Wards Corner Redevelopment

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to have the opportunity to have the Adjournment debate this evening.

Mr Speaker, you may not know that Seven Sisters tube station in my constituency has about 3 million people visitors every year. Mr Speaker, I can tell that you are aghast. That is because it is the home of Tottenham Hotspur and people arriving to see them often come through the station. It is very much the gateway to my constituency.

Wards Corner is part of that gateway. It is the first building that people see on exiting Seven Sisters tube station. In the year of my birth, 1972, the former Edwardian department store was left abandoned. Soon it fell into a state of disrepair and throughout my childhood and teenage years, the space remained unused. It was not until the early 2000s, when new arrivals came to Tottenham—from Peru, Honduras, El Salvador, Brazil and other countries across South America—that it became lively again. Many had fled chaos and upheaval at home, but in Wards Corner, they spotted an opportunity to build a new home out of the disused space.

Stepping inside the Latin Village that they created is like entering a whole different world. Inside is a magical maze of shops, food stalls, barbershops and nail bars. Salsa and Spanish music vibrate the shelves of groceries. Kids run excitedly though the aisles. Men and women sit and chat, sipping strong Colombian coffee. The smell of Argentinian meat, freshly made empanadas and tamales is impossible to resist.

As day becomes night, the aisles fill up with young couples, groups of friends and families sitting down at tables to eat. The volume of the sound system is turned up. Beers imported from South America are passed round. People chat, their faces illuminated by fairy lights and the hues of shop fronts. Couples dance. Out of the rubble, Tottenham’s South American community has created a treasure trove of culture, community, love and life. London is often hailed as a centre of openness, diversity and multiculturalism; this is a corner of the capital that lives up to the hype.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure that the debate will roam as far as Northern Ireland, but I am sure that there will be a reason—perhaps the hon. Gentleman is a visitor to the precinct.

[Jim Shannon]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. What he has been describing sounds almost idyllic. Does he not agree that any development strategy—I think he will come to this—must be robust and ensure that those who are from different communities, which he mentioned, within the overall community feel important and that they are heard and understood? Further, does he believe that we must be at pains to ensure that plans never, ever exclude people from their businesses and marketplaces and that we should understand their effect on people’s ordinary lives?

Planning System: Gypsies and Travellers

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hollobone]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Like her, I do not regard the Government’s consultation as satisfactory. I do not regard it as ambitious enough, and she is right to identify that there are issues with the Gypsy and Traveller community that we need to address outside the planning system. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire, in one of his excellent debates on this issue, highlighted the fact that Gypsies and Travellers have the lowest level of work of any ethnicity, at 47%. Some 60% of Gypsies and Travellers have no qualifications at all, whereas the figure for the rest of the population is just under 23%. He has said quite rightly that a compassionate case can be made for integrating Gypsies and Travellers into one whole assessment of their housing needs within a local area, rather than treating them as a separate group.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing the debate. He is clearly trying to find a delicate balance between integration and making sure that councils do what they should be doing, and I appreciate that; it is the way I like to view this issue as well. Following on from the thoughts that he expressed in his last few words, does he agree that in order to build relationships with the Traveller community, there needs to be more encouragement for their children to attend local schools and clubs, and that we must ensure they are a valued and heard part of our community? Further, does he agree that this relationship, which is something that he and I both want to grow, will be solidified by mutual respect and a future in which the Traveller community is accepted within the wider community?

[Mr Hollobone]

I am grateful for that helpful intervention. I am so pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of educational attainment in Gypsy and Traveller communities, because it is a national disgrace that so many Gypsy and Traveller children do not get the education that they deserve and are statutorily obliged to receive. That is the fault of local education authorities, but it is also the fault of the Gypsy and Traveller communities themselves, and we need to do far more to address that issue.

Another important thing in the hon. Gentleman’s intervention was the two key words, “mutual respect”. Mutual respect works both ways. Gypsies and Travellers demand respect from the settled community for their needs, but do not seem to respect the settled community when they park up on land illegally or build pitches without planning permission, often terrifying local communities with their presence. Of course, there are arguments on both sides of the debate, but the issue needs to be addressed. We are at the beginning of a five-year Parliament. By the end of the parliamentary Session, there will be no excuse for not dealing holistically with all the issues that Gypsies and Travellers pose for all of us.

It will be helpful to give some figures to identify the scale of the issue. The latest figures that I have are from July 2018; if the Minister has more up-to-date figures, perhaps he can supply them. In July 2018, the number of Traveller caravans in the country was just under 23,000, up something like 30% from July 2008, of which 3,100 were on unauthorised sites. Of those 3,100, just over 2,100 were on land bought by Travellers. We are talking about 3,100 caravans on unauthorised sites, 2,100 of which were on land bought by Travellers and the remainder on land that they do not own.

Flats and Shared Housing: Fire Risk

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) for setting the scene so well. He has given the perspective from his constituency and I wish to do the same for Northern Ireland.

I have been considering this issue and liaising with our Housing Executive and others since the terrible Grenfell disaster highlighted massive concerns. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place and I look forward to her response to the debate.

The blocks in Northern Ireland were built in the 1950s and ’60s. Of the 33 blocks in Northern Ireland, 25 are in Belfast, and the 1,931 flats in them primarily have two bedrooms. Of those flats, 1,650 belong to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and 281 have been sold. That complicates the problem—I have heard the issues discussed on the media here on the mainland—as some people who have bought their properties find themselves in a Catch-22 situation.

Although our buildings differ in scale from those on the mainland, the issue must still be taken seriously. I am deeply concerned about this matter. I chair the all-party parliamentary group for healthy homes and buildings. Safety and healthy living are important qualities, and this debate on risk in flats and shared houses is important to the APPG.

One of my constituents has a massive interest in this issue due to his extensive knowledge of it. He has provided me with notes, which I have brought to the attention of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive back home. Those notes should be taken seriously, and I thank my constituent for the information.

Although we use a different type of cladding from that used on the mainland, my constituent says that there are still issues to be addressed. The PVC cladding on tower blocks owned by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive was tested under the BRE 135 and BS 8414 standards. The tests were carried out in 2013, long before the Grenfell fire, but they raised an issue about which I believe we should have been more aware. BRE concluded that the PVC cladding was safe, even though it fully combusted within five minutes of being exposed to temperatures exceeding 600°C. That is a very surprising conclusion, to say the least.

The PVC cladding company claims that the material is Euroclass B, which is of limited combustibility. Other documents, however, suggest that it is Euroclass E, which is fully combustible. The Government must reconsider the continued use on blocks higher than 18 metres of any material below Euroclass A. Under that standard, many blocks would be non-compliant. I hope the Minister can give an idea of how that proposal would impact on existing proposals across the United Kingdom.

