Grenfell Tower Fire

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I am very pleased to be able to speak in this important debate and declare an interest as a member and co-chair of the Fire Brigades Union parliamentary group. Like other Members I pay tribute to my good and hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad) for her work and congratulate her on securing this debate and on her remarkable personal courage in the work she has done in the wake of the Grenfell tragedy. I think every Member has acknowledged that and is touched by her commitment to the issue. I want to pay respect too to the victims of Grenfell—those who lost their lives and all who were touched by the terrible tragedy—and acknowledge the contribution of the fire and rescue services in their valuable and valiant work on the day and subsequently.

I know we want to go forward together in a positive fashion with some positive ideas about how we can ensure that this never happens again, but I want to touch on a couple of points. I was surprised that in her resignation speech the Prime Minister referred to Grenfell as part her positive legacy, because in my humble opinion that shows a complete lack of self-awareness and suggests that everything has been resolved and the issues have been addressed when, frankly, they have not. As we approach the second anniversary of Grenfell, it is an absolute scandal that no one has been held accountable for the deaths of 72 innocent people.

A flawed inquiry with narrow terms of reference is proceeding at a glacial pace. The inquiry was expected to produce a phase 1 report and urgent recommendations to the Prime Minister by this spring, but the Minister has just told us from the Dispatch Box that this has now been delayed until October, and that the second phase of the inquiry, due to commence this year, is now being delayed until 2020. The public inquiry, rather than securing answers, is delaying justice. The Metropolitan police warn that there will be no changes arising from its criminal investigation until at least 2021 as they wait for the inquiry to publish its findings.

In my opinion, the inquiry’s decision to focus phase 1 on the night of the fire provided a reprieve to the companies and public bodies for their decisions. These things do not happen by chance; they are the consequence of decisions, often political decisions, and this has given those companies and bodies an opportunity to shift the blame and emphasis as to who should be held to account.

From reading Dame Judith Hackitt’s report it is plain to me that our fire safety regime is simply not fit for purpose when it allows—and continues to allow, as we have heard from a number of Members—people to live in buildings that can burn at the speed and ferocity we saw at Grenfell. The decline in fire safety and building standards is such that a leaked report by the Building Research Establishment found that had Grenfell Tower been built today under modern, less stringent safety standards, it is likely that the building would have collapsed either fully or partially as a result of the fire. That shows how far regulation has regressed by not improving standards but allowing them to fall.

The magnitude of what happened at Grenfell, which should have been a wake-up call or watershed moment, seems to have passed Ministers by. After decades of deregulation, the scrapping of professional standards and the fragmentation of fire and rescue services, we need nothing short of a complete overhaul of our fire safety regime. We need to reverse a decade of austerity and under-resourcing that has led to the loss of one in five firefighter posts and one in four fire safety officers since 2010. Interestingly, one message to come out of this is that it is vital that we understand that fire safety officers are critical in preventing fires. The Government need to commit to the ban and removal of all combustible cladding on buildings, irrespective of height, and deliver safe homes for all.

We need a national review of the “stay put” policy when compartmentation fails. I say this without any disrespect to firefighters, as I hold them in the very highest regard. They are trained according to national guidance on the “stay put” policy and they train according to set procedures, but this is about managing risk and the uncertainties of firefighting. When confronted, as they were on that night, with a most appalling blaze they were put in an impossible position, in extreme conditions that would be beyond the comprehension of most of us. All their training focused on the “stay put” policy, and I will quote from an article by Tony Sullivan, a retired London firefighter with 31 years of experience in the service. He wrote that

“the “stay put” policy is the only thing that can work routinely in a residential high-rise building, and here is why.

The building is designed to contain fire in each individual flat and for the stairways especially to remain clear of smoke and heat. This is why it is vital all doors are fire doors and closed in the event of fire…If everyone were to evacuate around the same time, opening doors…would immediately compromise the fire safety of the building…This could create a chimney effect, spreading fire, and result in loss of life…When a “stay put” policy begins to be compromised, we can’t immediately advise people to leave their flats and enter several floors of several hundred degrees centigrade.

If you know crews in full fire gear and breathing apparatus are struggling to get through several floors of heat and smoke, how will residents get down?”

