Planning System: Gypsies and Travellers

Kate Green Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hollobone]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I will do so straight away: I put it to the Minister that this legislation needs to be brought forward as soon as possible, so that we can address this problem head on. Of course, this has been done in the Republic of Ireland, which in 2002 changed trespass from a civil offence to a criminal offence. That is actually inflaming the problem in this country, because many Irish Travellers are not in Ireland any more; they are here.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He will know that in the Republic of Ireland, the criminalisation of trespass is part of a much wider, holistic package of equalities, rights and social programmes for Gypsies and Travellers that do not exist in this country. When pressing the Minister on the progress of this legislation, will he join me in pressing him on the flawed nature of the Home Office consultation, which was conducted during Dissolution and with questions that were, at the very least, loaded?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to participate in this debate and to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I thank the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) for securing the debate, and I appreciate the tone in which it has been conducted; we have not always had the restrained and thoughtful language that we have heard this morning.

I want to make just two or three points. I think hon. Members of different parties recognise that this is a matter of balancing rights and responsibilities, but I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Kettering that the balance is currently in favour of the Traveller community.

As has been noted, the travelling community has a right to enjoy a nomadic lifestyle, but law and practice are restricting—and indeed in some cases preventing—its exercise. My hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) and for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) talked about how planning policy changes over the years have reduced the supply of sites. We have heard, for example, that the removal in 1994 of the requirement for local authorities to provide sites, and the national planning policy framework provisions more recently, have meant that local authorities are, in many cases, either not assessing need properly or not bothering to assess it at all.

In practice, although the Government have made shared ownership and affordable homes funding available for the provision of more pitches, not a single local authority has taken up access to that funding, as was revealed in a written answer from Lord Bourne to Baroness Whitaker in the House of Lords on 23 January 2019. It is clear that, whatever the law may suggest, in practice local authorities are again and again failing to make any provision or plan for Travellers in their local plans. The Government are toothless, unwilling, or both, as they are not preventing that indolent neglect of local authorities’ responsibilities.

At the same time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith said, local authorities suggesting in their plans that there is no need have also been seeking wide injunctions to prevent Travellers from occupying land in their boroughs. The two cannot both be true. If there is need, they need to provide for it. They cannot say there is no need and fail to plan for it, and then seek an injunction to prevent it anyway. Both those things cannot sit side by side.

I am sorry to say that I very much disagree with the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) on the definition “Traveller”. It has been tightened, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith said, which has exacerbated, not reduced, problems, because it means that there is no requirement on local authorities to plan for the need of people who do not travel all the time. That de facto has obliterated the right to travel, because it means that Travellers are no longer recognised as enjoying that right. They are not counted or covered by the provisions of the definition of “Traveller”. That has suppressed the culture, rather than protecting its rights.

I appreciate that the Home Office consultation and plans on unauthorised trespass are not the Minister’s direct responsibility, but I am sure he will speak to his colleagues in the Home Office about our concerns. The proposals are for the criminalisation of unauthorised trespass, and for that to apply in the situation of very few caravans appearing on unauthorised land. As my hon. Friends said, of course people will have to use unauthorised sites if there is a lack of authorised ones. Even when they are on unauthorised sites, the powers already available to the police and local authorities are sufficient to take suitable action—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) is shaking his head, but the police themselves in their submission to the Home Office consultation said that they did not want additional powers. They believe that the powers are sufficient. I refer him to the freedom of information request submitted by Friends, Families and Travellers, which elicited that information from a number of police forces.

[Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady not agree that, in many instances, the police are not using the powers available to them? That is part of the problem with the system. The statement that there are sufficient powers at the moment does not seem to be reflected in the action that gets taken. When unauthorised encampments turn up, the police are sometimes too afraid to take any action.

[Kate Green]

It would be unfair of me to draw attention to the massive reduction in police numbers over the past 10 years, which may be contributing to that problem, but that is not what the National Police Chiefs Council told the all-party parliamentary group on Gypsies, Travellers and Roma. It said that it believes that negotiation and communication with the community is more effective than enforcement, and that is what it tries to do. No police officer has ever told me that he or she has been afraid to engage with Travellers on unauthorised encampments. It is important that we do not make policy by anecdote.

It is really useful to have this debate. It is right, as the hon. Member for Kettering said, that we look at the responsibilities, obligations and rights of the public as a whole—the settled community and the travelling community. We must get the right balance between them. I do not believe that the balance is currently weighted in favour of the travelling community. Quite the opposite: too many of them are living in disadvantaged, marginalised situations on unsuitable—sometimes authorised and unsuitable—sites. We need a proper national planning framework that is properly managed to balance the interests of the settled community and the travelling community. I invite the Minister to think broadly about how that can best be achieved.

Criminal Law

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I apologise for coming in late, Mr Deputy Speaker; I was at another meeting. What assessment has been made of the likely rates of reoffending among the prisoners who will be released after longer custodial sentences? There is a quite widespread view among penal campaigners that longer custodial sentences will not be as effective at rehabilitation as rehabilitation in the community. In looking at the long-term need for prison places, what assessment have the Government made of reoffending rates among these particular individuals?

[Chris Philp]

Of course, the longer that is spent in prison, the more opportunity there is to deliver rehabilitative services. If we look at reoffending rates in general, they are worse for people serving short prison sentences, which is why I mentioned the importance of focusing on treatment of mental health and addiction problems as an alternative to short custodial sentences. We do not have precise reoffending figures for the cohort we are discussing today, but for broadly these kinds of offenders serving sentences of four to 10 years, that is the closest proxy I have been able to find. The one-year reoffending rate is about 20% at present, but of course we would like to do more work to reduce that.

The second statutory instrument before the House is a technical one, designed to ensure that consecutive sentences are dealt with in the same way as the non-consecutive sentences that I have described. These measures deliver a manifesto commitment in just 47 days and show that this is a Government who will act, not delay, and who will build public confidence in the justice system and protect the public. I commend these measures to the House.

Flats and Shared Housing: Fire Risk

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the fire risk in flats and shared housing.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I start by paying tribute to the Grenfell families. As I said in the House last week, it is difficult to imagine the suffering that they have been through. They deserve our respect and our support. I also pay tribute to those in the fire service, who protected local residents as best they could and with such dedication during the night of the tragedy, and to all those in the local community and beyond who have supported local people as the aftermath of the tragedy has unfolded across London and, indeed, across the country.

Today’s debate is an opportunity to discuss some of the many important issues that have arisen in the aftermath of the Grenfell disaster. I will focus my remarks on the following: cladding, of both aluminium composite material and other materials; fire doors and other fire safety matters; problems in flats under 11 metres tall, of which we have many in Reading and Woodley, in my constituency; and, above all, the need for a completely new approach to fire safety from central Government, the fire service, local government and, indeed, the construction industry, all of which have important parts to play. I urge the Minister, who is listening attentively and has offered her support, to urge her colleagues in Government to take determined action on the matter, which has been going on for too long.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He has not specifically said that he will do so, but I hope that he touches on the concerns of leaseholders in such blocks, and how they are to meet the often very high costs of remediation. They cannot always access the block insurance that the developer has taken out in their name, or in the name of their managing agent. I hope that the Minister will address that point, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will touch on it.

[Matt Rodda]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an excellent point. I will address that very issue, which is of great concern to many of the residents I represent and to many people across the country. I heard a very moving report on BBC radio over the weekend discussing the concerns of a young couple in Leeds who were living in a block with ACM cladding and who were deeply traumatised not only by the fire safety issues, but by the lack of amelioration of these serious problems. That links to insurance, and to the situation that leaseholders in such blocks face.

I find it simply staggering that two and a half years after the Grenfell disaster, the Government are still only beginning to address this terribly important issue. Little ACM cladding has been removed in that period. In my borough of Reading, four blocks were identified by Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service as having ACM cladding on the exterior. I believe that only one of them is in the process of having that cladding removed, and that represents a very serious continuing fire risk.