According to BRE, smoke toxicity is a major concern. Burning PVC emits significant quantities of hydrogen chloride gas, which can kill people in minutes, long before they have a chance to escape the building. How many of the people in the awful tragedy of Grenfell were dead before the fire got to them, because of the emissions? If people can be killed by the emissions, those emissions have to be addressed. Proposed smoke toxicity regulations from Brussels have not been adopted. We must address the issue, regardless of pre-existing regulations. I hope the Minister can tell us where we stand on the implementation of those regulations.

Nothing can bring back those who died in the Grenfell fire on that dreadful day—it is important to remember those who were lost—but we must use the tragedy to spur us on to make sure that another preventable tragedy does not happen. We must think about the action that could have been taken and the lives that could have been saved.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, including on how we will filter information to the devolved Assemblies to ensure that we are all on the same page. It is vital that there are UK-wide regulations and guidelines—that all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has the same policy, law, guidelines and rules, that all people will be safe and that what happened at Grenfell will never happen again.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

As ever, it is an enormous honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. Like others, I thank the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) for securing this debate on a hugely important and topical issue. We of course await sight of the fire safety Bill, but I know from last week’s debate on the phase 1 report of the Grenfell inquiry that there is rightly significant cross-party support in the House on this issue, as evidenced by the four Back-Bench speeches this morning. I am glad to be summing up for the Scottish National party.

In his very comprehensive speech, the hon. Gentleman spoke about concerns about cladding. We are moving into phase 2 of the Grenfell inquiry, and we all agree that we should wait and see what happens over the course of phase 2, so that our actions can take that in. Certainly, there is a wider point about the Treasury and leaseholders.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about issues relating to internal safety in buildings—particularly high-rise blocks—after the Grenfell inquiry. I have 10 tower blocks in my constituency of Glasgow East. I was very grateful to Glasgow Housing Association for taking me on a tour of those blocks, where we looked at internal issues, some of which related to fire doors. The hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), who is no longer in his place, was right to make the point that we can have all the legislation in the world, but cultural issues sometimes mean that people might use fire extinguishers to hold doors open, for example, which is not necessarily ideal.

The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) spoke about some of the devolved issues in Wales and Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth was right to take to task some local organisations that are definitely not stepping up to the plate. As ever, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who chairs the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, spoke very powerfully and with great authority. He was right to make the point about the impact on leaseholders.

We covered so much ground in last week’s debate in the main Chamber, so I will not repeat much of what I said then. I will focus instead on a number of ancillary issues that I did not manage to touch on last week. In the context of the debate, let us not forget that people are still living in dangerous homes, so it is imperative that we reassure our constituents, as the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth tried to do. He made the point that we cannot have just words; we must have actions from Westminster.

Last year, we saw the chilling sight of a block of flats in Barking go up in flames. The psychological impact on survivors of Grenfell, as well as on those who were bereaved, can scarcely be imagined. The fact remains that tens of thousands of people live in privately owned tower blocks in which remedial work on fire safety has yet to be completed, while the British Government pass the buck to freeholders. My message to the Government remains very much the same as last week: we must make better progress in reassuring people who live in high-rise blocks and shared accommodation.

According to the charity Electrical Safety First, in 2017-18, 150,000 fires were caused by an electrical ignition source, which accounted for 60% of all accidental domestic fires across the UK. The Government’s strategy to tackle that problem has been poor. The concentration of consumer messages has centred on the “Fire Kills” campaign, but despite the British Government’s advertisements last March—including some messaging on the dangers of overloading sockets—more definitely needs to be done to focus on electricity in future campaigns.

In Scotland, Electrical Safety First has been running the successful “Inequality Street” campaign, the aim of which is for everyone to be protected by the same electrical safety laws regardless of tenure or dwelling type. The campaign’s focus this year will be electrical safety in mixed-tenure blocks, which I welcome. Put quite simply, flat owners should be expected to meet higher standards when there is a potential impact on their neighbour’s safety.

North of the border, the Scottish Government have shown their commitment to high safety standards in Scottish homes by introducing new legislation last February that requires all domestic properties in Scotland, regardless of tenure, to have the same levels of smoke and fire detection. Private landlords have also been required to carry out five-yearly electrical checks since 2015—the Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, made that point—and will soon be required to fit residual-current devices, which cut off the power if a fault is detected, in all their rented properties.

When it comes to tumble dryers and washing machines, there have been two major recalls recently, so electrical appliance and fire safety need to be a priority, especially for people living in flats. How is the Minister working with colleagues in the Department to communicate messages to the public about appliances causing fires? Will we soon see, for example, TV advertisements from the Fire Kills campaign about appliance fires? Will she also think about how fires are recorded by fire and rescue services?

Consumers are charging their devices more than ever before, so will the Minister commit to ensuring that British Government records include fires caused by, for example, mobile phone chargers rather than trouser presses, which must surely be falling out of use? A wider point is that more and more consumers use websites such as Wish.com, and we essentially import products from China that do not meet British standards. That is a concern.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Member has outlined what the Government need to do. Does he agree that companies also have great responsibilities? The Government perhaps need to introduce legislation or make changes to the law to ensure that companies are accountable to the people to whom they sell their electrical products, because currently, if the products catch fire, the companies seem to walk away.

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point; the Government absolutely have a role in ensuring that we hold those companies to account. Equally, we have a role as consumers on a personal level. We have to consider the standard of an Apple charger that is sold for only £2 or £3, for example. We know that consumer behaviour is evolving and it is important, as he has said, that the Government keep pace.

As I said at the outset of my remarks, there is much cross-party consensus on ensuring that we have the highest possible fire safety standards, on which Scotland is already leading the way. The SNP would certainly support some kind of team approach—of the sort mentioned by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth and the hon. Member for Strangford—to ensure that we are on the same page across the UK. My fundamental message is that action needs to come at a much greater pace.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), whom I thank for his balanced contribution. Like him and many other Members, I am unashamedly a friend of Israel. I believe in it biblically, but I also believe in it politically and socially.

I am pleased to be speaking today. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their significant contributions, which have been made with real sincerity and depth of interest.

Along with other hon. Members, I attended a holocaust event in the House just last week. I met a holocaust survivor there who was sent as a child to a farm on the Drumfad Road in Millisle in my Strangford constituency—she was one of the Kinder children. Many such stories have been told in this House, and it is always good to be reminded of them. She came from Czechoslovakia and is fortunate to be alive, and hers is a true story of what happened to her and how she was saved from death in the German camps.

When she told me about her experience, it had a personal impact. It is so sad that we are losing more and more people with personal stories, and there is a real fear that this will become just another page in a history book, as opposed to an horrific event that exemplifies the fact that evil triumphs when good people do nothing.