So perhaps we need a review of the policy if compartmentation fails and a situation such as that at Grenfell arises. But what we certainly need is a complete overhaul of building regulations and fire safety.

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement with the process of reorganising local government in Northamptonshire. I am pleased to tell him that the Department’s consultation on this matter has now closed. The Secretary of State is considering the responses and he intends to announce his decision to the House as soon as is practical.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

T2. What steps will the Secretary of State take to support housing renewal in older industrial areas, particularly coalfields?

[Kit Malthouse]

As I hope the hon. Gentleman knows, we are putting enormous emphasis on the regeneration of brownfield land. It should be a first call for all local authorities trying to deliver new homes. As I recall, 56% of all new homes last year were delivered on brownfield land. Through Homes England, we are putting significant money behind remediation required in areas such as coalfields and other sites that might be contaminated. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with details of how his area could access that funding.

Section 21 Evictions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on securing this important and timely debate. It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I apologise for arriving a little late.

As hon. Members on both sides of the House should recognise, my hon. Friend has done some steadfast work to advocate the rights of tenants. She has my unwavering support in her campaign for all homes to be fit for human habitation. The Government’s failure to support the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Bill in 2015, or to back a similar amendment to the Housing and Planning Act 2016 a year later—I served on the Bill Committee as an Opposition Whip—shows the scale of the challenge we face on this side of the House.

We have a flawed system that completely lacks balance, as my hon. Friend said. The housing security enjoyed by the post-war generation has been systematically eroded through the right to buy, the failure to build truly affordable low-rent social housing, and the boom in the buy-to-let sector. Those factors have moved many tenants from housing security to housing insecurity in the private sector. The right to buy, coupled with the failure to build, has created generation rent, as my hon. Friend said, and our children are paying the price. They are financially excluded, and for many home ownership is a distant dream. Their reality is insecurity and relatively high-cost private rents with few enforceable rights.

We must address the issue of tenants’ rights. The private rented sector has substantially increased, even in my time in the House. The private rented sector comprised just 9% of households in 1988. It has more than doubled since then and today accommodates one in five households.

Clearly, section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 and “no fault” evictions create—in fact, add to—a one-sided power imbalance, with landlords having practical rights while tenants have what are, in effect, unenforceable paper rights. This power imbalance encourages poor management practice, with tenants worried about challenging rent rises and often afraid to ask for essential repairs because they fear eviction.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for circulating a briefing in advance of this debate, which notes that there were 12,711 evictions by bailiffs under section 21, which was recorded by the Ministry of Justice under the “accelerated” procedure. However, that figure is a baseline; it is really the tip of the iceberg, with the vast majority of tenants actually moving out without going through the daunting court process.

I will now mention some of the issues in my constituency; they are different from those in the inner-city areas of London, but they are very real, and in some respects probably more acute. I have seen constituents move from one bad landlord to another and from one dilapidated house to another. It is a never-ending cycle of debt and disruption, which traps families in poverty. And no matter how hard they try to escape, it seems that they are caught in a vicious circle.

I hope that the Minister is aware of Horden in my constituency. I have raised the problems of the private rented sector there on a number of occasions. Indeed, I invited the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), who is the Minister with responsibility for the northern powerhouse, to visit Horden. He promised that he would do so, but has not so far. In addition, I have written to the Minister for Housing, the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), inviting him to visit and discuss some of the particular problems that we have and how they might be addressed.

Without going into too much detail, I will just mention that some of the problems arise from the withdrawal of Accent Housing and the subsequent fire sale auction of houses in Horden, which led to an influx of absentee landlords with little interest in their tenants. We talked a little earlier about the tale of landlords who are not acting in a socially responsible manner, and that is certainly evident in some of the former mining communities that I represent in east Durham. Many people now find themselves living among derelict houses. Dilapidated housing, smashed windows, arson and fly-tipping are the epitaph of a failed private rented sector market in Horden, in my constituency.

Frankly, the situation in Horden is nothing short of a national housing scandal and I hope that the Government will engage with this issue, because we cannot sit by passively and see the situation continue. I hope that the Minister and her colleagues will prove me wrong.

