Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Ed Miliband can only create a fairer Britain with Europe's help (Guardian)

Labour's energy price freeze must be the start of a wider battle with organised capital – but the party can't win on its own, says Peter Wilby.

2. Cameron must shake up the No 10 shambles (Times)

The Prime Minister should follow Obama’s example and put an enforcer at the heart of his government, says John McTernan. 

3. Mandela has been sanitised by hypocrites and apologists (Guardian)

The ANC liberation hero has been reinvented as a Kumbaya figure in order to whitewash those who stood behind apartheid, says Seumas Milne. 

4. Universal Credit: politicians always pay a price for trying to change the world (Daily Telegraph)

Obamacare and Iain Duncan Smith's visionary Universal Credit are both struggling, but only the latter may prevail, says Peter Oborne. 

5. The Liberal Democrats are not lurching to the left or the right (Independent)

Unlike the Conservatives, our long term fiscal approach will be informed by the need to maintain good public services, says Danny Alexander. 

6. No one is immune from Beijing’s power (Financial Times)

Foreign companies once had much leverage, but the new reality is that China has the whip hand, says David Pilling. 

7. Who will win the Ukrainian tug-of-war? (Times)

The country really is at a crossroads: one path points to the EU, the other to one dictated by Russia, writes David Aaronovitch. 

8. If our politicians were brave enough, they would follow Uruguay's lead and legalise cannabis (Independent)

For the criminal underworld, the "war on drugs" is an extraordinary money-spinner, writes Owen Jones. 

9. Give Lady Ashton the credit she deserves (Daily Telegraph)

It’s hard not to suspect that gender has played a part in the treatment of the EU’s power broker, says Sue Cameron. 

10. Why do private schools still attract the most memorable teachers? (Guardian)

It's not surprising that Alan Bennett's The History Boys is Britain's most popular play, writes Martin Kettle. The unfairness within our education system endures.

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.