PMQs review: Cameron wrongfoots Miliband on the banks

After being surprised by Cameron's commitment to banking reform, the Labour leader struggled to regain his poise.

Even before Ed Miliband got to his feet at today's PMQs, David Cameron had seized the advantage. Noting that Tristram Hunt and David Miliband were among those who would fall foul of Labour's new policy of banning unqualified teachers, he quipped: "another example of brotherly love". 

Things didn't improve much for Miliband after that. He challenged Cameron to say whether the government would use the banking bill to introduce new criminal penalties for bankers (anticipating an equivocal response) but was wrongfooted when Cameron simply replied: "we will be using that bill to take these important steps". After that, the Labour leader's subsequent (and pre-scripted) declaration that "if the government doesn't put down the amendments, we will" fell entirely flat. 

Miliband did have a smart statistic to hand, noting that bonuses had risen by 64 per cent in the last year, principally due to bankers deferring them in order to benefit from the 50p tax cut, but this only offered Cameron an opportunity to launch attack after attack on Labour for being at the wheel when Northern Rock issued 125% mortgages, when Fred Goodwin received his knighthood and when the boom turned to bust.

Bonuses, he pointed out, were 85 per cent lower now than in 2007-08, demanding that Labour finally apologise for its mismanagement. Miliband and Ed Balls have, of course, repeatedly admitted that Labour was wrong to regulate the banks so laxly but one can hardly blame Cameron for seeking to make them do so again.

Miliband declared at one point that he wasn't going to "take lectures from the guy who was the adviser on Black Wednesday" but his history lesson will resonate less with the public than Cameron's. That the Tories were calling for less, not more regulation at the time is, politically speaking, irrelevant. It is governments, not oppositions, that get the blame. 

Today's session was also notable for Cameron's refusal to deny that the government is considering increasing interest rates on student loans taken out in the last 15 years. After Vince Cable and Danny Alexander rejected the story as "false", this offers Labour a chance to go back on the attack.

Asked whether he had ever had any discussions with Lynton Crosby "about plain packaging of cigarettes or the minimum pricing of alcohol", Cameron replied: "I can tell you that Lynton Crosby has never lobbied me on anything", an answer likely to come under considerable scrutiny. But his pay-off was sharp; the only thing the pair discussed, he said, was "how we destroy the credibility of the Labour Party" but Crosby was not doing "as good a job as the party opposite". 

David Cameron and Ed Miliband walk through the Members' Lobby to listen to the Queen's Speech at the State Opening of Parliament on May 8, 2013. 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.