Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. Lib Dems won't knife Nick Clegg – well, not quite yet anyway (Observer)

The misjudgments they have made in office have not been the leader's alone – as Vince Cable surely knows, writes Andrew Rawnsley.

2. The rich are doing their bit. Are you? (Sunday Times) (£)

Voters must be educated about the fact that there really are costs to the benefits they receive, says Dominic Lawson.

3. Dogged and decent, Chris Grayling shows how to get reform right (Sunday Telegraph)

The Paralympics should inspire politicians to continue the fight for a fairer benefits system, writes Matthew D'Ancona.

4. Our schools are being undermined by a constant rhetoric of decline (Observer)

We should stop running down the manifest improvements in the country's education system, argues Matthew Taylor.

5. Dirty ads and debate can still win it for Mitt (Sunday Times) (£)

Romney should not be underestimated, warns Andrew Sullivan.

6. We'll go down as the nation that smoked itself stupid (Mail on Sunday)

I can't fathom the double standards over cannabis, says Peter Hitchens.

7. It's thrilling to see science take centre stage in the national conversation (Observer)

To witness Stephen Hawking at the Paralympics is to be reminded of Britain's pre-eminent scientific status, says Paul Nurse.

8. We should tune in to the Romney and Ryan show (Sunday Telegraph)

The myth of a democratic socialist society funded by capitalism is finished, argues Janet Daley.

9. Stop huffing — we all called for this crackdown on immigration (Sunday Times) (£)

The economic benefits of foreign students to Britain are highly debatable, insists Minette Marrin.

10. The Chinese puzzles of chairman Tim Yeo (Sunday Telegraph)

Tim Yeo is urging ministers to assist British firms in doing 'low-carbon' business in China, but has failed to mention that he is chairman of one such firm, writes Christopher Booker.

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.