I have been advised that that risk may be getting worse because of the continued possibility of human error. Although additional fire safety measures have been instituted—such as waking watches, where fire wardens are on site during the night—as time goes by, there is a greater possibility that a resident or another person will accidentally do something that induces a fire risk, or that some other problem will cause an accident or a terrible tragedy. I have been advised by fire service personnel that with the passage of time, the risk of human error increases, so the fact that nothing has happened to address the issue in the past two and a half years is significant. The problem is ongoing, and it may be getting worse because of the lack of response from central Government.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) rightly pointed out, local residents who live in blocks with ACM cladding face significant stress and concern. The issue affects many of us around the country, because many towns and cities have blocks containing that dreadful material and very few buildings have had it removed. Many of the people affected are private tenants or leaseholders, who have little recourse to take any substantial action on their own. They are often locked into a situation where the freeholder has the power to remove the material but is struggling to do so. Alternatively, they may need to come together with other leaseholders, and it may be difficult in practical terms to agree a way forward. I urge the Government to address that issue in particular. I hope and believe that the Minister is very much in listening mode and will consider how best to push that forward immediately.

I will also pick up on some related concerns. ACM cladding has been mentioned in the Grenfell inquiry, the second part of which opened only yesterday. Without going into significant details, it is worth pointing out that from the opening day of the second phase of the inquiry, it appears that some businesses involved may have known about the potential fire safety risk of ACM cladding some time before the Grenfell disaster. That relates to the problem of current ACM cladding. Cross-party support for much tougher action appears to be emerging. I listened with interest to the comments of Lord Porter, the Conservative chairman of the Local Government Association and a Member of the other place, who rightly picked up on the Government’s lack of action on this important matter.

There are many other forms of cladding, and I will mention some concerns that have been raised with me about the wide range of other materials. In Reading, two buildings have other types of cladding that have caused fire safety concerns. One is the Chatham Place development—it is a series of large multi-storey blocks near the town centre—which has wooden cladding. Wooden cladding is a serious issue, which we need to address as well as ACM; indeed, it played a part in the recent fire in Barking, which was very nearly a complete tragedy. Luckily, residents managed to escape.

Serious concerns have been raised regarding other forms of composite material. Crossway Point, another large block in my constituency that contains a lot of social housing, has other forms of cladding that also need to be addressed urgently. Indeed, there was another fire in Bolton, in the north of England, from which students had a very lucky escape; the Minister is nodding wisely. I appreciate that colleagues in central Government are aware of the problems, but I ask them to act as fast as they can to deal with the wide range of cladding issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) on an excellent opening contribution. It was serious, thoughtful and comprehensive. I am sure the Minister will respond accordingly, as my hon. Friend made some valid points.

I begin by thanking hon. Members for re-elected me as Chair of the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government. I say that because I want to refer to the Committee’s work on these matters in the previous Parliament. It looked many times at post-Grenfell issues. Dame Judith Hackitt and Ministers appeared before the Committee, to discuss her excellent report and the Government’s response.

I could not be in the House last Monday, but I read what the Secretary of State had to say on further Government proposals. Most are welcome and I think there is cross-party agreement about the direction of travel. The cross-party concern on the Select Committee has been that while the Government’s response has ultimately moved in the right direction, they have not moved as quickly as they should have done. Many of the proposals that the Government are now considering implementing were recommended by the Select Committee some time ago.

The cladding and aluminium composite material were a major factor in the Grenfell disaster. The Government moved very quickly to ban that material, and they were right to do so. The problem is that it has taken time to remove it from buildings. There are still far too many buildings with ACM material on them, partly because, even though the Government brought in the ban, it took an awful long time to persuade the Treasury to come up with the funding to remove the material from social housing, and then to offer a financial assistance scheme to the private sector.

There is a real issue that will affect any other Government action on leasehold properties. It is absolutely right that leaseholders are in no position to pay for cladding removal. In cases involving fairly recent developments, the property developer may still be the freeholder, so the ownership will not have changed and they might be in a financial position to pay for the cladding to be removed. If the freehold has been sold to a company whose only source of income is ground rent, that company is unlikely to be able to fund the removal. That is a Catch-22 situation. If neither leaseholder nor the freeholder can pay for it, we are back with Government responsibility.

That leads us to other forms of cladding. The Government have quite rightly banned the use of non-limited combustibility materials on new development. However, certain cladding that cannot be put on new buildings is allowed to remain on existing buildings. There is something fundamentally wrong with that situation. I hope it does not take another disaster before the Government recognise that some of that other material has to come off as well. I know that the review is taking place. Experts tell me that zinc composite material is just as dangerous and combustible as aluminium composite material. High-pressure laminate material has been reviewed and tested. It is not allowed on new buildings but it can stay on existing buildings. As my hon. Friend said, there is also wood cladding material. If, eventually, the Treasury were asked to fund a scheme for those materials that is similar to that used for ACM, the bill would potentially run up to £3 billion. I suspect that is why Ministers cannot move faster at present. There is a real challenge there.

My hon. Friend rightly mentioned that this is not just about height. The focus has been on buildings that are more than six or 10 storeys, but buildings do not necessarily have to be high in order to be at potential major risk. Such buildings include student accommodation, residential accommodation for the elderly, hotels, hospitals or nursing homes. The risk posed to each is different, and there must be specific regulations to deal with it. Any material of limited combustibility on those buildings, irrespective of their height, creates a greater risk. That is something else that the Government now have to address.

The Select Committee also focused on an issue that came out of Dame Judith’s report—namely conflicts of interest, which often mean that the wrong things are done. I will highlight just two examples. The first involves building inspectors appointed by the developer who then sign off the work of the company that appointed them. Dame Judith was caustic about this practice, and she made it very clear that this has to end. That does not mean that every building should be inspected by a local authority-employed inspector, but the local authority should do the appointing so that there are no conflicts of interest, and that has to be resolved quickly.

The Royal Riverside development in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) is horrible case. The resident students had to be moved out by the council and the university. The building had been signed off as fit to live in, but there were fire doors missing and it had not had a fire risk assessment. A whole catalogue of problems meant that the building was a real fire risk, but it had been signed off by the building inspector, who could not have been to the site to check those things. It was proved later that he had not been to the site. This is simply not acceptable.

Fire authorities also have conflicts of interest. They often set up their own trading arms and then mark their own homework. That has to stop as well, and the Committee was very clear on that.

[Kate Green]

May I draw my hon. Friend’s attention, and that of the Minister, to a third conflict of interest, in relation to warranties? Warranty providers appoint their own approved inspectors, which, again, leaves the resident with no independent redress.

[Mr Betts]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to that further conflict of interest. The National House Building Council refused to honour a warranty because the development had not been signed off by its own building inspector. That is in the small print of the warranty agreement. These fundamental problems need to be addressed.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East has said, people in private sector accommodation face fire risks. Houses in multiple occupation have real challenges and difficulties. My hon. Friend drew attention to licensing schemes, which are really valid. It is not the licence itself that matters, but managing the licence and ensuring that proper inspections are done. Local authority resources are key, but local authorities often do not have the resources to do it properly. I am disappointed that the Government did not accept the Select Committee’s recommendation that it should be down to the local authority to decide which areas should have licensing schemes. Why do the Government have to second-guess this? We said this should be a local authority decision. In the age of devolution and local democracy, let local authorities do it. As long as people can appeal to the Secretary of State if local authorities do not follow the proper process, the decision should be for the local authority and local community, and not something for Ministers to second-guess.

The Minister kindly wrote to me about the Government’s right decision to bring in inspections every five years of electrical installations in private rented accommodation. The Select Committee recommended that in 2015, which was five years ago—we got there in the end. She can probably give a very simple answer on this point. She said that the work will be signed off by a “competent inspector”, but what does that mean? One of the problems with part P of the building regulations is that, although there is a competent person scheme, that does not mean, ironically, that a competent person has to do the work. It simply means that the company has to be part of a competent person scheme and that it has someone with the necessary qualification, but that someone does not necessarily have to be the person who does the work. Will the inspectors have a certificate to say they are competent, or will they simply be employed by a company that is part of the competent persons scheme? That is a really fundamental point.