It is great to see streaming services such as Netflix providing documentaries like “The Devil Next Door”, showing the testimony of concentration camp victims, which is important in reaching new generations. I commend the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) because no one in this House was not moved by his personal contribution—not that anybody else’s contribution was not moving. There was silence in the House, which encapsulated how we all felt at that moment, as we heard the true story of his family, for which I thank him.

We must continue to ensure that the truth is told and that the ink does not fade on factual cases. We must make sure that history is not rewritten, as is the case with some of Northern Ireland’s troubles. The horrors faced in the holocaust are as important to this generation as they were in 1950.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend will know that some 41,000 schoolchildren from across the United Kingdom have availed themselves of the informative “Lessons from Auschwitz” programme, which in the past three years has been extended to Northern Ireland, where hundreds of schoolchildren have been able to get involved. Does he agree it is essential that the new Northern Ireland Executive continue the programme so that future generations can learn about Auschwitz and about combating racism, hatred and antisemitism?

[Jim Shannon]

I agree with my hon. Friend. With a reinvigorated and restored Northern Ireland Assembly, hopefully we can continue to see the benefit of such programmes right across Northern Ireland. Such programmes provide an understanding that men can be unbelievably and despicably evil. We can never forget that beneath a polished smile and a well-presented press release can be the heart of prejudice and hatred.

My son Luke and his friends went to Auschwitz last year on a weekend away. I was rather surprised—not that they should want to go there, but that, as young 24 and 25-year-olds, they felt they needed to do so. They came back with some incredible stories. The Royal British Legion of Ballywalter in my constituency also went, and grown men came back and unashamedly told me that they shed tears for what they had witnessed.

As we mark the 75th anniversary of the liberation of those remaining in Auschwitz, I feel sickened and saddened by the images that are conjured. It is important that future generations understand this and feel as we do. The UN Secretary-General said after the “75 Years after Auschwitz” exhibit was unveiled:

“Understanding our history connects us to the essential human values of truth, respect, justice and compassion.”

We should be pleased to be involved in all those things.

Although it is right that we mark the horrors of the holocaust, we should not and cannot pretend that all is well in the world, because quite clearly it is not. Srebrenica, the Rohingya Muslim group in Burma and Rwanda are all examples of man’s inhumanity and brutality to man. This tells us that there are still evil people about who are intent on doing similar things.

The evil events we remember today started more than eight decades ago, but antisemitism is not called the “oldest hatred” for no reason, and neither has it been eradicated. Our Jewish brothers and sisters—we are all clearly referring to them as such, because we are in the Chamber today because although we may not be Jewish, we look upon them as our Jewish brothers and sisters—have been persecuted for millennia. Even in 2020, Britain, Europe and the world have witnessed rising levels of this sickness in society. We are reminded daily that antisemitism is alive and destructive not only across the world, but here in the United Kingdom. In this place, there have been accusations of antisemitism being brushed under the carpet, as opposed to being confronted and dealt with. Let us be clear: antisemitism was at the heart of the Nazi plan. If we, as political leaders in the constituencies we represent, are not brave enough to recognise and call out the cause and effect of the oldest hatred, we will not find a solution. Sadly, that is why I say that far too often in this place, far too many Members have stoked the flames of hatred by unfairly attacking Israel, the world’s only Jewish state.

Like the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, I stand here to support Israel and to be its friend, just as I did in a previous job in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I have spoken in every one of these debates since I have been in the House. We also have to recall the Gaza border debate that took place in this House on 15 May 2018, when Member after Member stood up to denounce the state of Israel for killing innocent people. We found out a day later, of course, that 53 of the 62 killed at the Gaza border on 14 May were members of Hamas or Islamic Jihad—terrorists trying to breach the border fence to kill innocent Jewish people. We must keep in perspective the fact that hatred towards the Jewish people is clear. Nine innocent people were also killed, having been used as human shields and cannon fodder by the terrorists. Furthermore, those who denounced Israel on 15 May 2018 did nothing to alter the Hansard record of their contributions. No apologies were issued and there were no retractions; their comments stand in Hansard, despite the factual information that followed contradicting much of what was said. Such loss of life is devastating but, as in many cases in Northern Ireland, if people are killed in the midst of terrorism, they are not victims but perpetrators. I offer deep sympathies, even at this stage, to those who lost innocent loved ones at that dreadful time.

Hansard still contains the vitriol used that day, and we have to learn that careless words can cost lives and breed hatred, so there is an important responsibility on all of us. We are entitled to criticise when criticism is merited. The right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire said that we can be a critical friend—so we can—but that is verbal criticism given in a decent way to bring about change. We should all be constructive, but we are not entitled to hold Israel to a different set of standards from those that we hold other nations to, including our own. There must also be opportunity to record an apology when we get something wrong.

Antisemitism is bred in many places, with the middle east being one of them. It is in our media—on TV and radio—every day. Antisemitism is a powder keg and inevitably, without peace, there will be many more times over the course of this Parliament when we will debate the issues. Let us not fall into the trap of encouraging division and hatred, and let us commit over this parliamentary term to listen to both sides of the debate. As the chair of the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief, I feel it is so important that we speak up for those of a Christian faith, those of other faiths and those of no faith. I know that all Members subscribe to that same commitment. I believe that in this House we have a duty, on Holocaust Memorial Day, to do just that. We must pledge to listen to organisations such as the Israel-Britain Alliance, which sends briefings to MPs every month that offer a sober, honest and realistic assessment of the challenges faced by tiny Israel. Let us in this House commit to offer a commentary that takes the gun and the bullet, as well as assertions, institutional racism and bigotry, out of the dialogue. How better to remember the price paid by ignoring the signs and signals of antisemitism and to set a better example for people to follow so that there is never a repetition in this generation and in any other to come?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

It is a pleasure to call Scott Benton to make his maiden speech. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Holocaust Memorial Day

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Luke Hall]

It has been a privilege to have the opportunity to open and close the debate today. I am hugely grateful to hon. Members from across the House for an emotional, thought-provoking and insightful debate, with a number of incredible contributions.

I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) and for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) on their excellent maiden speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South spoke about his constituency, and about the importance of supporting business, hard work and the community he represents. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw rightly thanked his predecessor for his contribution in this area, and told us about the work he did when he was a teacher to raise awareness of the issues we are discussing today. They will both be excellent Members of Parliament for their constituencies.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) for all the work that he has done, and for his contribution today. He told us about the work that he has done with local authorities and what they have done to support the Jewish community. I also thank him for his commitment to call people out in this House when they fall short; that is absolutely right.

I thank the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) for his contribution. The letter that he read out—from a mother to her daughter, Mirele—was one of the most emotional passages that I have heard in the House since becoming a Member of Parliament. It was quite incredible to hear.