My own local authority, Durham County Council, is nearing the publication of a Horden master-plan to address some of the issues with the private rented sector. It will set out a range of options and I hope that if we can work with the council, it will help to deliver some housing regeneration. However, there is still a need for Ministers to engage and support the proposal with appropriate funding, because we have an influx of absentee landlords, housing conditions are poor and tenants are being exploited. I am glad that my local authority is now seeking to challenge that situation.

I am told that it is not a formality to get an authority-wide landlord licensing scheme. I had thought it was a formality, but I understand that the Government have some reservations about such schemes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mrs Heather Wheeler)]

indicated dissent.

[Grahame Morris]

The Minister is shaking her head. However, where we have had a landlord licensing scheme in a small defined area, that has proven to be effective. However, that has simply pushed the problem into another area.

The consensus is around a scheme that I believe has worked very effectively both in Liverpool and in Newham in London. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), who has hosted visits from local elected representatives.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

We had very fruitful discussions with a Minister about the need for a private sector blanket ban in Newham. The only bit that the ban does not cover currently is the new build in the Olympic village. That has meant that there has not been anywhere else in Newham for people effectively to fly to, in order to escape even worse conditions. We had a very effective conversation with the Government. I urge my hon. Friend to keep pushing at this issue, because that ban has made a real difference to tenants in my constituency.

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful for that intervention; it is really helpful. I think that such a policy will make a difference and we will keep pushing for it. It is not our intention to introduce a blanket ban on private landlords; we simply want to have a scheme whereby the absentee private landlords will behave in a reasonable fashion, including towards their tenants.

In conclusion, I support the abolition of section 21. Abolition would strengthen tenants’ rights. However, until we address the wider housing crisis, for example by building a new generation of social housing properties in the numbers that we did in the 1960s and 1970s, the national housing crisis will worsen. I saw some figures recently that showed that up to 40% of the council houses that were originally built are now in the hands of private landlords and on average the rents are double what they were when they were in the social sector.

Our children will be burdened with high rents or unmanageable mortgage debt, and they will live in insecurity, worried about reporting repairs or poor housing conditions for fear of eviction. Our communities will also be burdened—particularly those in villages such as Horden in my constituency—as properties are mismanaged by absentee private landlords, whose interests seem to lie in making quick profits rather than in engaging with others to make a sustainable community. So I hope that the Minister will listen to the concerns of my constituents and those of Members from all parties in the House, and that she will take the time to examine this issue and consider how she could help to transform and regenerate not only housing but the life opportunities of many people, including those in the communities of Horden and east Durham, who I represent.

Housing Bodies: Accountability

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Cunningham]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I would add that we need the resources, too. We cannot have joined-up thinking without providing them. We have to provide the resources for resolution of the problems, even if we have joined-up thinking. I do not necessarily disagree with him, but it is a question of resources.

I recently had a piece of casework where a constituent had an issue with his housing association, Orbit Housing, in Coventry. Without going into too much detail, the constituent had a concern that Orbit Housing was not adequately dealing with. I wrote to Orbit Housing, and we had the usual initial exchange of correspondence before it investigated the matter further. However, the correspondence I was receiving soon stopped, and I had to chase it for what was an undetailed response. We have all had experiences of delayed and undetailed responses to casework correspondence—I would like to see an improvement in the speed and helpfulness of responses—but that is not the main issue arising from this case. When I eventually received a final letter from Orbit Housing, it was highly unsatisfactory after such a delay.

Orbit Housing said that it could not tell me what steps it was taking because of data regulations. I make it clear that I do not want to know what people have in their bank account or when they got married. We do not want that information; we want to know that the issues we are raising are being pursued, and we want to know the details of how they are being pursued.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He is making an important point about how public bodies are using the General Data Protection Regulation to obstruct Members of Parliament seeking to represent their constituents. On a housing-related issue involving someone with disabilities, I had to table some written parliamentary questions, and I asked the Ministry of Justice to establish an MP hotline for the tribunals service due to the difficulties I have been experiencing in getting satisfactory answers. I have had to get in the habit of copying tribunal inquiries directly to the Minister in order to obtain a response. Does my hon. Friend believe that the Government should issue guidance to public bodies, explaining what implicit consent means and stopping them obstructing Members of Parliament in carrying out their duties on behalf of constituents?