My hon. Friend has covered many points, and I will not go into all of them. He raised an important issue about not just how well buildings are built when it comes to fire safety, but about how they are managed and maintained afterwards. One of the strengths of Dame Judith’s report was that it looked at the whole life of buildings, including residents’ involvement in ensuring that they are properly informed about their buildings, and at how buildings are maintained and managed. It also looked at ensuring that a properly accountable person is in place to do that, so that the organisation has rules and procedures on whether doors should be changed to improve their fire resistance, whether they are being kept open, and whether they are being properly maintained. All of those issues are absolutely crucial to the safety of buildings.

There are an awful lot of issues to examine; the Minister is probably grappling with some of them in her new post. There are major challenges. I look forward to the Minister, along with Dame Judith, attending the Select Committee before long, to see what progress has been made. Our job is to challenge and scrutinise the Government, and hopefully to push them to move a little quicker than they have moved in the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey]

We are doing further consultation because although we have put in place bans and measures, we are now seeing whether they need to be strengthened, and whether the height threshold needs to be reduced. We are going further than we said in the first instance, because further matters have come to light. We are always led by an expert panel, and we always seek the latest advice. As points come forward, we scrutinise the various composite materials and look at what is best.

It has never been the case that simply because a building is below 18 metres, owners are exempt from ensuring the safety of residents. There is a requirement on building owners to ensure that buildings of any height are safe, and we expect all owners to act responsibly. The consolidated advice note also clarifies the actions that building owners should take in relation to fire doors. The Government have welcomed the commitment from members of the Association of Composite Door Manufacturers to work closely with building owners to remediate doors that have failed tests. We will continue to monitor the situation closely.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) and the hon. Member for Reading East talked about security and safety in buildings, and how other safety measures were being carried out. My hon. Friend talked about people blocking doors to keep them open. For the full safety of the building, we must adhere to the safety rules. It is not just about the safety of the materials used in buildings, but about whether the due safety process is followed.

Last week we published a call for evidence to seek views on the assessment and prioritisation of risks associated with external walls, such as cladding, in existing buildings. For many years, we have relied on crude height limits with binary consequences, yet it is clear that when approaching a building’s risk, height alone does not reflect the complexity of the challenges at hand. As the Secretary of State has made clear, we need a better, more sophisticated system to underpin our approach. Height will remain a significant and material factor, but it will sit alongside a broader range of risk factors. We have therefore commissioned leading experts in the field to develop, as quickly as possible, a sophisticated matrix of risks that will replace the historical system and underpin our approach to future regulatory regimes.

Hon. Members asked what was happening and how quickly it was happening: across all sectors, remediation is complete in 135 buildings; remediation has started in 123 buildings; and there are plans and commitments in place to remediate a further 182 buildings. At the end of December 2019, remediation had started or been completed on 145—91%—of the 159 social sector buildings with unsafe ACM cladding systems, and there are plans in place to remediate the remaining 14 buildings. At the end of December 2019, of the 197 private residential buildings, remediation had finished or started in 54, or 27%. Plans and commitments are in place for 143— 73%—of the other buildings. There are no buildings where plans for remediation remain unclear. We are following closely the speed with which that remediation is taking place and what is happening. Although mitigation safety measures are in place for unsafe ACM cladding where required, we do not underestimate the concerns of residents who live in buildings where remediation has not started. We are therefore appointing a construction expert to review remediation timescales and identify what can be done to increase the pace in the private sector.

We are aware of leaseholders’ concerns about meeting the cost of remediation. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and others mentioned that. We do not want cost to be a barrier to remediation, so we are considering, with Her Majesty’s Treasury, options to support leaseholders. The Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will set out further details in due course.

[Kate Green]

Will the Minister consider looking at what might be done in the area of insurance to broaden access to the insurance cover currently taken out by developers or freeholders, so that leaseholders or their managing agents might be able to make a direct claim under such policies?

[Esther McVey]

The hon. Member makes a very good point. Those are exactly some of the measures that we are looking at, to make sure that the remediation is done in the best way, while being mindful of leaseholders.

Building Safety

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

My right hon. Friend and I have discussed permitted development rights in the past, and he has taken me to Harlow to see some of the issues there. That is why we have reviewed the permitted development office-to-residential regulations and will be taking forward any reforms necessary as a result. All properties built in this country need to be safe. That will have to feed through to all of the Government’s policies and our whole building safety regime.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Generally, leaseholders do not enjoy third-party rights to claim under the latent structural defect insurance taken out by a developer or his design team. Will the Secretary of State consider legislating to provide for minimum levels of cover, minimum terms for such insurance and the third-party rights of leaseholders and managing agents to make claims under those policies?

[Robert Jenrick]

I will consider the hon. Lady’s proposals.

Protection for New Home Buyers

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I applied for this debate in anticipation of the Government’s plans to bring forward measures in this Parliament relating to building standards and safety. In recent years, I have seen numerous examples in my constituency—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Could Members who are leaving the Chamber do so quietly, because the hon. Lady is trying to make her speech?

[Kate Green]

In recent years, I have seen numerous examples in my constituency of shoddy and sometimes downright dangerous workmanship, and a lack of redress for homeowners. The all-party parliamentary group for excellence in the built environment highlighted similar issues in reports in 2016 and 2018. I therefore welcome the announcement in the Queen’s Speech of the Government’s intention to act. I hope that, by sharing some of my constituents’ experiences and concerns, I can urge speedy progress, and help to inform the Minister’s thinking as policy is developed. I also hope that he will carefully consider the issues relating to the regulatory regime, enforcement and the operation of warranties that I will raise tonight.

May I start by placing on record my thanks to Martin Scott and Paul Hargreaves of solicitors Walker Morris, and Geoff Peter of New Build Guru, who have all been generous with their expertise in helping me to prepare for this debate? I also thank my constituents for bringing their concerns to my attention. They have shown great fortitude, and a determination that the problems that they have endured should not be suffered by other homeowners in years to come.

Let me give the House some idea of the defects experienced by my constituents. At a development in Stretford—undertaken by Mr Selcuk Pinarbasi through his family companies Pino Design and Build, and Talbot Gate Developments—homeowners showed me numerous defects that they found when they moved into their new homes, including unfinished and damaged bathrooms and fittings; floors, skirting boards, bannisters, windows and doors out of true; the measurements of a downstairs WC not complying with statutory requirements to enable wheelchair access; breaches of electrical safety regulations; and an incorrectly fitted gas sleeve.

In another development, in Old Trafford, buyers found that there had been failure by the developer to comply with conditions relating to external works including boundary treatments, security, lighting, landscaping and waste disposal. That developer, Mr Jason Alexander, was also behind the development of Aura Court, an apartment block on the border of my constituency and Manchester city centre that has been the subject of a “Granada Reports” programme highlighting the dangerous and incomplete state of the block, such that Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue has put a number of enforcement notices in place. Issues there include damaged fire doors; cladding not installed on external walls and walkways; decking not installed on walkways; unauthorised window installation, affecting fire safety standards; waterlogging on escape routes; and dangerous staircase treads. Even so, the block remains occupied, despite its shoddy state.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

This is a really important debate. I think lots of Members will have examples of such issues in their constituency. My constituents have also experienced a real difficulty getting the guarantees behind these developments actually enforced. Premier Guarantee, which is apparently endorsed by all household lenders, has been in dispute with some of my constituents for three years over a series of defects in the property—defects that are accepted by Premier. Premier is now suggesting that the case needs to go to independent arbitration—at my constituents’ expense—to resolve the issues, even though it accepts that the defects exist. Does that not show a fundamental need for the reform of the system?

[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.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. My constituent Sarah bought a property off-plan from Bellway Homes in West Didsbury and ran into a whole host of problems. She is very supportive of the idea, which my hon. Friend has mentioned in the past, that homeowners should be able to retain a snagging fund, governed by an independent team and possibly held in an escrow account so that it can be fairly administered. Would my hon. Friend support such a system?

[Kate Green]

I most certainly would support that suggestion.

There are a number of other actions that the Government could take to address the slippery state of affairs that exists around warranties. Will the Minister consider, for example, standardisation of warranty policies, with the use of clear and unambiguous language, and an end to unreasonable exclusions? Would the Government consider amending the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 so that warranty policies are brought within the meaning of “construction contracts” under section 104 of the Act? That would mean that disputes could at least be settled by the relatively quicker and less expensive route of arbitration, rather than people needing to pursue a court claim.