I thank the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for their passionate and informed contributions; the debate has been quite incredible. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for recounting his story about the atrocities that he saw in Bosnia. The debate is richer for it.

Lastly, I thank the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for sharing what was possibly the best speech that I have heard in this House, and certainly the most emotional. I have never heard the Chamber as silent and attentive as it was when he recounted the incredible story of what Heinz Skyte and his family went through. I thank him for sharing that.

We have heard today that the past few years have not been easy for British Jews, with antisemitism on the rise across Europe and the United Kingdom. Jewish families who have lived in harmony in their neighbourhoods for generations are coming forward, in some instances telling us that they have feared for their safety. Some have contemplated leaving the country. I think we would all agree that if that happened, we would lose a vital part of what makes Britain great.

We are one of the world’s most successful multi-faith, multi-ethnic democracies. From the arts to business, from politics to culture, it would be a poorer country without the immense contribution of the Jewish community to British society. That is why we must all acknowledge that antisemitism is not just a threat to the Jewish community but to all of us and our country. This debate has highlighted the importance of Holocaust Memorial Day to stopping antisemitism and all forms of hatred.

The UK’s Holocaust Memorial Day was created to remember all the victims of the holocaust and Nazi persecution, to remember those affected by more recent atrocities, and to educate people—we have heard so much about the importance of education—about the continuing dangers of racism and discrimination. It reminds us of the continuing need for vigilance and motivates people, individually and collectively, to ensure that the horrendous crimes, racism and victimisation committed during the holocaust and subsequent periods of genocide are neither forgotten nor repeated.

Every year since 2001, the UK Government have supported and promoted Holocaust Memorial Day. Since 2010, we have given the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust over £7 million. These funds support not only the national event but a huge number of local activities—over 10,000 in 2019, taking place up and down the country. These events ranged from commemorative services to film production, from social media campaigns to crochet flowers being made to represent and remember individual victims of the holocaust.

Each year, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust has a theme. As we have heard, the theme for this year is “stand together”. This theme has explored how genocidal regimes throughout history have deliberately fractured societies by marginalising certain groups, and how those tactics can be challenged by individuals standing together with their neighbours and speaking out against oppression. In the years leading up to the holocaust, Nazi policies and propaganda deliberately encouraged divisions within German society, urging “Aryan” Germans to keep themselves separate from their Jewish neighbours. The holocaust, Nazi persecution of other groups and each subsequent genocide were enabled by ordinary citizens not standing with their targeted neighbours. For those who might feel powerless when confronted with hatred, it is worth remembering that this is a powerful step we can all take—to stand up for and support those who are the victims of bigotry.

Today, as we participate in this debate, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is joining some of the last survivors of the holocaust and over 40 world leaders at the World Holocaust Forum memorial at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. The theme of this year’s forum is “remembering the holocaust and fighting antisemitism”. The message is clear—that we cannot remember the victims of the holocaust without fighting antisemitism today. Earlier this week, the UK, along with other members of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, pledged to victims and survivors of the holocaust that they will never be forgotten and that their legacy will be kept alive.

We have heard many hon. Members speak about their visits to Auschwitz-Birkenau and other death camps across Europe. Sadly, despite the often-quoted words, “Never again”, we continue to hear about violent conflicts across the world and their impacts on civilians. But there are many schemes, with state backing, to help to ensure that people in this country remember the tragedy of the holocaust and learn lessons from it. I know that many Members in the House today have visited Auschwitz with the Holocaust Educational Trust. Pupils from three schools in my constituency—Marlwood School, Brimsham Green School and the Castle School—have been there in the past few years.

The Government are supporting the work of the Anne Frank Trust, which challenges prejudice and hatred. Our Department is funding the trust with £467,000 over three years to reach schoolchildren in London and the west midlands. The trust uses Anne Frank’s life and diary to challenge prejudice and reduce hatred, encouraging people to embrace positive attitudes, responsibility and respect for others. Many of the young people have gone on to become ambassadors of the programme and share what they have learned with others. I pay tribute to them today.

In January 2015, the then Prime Minister, with cross- party support across this House, accepted in full the recommendations of the Prime Minister’s holocaust commission. This included the creation of a new memorial. The Government have already recorded and preserved the testimony of British holocaust survivors and liberators to ensure that their witness to Europe’s worst tragedy is never forgotten.

[Jim Shannon]

I should have mentioned this in my speech, but Prince Charles is in Israel on his first official visit, for Holocaust Memorial Day. It is a fitting tribute that the royal family should be represented in Israel, since 6 million Jewish people were murdered.

[Luke Hall]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point and agree with him about the importance of that visit.

During the debate, Members have raised concerns about how antisemitism has taken hold in British institutions including universities, local government and our political parties. The UK’s Government was the first in the world to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, which provides a guide on how antisemitism manifests itself in the 21st century. It is important that public bodies understand the kinds of behaviour that constitute anti- semitism today, and that is why we are calling on all local authorities and public bodies to adopt that definition.

But our institutions need to do more. We plan to bring forward legislation to ban universities and local councils from organising boycotts, sanctions and disinvestment against other countries—a measure that is often used to target Israel and can, in some instances, lead to antisemitic acts. We all have a role to play in rooting out antisemitism where we see it, and the Jewish community can be assured that this Government will stand shoulder to shoulder with them. I know that that message goes out from everybody in the Chamber today.

I would like to echo the many tributes that have been paid today, including to Karen Pollock, the CEO of the Holocaust Educational Trust, who has been a huge support to our Department and to me. Along with her team, she is an inspiration to us all. I would also like to pay tribute to the work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and its chief executive, Olivia Marks-Woldman. The trust delivered the most successful Holocaust Memorial Day to date last year, with 10,000 local events across the country.

I would like to mention some of the other holocaust remembrance, education and survivor organisations that enrich the work we do, such as the Holocaust Survivors’ Centre in Hendon; the Wiener Holocaust Library; the Association of Jewish Refugees; the National Holocaust Centre in Newark, which we heard about this afternoon; the Holocaust Exhibition and Learning Centre at Huddersfield University; and University College London’s Centre for Holocaust Education. I would like to pay tribute to the 21 survivors of the holocaust and subsequent genocides who were honoured in the Queen’s new year’s honours list. I also pay tribute to those survivors who shared their testimony but are no longer with us for the work they have done over many decades and wish their families long, fulfilling lives.

This has been a sobering debate. We have heard many troubling, disturbing and upsetting accounts. We have remembered some of the darkest moments of human history and heard about some of the darkest aspects of human nature. I wish to end by focusing not on the dark side of human nature but the light. At the Yad Vashem memorial in Jerusalem is a garden called the Garden of the Righteous Among the Nations. It was designed to commemorate non-Jews who risked their lives to rescue Jews during the holocaust.