[Mr Cunningham]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. In fact, on occasions when we have been dealing with constituency correspondence with outside organisations, we have also asked the constituent to sign a form giving us permission. We should not have to go to those lengths. When we talk about trust in politicians, that is a good example of where we are not being trusted. Our constituents trust us because we are the last line of defence. Where do they go after us, whatever the problem might be?

I have had the problem of organisations refusing to give me information on a constituent’s case many times. It used to happen a lot after the passing of the Data Protection Act 1998, before being somewhat dealt with by the Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) (Elected Representatives) Order 2002. However, it seems that more and more organisations are using the new data regulations to avoid responding to casework. I am clear that I do not consider the case closed with Orbit Housing, and today is a good chance for us all to recognise that we need to be bloody difficult people on behalf of our constituents to get results.

As I have already said, the problem I had with Orbit Housing is not unique. I have asked other Members whether they have had similar problems in conducting their constituency casework. Members have made clear through their interventions today that they have, as have many Members who cannot be here today. The vast majority of Members who replied to me said that they had faced some form of obstruction. That ranged from delays to a complete refusal to share information with Members due to the data regulations—at least, that was the excuse. After receiving the response from Orbit Housing, I started looking at how data regulations apply to Members. I also wrote to the Information Commissioner and the Leader of the House to request clarification.

The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation and the UK’s Data Protection Act 2018 are our core data regulations. According to the legislation, we are data processers when we are handling a constituent’s casework. Data processors have to make sure they have a specific reason to process someone’s information. We are covered in our casework by two of the reasons outlined in the legislation: consent and public task. When a constituent writes asking for us to take action on an issue, it constitutes them giving us consent to discuss their personal data with a third party. Some organisations, however, do not always accept a letter from a constituent. That is the whole point.

However, consent is not necessarily always required, as we have a good second legitimate reason. Public task is when data processing is necessary to perform a task in the public interest or for official functions. The 2018 Act outlines that that covers elected representatives fulfilling their parliamentary functions. Conducting casework is one of our core functions and therefore falls under public task. We are therefore usually covered by two clear reasons when discussing a constituent’s information with a third party. That is the case regardless of whether we are discussing someone’s name or email, or a special category of protected data such as health or sexual orientation data.

Ultimately, the legislation is clear that we can discuss a constituent’s details with third parties. However, the issue I encountered comes from how the legislation applies to the third party in the casework. When we write to an organisation, we expect them to respond saying how they will fix the issue, but the data regulations add a layer of complication. As the organisation is itself a data controller, it needs to judge whether it can give a constituent’s information to us. Despite the fact that Members of Parliament are completely entitled to act on their constituent’s behalf, the organisation in question can still decide that it cannot give us the information we need. The constituent’s case is then forced shut, with no room to challenge the decision. That is exactly what happened to me with Orbit Housing, and it has happened to many other Members.

In this instance, data legislation is actually weakening our constituents’ rights and empowering the organisations that hold their data. Members cannot solve every issue, but we should be able to advance a case more than a constituent could alone. If third-party organisations can refuse to share information on a constituent’s case with us, our constituents suffer and we are left failing them due to legislation.

In summary, I would like to see several things from the Government as a result of this debate. First, they should assess the effectiveness of the current methods used to judge whether a building has been designed and built adequately. The Government started to look at that in the aftermath of the tragedy of Grenfell. I implore them to renew their efforts, considering their stated aim of radically increasing the number of homes being built each year. It is important that their rush to build does not lead to substandard homes being built, as Members have mentioned and as has happened too many times recently.

Secondly, the Government should conduct a review of the accountability of organisations, especially large house builders and housing associations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) mentioned. The Government’s stated aim to soon increase the number of homes being built will mean hugely increased business for the larger housing companies in the UK. It is right that they are held to account if they build inferior housing or ignore customers. Just last month, the chief executive of Persimmon Homes ignored questions about his record bonus of £75 million—quite a salary. It is wrong that in an industry where so much money is made by those at the top there is little accountability when customers or residents are let down.