The Minister will know that the problems I have described are compounded for those who own leasehold property. Management companies should be under a positive duty to act in leaseholders’ best interests, but often they are powerless to claim on the leaseholder’s behalf under the defects cover that is taken out by and for the benefit of the developer and his design team, usually for a 10-year period, to cover total or partial collapse or some other latent structural defect. The position of leaseholders could be strengthened through new legislation to make it compulsory for management companies, and leaseholders, to benefit from decennial insurance, specifically requiring such insurance to be taken out, specifying minimum levels of cover and the term of the insurance, and giving leaseholders and management companies third-party rights to claim directly under these policies.

The Government could also strengthen the Defective Premises Act 1972. This legislation extends protection for a period of six years—a period that is obviously out of line not only with decennial insurance cover but with actions in tort, where claims are allowed for a three-year period from the date of knowledge, subject to an overall maximum of 15 years under the Latent Damage Act 1986. The limitations period in the Defective Premises Act could be extended to be consistent with tort actions to give owners more protection. This is particularly important following the case of Murphy v. Brentwood District Council, which means that the residential property owner cannot claim for economic loss in tort.

There is a further adjustment to the Defective Premises Act that I invite the Minister to consider. Section 1(1) sets a test that work should be done

“in a workmanlike or, as the case may be, professional manner, with proper materials…so that as regards that work the dwelling will be fit for habitation when completed.”

That is a high bar when measured against the relevant test in consumer legislation, which refers to goods needing to

“meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory”

under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

[Justin Madders]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kate Green]

I will not, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, because I think we are going to be tight on time for the Minister to respond, and I am covering—we are all covering—a lot of territory.

Is it right, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the law should offer more protection when you buy a toaster than when you buy a house? Why is not the standard similar in relation to the purchase of residential property?

I would like to mention two issues that are outside the direct remit of the Minister’s Department but that none the less impact on the overall picture of protection for homeowners. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 means that, even if a householder does successfully pursue a defects claim in court, they may struggle to recover costs from their unsuccessful opponent. Although conditional fee arrangements are still possible, success fees and after-the-event insurance costs cannot be recovered from the losing party. This is a big issue for defects actions, since these costs can leave successful litigants so out of pocket that they still cannot afford to carry out the work to remedy the defects that were the subject of the case in the first place. Will the Minister press his counterparts in the Ministry of Justice to exclude defects actions for residential property from the prohibition on recovery of success fees and after-the-event insurance costs so that a successful owner can use the damages awarded to carry out repairs?

The operation of company law also seems to assist rather than hinder unscrupulous developers, who can set up a new company for each development, then place the company in liquidation, leaving defects unaddressed and sometimes avoiding tax and money-laundering rules in the process too. One constituent has found neither Companies House nor the Insolvency Service very willing to act to prevent this from happening, even when the same developer has blatantly and repeatedly breached registration and company law requirements. How will the Ministry work with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure that company law operates robustly against such practices by developers?

While I am aware of attempts by the industry to address homebuyers’ concerns through the five-star system, of proposals for a new homes ombudsman, of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ intention to draft new guidance for its members and regulated firms on the inspection of new residential building works and snagging, and of UK Finance’s role in relation to mortgage lenders and improving building standards, these protections will still be insufficient.

The more I have looked into this matter, the more shocked I have been by the extent of the problem, the utter unscrupulousness of some developers and the absence of meaningful protection for homebuyers, many of whom are making the most significant purchase of their lives. I am sure the Minister will recognise from this brief description of the problems experienced by my constituents and those of my hon. Friends that the case for holistic, far-reaching, regulatory and legislative reform is both urgent and compelling and that any measures introduced must have real teeth. The Government’s stated intention to act to strengthen buildings standards and safety is a real opportunity, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on securing the debate and on making such an informed, well-researched speech? I know that she has worked hard to raise the issues that new homebuyers experience many times in the House, and I thank her for the opportunity to debate this.

This Government have been delivering on the new homes that this country needs. In 2018-19, the net additions were the highest since 1987. As we deliver new homes, we must ensure that they are of higher quality and higher standards and that homebuyers are treated fairly. This Government have been clear that safety, quality and fairness are our priorities. When people move into a home, they should have confidence that they can live their lives without the stress of unfair fees, safety issues or poor-quality workmanship. The protection of new homebuyers must, and will, improve. We expect all housing developers to deliver good-quality housing, to deliver it on time and to treat homebuyers fairly.

We are determined to learn the lessons from the Grenfell Tower fire and to strengthen the whole regulatory system for building safety, including fundamental changes to the regulatory framework for high rise-residential buildings. That will involve a fundamental change in both the regulatory framework and industry culture, creating a more accountable system. Our aim is to change the industry culture to ensure that there is accountability and responsibility and that residents are safe in their homes and have a stronger voice in the system. We will also legislate to close gaps in redress services, so that consumers are better protected and can navigate the market with confidence.

There is nothing more important than being and feeling safe in your own home. This Government will be putting residents at the heart of the new, stronger system of building safety. To ensure that all people are safe and secure in their homes, the Government are committed to bringing forward legislation that delivers meaningful and lasting change. The building safety Bill will put in place an enhanced safety framework for high-rise residential buildings, taking forward all the recommendations from Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review of building regulations and fire safety, and in some areas going even further.

The enhanced safety framework will provide clearer accountability and stronger duties for those responsible for the safety of high-rise buildings throughout the building’s design, construction and occupation. We will include clear competence requirements to maintain high standards. The hon. Lady should note that we have consulted on the details of this regime, including a proposal that buildings will need to go through a new gateway process, in which duty holders will have to prove to the regulator that their building is safe and ready for occupation. Building owners will be required to demonstrate that risks are identified, understood and effectively managed on an ongoing basis. Those responsible for building safety will not simply be able to tick boxes to discharge their responsibilities.

The hon. Lady speaks incredibly well on behalf of her constituents, and I am proud that the building safety Bill will give residents a stronger voice in the system, ensuring that their concerns are never ignored and that they fully understand how they can contribute to maintaining safety in their buildings. We will be strengthening enforcement and sanctions to deter non-compliance with the new regime to hold the right people to account when mistakes are made and ensure they are not repeated. The building safety Bill will include a new stronger and clearer framework to provide national oversight of construction products to ensure all products meet high performance standards. There will be a new system to oversee the built environment, with local enforcement agencies and national regulators working together to ensure that the safety of all buildings is improved.

We are genuinely grateful to the hon. Lady for her input into this important matter. As we continue to develop the policy in the weeks ahead and bring forward legislation, I will make sure that her comments during this debate are taken into account. I would like to invite her, if she so wishes, to come to the Department, sit down with officials and me, and talk about how we can make sure this Bill is effective as it can be.

We have committed to implementing all the recommendations of the phase 1 report from the independent Grenfell Tower public inquiry led by Martin Moore-Bick. The Government will introduce a fire safety Bill to implement the relevant legislative recommendations. This includes putting it beyond doubt that the fire safety order will require building owners and managers of multi-occupied residential premises of any height fully to consider and mitigate the risks of any external wall systems and fire doors. The Bill will also strengthen the relevant enforcement powers to hold building owners and managers to account.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing to my attention the case of the specific developer that she mentioned in her contribution. I know that her constituents and all prospective homebuyers and tenants will want to note that the enhanced regime we are planning will have stronger protections at various stages of the building process. These protections will ensure that outstanding issues are resolved before buildings are occupied. I understand that the specific case mentioned is currently under appeal, and therefore I cannot comment at this stage. However, I will follow the outcome of the legal proceedings with interest.

[Kate Green]

In fact, Aura Court is not under appeal, but the same developer is in relation to another development. However, the general point applies that this developer has repeatedly been able to erect substandard buildings and have them occupied while in very poor condition. Clearly, we need a legislative regime that means homeowners do not have to keep trying to go back to court to get these matters resolved.

[Luke Hall]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for putting that point on the record. I hope that is one of the things we can discuss further in the weeks ahead.

We know that a stronger regulatory system is necessary, but it will not be enough to deliver the required cultural change, so we need industry to show the same leadership it has shown in successfully making building sites much safer for workers over recent years. They must also prioritise residents’ safety in the construction of high-quality buildings.

