Joe Powell MP: speeches

4 Jul 2026–16 Oct 2026 · year in progress

How these years work

Our reporting years run from 4 July to 3 July, starting with the 2024 general election. They are not official parliamentary sessions. Office costs keep IPSA’s April–March financial years. Records may cover only part of a year; a missing record does not mean no work was done.

Read what this MP said, asked and contributed in Parliament.

5 published records · newest first.

Speeches

  • 10 Sept 2026 · Social Housing Bill [Lords] · Hansard source
    More

    I completely agree with my hon. Friend. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, that policy would increase homelessness and would be entirely self-defeating, because it would just shift the bill to local authorities that would then have to deal with the problem, rather than tackling the problem, as we are doing today through this Bill. What we actually need is more social and genuinely affordable housing, and I welcome the steps this Bill takes to address the issue, because there is no doubt that unchecked right to buy has contributed to the problem. The measures in the Bill are sensible and will make a difference. They build on policy changes that the Government have already made, including making permanent the retention of 100% of right-to-buy receipts. However, the implementation of these measures in communities such as mine will obviously be vital. In many of our council estates and buildings, the current owners of right-to-buy properties are actually open to selling. That is partly because of estate regeneration costs and concerns about service charges and quality, and because unlike other private leaseholders, those leaseholders may not necessarily benefit to the full extent from the easier path to commonhold and resident-run buildings that the Government will be bringing in for leaseholders in general. I would welcome further information about how local authorities can be supported to buy back properties in blocks where the council is already the freeholder. I fully understand that this is an admission of the failure of the historical right-to-buy policy, and the situation certainly would not be helped by retaining the three-year eligibility requirement that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), supported in his speech. Changing the requirement to 10 years makes much more strategic sense for councils, because it incentivises both those buy-backs and investment in new council housing.

  • 10 Sept 2026 · Social Housing Bill [Lords] · Hansard source
    More

    I do agree. We have to increase supply in any way we can, and my point about buy-backs is that they demonstrate the false economics of the system. Councils are buying back at a premium, and often they have to buy back only for temporary accommodation—because that is where the costs are so high—rather than for lifetime secure tenancies, which is what we need. We also have a real challenge on housing association disposals, which I know other Members will speak to. The classic examples are Victorian-era street properties in North Kensington and Notting Hill. I am hearing of accelerated sell-offs as housing associations raise revenue to deal with their recent challenging financial situation, given remediation costs and the requirements to improve standards. Given that the Government have now backed the sector with access to the building safety fund, a 10-year rent settlement, low cost loans and more, I hope that those disposal numbers will drop. I know from experience that those homes in my constituency are unlikely to be replaced in the same community. The new four-week period for housing associations to notify the council is therefore extremely welcome, but it must lead to more purchases by local authorities of these properties. I would therefore welcome further information from the Minister on what impact he expects these notification periods to have. What guidance can be provided to housing providers, given their independence, to make it clear that private sector sales should be a plan B? What support will local authorities have to purchase these properties? Moving briefly on to shared ownership, I welcome the Minister’s close attention to the operation and effectiveness of shared ownership. Ministers will know about the case of Shaftesbury Place, because I have raised that building near Earls Court before. It has approximately 30 shared ownership flats that have experienced a twenty-onefold increase in building insurance due to a disputed fire risk assessment. The shared ownership leaseholders have consistently raised issues—broken security gates, cleaning, unauthorised access requests and late accounts—with the management of the building by Notting Hill Genesis,. In many ways, these residents are experiencing the same challenges that many leaseholders have with managing agents in the private sector, for which I hope the Government will introduce a new independent regulator. Can the Minister assure me that how housing associations manage shared ownership properties will be considered not only under forthcoming leasehold reforms, but in the Department’s work to review the challenges of shared ownership? I welcome the new measures in this Bill to keep victims of domestic abuse safer, and I look forward to seeing those powers used by landlords. Clearly, there is no one solution to the housing crisis in a community like mine in Kensington and Bayswater, but today’s Bill is an important step forward, and I strongly welcome it.

  • 10 Sept 2026 · Social Housing Bill [Lords] · Hansard source
    More

    The housing crisis in Kensington and Bayswater is one of the biggest drivers of inequality in our community, with overcrowding, damp and mould, families stuck in temporary accommodation, and a lack of options for people with accessibility issues. It is a huge drag on life chances and opportunity, including for children. The issue is not helped by Conservative-run Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea receiving a C3 rating from the Regulator of Social Housing—a staggering failure nearly 10 years after the Grenfell Tower tragedy, in which the inquiry found major failings at the council. It certainly would not be helped either by an entirely arbitrary £4 billion cut in housing benefit, which would dramatically increase homelessness, require the local authority to spend more on temporary accommodation and dramatically change the socioeconomic make-up of communities such as mine. It is a truly shameful policy. I will happily take an intervention from Conservative Front Benchers if they want to defend it, but it certainly would not address any of the issues we are talking about today.

  • 3 Sept 2026 · Short-term Lets: Regulation · Hansard source
    More

    Over the summer, the abuse of short-term lets in my community has continued with breaches of lease, antisocial behaviour, subletting of private rented properties and social housing, and even short-term lets hosting brothels. We still do not have a way of identifying where these lets are so that enforcement action can be taken, nor do we have a way of implementing London’s 90-day cap on lets, so will the Secretary of State please do all she can to make it a priority to tackle these serious harms? Can she tell us when the register will go live, and will she work with those of us affected and local councils so that we can find solutions for our communities?

  • 2 Sept 2026 · Rewiring the State · Hansard source
    More

    I, too, welcome the First Secretary of State to her place and welcome today’s statement as well as the one in July. The first English devolution settlement was, of course, for London, and despite some incremental improvements since 1999, our capital’s mayor, the Greater London Authority and the 32 London boroughs are not currently set up to deliver on the capital’s full potential, whether on productivity and growth or in dealing with our housing crisis and the massive increase in temporary accommodation spending to combat homelessness. Will revisiting London’s devolution settlement will be on her and her team’s agenda?

Explore activity by topic or department

Contributions by debate topic

4 Jul 2026–16 Oct 2026. Existing keyword taxonomy applied to official debate titles and contributions; a contribution may appear in more than one topic and unclassified records are retained.

View as listCommunities and local government: 6Communities and local government6Culture, media and sport: 1Culture, media and sport1Democracy and constitution: 2Democracy and constitution2Economy and business: 2Economy and business2Education and skills: 1Education and skills1Environment and energy: 3Environment and energy3Housing and planning: 5Housing and planning5Justice and policing: 1Justice and policing1Social security and pensions: 2Social security and pensions2Unclassified: 5Unclassified5
What this shows and doesn't show
4 Jul 2026–16 Oct 2026. Existing keyword taxonomy applied to official debate titles and contributions; a contribution may appear in more than one topic and unclassified records are retained. Published records do not measure effort or effectiveness. Methodology.
Department or topicPublished records
Communities and local government6
Culture, media and sport1
Democracy and constitution2
Economy and business2
Education and skills1
Environment and energy3
Housing and planning5
Justice and policing1
Social security and pensions2
Unclassified5

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →