Miliband's plan to force a vote on a "banking Leveson"

Labour leader repeat his favourite trick.

In announcing on ITV's Daybreak this morning that he will attempt to force a Commons vote on a Leveson inquiry for the banks, Ed Miliband is repeating the trick that has worked so well him for in the past. It was the threat of a vote that prompted News Corp to abandon its BSkyB bid and that led RBS boss Stephen Hester to relinquish his bonus. Labour will table an amendment to the Financial Services Bill, which is at committee stage in the House of Lords, calling for a public inquiry.

So far, the Tories and the Lib Dems have set themselves against one but Miliband can count on the support of a significant number of their MPs and much of the press, including the Daily Mail. In a leader in today's paper, the Mail declares:

Barclays chairman Marcus Agius is expected to quit today, increasing pressure on chief executive Bob Diamond to do the same.

But even that wouldn’t come close to lancing the boil. Doesn’t this latest sorry mess underline still more starkly the need for a Leveson-style inquiry into the whole banking industry?

Both Cameron and Clegg are resisting an inquiry on the grounds that it would slow down any police investigation but this fallacious argument was also used against Leveson. In his article for the Observer, Vince Cable wrote that a "costly Leveson-style public inquiry" (the Leveson inquiry is expected to cost £6m, a meaningless sum when the government spends more than a £700bn a year) would "certainly be enlivened by Ed Balls explaining why, in government, he allowed the regulatory mess to occur in the first place." Indeed it would. Is this not an argument for, rather than against an inquiry?

The longer Cameron resists demands for an inquiry, the greater the suspicion (for right or wrong) will be that he has "something to hide". If he is to tackle the public perception that the Tories are in cahoots with the banks, the pressure to act could become irresistible.

The Canary Wharf headquarters of Barclays Bank. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Grenfell survivors were promised no rent rises – so why have the authorities gone quiet?

The council now says it’s up to the government to match rent and services levels.

In the aftermath of the Grenfell disaster, the government made a pledge that survivors would be rehoused permanently on the same rent they were paying previously.

For families who were left with nothing after the fire, knowing that no one would be financially worse off after being rehoused would have provided a glimmer of hope for a stable future.

And this is a commitment that we’ve heard time and again. Just last week, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) reaffirmed in a statement, that the former tenants “will pay no more in rent and service charges for their permanent social housing than they were paying before”.

But less than six weeks since the tragedy struck, Kensington and Chelsea Council has made it perfectly clear that responsibility for honouring this lies solely with DCLG.

When it recently published its proposed policy for allocating permanent housing to survivors, the council washed its hands of the promise, saying that it’s up to the government to match rent and services levels:

“These commitments fall within the remit of the Government rather than the Council... It is anticipated that the Department for Communities and Local Government will make a public statement about commitments that fall within its remit, and provide details of the period of time over which any such commitments will apply.”

And the final version of the policy waters down the promise even further by downplaying the government’s promise to match rents on a permanent basis, while still making clear it’s nothing to do with the council:

It is anticipated that DCLG will make a public statement about its commitment to meeting the rent and/or service charge liabilities of households rehoused under this policy, including details of the period of time over which any such commitment will apply. Therefore, such commitments fall outside the remit of this policy.”

It seems Kensington and Chelsea council intends to do nothing itself to alter the rents of long-term homes on which survivors will soon be able to bid.

But if the council won’t take responsibility, how much power does central government actually have to do this? Beyond a statement of intent, it has said very little on how it can or will intervene. This could leave Grenfell survivors without any reassurance that they won’t be worse off than they were before the fire.

As the survivors begin to bid for permanent homes, it is vital they are aware of any financial commitments they are making – or families could find themselves signing up to permanent tenancies without knowing if they will be able to afford them after the 12 months they get rent free.

Strangely, the council’s public Q&A to residents on rehousing is more optimistic. It says that the government has confirmed that rents and service charges will be no greater than residents were paying at Grenfell Walk – but is still silent on the ambiguity as to how this will be achieved.

Urgent clarification is needed from the government on how it plans to make good on its promise to protect the people of Grenfell Tower from financial hardship and further heartache down the line.

Kate Webb is head of policy at the housing charity Shelter. Follow her @KateBWebb.