The Government welcome the action we have already seen from industry, especially the early adopters group, which has spearheaded the building safety charter. The charter demonstrates the commitment to putting building safety first, ahead of all other priorities. All those across the industry that are involved in the life cycle of a building should follow suit. The industry-led competence steering group has developed proposals for raising the competence of those working on buildings in scope of the new regime. We support the group’s proposals for an overarching system for competence oversight and have included them in our consultation as part of our package of measures to improve building safety. To drive progress further, the industry safety steering group, chaired by Dame Judith Hackitt, is holding industry to account for making practical and cultural change happen.

The hon. Lady raised the issue of leasehold. The debate has a particular bearing on leaseholders, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) in that respect as well. We know that leaseholders can too often face unfair practices, poor management of properties and difficulties in taking action to address problems. We are clear that there is no place in a modern housing market for unfair leasehold practices, and we are undertaking a comprehensive programme to reform the leasehold system to ensure homebuyers are treated fairly and protected from abuse and poor service.

We are moving forward with legislation to reform the leasehold sector. This includes the ban on new leasehold homes, restricting future leases to ground rent of zero financial value and closing legal loopholes to prevent further unfair evictions. We are committed to helping current and future leaseholders. We welcome the recent report of the Law Commission on enfranchisement valuation. This included options on how to make the cost of buying a freehold or extending a lease cheaper, and we are now considering those in detail. We look forward to further reports from the Law Commission on the broader enfranchisement process, reinvigorating commonhold, and improving the right to manage later this spring.

We are deeply aware of the issues surrounding onerous ground rent and other unfair terms which some leaseholders are facing. We encouraged the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate the extent of any mis-selling of leasehold properties, and we look forward to receiving its findings.

Building Safety

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I am very happy to take my hon. Friend up on that. He knows that I share his determination to take forward wider reforms in the leasehold sector, and I will be introducing measures in that respect in due course.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

What can be done to identify developers such as Mr Jason Alexander in Greater Manchester who have a track record of repeatedly flouting regulations for buildings they own and to make sure they cannot continue to do so and will face sanctions?

Jewish Community: Contribution to the UK

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the contribution of the Jewish Community to the UK.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir David. I originally sought this debate following a conversation with my friend Marc Levy of the Jewish Leadership Council, and let me say at the outset what an excellent ambassador he is for the Jewish community. When we first discussed the idea, I was not keen on it; I did not see its relevance because when I look at people, it would not necessarily occur to me whether they were Jewish or not.

Let me give some examples, using my colleagues. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) is in her place. I know that she is Jewish, but when I think of her, I think of a woman who has been a friend of mine for 20 years, of somebody who is a trade unionist and primarily of somebody who has made a real contribution to and developed a real expertise in defence policy.

I knew that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Dame Louise Ellman) was Jewish, but I think of her first as somebody who gave real leadership in local government for many years before she came here and gave leadership in the Select Committee on Transport. Whether she was Jewish or not was not a factor for me.

Let me mention some other colleagues. I was not even aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) were Jewish until they started to receive antisemitic abuse. I was not aware, nor would it even have crossed my radar; I would not even have considered it. However, I would have considered my hon. Friend’s work on environmentalism and my right hon. Friend’s service not only as a Minister for many years, but as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

As Marc explained to me, there is a feeling among Jewish groups that too many headlines recently have been negative. Jewish groups understandably feel under threat, be it from a rising right-wing, nationalist and racist populism in eastern Europe, from President Putin talking about Jews controlling the world banking system, from President Trump’s failure to denounce protestors in the USA chanting, “Jews will not replace us,” or—let us be clear—from a sense and fears that my own party has elements that have expressed antisemitic remarks or statements and that complaints about those have not been dealt with sufficiently quickly or robustly.

However, instead of all the negative stories about Jewish people—negativity, I hasten to add, that they themselves are not responsible for—it was time to have a celebration of the contribution of the Jewish people and Jewish groups to our society; to reset the dial to the positive; to shine the spotlight on the positive news stories about things that go on every day but get squeezed out by the more unpleasant stuff; and to remind ourselves again not just of the quality or even the quantity of the Jewish contribution to the UK, but of the length of that contribution.

Obviously, I am not Jewish myself—I doubt there are many Jews whose first name is Christian. In fact, growing up in a Cheshire village, I had never knowingly met any Jewish people until I went to secondary school in Manchester, which has one of the largest Jewish populations outside London. I recall that at that school we had the Sieff theatre, named after Israel Sieff, a former chairman of Marks & Spencer, and paid for by his family. That was the first example of Jewish philanthropy that I had come across.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the speech that he is making. He has mentioned the Jewish community in Manchester, so would he like to take the opportunity, with me, to celebrate the interfaith work of the Muslim Jewish Forum of Greater Manchester?

[Christian Matheson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If she will permit me, I will return to that issue shortly.

The UK has a long-established Jewish community: the first record of Jewish settlement dates from 1070. There was a continual Jewish presence in the country until King Edward’s Edict of Expulsion, dated 1290. Sadly, therefore, we can also date UK antisemitism from around that period. Following the expulsion, there was no Jewish community apart from those who practised secretly.

Towards the middle of the 17th century, a considerable number of Marrano merchants settled in London and formed a secret congregation. That was until the time of Oliver Cromwell, who never officially re-admitted the Jewish community. However, a small colony was identified in 1656 and allowed to remain. In 1701, Bevis Marks Synagogue opened in London. It is the oldest continually used synagogue in London. The Board of Deputies of British Jews, the main Jewish representative body, was established in 1760.

In 1837, Queen Victoria knighted Moses Haim Montefiore. Four years later, Isaac Lyon Goldsmid was made a baronet; he was the first Jew to receive a hereditary title. The first Jewish Lord Mayor of London, Sir David Salomons, was elected in 1855. That was followed by the 1858 emancipation of the Jews. On 26 July 1858, Lionel de Rothschild was finally allowed to sit in the British House of Commons when the law restricting the oath of office to Christians was changed.

Owing to the lack of anti-Jewish violence in Britain in the 19th century, it acquired a reputation for religious tolerance and attracted significant immigration from eastern Europe. Of the eastern European Jewish emigrants, 1.9 million headed to the United States and about 140,000 to Britain. Some growing antisemitism during the 1930s was counterbalanced by strong support for British Jews in their local communities, leading to events such as the battle of Cable Street, where antisemitism was strongly resisted by Jews and their neighbours. They fought it out as a united community on the street against fascist elements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson]

I am most grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. There is a strong culture of supporting the family and others within the Jewish community, but anything that helps to support holocaust survivors and also reminds us of what they and their families went through, so that we can remind future generations, is very important.

Over the past 12 months, the JLC has undertaken an elderly care review to look into all its social care organisations so that they can work with the elderly and see how, strategically as a community, they can create a cohesive and effective link between organisations and best enable them to be effective in their aims and missions.

Mitzvah Day is a body that promotes an inclusive day of social action. Its aim is to bring people together through Jewish-led social action, and its work contributes in various ways. Volunteering itself is a powerful way for people who are isolated or disconnected from others to come together. Taking part in Mitzvah Day is an easy and accessible way to join a group of volunteers to support local community projects and needs. It not only allows for volunteers to feel connected and useful, but for the beneficiaries to connect to local community volunteers and to establish friendships. Mitzvah Day has demonstrated a substantial repeat effect, with volunteers returning year on year to run Mitzvah Day projects, and with volunteers continuing to volunteer throughout the year.

The second area that I wish to look at—my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) touched on this—is community cohesion. I wish to refer specifically to the work of the Community Security Trust, which was set up to protect Jewish communities and Jewish groups from violence, attacks, intimidation and worse. The CST has spread out to use its expertise, developed over two decades, to support other community groups, including Muslim community groups who also face hatred, violence and threats.