At first, a tree was to be planted for every person identified as deserving of recognition, but as time went on, that became impossible for lack of space, and a plaque was put up in the garden instead. As of 1 January 2019, 27,362 people have been commemorated, and new names continue to be added. Some of the names were famous, and some were wealthy, but some were ordinary people living otherwise ordinary lives who demonstrated tremendous courage when the time for moral action came. Let us draw strength from their example and remember that, if the time comes when we are confronted by racism or discrimination, every one of us has the power to stand up against it.

Assisted Dying Law

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine]

I agree that better mental health care should be available at all points in our lives. For every decision that we have to make, we should have support. If we are allowed to look again at the current law and the blanket ban, the question of what mental support exists is the sort of thing we should look at.

As I said, I am grateful to the constituent I mentioned, because that example highlights the invidious position in which everyone is put by the current law and its blanket ban. That includes the patient who knows they are going to die, and who simply wants help to ease their way through it; the medical staff who must not help; and the families who are powerless to support their loved ones, because the law threatens them with criminal procedures.

A recent policy paper considered by the homicide committee of the National Police Chiefs’ Council showed that investigators are frustrated with the current legislation, and that families whose loved ones have had assisted deaths are losing confidence in the police and criminal justice system. Families such as the Whaleys and Ecclestons, who suffered the ordeal of court cases, are perhaps the highest profile examples of how the law fails those who are facing their final days, and fails their loved ones. Sadly, they represent merely the tip of the iceberg.

Dignity in Dying has calculated that every eight days, someone from the United Kingdom travels to Switzerland for an assisted death, with their grieving families often treated as criminals once they return. Every year in England and Wales alone, an estimated 300 people take their own lives because they are faced with a terminal diagnosis and it seems their only option. A great many more are beyond the reach of palliative care, which, sadly, needs more investment, and they die in agony. Perhaps the cruellest thing of all is that this can all be avoided if people can afford it.

The law has created a two-tier system. If someone has more than £10,000, they can travel to Switzerland or elsewhere for the end-of-life care of their choice. It is time to look at whether and how our law can be improved. There is ample evidence that the majority of the public would support a change. According to the most recent surveys, 84% would like to see a change. They want a very narrow and specific change—perhaps that addresses some of the points that have been made—for those in the final stages of a terminal illness who are mentally capable of making a decision, but they do want a change.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. We had a discussion today, and we have very different opinions; clearly, I do not agree with what she is saying. The answer is not legalising assisted suicide. The answer is to help, to support and to be compassionate towards families. Does she acknowledge the good work that is done by many charities, particularly Macmillan, whose compassion and love make the unimaginable a little bit more bearable?

[Christine Jardine]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that Marie Curie, Macmillan and other charities do outstanding work. The people who work in hospices up and down the country, and those who provide palliative care in our hospitals, perform an unenviable role and they are beyond reproach. However, it is not my view that people should have only that choice. For me, this is about being able to decide either to have palliative care—it should be there, and it should provide support—or to make another choice. That should be up to the individual, and the law should support them in that. As I said, 84% of people, according to the most recent surveys, would support a change.

Commission on Justice in Wales

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Exactly. Lord Thomas identifies the discrepancies in cost and how much a local citizen contributes to justice in Wales. When I talk about justice being good and fair, I am describing the situation more than 1,000 years ago, not in the present day.

The legal system of Hywel Dda covered the law, procedure, judges and the administration of the land. It was notable for being based on retribution rather than punishment, for its pragmatic and arguably more compassionate approach than that which we now experience, and for granting higher status to women than most contemporary legal systems. Following the Acts of Union, of course, Welsh law was officially abolished and Wales as a legal jurisdiction ceased to exist.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on securing the debate. While the debate is focused on justice for Wales, the same argument applies in Scotland or Northern Ireland. There are differing laws. Does she agree that it is essential that regional laws are fully considered when the Government introduce legislation centrally in Westminster and that the Government need to work with the regional Administrations to achieve the goal that we all wish to see?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is a sense that we can learn from and compare with the other nations within the United Kingdom, if we have the information and the means to act upon that. That is invaluable for each of those nations.

In the last 21 years of devolution, the power of our National Assembly has expanded and its confidence as an institution has grown. Now, in 2020, Welsh Government policy made in that Assembly has a greater impact on the lives of the people of Wales than ever before, yet extraordinarily my country still operates without a corresponding legal jurisdiction, despite having a full law-making legislature, its own Parliament, the Senedd.

In the broader sense, that means that while devolution divergence is expanding Wales-specific legislation, it is being enacted without the underpinning structures of jurisdiction. That creates a jagged edge, duplication, a lack of accountability, additional costs to the citizen without transparency, and confusion. As the commission’s report says, the people of Wales both need and deserve a better system. Justice is not an island; it should be truly integrated into policies for a just, fair and prosperous Wales.

I hear myself using these abstract words, but of course justice is not an abstract concept; it is put into action or it does not exist. It is put into action through a range of agencies—education, social services, health and housing—all of which are devolved to the Senedd. Does that matter? Yes, it does. Bingham’s first rule of law is that the law must be accessible and, so far as possible, intelligible, clear and predictable. That simply is not the case in Wales in the 21st century.

The commission’s report is comprehensive, but today I intend to concentrate on three areas: criminal justice, family justice and legal aid. There are not many other areas that are worthy of more attention, but I urge that we have further discussion, because this problem will continue to be exacerbated. It is serious, given people’s experience in Wales.

On criminal justice, the report states:

“If criminal justice is to be effective, most particularly its treatment of victims, in policing and in the administration of the sentences of the courts (the principal role of the prison and probation services), it must be closely integrated with services which are the responsibility of other parts of local, devolved and central government—for example, health, drug and alcohol misuse, housing, education, employment, accessing benefits and managing debt and other welfare services.”

That, again, is the jagged cutting edge of justice. Whether a criminal reoffends or not is, of course, that individual’s responsibility, but that does not absolve the state of any responsibility as the provider of justice. If the state’s criminal justice system has contributed to the breakdown of family bonds, the release into homelessness, a failure to grasp the opportunity to address health issues such as addiction, and the likelihood of unemployment implicit in the toxic combination of low skills and a criminal record, what has it achieved, save to tighten the vicious circle of criminality?

I want to mention the case of Conner Marshall, whose inquest concluded last week. I pay my respects to Conner’s parents, Nadine and Richard, for their courage and perseverance in seeking justice for their son, and to my colleague and friend, the late and dearly missed Harry Fletcher, who supported the family in their search for answers. Conner was only 18 when he was murdered by a violent serial offender released on licence and on the books of community rehabilitation company Working Links.

