Community Engagement Principles and Extremism Definition
Debate between Alex Norris and David Simmonds(2 days, 21 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if she will make a statement on community engagement principles and extremism.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
National security will always come first for this Government, and we will always treat the threat of extremism with the seriousness that it requires. As the Prime Minister said this morning,
“Britain now faces a new threat”—
a threat of extreme violence from people who are driven by material online. They are often now lone individuals who are driven by a twisted desire for notoriety. It is a threat that we must contend with, alongside that from traditional terrorist groups.
The House will be aware that the Home Secretary will make a statement to the House shortly. All aspects of this changing threat will be considered in her rapid review, ordered last year, which will inform the Government’s counter-extremism strategy. The review panel is considering the current understanding of extremism, including Islamist and far-right extremism, and its work will include a focus on how best to tackle the threat posed by extremist ideologies, both online and offline. Early findings were set out in December, alongside initial measures to tackle the challenges that we face. The Home Office will provide a further update on the measures and actions arising from the counter-extremism sprint shortly.
Our Department retains responsibility for communities and cohesion policy, and the Deputy Prime Minister has convened a new cross-Government communities recovery steering group to develop a comprehensive strategy to address the underlying causes of divisions in our local communities. In particular, it seeks to address some of the causes of the disorder across the UK following the Southport tragedy last summer. We have made it clear that a new approach is urgently needed, and we have backed that with an initial £50 million from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government community recovery fund to support areas that were impacted over the summer.
David Simmonds
This question relates to an announcement made last March by Michael Gove, who was then Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in which he set out some new definitions of extremism, including the activities of Islamist and far-right groups, and robust non-engagement principles for the Government to apply when there were serious concerns. That is particularly relevant to the MHCLG portfolio, which covers social services departments and other organisations, youth justice and Prevent, through which public services engage at community level with a variety of organisations to gather intelligence, help people to move away from extremism, and intervene and disrupt emerging challenges, such as those posed by grooming gangs. The issues are also important for our often vilified Muslim communities, who contribute so much to our nation.
The principles having been set out, the aim was to set out a new system for structured engagement. However, in July the Chancellor announced £120 million of savings in the MHCLG from “small projects”. It subsequently emerged in answers to written parliamentary questions that an element of that was reduced funding for “legal fees” which were no longer expected
“to arise from the previous Government’s”
cross-party
“approach to extremism”.
A series of Ministers have, since then, found it very challenging to determine exactly what this means, but Ministers have told the House in answer to written questions that the March statement reflects the position of the last Government—in other words, that this Government have chosen to ditch the last Government’s policy on the non-engagement principles.
I am conscious that this is very sensitive, given the statement about the Southport case that we will hear later, but will the Minister answer some questions? Does the Department still adhere to that working definition of Islamism? Does it still have a working definition of non-violent extremism on which public bodies can rely, should they need to defend themselves when challenged? Can he tell the House why Ministers have not been—to quote from the “Ministerial Code”—“as open as possible” on this issue? Will he share with the House details of correspondence and any meetings that have taken place, and, in particular, the membership of the steering group to which he referred, so that more transparency and confidence surrounds this process?
Alex Norris
I do not think it will be a revelation for Members to hear that a change of Government often means a change of approach to what have been shared views and shared problems. I believe that the last Government deeply wanted to tackle extremism in all its forms across the country, and we share that desire. Where we differ is on the approach taken by the Department.
In last year’s written ministerial statement—this, I have to say, is something with which I simply cannot agree—the previous Secretary of State, for whom I have a lot of respect, chose for the Department to assume a great deal of responsibility for the issue, essentially on the part of the entire Government. I do not think that is the right approach, for very good reasons. Counter-extremism should, I believe, be the fundamental purview of the Home Office, not least because of the Home Office’s access to confidential information that is often not available to the MCHLG. The approach that we have chosen in the new Government is to have a cross-Government but Home Office-led counter-extremism sprint, which will lead in due course to a counter-extremism strategy that shapes the Government’s way forward. That is a different approach to what is, I believe, a commonly understood problem.
I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the previous process as robust. Let us be honest: it was not used. The previous Secretary of State made a detailed written ministerial statement and set out a system that could have led on this issue. He named some organisations, but it was very clear in the written ministerial statement that he was not prejudging any process for those organisations, and he subsequently did not use the process. I would question the hon. Gentleman’s attachment to a previous process that the previous Government chose not to use.
On the point about openness, I have answered multiple questions from the shadow Secretary of State and the shadow Minister. I will continue to do so, and we will be as open as we possibly can be. Similarly, with regard to the steering group, I do not think we have made that information public, but I am sure there is no problem in doing so. I will make sure that it is available.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Alex Norris and David Simmonds(3 days, 21 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
We share the Government’s ambition on local growth, but Companies House is reporting the highest level of business closures in 20 years. Will the Government commit to publishing an assessment of the impact that their national insurance rises, business rates rises and changes to business property relief are having on local growth plans?
Alex Norris
I have no doubt that the Opposition will have all the information they need to scrutinise the Government of the day—we always provide that with full transparency. What I will not accept is that the sand our economy was built on after the past four years, under the Conservative Government of the shadow Minister and the shadow Secretary of State, is somehow this Government’s failure. In reality, the hon. Gentlemen knows, exactly as we do, that we are fixing the mess that they left. Of course, they will have the chance to oppose us along the way, but we will get on with delivering for the British people, and they will get on with carping from the sidelines. I know where I would rather be.