CST co-runs several initiatives that encourage and improve community integration, including Stand Up! Education Against Discrimination, which aims to empower young people in mainstream schools to learn about and act against discrimination, racism, antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred, while developing their social responsibility in the community. The project is led by Streetwise, a partnership between CST and Maccabi GB, another membership organisation, and is supported by Tell MAMA, Kick It Out and Galop. Given a 29% rise in the number of hate crimes in 2017 in the UK, including anti-Muslim hate and antisemitism, the interactive free-of-charge workshops aim to educate young people about tolerance and social responsibility, giving them skills to counter discrimination while ensuring their personal safety.

Framed within a broad conversation about the Equality Act 2010 and British values, Stand Up! currently employs two facilitators from Jewish and Muslim backgrounds, modelling a partnership of interfaith collaboration and demonstrating how groups that are often perceived as oppositional can work together successfully. The workshop combines Streetwise’s and Maccabi GB’s experience in delivering informal personal development sessions to tens of thousands of young people in schools nationwide with expertise in monitoring and recording antisemitic, anti-Muslim, racist, and LGBT+ hate incidents of the other partner organisations: the CST, Tell MAMA, Kick It Out and Galop. The Stand Up! project launched in January 2017 and has since gone from strength to strength, delivering sessions to more than 8,000 young people, and booking sessions in 48 schools and settings to date.

The Jewish community has a great story to tell.

[Kate Green]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Christian Matheson]

I will.

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I sense he is moving on towards the end of his speech, but, before he does, I want to ask him to commend another interfaith initiative, Nisa-Nashim, which brings together Jewish and Muslim women across the country in social action, mutual learning and sharing of enjoyable leisure activities. I am sure he will agree that that repeats the message of the strength of the partnerships that the Jewish community forms with those of other faiths, and of no faith.

[Christian Matheson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We could be here all afternoon simply listing the different organisations and schemes that Jewish community groups run either on their own or with other community groups. Many of them slip under the radar, but none of them fails to have an impact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

There appears to be a little time, Sir David, and I am grateful to be able to make a short contribution. I particularly want to speak about the work of World Jewish Relief, because I spend quite a lot of time in Parliament looking at policy on, and support for, refugees and refugee projects. I commend the work of World Jewish Relief for refugees arriving in this country.

Many of us have learned a great deal about the importance of refugee welcome by listening to the stories of refugees from appalling attacks and persecution and, ultimately, the holocaust—still remembered by my parents’ generation. We have learned particularly poignantly from colleagues such as my noble Friend Lord Dubs, who has talked about his experience as a child refugee. That has enormously enriched the debates that we have today about the plight of modern refugees fleeing to our country. My interest in refugee policy is at the practical end; about what can be done to support people arriving here. World Jewish Relief offers an exemplary programme, to which I should like to draw the House’s attention.

The programme recognises that refugees are desperate to integrate and make their homes in the country that welcomes them: to become part of their community—their friends and neighbours. We all know that one of the most important places where we can integrate and become part of a community, and feel that we are playing our part as community members, is the workplace. That is why I want to draw the House’s attention in particular to World Jewish Relief projects to support refugees into employment. It is not easy for a refugee to move into employment. Although many arrive here highly skilled and qualified, the persecution and trauma that they have experienced may make their re-entry to employment difficult. They might have to learn a new language and requalify in a new system of professional qualifications or skills recognition. Of course, they also have to overcome and deal with the trauma that brought them to this country.

World Jewish Relief helps with all that. It helps people to learn English, if they need to, and to reskill. It helps them to obtain the necessary recognition of their qualifications and it helps to reintroduce them to the workplace. It recognises that different individuals will be at a different place on the journey and that, for some, a return to work in any foreseeable future is probably unimaginable; but it does not drop them. It continues to offer them support, care and encouragement. To date 250 refugees have been helped into employment. Sixty-six are receiving other forms of support through the specialist training and employment programme. The programme is supported and funded by a range of Jewish institutions and private donors and by a refugee taskforce that has been formed by a number of local, community and religious denominations that have wanted to support the work that World Jewish Relief does for refugees. That is supported by the Jewish Council for Racial Equality and it gives a much wider group of people the opportunity to participate in and support that worthwhile endeavour.

It is because I take a broad policy interest in refugee work that I have come to know about the work of World Jewish Relief, but in fact it is close on our doorsteps in the north of England. I particularly commend it for working with a group of people who present particular challenges as a result of the trauma and difficulties that they have experienced. I know that the friendships and relationships formed between the refugees and those supporting them will have enriched the lives of everyone involved. Once again, as we have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), we hear of a Jewish community that is not inward-looking but outward-looking. It looks to the country that it is a part of: it looks to be a part of it, and to form and strengthen relations with all its friends and neighbours. We are all immensely lucky that it wants to behave in that way, and that it does so.

Sikhs: Contribution to the UK

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend has a long-standing record of working with his local Sikh community. I will also make that point, as will my hon. Friend the Member for Slough.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am pleased to be in this debate. My hon. Friend mentioned the lack of knowledge in this country of Sikh history. Will she join me in encouraging visitors to the Manchester Museum to see the Jallianwala Bagh exhibition, which has been prepared in conjunction with the Partition Museum in Amritsar? I think visitors from across the country and different cultures will find it very informative. I visited it during the Easter recess and I can warmly recommend it.

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important contribution. I hope to visit the museum in the near future. I am sure that hon. Members across the House and those watching will be interested to attend that exhibition, which comes at a critical time, 100 years since the awful event that took place on Vaisakhi in 1919, in Amritsar. I will comment more on that centenary later.

Despite the background of Sikhs’ contribution to the UK, it is extraordinary that our shared history is little known or understood. Understanding different communities is vital for not just community cohesion, but getting policy right, including the rights of Sikhs to wear their articles of faith—an important right that led to exemptions for the kirpan in new knife crime legislation in the recent Offensive Weapons Bill debate.

Sikhs, like other communities, have faced an increase in hate crime attacks. Last year we saw an attack on a turban-wearing Sikh visitor outside the House of Commons. This appalling attack sent shockwaves across the whole community and the Houses of Parliament. That incident triggered our idea of a National Sikh Awareness and History Month, which is also referred to as Sikh Heritage Month and takes place this month, during April, the month of Vaisakhi.

Other right hon. and hon. Members will make speeches raising the issues that are important to them, so I want to focus on two main areas. First, I want to focus on the purpose and place in our national life of National Sikh Awareness and History Month, of which this debate forms the final parliamentary event. Secondly, I want to share a perspective on the Sikh community in my local area and the range of contributions made to the wider community.

Last April I tabled an early-day motion with cross-party support, calling for the UK to recognise April as National Sikh Awareness and History Month, noting that 14 April marks Vaisakhi and the founding of the Khalsa in 1699, by the 10th Guru of the Sikhs, Guru Gobind Singh Ji. That early-day motion was supported by over 100 Members of Parliament from across the House, the all-party parliamentary group on UK Sikhs and many other groups. It recognised that the national Sikh awareness months that have been established in other western countries have successfully raised awareness of Sikhs, broken down barriers, and improved cohesion and dialogue.

To take that forward, we formed a cross-party parliamentary steering committee, and I thank all its members for their support in recent months. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), who is here today, and the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), who is chair of the all-party parliamentary group on UK Sikhs and is also present.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Slough, who is leading the campaign for a permanent Sikh war memorial in London. Sikh war memorials have opened in Bristol and elsewhere, but it is absolutely time that we showed leadership and had a permanent war memorial in London. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for working with me on the campaign for direct flights from London to Amritsar, which would serve communities in London and the surrounding areas. I also thank the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable), the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who is present, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).

Many across the Sikh community were part of the early establishment of the idea last year with the Sikh Council UK. I thank Jagtar Singh Gill and Gurinder Singh Josan, along with Kirat Singh, for their support in the early days when the idea was growing, which led to the launch this month.

This month is just the start. With the foundations in place, we look forward to expanding the steering group and including community members and groups from across the country, so the project will be truly community led. The programme of events in Parliament in April has been supported by a range of Sikh community organisations and community channels, all of which I thank for making it happen. I also thank Satwinder Sehmi, an artist and calligrapher who contributed to the development of the logo for Sikh Heritage Month, which respectfully and symbolically brings together faith and heritage.