Last Friday, the coroner in the inquest into Conner’s murder said that the probation caseworker of Braddon, the offender, was “overwhelmed” and

“essentially left to her own devices”

in what is an extremely challenging job at the best of times. Conner’s murderer had missed eight probation appointments, six of which were sufficient to return him to prison. The coroner—this is important—noted that that was not the fault of the probation officer. She had a case load of 60 offenders and was new in her post. Rather, Conner’s death was the collateral result of a failed social experiment—an ideological concept put into action by a Conservative Secretary of State for Justice in the belief that the profit motive of private enterprise can be trusted with a public good. Who would ever suspect that private companies might interpret contractual payment targets to reduce criminal acts by the simple means of seeing, hearing and recording no such acts? Clearly not the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). It is to the credit of the former Secretary of State for Justice, David Gauke, that he recognised the abject and costly failure of the transforming rehabilitation programme, and that Wales led the way in bringing probation back into public control with the new National Probation Service of Wales.

The case of Conner Marshall revealed how difficult it was for his family to get to the root of the circumstances leading up to and following their son’s tragic death, but the lack of hard data about the crime and offenders in Wales, disaggregated from the wider England-and-Wales picture, was also an issue for the commission. The crime survey for England and Wales warns that separate estimates for Wales are subject to sampling volatility and variability, and that extreme caution should be taken in interpreting figures under the present reporting arrangements when trying to extract Wales-specific data. I am glad to note, however, that CSEW intends to produce Wales-specific estimates for the first time this summer.

Additionally, it is distressing to note that the then Secretary of State for Wales effectively enforced a veto by insisting that all requests from the commission to UK Ministers and entities had to be passed by him. That caused a significant delay to the commission in receiving evidence, which the commission itself expressed. Indeed, in May 2019 he said that he

“did not think it would be appropriate for UK Government Ministers or officials to give evidence on reserved policy to a Commission established by a devolved administration.”

Such high-handedness does not engender confidence that the needs of the citizens of Wales were foremost in his mind.

Protection for New Home Buyers

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who does excellent work through the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform. I will be saying a little more about the deficiencies of the warranty arrangements, including those provided by Premier, in a few moments.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The National House Building Council in Northern Ireland gives some guarantees to people who buy houses, although it may not always be able to have the enforcement powers that it would like to. Does the hon. Lady agree that there is also a responsibility on banks to intervene and help when it comes to mortgage repayments on a house that is not finished correctly?

[Kate Green]

I will say a little about mortgage lenders later in my speech.

The examples I have given the House are not isolated. Indeed, Mr Alexander is notorious for a number of poor-quality developments across Greater Manchester and beyond. But it appears that developers can continue to develop new properties that fail to meet buildings standards, sometimes to a dangerous degree, while avoiding taking any action to address defects in their previous developments. Local authorities lack resources for inspection and enforcement. They cannot take developers’ previous failures into account to refuse them planning permission for future applications. Unscrupulous developers are free to continue to build with impunity, while buyers are left without redress.

How can it be right that such poor-quality buildings can be constructed, sold and occupied? How on earth are they receiving building regulations certificates? Section 57(1) of the Building Act 1984 means that it is an offence “recklessly” to issue such certificates, but it seems that they are being issued for clearly substandard buildings. I wonder whether the Minister can tell the House how many successful convictions have been brought under this legislation, because I have not been able to identify a single example.

Faced with defects and developers’ refusals to rectify them, buyers may seek to rely on their buildings warranty cover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) mentioned. But as my constituents have found, all too often that does not offer the protection they expect. Warranty providers are able to carry out a dual role as both approved inspector and warranty provider. That surely creates a conflict of interest. Insurers have an incentive to suppress knowledge of defects, particularly when they may give rise to very large claims. Exclusions to the cover often leave significant risk with the homeowner, so the inspector may not even bother to inspect every property in a development—arguably, there is insufficient incentive to do so.

Perhaps, therefore, we should not be surprised to hear from my hon. Friend about his constituents’ experiences with Premier Guarantee or that the main warranty provider in the UK, NHBC, told the all-party group in 2015 that of all the homeowners it covers, fewer than 5% contact NHBC with issues that result in a valid claim under the warranty. That does not of course tell us how many buyers try to claim under their warranty but are unsuccessful. It conceals the fact that warranty providers are extremely reluctant to rectify defects, as the onus will fall on them to recover the cost of doing so from the developer. Although defects the builder has failed or refused to deal with can be referred to NHBC’s resolution service, by which it decides which claims to accept or reject, New Build Guru suggests that house builders and NHBC routinely liaise directly with each other without notice or reference to the policyholder, and privately decide between them which claims will be accepted, thus avoiding both cost for the developer and the need for NHBC to incur expense to recover its costs from the builder.

For all practical purposes, a homeowner cannot challenge the warranty provider if it refuses to accept their claim. The reason for this, as one of my constituents has recently discovered, is that the resolution service is not a regulated insurance activity. If NHBC rejects a claim and the homebuyer wishes to challenge the refusal, the Financial Ombudsman Service has no jurisdiction to deal with such complaints. Homeowners may be able to complain to the Construction Industry Council, which regulates approved inspectors, but failing that their only option—mostly costly and impractical—is to go to law.

Valedictory Debate

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

May I begin by apologising, Madam Deputy Speaker, because there has been so much Northern Irish business over the past week that I have made my farewell speech 15 times? I am now known as the Dame Nellie Melba of west London. If anyone wishes to say any nice things about me, please let them not feel constrained by the fact that they have been said a few times already.

I leave this House with great sadness. I have to say that what tipped me over the edge was a text message from the Argyle surgery in my constituency, inviting me to attend an end of life seminar. I thought, “Maybe my time has come.” Having listened this afternoon to right hon. and hon. Members describe their glittering careers—this great cavalcade and cornucopia of achievement—I am now looking back over my years in the House with a certain sadness.

I came into the House as one of Blair’s babes in 1997. I was immediately appointed to the Broadcasting Committee, along with the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), and we decided to set ourselves the task of ending broadcasting of the House of Commons. I was swiftly removed from the Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman was knighted—I make no comment on that.

I was then made Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who is a marvellous man. Unfortunately, I chose to vote against my Government on the part privatisation of the NHS and so had to step down. However, I was rescued from the ignominy and the outer darkness when I was made PPS to Hazel Blears, who is an amazing, wonderful woman. Sadly, I had to vote against my Government on the renewal of Trident and so once again fell into silence and desuetude. However, Tony Blair, a man of sound Christian principles, knowing that God loves a sinner who repents, gave me another chance. The fact that every time I appear in the Chamber my Whip has to sit next to me reveals that, sadly, not everyone believes me. I was then appointed to be PPS to the then right hon. Member for Tooting in the Department for Transport. Sadly, High Speed 2 was going to be run through my constituency, like a great steel snake slamming through the suburbs, so I felt it necessary once again to resign.