Lastly, I ask that the Government consult Members to evaluate whether we are stifled by data regulations in our ability to conduct casework effectively. It is my opinion that the regulations give organisations a loophole to ignore accountability. Some organisations might do it innocently, but there are definitely organisations out there using that loophole inappropriately. That represents a serious threat to our ability to progress casework and to hold organisations to account. The law must be tightened up to empower us and, in turn, to empower our constituents.

Transport

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2018 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from Transport questions on 5 July 2018.

[Grahame Morris]

The Transport Select Committee has found that a disproportionate amount of transport funding is being spent in the capital, at the expense of the regions. What steps will the Minister take to close the gap and to specifically address issues highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn), including the “Safe A19” campaign, the Seaton Lane A19 junction improvement and ensuring that east Durham gets a rail halt at Horden?

[Joseph Johnson]

The Government are investing substantial sums in the north—£13 billion in the five years to 2020—and in the next control period for rail, we will invest £2.9 billion on the trans-Pennine upgrade alone. The hon. Gentleman, I am afraid, is factually wrong to say that Government investment per head in London and the south exceeds that of similar investment in the north. IPA analysis shows that for the three years to 2021, the north will receive £1,039 per head, which is £10 more than similar figures for the south of England.

[Official Report, 5 July 2018, Vol. 644, c. 486.]

Letter of correction from Joseph Johnson:

An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris).

The correct response should have been:

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I commend the work that my hon. Friend’s local charities have done, along with all the organisations that are working locally in Torbay on this significant issue. Obviously, additional funding has been identified. Part of the issue is to ensure that that money is used effectively by learning from previous lessons and, indeed, by ensuring that local authorities are held to account for the moneys that have been applied.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

2. What recent estimate he has made of the number of high-rise residential buildings that have had dangerous cladding removed and replaced since the Grenfell Tower fire.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)]

As of 22 May, remediation had started on 107 buildings over 18 metres in the social sector that were identified to have combinations of aluminium composite material cladding and insulation that failed fire-performance tests. Work has been completed on 10 buildings.

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that update, but will he give a timescale for the other tower blocks, in both the private and the public sectors? What is the timescale for the removal of these dangerous panels?

[James Brokenshire]

I recognise the clear desire and intent to see to it that these buildings are made safe and that remediation is completed at the earliest possible opportunity. The works are complex and detailed, and they will take time. We continue to monitor and to work with local authorities to make sure that progress is made, recognising the real public safety issues that the hon. Gentleman underlines.

Grenfell Tower

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I have already set out the position of the sprinkler issue in relation to new buildings. Obviously, it is for building owners to assess risk and consider what is appropriate for them. We have sought to support the sector in relation to remediation of combustible cladding with the £400 million and give financial flexibilities to local authorities, too. We will continue to keep the situation under review.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

In his statement, the Secretary of State spoke about further recommendations for change. Given that Government statistics for 2016-17 show that faulty electrical appliances were the second largest cause of accidental house fires in the UK, does he support my early-day motion 1119 on PAT testing of domestic electrical appliances?

[James Brokenshire]

I must confess to the hon. Gentleman that I am not conscious of his early-day motion, but I will certainly look at it in due course to see the specific point that he has made. If any issues come through, I certainly commit to write to him in respect of his early-day motion. Obviously, we continue to keep the regulations under review, and, of course, the inquiry itself will be looking at a number of these issues.

Tower Block Cladding

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

Sprinklers can be an effective fire safety measure, but they are one of many such measures that could be adopted. As Dame Judith Hackitt points out in her report, no fire safety measure, including sprinklers, could be seen as a panacea, as I highlighted earlier. We have obviously set out clear advice about new blocks over 30 metres, and for existing buildings it is for the building owner to decide, based on risk, the appropriate safety measures to take.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

A study by the Association of British Insurers found that standard UK fire safety testing fails properly to assess risk. Why has the Secretary of State refused to initiate a large-scale programme of testing of suspected combustible cladding other than cladding made of aluminium composite materials?

[James Brokenshire]

Obviously, we have seen this issue with ACM material. We will continue to reflect on this in the light of Dame Judith Hackitt’s report. There are other issues as well. I made a written ministerial statement on fire doors and issues that have been highlighted in that regard, including on how we intend to follow through with further testing on fire doors to ensure that there are no further issues across the sector.