Our programme of events has been extremely well attended and hugely inspiring and engaging. The Vaisakhi event in Parliament, which is organised annually by the British Sikh Consultative Forum, brought together representatives from gurdwaras across the country for the launch of the project. There were also supportive messages from all parties, including from the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. On the same night, a launch took place in the Scottish Parliament.

Last week, we had a packed event and discussion in Parliament for the launch of the “British Sikh Report 2019”. The Sikh Channel, Everything’s 13 and the Basics of Sikhi, which are also attending the debate, helped with the incredible Turban Awareness Day, which was educational in recognising and educating people about the significance and relevance of the turban. That event in Parliament was attended by almost 50 Members of Parliament from all parties.

Two lectures were given, one by Dr Opinderjit Takhar, the director of the Centre for Sikh and Punjabi Studies, on Guru Nanak and feminism, and one by Anita Anand on her new book, “The Patient Assassin”, which is about the principal actors, the story before and the story after the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, in which many Sikhs and people of all faiths were brutally murdered by the British. For her, the story is personal, as her grandfather escaped death by minutes while his close friends and colleagues were brutally murdered. She also told the story of Udham Singh, who made it his life’s mission to assassinate the lieutenant governor of the Punjab at the time, to whom she also had a strong personal link through her husband’s family, who had had contact with him in the past.

The massacre 100 years ago is a stain on our nation’s history to this day. It is time for an official apology. I am extremely disappointed that that was not forthcoming in our previous debate and during April. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that again today. It is no surprise that the “British Sikh Report 2019”, published last week, found that 79% of British Sikhs believe that the British Government should apologise for the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, and that 85% believe that it should be taught and in school syllabuses. It is a huge disappointment that we continue that battle. The massacre was condemned by Winston Churchill, then Minister for War, as

“an extraordinary event, a monstrous event, an event which stands in singular and sinister isolation”.—[Official Report, 8 July 1920; Vol. 131, c. 1725.]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East for his work and for the way he has brought together Members of Parliament from both sides of the House to call on the Government to make sure that the official apology happens.

Through April, a range of community-organised events have also taken place around the country, with MPs and councillors involved in Visit My Gurdwara and Langar with your MP events, which often coincided with important Vaisakhi Nagar Kirtans or community processions. This month takes on greater significance this year, as Sikhs around the world mark the 550th birth anniversary of Guru Nanak Dev Ji. I hope that National Sikh Awareness and History Month plays its part well in raising awareness and understanding of the Sikh faith, history and community, and continues to strengthen the bridges we build with Parliament and across nations with all our communities.

I will talk briefly about the gurdwaras in my constituency, Gurdwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha on Alice Way and my gurdwara on Martindale Road, which is run by the Nishkam trust, which play a huge role in many different ways, as I am sure gurdwaras across the country do. They extend charity and welcome and they support those in need. Every week, they welcome people who may be homeless or hungry. They welcome all, irrespective of background, through their doors. They run weekend classes and Punjabi classes, and host our surgeries as Members of Parliament so that we can reach all those in our communities. They have run immigration workshops —a huge issue in many ethnic minority communities— where immigration advisers are supported in providing confidential support and advice to those who desperately need it.

The Gurdwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha on Alice Way hosts the Hounslow Disability Network, which again provides vital support to those who need it. There are wellbeing events with the NHS, the police and many others across our community that make a huge difference. They also support the arts, culture and education. My constituent, Hardyal Luther, the former vice-chairman of Guru Nanak Worldwide’s council of supporters, organises a Guru Nanak essay competition every year that brings together talent and encourages the younger generations to take part and explore their history, culture and faith.

We live in a peaceful and respectful society because we choose to make it so. The structures that we build between us as a society help to nurture those vital links that make us a safe place for all communities and a place in which we can be sure that future generations will also be safe and will understand and respect one another. The respect that we hold and the understanding that we nurture are part of a statement about how we as a nation recognise that we have more in common than that which divides us.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I agree with my hon. Friend that maintaining records of the UK’s landscape heritage is important. I would be delighted to raise her point with colleagues at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that in future we can surmount any bureaucratic hurdles and that vital archives are preserved.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Further to earlier answers about the housing ombudsman scheme, there is considerable consumer scepticism that the scheme will not end up being industry-driven and will favour house developers rather than buyers. What assurances can Ministers give us that it will be consumer-led and that consumers will have input into the consultation?

[James Brokenshire]

I firmly recognise the consumer interest. That is what motivated me to put an ombudsman in place. I want the ombudsman to first be established in a shadow format, leading into the statutory ombudsman scheme I want to create, so we create some momentum and give a sense of confidence to consumers.

Greater Manchester Spatial Framework

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 21st February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. It is also a pleasure to be joined by hon. Members from across Greater Manchester. The cross-party interest demonstrates the real concerns about the spatial framework that exist among residents across our county. The Greater Manchester spatial framework will be the principal housing and planning document of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. It represents the combined authority’s plans for the management of land for housing, commerce and industry in the next 20 years. It will have a permanent effect on the location and the shape and character of local communities.

I am acutely aware that hon. Members participating, and other people watching, may have a strong sense of déjà vu, because we have had this debate before. Just over two years ago, I introduced a debate with the same title in this same room to discuss the same spatial framework policy. Since the highly controversial first draft in 2016, however, much has changed in the GMSF, including the controversial plans that originally sought to build on more than 8% of Greater Manchester’s green belt. After attracting criticism from across the political spectrum and getting negative responses from thousands of residents, the authority was forced to go back to the drawing board and rethink.

After months of delay, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority published its revised draft of the GMSF in January, which is substantially different from the original in many details. It is also the subject of a second period of public consultation, so it is right that we take a second look at it. Although the details of the GMSF have changed, controversy surrounding it remains. Those contentious points have centred on three areas: the overall housing numbers, the proposals to build in places that are designated as green-belt land, and whether the accompanying infrastructure, particularly transport, will be sufficient.

To be clear, I am not against development per se, nor am I against the concept of the framework itself. On the contrary, a cross-county approach to strategically sharing housing allocation is to be welcomed, because we need to provide new developments to address the housing shortage and to provide jobs for generations to come. However, that should be done in a way that is sensitive to the local environment and the wishes of local communities. It should also happen only where there is genuine need and infrastructure to support development.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Wragg]

I happily give way to my Greater Manchester colleague.

[Kate Green]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and I apologise that I need to leave to return to my constituency before the end. He is right to draw attention to the importance of infrastructure development alongside the development of employment space and housing. That is particularly important in Partington and Carrington in my constituency. Does he agree that there will need to be sequencing, so that we do not get the infrastructure development after, but in advance of, or at least in conjunction with, the housing and employment space development?

[Mr Wragg]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. She is correct that, to get residents to buy in to that level of development, they will need assurance that it will not simply add to congestion on local roads, and that there will be adequate provision of hospitals, doctors and school places. That would be the same in all our constituencies.

Since being elected in 2015, I have campaigned alongside residents to protect the local green belt, particularly around the village of High Lane, from massive developments such as those proposed under the GMSF. I have attended public meetings, led debates in the House, submitted a petition from more than 4,000 constituents, worked with my constituency neighbours and lobbied three different Housing Ministers about the matter. I want to put on the record my thanks to all the local people who, with their letters, signing various petitions, organising demonstrations and making their voices heard, have supported the campaign so far, and I hope they continue to do so. I also want to thank my colleagues from across the region who have led similar campaigns in their constituencies, particularly my constituency neighbours in the Borough of Stockport, one of whom, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), we are delighted to see on the Front Bench and will speak for the Opposition today. At this time of apparently unsurmountable political divides, we have been able to work on a cross-party basis. If we can work in such a way, there is hope indeed. Despite my opposition to parts of the framework, I also want to thank the combined authority for listening to people and for taking note of their concerns and revising the plan.

What is the upshot of the policy changes, and is the revised GMSF any better? From my own constituency perspective, one major improvement is how the overall housing targets under the framework appear to have, in effect, been assessed at a county-wide level rather than a purely local authority one, which means that some of the house building targets from the first draft can be redistributed across the local authority boundaries to where local housing need is perhaps higher or land availability greater. The approach is sensible and was a change that I and others called for in response to the first draft.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wragg]

The shadow Secretary of State is absolutely right. It is highly irresponsible for any political party to make such broad statements, which could increase the pressures on local green belts by some 5,000 for the Borough of Stockport. He is completely right to place that on the record this afternoon.