Quite clearly I have achieved very little, but one thing that I have achieved is a knowledge and understanding of this place, and a recognition that structure is a function of purpose. It is so easy to be intoxicated by the beauty of this place. When I was first elected, Tony Blair set up something called the Modernisation of the House of Commons Committee—because, frankly, most of us needed modernising. After a few months, the members of that Committee had gone completely native and were saying, “No, this is how things have always been done.” He then had to set up a modernisation of the Modernisation of the House of Commons Committee committee. After four weeks, our Committee reported. We then installed a tights machine in the corridor just outside Annie’s Bar—what else could we possibly have done?

I think of this building as the corporeal embodiment of the ship of state. This is a great, glorious galleon sailing across storm-tossed oceans. We have the sketch writers—Crace, Letts and people like that—up in the rigging. We have the galley, with our marvellous cooks who bring us steak and kidney pudding and duff on a regular basis. Not mentioned in all the tributes to the House staff are the Doorkeepers. They are wonderful people. The Library—amazing people. I must visit it one day. The Admission Order Office. If only they would tell me where it was, I would go there. And there are so many other incredible things. The bar has not been mentioned. In my day, there was more than one. The Strangers’ Bar! What more welcoming sight could there be than that cheerful face behind the bar, with the cheerful comment, “The usual, Mr Pound? But not all at once, I trust?” It is wonderful.

We have a firm hand on the wheel—it is marvellous to see, Madam Deputy Speaker. The captain for most of my parliamentary career was, of course, Tony Blair. He had a slightly tempestuous relationship with the first mate, or the purser, the man responsible for the purse strings. It was not so much like Aubrey and Maturin; it was more like Captain Bligh and Fletcher Christian, to be perfectly honest—not to imply that the great Anthony Charles Lynton Blair was anything like Captain Bligh.

This great ship of state will be docking in another berth before too long. I would like to think that people realise that what is important about this place is not the gorgeous neo-Gothic surrounds, the Pugin beauty or the wonder of the place; it is what happens here and the people within it. I have to say that I do not know a single person who has come into this House with ignoble motives. I do not know anyone who has come into this House not wishing to make the world a better place. In many ways, we have failed to get that message across. If anyone had been here earlier on for the debate on historical institutional abuse in Northern Ireland, they would have realised that this place is a powerhouse. It is a place where major change can take place. If we do not do it, then who does? If we do not give that political lead, then who does? If we do not set that standard and if we do not seek to protect our nation, then who will do it? As far as I am concerned, the miracle of this place is how much we do achieve. The tragedy of this place is how little we make that case.

I could not have survived all these long, lonely years out of office without the team in my office. I would particularly like to thank Sue McLeod and Diane Wall, who between them have been here for the whole of my time here. I would also like to thank my wife, who has been sitting in the Under-Gallery for four and a half hours. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Above all, I would like to thank my fellow parliamentarians. I have made friends across the political divide. I have actually spoken at a fundraiser for the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on the Ards peninsula.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Pound]

Even when I was making my speech to the Strangford Democratic Unionist party, he wanted to intervene on me! On that particular occasion I said, “Is there anything to drink?” He said, “Yes, orange juice.” I said, “Any particular sort?” He said, “Bitter orange juice.” And then there is the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), with whom I bonded in Hong Kong.

There are people on both sides who have taught me one thing: it really is not the colour of the rosette that we wear that matters. It really is not the mast to which we nail our flag; it is what is within us. It is what is within our hearts. The decency and honesty that I see all around me in this place is something that makes me bitterly regret that I will be leaving you, but it makes me immensely proud of the fact that even for a short time, for 22 years, I have been a Member of the finest legislature one could ever imagine, peopled by some of the finest personages. I would like to thank every one of you. I thank my constituents in Ealing North, and I thank this House for being such a marvellous Parliament for all the people.

Housing Succession Policy

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, it is a real privilege to see you sitting in the Chair for this debate, as it will be the last time that you do so. I join colleagues on both sides of the House in the tributes they have paid to you today and previously. I also want to pay a personal tribute to you for all your work to transform this House for the better. You have been a powerful advocate on many things, including human rights, which is an issue close to my heart.

Mr Speaker, you have also championed our values of equality, fairness and justice, and you have stood up against those who seek to inflame division and hatred in our country, including one President. When the question of inviting him to this House came up, you rightly pointed out that we have a reputation to uphold of being against racism and sexism, and of standing up for equality before an independent judiciary. I am summarising what you said, but it is important that we remember the courage and bravery with which you held to those standards.

I hope that whoever succeeds you, Mr Speaker, will build on your work and legacy, will have the courage to stand up for what is right and decent, will hold the Executive to account, and will stand up for the sovereignty of our Parliament. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for everything you have done and all the support you have provided to Members on both sides of the House.

I also want to pay tribute to Rev. Rose Hudson-Wilkin for all that she has done, as this is also her last day. She has contributed much to this country, particularly here in Parliament and, of course, in my part of London. We wish her the very best of luck in her new role.

This debate is about the policy of succession in social housing. Social housing, whether council housing or social landlord housing, is the bedrock of successful communities in my constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow as well as many other parts of the country. It is important to remind ourselves of the original purpose of social housing, because it was not only to provide a safety net for the poorest people, or a last resort for the most vulnerable and those desperately in need. The purpose of social housing was to provide safe, stable and affordable homes, often close to city centres and sources of work—for all on middle and low incomes as an alternative to rip-off rents and exploitation. That need has not gone away. The principle should be maintained, but it has been under threat for a very long time.

Social housing is about not just homes but communities in which the same families live through the life cycle while growing together, helping each other out, putting down roots and building a real community spirit. That is the spirit of the social housing in my constituency, as it has been for generations. It has been a springboard for social mobility, aspiration and success. As the then Housing Minister, Nye Bevan, said, the goal was

“the living tapestry of a mixed community”.—[Official Report, 16 March 1949; Vol. 462, c. 2127.]

Our goal should be mixed communities with people of different incomes and backgrounds living among one another, not monocultures or sink estates.

Social housing provides security and stability, and part of that stability has been the right to pass tenure from parent to child, if needed. Under the Conservative-led coalition Government of 2010 to 2015, this right was severely undermined, and I believe that that has done serious damage to people in my constituency and many others across the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. I have been a great supporter of social housing over the years and I understand exactly the point she is making. Does she not agree that associations need the legal capability to have limited discretion so that qualified and experienced staff can use their wisdom and discernment to ensure that there can be as just a succession policy as possible—in other words, to make it possible?