Building Safety and Resilience
Debate between Alex Norris and David Simmonds(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that kind offer. Of course I will readily accept a visit to Burnley—perhaps through the lens of my role as the local growth and towns Minister. We could have a very interesting visit and I would be glad to do it.
I am conscious of the time; I am going to run out of it, unthinkably. We may have to pick up any further interventions in a different form, because I want to get to the points about buildings insurance, lending and service charges raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Runcorn and Helsby (Mike Amesbury), for Eltham and Chislehurst and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee).
One thing we know is that there has not been enough change in this space over the past seven years, but there has been change in the insurance bills that many leaseholders have been facing. We understand the financial and emotional impact that extreme insurance premiums have been having on leaseholders. Affected leaseholders have been burdened with paying too high premiums for too long. I assure colleagues that we are working actively to reduce premiums for leaseholders, and we are reviewing how better to protect leaseholders from costs and push for fair premiums for leaseholders in buildings with fire safety issues.
Colleagues have talked about buying, selling or remortgaging homes. We have seen improvements in that space, but we remain vigilant. We will continue to hold particularly the 10 largest lenders to account following their commitment to lend on properties even where remediation is not yet complete. They must keep that promise.
On service charges, by law, variable service charges must be reasonable. As colleagues have raised, that has been stretched significantly by some of the practices we have seen. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 contains measures to ensure that leaseholders get key financial and non-financial information so that they can scrutinise and hold to account the organisations that they are working with on service charges. Not all of that legislation has been commenced; secondary legislation is required, but we are working on that actively. We just want to get it right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) talked about the pace of remediation. Again, we accept that the pace is too slow; we have said that throughout, and what we have seen in Dagenham and Slough are horrific reminders of the risk that unsafe cladding still poses to far too many people. The Deputy Prime Minister has been very clear on her intention to drive that forward—again, there is that political will—and to get more action out of manufacturers, freeholders, developers and organisations with responsibility for making sure that buildings are safe. Too many building owners are still not acting quickly enough, so we will investigate, pursue the most egregious actors who are creating unacceptable delays, and hold them to account. The message from this Dispatch Box and from this Government is clear: “Use the routes we have created to get your buildings fixed, and get on with it.”
I now turn to the points made by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) about the inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman expressed concern that the report would be shelved, and the hon. Lady was concerned that it would just be words, so again, let me make the commitment—this speaks to the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner)—that the report’s recommendations must be considered with the seriousness that this tragedy deserves. We will look at all 58 recommendations in detail; there will be a debate on the Floor of this House; we will respond in full within six months; and we will be listening to the community throughout the process. We will update Parliament annually on our progress so that we can be held to account, but we will also get on quickly with the things we can do, whether that is speeding up remediation or reforming construction products. The change has not been at the pace that it ought to have been, but it will get better. I can commit that the report will not, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, just be shelved—far from it.
The hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) and for Woking (Mr Forster) mentioned buildings under 11 metres. Our approach to cladding remediation has been to prioritise the risk of loss of life. It is generally accepted that the risk to life is proportional to the height of buildings, so the risk to life is usually lower in buildings under 11 metres, and they are very unlikely to need the same costly remediation. Building safety remediation works may be required in a very small number of those buildings, but so far, our casework as a Department over the past couple of years shows that of the more than 160 cases that have been raised, only three have fallen into that category. As such, we think that is an appropriate distinction to draw.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) made a point about RAAC. This issue is different in Scotland than it is in England: Scotland has its own responsibilities, which the Scottish Government must work within, and as I said to my hon. Friend, we will work within the best practices too. It is the duty of building owners, including local authorities if they are the owner, to fulfil their duties to manage building safety and performance risks of all kinds—including RAAC—in a proportionate manner.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), talked about personal evacuation plans, or PEEPs. We must ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are protected. On 2 September, through a written ministerial statement, the Government announced that the Home Office will bring forward in the autumn proposals to improve fire safety and the evacuation of disabled or vulnerable residents in high-rise and higher-risk residential buildings in England. Those proposals will be called residential PEEPs. Through them, residents with disabilities and impairments will be entitled to a person-centred risk assessment to identify the appropriate equipment and adjustments to aid their fire safety and evacuation, as well as a residential PEEP statement that says what vulnerable residents should do in the event of a fire. The Government have committed funding next year to begin that important work by supporting social housing providers to deliver PEEPs for their renters.
The shadow Minister also mentioned product hallmarks. We stand by what was said in the written ministerial statement—I would have hoped that gave enough confidence —but for clarity, this is about stronger standards, not weaker standards. I hope the hon. Gentleman can take confidence from that.
David Simmonds
I would just like to press the Minister for the assurance I am seeking: that the Government have taken steps to ensure that all products that meet the 2015 European standards, and therefore are within the scope of what the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) said in the written ministerial statement, will also—as a minimum—meet the 2018 post-Grenfell UK standards.
Alex Norris
My colleague and hon. Friend, the Minister for building safety, has heard that intervention. As I say, everything that we have said is about higher standards, not lesser standards, but my hon. Friend will write to the hon. Gentleman about the issue he has raised. Again, I hope that I can assure him that this is about greater standards, not lesser ones.
To conclude, as the Prime Minister made clear, the Grenfell Tower tragedy was the result of unacceptable, inherent and systematic issues and decades of failure from both industry and Government. It is going to take political will to change that, and we offer it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered building safety and resilience.