The updated proposals also mean changes at a local level in Stockport and will instead see the number of new houses earmarked for building on the green belt reduced from 12,000 to 3,700. In my constituency of Hazel Grove, the figure has been reduced from 4,000 to 1,250. Critically, plans to more than double the size of the village of High Lane with an extra 4,000 houses have been reduced to 500. However, to fit some of the new homes needed, new sites at the former Offerton High School, Gravel Bank Road and Unity Mill in Woodley and Hyde Bank meadows in Romiley have been suggested under the revised plans. Those sites will be much smaller than the original High Lane proposals at about 250 homes each, and in some cases will partly use previously developed land.

The revised plans that greatly reduce the amount of green belt to be sacrificed show that when local people come together and we work on a cross-party basis we can get results. I have consistently urged that the overall number of houses needed to be reduced, and that where houses are to be built we should follow a robust “brownfield first” policy. I therefore welcome the fact that the revised GMSF plans do both of those things. The result of the changes is a step in the right direction, in many aspects, as regards the controversial elements of the framework. However, as ever, there is more work to be done.

Almost half of the UK population live in rural, semi-rural or suburban communities close to green-belt land. The green belt is a vital barrier to urban sprawl and is hugely valued by local people. Our road infrastructure and transport capacity already struggle with existing demands. The proposals for development will risk making matters worse. The green belt encourages regeneration of our towns and makes the best use of our land. It therefore protects the countryside and all the benefits that that brings.

To protect and enhance the countryside, which borders the homes of some 30 million people, we must press on with the “brownfield first” approach. The green belt should not be used for housing development on the scale currently proposed. The fact is that we need more housing, but it should be implemented following a vigorous “brownfield first” policy. Insisting that brownfield land, which has had development on it previously, should be prioritised for the building of homes would encourage the regeneration of our towns and would ensure that the best use is made of our land. Importantly, it would ensure that housing is located where there is already the necessary infrastructure, and where local services can be augmented and improved.

To minimise the pressure on the green belt, it is important that we identify as best as possible all brownfield land. We should look at areas that are vacant or derelict so that we can optimise their potential for development before considering green-belt sites. Credit is therefore due to the Government for the creation of the brownfield register, following the Housing and Planning Act 2017. It has enabled hundreds of additional brownfield sites to be identified, and so has removed a considerable amount of the pressure on the green belt. Some good progress has been made in that area.

Thanks to the brownfield register, we know that Greater Manchester has at least 1,000 hectares of brownfield land spread across 439 sites, which have not yet been fully developed for housing. That is enough to build at least 55,000 homes, and it is likely that more such land can be found. Stockport has a reasonable number of those sites, although not as many as other areas. Stockport’s brownfield register, which is administered by the local council, has made it possible to identify sites within the urban area suitable for the development of up to 7,200 housing units. That is a considerable amount more than when we began this process a couple of years ago.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England estimates that, across the country, there is enough brownfield land to build some 720,000 homes. That figure has been revised upwards from the 2017 estimate of 650,000. Those brownfield sites have the potential to contribute significantly to the construction of the homes that are needed.

Another significant development since the last debate came in September 2018, when the Office for National Statistics released its most up-to-date population figures and household forecasts. Its publication of the new household projections led to a reduction in the overall numbers generated by the standard method for assessing local housing need. They proved to be nearly 25% lower than previously thought. Consequently, they gave rise to a national need target of some 213,000 new homes per year.

In October 2018, the Government published a technical consultation on the update to national planning policy and guidance. I commend them for a masterpiece of obfuscation. The consultation paper set out proposals to update planning guidance on housing need assessment to be consistent to the Government’s ambition to increase housing supply. They propose that planning practice guidance should be amended to specify that the 2014 ONS projections provide the demographic baseline for local housing need, rather than the 2016 figures. They produced their consultation response just two days ago, so colleagues may be forgiven for not having read it yet.

Despite clear opposition to the proposals from organisations and individuals, the Government have signalled their intention to ignore the latest ONS figures and use the outdated but higher 2014 projections. That means that they will overlook the latest ONS forecast, and instead stick to the previous target of 300,000 new homes per year, which will, I am afraid, lead to increased pressure on green-belt land.

I have a number of questions for our excellent Minister. First, I want to make a rather technical but nevertheless important point. I reiterate the point that I made when I wrote to the Secretary of State in December in response to the Department’s consultation. I believe that the 2016 projection should be used to provide the demographic baseline for the standard method. I strongly disagreed with the Ministry’s proposals, and I still do. Failure to use the most up-to-date evidence in creating policies is, I think, directly contradictory to the rules of the national planning policy framework. Moreover, there were 498 responses to this question, and of those organisations that responded, more than half—55%—disagreed with the change; only one third agreed with the proposal. In fact, more than two thirds of local authorities opposed the plans. Individual respondents, of whom I was one, were overwhelmingly opposed; the figure was 86%.

I have concerns about the Government’s response to the ONS figures and the message that that may send. If the Ministry selectively considers evidence that justifies its housing need figures, that suggests that the direction of travel is only one way. It seems a departure, I contend, from evidence-based policy making. It is a case of cherry-picking facts to ensure that the means justify the ends. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider the approach of his Ministry in this area.

Secondly, there must be stronger consideration, at individual site level, of what is being lost in terms of green space or green belt, particularly with regard to wildlife corridors and recreational spaces. A local site of particular concern to me is the area at Hyde Bank meadows in Romiley in my constituency. It contains the well used community facilities of Tangshutt fields, including playing fields, three football pitches and a children’s play area, and is adjacent to Tangshutt meadow, which is a popular local green space, a nature reserve, a community orchard and allotments. The loss of that green space would damage the local environment, the community and the health and wellbeing of local people, and it is but one example from the GMSF second draft document.

Finally and importantly, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, more attention must be paid to how local infrastructure will support the new developments where and when they may be approved—that follows on from the excellent intervention by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green)—particularly in respect of roads, traffic and local amenities. Although it would obviously have fewer homes than the 4,000 previously proposed, even a relatively small site—250 homes—would mean at least 250 extra cars on the road; there would probably be two or indeed three cars per household.

Many of the site-specific proposals in the revised framework refer to road and rail upgrades, in the immediate vicinity of sites, to provide access to the developments and to manage traffic in and around the new estates. However, beyond that, the framework generally gives no further details of what that will entail in the surrounding areas. It makes only vague references to developing travel plans or travel corridors, or general improvements to highway infrastructure. Without any level of detail, it is very hard for local politicians or local people to know the true impact that there may be on their area.

[Kate Green]

Of course, the issue about capacity on local roads also applies to national highways and motorways and, in particular, the M60. The development of Carrington, which I warmly welcome for Trafford, is right by the junction to the M60. We need to have the co-operation of Highways England, as well as local roads authorities, in ensuring that we have adequate capacity to support the planned new developments.

[Mr Wragg]

The hon. Lady is spot on. There is a similar situation in my constituency with the M60 road and the junction at Bredbury, with one of the proposals being to expand Bredbury Parkway.

In summary—you will be relieved to hear that, Mr Stringer—the revised GMSF plans and the response hitherto show that when local people come together and when politicians work together on a cross-party basis, we can make our voice heard. Although I welcome the significant reduction in the amount of green-belt land released in Stockport, the policy of “brownfield first”, inclusion of appropriate infrastructure and further local public consultation remain top priorities for the Greater Manchester spatial framework.

I think that the Government are potentially entering difficult territory if they proceed as planned with updates to the national planning policy and guidance and continue to disregard the latest ONS household projections. This is an area where I would strongly urge the Minister to rethink, just as the combined authority has shown its ability to rethink with this draft.

We should now all look at the details of these revised proposals. With the combined authority’s consultation open until 18 March, there is still good time for residents to make their views heard. What is needed now is a robust system of local consultations, especially in my constituency around the newly proposed sites in Offerton, Woodley and Romiley. We should ensure the efficient use of brownfield land, and that any new housing developments are properly supported with additional transport infrastructure and local services.