[Rushanara Ali]

I very much agree with that point. People need to be given the right advice about the legal framework when they apply so that mistakes are not made, and I will come on to mention some of those. Individuals in public organisations such as housing associations and local authorities find themselves in the very difficult position that while they feel they have to apply the law, that law itself is flawed, which is why we need action from the Government.

Section 160 of the Localism Act 2011 ended the right of those who are not spouses or civil partners to succeed to secure tenancies that were agreed after 1 April 2012. The Act passed responsibility for decision making to local authorities, and clear central guidance has meant that many more bereaved children have faced eviction after the death of their parent. In the depths of their grief, they have had to fight bureaucracy, and often legal threats, just to stay in their homes, all the while dealing with the consequences of losing a family member.

Guidance on the allocation of accommodation for local authorities was issued in 2002. It includes guidance on when it might be appropriate to grant a tenancy to members of a household. For example, that could be when someone has been living with a tenant for a year prior to that tenant’s death, when they have provided care, or when they have accepted responsibility for the tenant’s dependants and need to live in the family home. There are many example of caring responsibilities that people have fulfilled over many years, and such people should not be treated in such a way.

The whole House will understand why, when left to their own devices, local authorities prioritise those in need on the housing waiting list. They are often placed in an impossibly difficult situation and need to make difficult choices. However, that does not balance out the needs of vulnerable people who are at risk of being made homeless, and who are treated inhumanely and unsympathetically at a time of bereavement.

No one suggests that large family homes should be occupied by single tenants— the 2002 guidance makes that clear—or that the rent book should stay with the same family in perpetuity. As the MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, I know all too well the desperate need for more affordable homes, and for an end to overcrowding and appalling housing conditions. The rationing of housing has meant that even in those cases, people are threatened with eviction because of changes made in the Localism Act 2011. Surely that is an unintended and pernicious consequence of the Act, but the way it has been interpreted by local councils and housing associations means that people face homelessness at the very time when they need support from the state and solace, rather than having to think about whether they will be allowed to live in their homes. If ever there was a need for a humane and flexible approach, it is this.

I have had to deal with so many cases over the past few years. Families with caring responsibilities have had to fight multiple eviction notices having just buried family members. Older children have given up their own council properties, because they could not afford private accommodation or to buy, and have moved in to look after a parent for many years. They are then faced with eviction when that parent dies.

One constituent moved out of his own council property to care for his father, who suffered from a number of serious health and mobility conditions. After successfully registering to have him and his wife added to his father’s tenancy agreement, the housing association sent a letter, two days after his father’s death, to explain that that may not be possible. My constituent eventually received an eviction notice. I am pleased that he was ultimately allowed to stay and the housing association reversed its decision, but he should never have faced the trauma of having to go through that so soon after the death of a family member.

Another constituent wanted to succeed to her late mother’s tenancy, having lived in the property as her main home since the late-’80s. She suffers from a number of health issues. She feels that the EastendHomes housing association applied discretion appropriately, but she now faces eviction.

There have been many cases where constituents of mine have been wrongly served eviction notices in the circumstances of bereavement. I even had a case where a constituent came to my surgery who, having just lost her partner of 19 years, was told, wrongly, that she could not succeed to his tenancy. In one case, the combination of an eviction threat and a bereavement faced by my constituent, after having cared for her mother for over a decade, was driving her to the edge of a nervous breakdown. She was worried about bailiffs coming to her house—she had received eviction notices—and that she would be thrown out. The only thing I could offer her was that I would go there and stand with her, and do whatever was needed to help her so that she did not get seriously ill as a result of the pressure and, in essence, the harassment she was experiencing at the hands of the state.

There have been so many cases that we have had to fight. Many hon. Members from across the House will have had similar cases. This is no way to treat hard-working and caring family members who, through their caring responsibilities, have saved the state billions of pounds. We should be supporting them, especially through bereavement, rather than punishing them. What can we do? In so many cases, it is too late for those who have experienced such treatment. People have been evicted from their homes and subjected to needless concern, worry and stress. That has affected their mental health and wellbeing. In other cases, the effect has been even more severe.

Being treated this way by the national Government and by local government, through legislation, is wrong. Surely, we can do better in the future. Surely, we can reach cross-party agreement to look at this issue and look at the number of cases around the country. It is very hard for us to get the aggregate statistics on the impact on our constituents across the country, and this is a major problem. I strongly urge all local administrators to be made to adopt a humane, compassionate policy for those facing such difficulties. The Government should instruct them to stop sending eviction notices to our constituents when they have been bereaved. There should be a significant length of time before matters such as remaining in the properties they are resident in are considered, even if they are larger properties, so that they have an appropriate time in which to grieve and recover.

I am extremely grateful to Ministers and hon. Members from across the House for attending this debate, given that we are in the midst of an election campaign. I appreciate that this issue may well get drowned out in the election campaign because there are so many other big issues such as Brexit, the NHS and other public services that we will want to talk about. However, I hope that when the next team of Ministers returns to the House, we can all agree that we need action. I therefore ask the Minister to address the following points.

Does the Minister agree that passing a tenancy to an appropriate person who might be a relative—a child or a carer—can be an appropriate way to maintain stability and ensure that the parent receives the right support and that the child, who is often an adult, is not made homeless and punished for dutifully providing care to a family member? What assessment has she made of the workings of the Localism Act with regard to tenancy succession for those family members who have been carers for many years? How many cases end up in court? What is the financial and personal cost, in terms of health and wellbeing, to residents? Does she not agree that we need national guidance to provide clarity on how local agencies and authorities should treat people in such circumstances and that local authorities must not use eviction notices or bailiffs to threaten our constituents with eviction when they are suffering and grieving? That is utterly unacceptable. There is a wider point about the use of bailiffs by local authorities that this Government need to act on, because in such circumstances we can see how much damage is done. What steps will she take to ensure that there are common standards and that public servants take appropriate, sensitive actions in these times of need? Finally, will she commit to a timetable to deliver change?

In conclusion, to lose a parent or a relative is a terrible blow. The aftermath requires a suitable period of grieving and healing, and the amount of time required will vary as between different people. Those of us who have grieved for loved ones will know that we cannot put a fixed timetable on grief and recovery from it. Just because I am talking about people who are not wealthy, who do not have the means to own their own properties and do not have the resources but who have cared for a loved one does not mean that their suffering should be treated in this way—that they should not be treated compassionately for what they are doing, not only for their families, but as a public service. They have shown a duty of care and love to their family members and loved ones as their lives have come to an end, providing them with the dignity that they rightly should have, and we should make sure that such people are also treated in a dignified, caring way.