rents above inflation over that period. It is a matter not of setting what the rent would be, but of people having more security in a tenancy and more ability to understand the level at which the increase would happen over that longer period.

[Mr Prisk]

I take it from that that there could be no tenancy shorter than three years.

[Sarah Jones]

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman should say that, because we are looking at developing our policies in this area and have also said that we want to scrap section 21. We need to look at how that would work and what the conditions would be. It is really important to stress, though, that we are not saying that people should have the right to remain in their home indefinitely if, for example, they are not paying their rent or are, in other ways, causing disruption or antisocial behaviour. That is absolutely not the point of what we want to do. There will always be a need for a landlord to be able to evict tenants who are not paying their rent or who, for whatever reason, should not be in the property.

We need to find the middle ground. At the moment, there is a problem, particularly in London, and I have seen it in Croydon. When we talk to renters organisations such as Generation Rent, they talk of a cycle whereby people are being evicted for no obvious reason. For example, a landlord might not be an expert landlord, as we have talked about. Someone may have inherited a property or have moved out of London. They might have a property and not really know what they are doing. They might decide to move back in or they might decide to do something else with the property. Then we have a group of people who are constantly having to move because they are being moved on through section 21 evictions, or we have people who cannot afford the rent increases, so they are also having to leave through section 21. An imbalance of power is our starting point when we are looking at policy development. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.

[Mr Betts]

Is my hon. Friend basically saying that the proposal will be very similar to one that I think Shelter put before the Select Committee in 2013-14, which was to introduce three-year tenancies, with the rent in that period linked to some inflation measure so that there was a clear understanding by both landlord and tenant of how it would progress in the course of the tenancy? The other issue that we raised, which brings us back to the housing court idea, is that if that tenancy proposal happens, landlords do need a way reasonably quickly to get out a tenant who is not paying their rent. Having a housing court might be one way to enable that process to happen and to make landlords more comfortable with longer-term tenancies.

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend: I did not see Shelter’s evidence in 2013, but, yes, that sounds a reasonable way forward. The absolute starting point, as I said at the start of my contribution, is that we know that most landlords are good landlords. We are not trying to create a system in which they cannot function and cannot evict people when they need to; we are trying to create a system that is fair. The Labour Front-Bench team were fortunate to go to Berlin recently to see, as many people have, the system of renting that people have there and to look at some of the other models. There are lots of lessons to be learned from other countries.

I should make progress. The Guardian and ITV investigation into the private rented sector, which has been talked about and has forced a U-turn from the Prime Minister, is worrying. Despite the Government estimating that there are 10,000 rogue landlords, not a single name, at the time of that investigation, had been added to the database; that was in October, which was more than six months after its launch. One wonders what the point of a rogue landlord database is if the rogue landlords have not been identified. The Mayor of London’s database has more than 1,000 entries. I hope that the Government, through the Minister, can update us on where the rogue landlord database has got to today.

The Government announced that they would give £2 million to local authorities to take action against bad landlords, but that amounts to £6,000 per council. Meanwhile, the trading standards teams expected to enforce new legislation such as the Tenant Fees Bill have seen enforcement officer numbers go down by 56% since 2009. These teams have faced funding cuts of almost £100 million since 2010. Local authorities overall have had billions of pounds taken away from their budgets. In that context, £6,000 does not feel like enough.

The Opposition recognise that the scale of the challenge means we need a more radical response—a consumer rights revolution. We have a commitment to end unfair evictions. I am proud that my local authority, Croydon Council, was the first to pass a motion calling on the Government to scrap section 21. We have committed to give renters greater security, as we have just discussed, with a three-year cap on rent rises. We want to name and shame rogue landlords and introduce tougher fines for those who fail to meet minimum standards, with those fines funding local authority enforcement work. We would properly support landlord licensing. We also want to see greater powers for Mayors across the country to control rents, if appropriate, in high-cost areas such as London.

Inspired by the system in Germany, we have committed to spend millions to kick-start renters’ unions. I spent time at the Labour party conference talking about that with London Renters Union, which has helped many renters out of situations in which they would have struggled on their own. We want root-and-branch reform of the private rented sector. It is too dysfunctional for us to tinker around the edges. The end result of insecure tenancies, unsafe homes or extortionate rents is staring us all in the face. The end of a private tenancy is the leading cause of homelessness today. There are 1.6 million people in chronic debt, and 120,000 children will wake up tomorrow without a home. That is not to mention the extra 1 million people under the age of 35 who are unable to buy their own home and are forced to rent in the private rented sector. For all of their sakes we should reform the private rented sector.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Jones Excerpts

Monday 23rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

At a time of national housing crisis, as developers continue to exploit the viability loophole, a staggeringly small 2.5% of homes completed last year were for social rent—the lowest number since the second world war. The Government continue to disregard this place, particularly on housing, in failing to deliver the revised NPPF, along with a raft of other documents promised before the recess. Thousands of people who desperately need social housing are being abandoned, as this Government entirely pull out of social housing, so will the Secretary of State tell us whether he will change his draft NPPF explicitly to include social rented homes in the official definition of affordable housing? If he will not, any warm words of support for social housing will ring hollow.

[James Brokenshire]

I entirely reject the hon. Lady’s characterisation of the Government’s approach to dealing with affordable homes and social housing. She will see that from the funds that we have committed to secure for the homes agenda. Under this Government, we have seen 1.1 million additional homes delivered since April 2010. Over 378,000 of those are affordable homes, including 273,000 affordable homes for rent. This Government are delivering and we will continue to do so.