Fire Safety and Sprinkler Systems

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on securing the debate. He has been a magnificent voice leading on fire safety issues in Parliament. If his voice had been listened to over the years, we would not be in the powerless state that we are at the moment.

I congratulate and thank all the members of the all-party parliamentary fire safety and rescue group. It is a wonderful group and we speak with one voice: we want sprinklers to be installed on a mandatory basis in certain buildings. If we had been listened to at the outset, there would not have been the Lakanal disaster and there would not have been the Grenfell disaster. I am in absolute despair: Ministers come and go, and yet the advice remains constant from officials and others. That advice is absolutely wrong. It has cost lives.

The debate is pertinent because changes to building regulations approved document B guidance are currently being considered following the Grenfell Tower disaster. That was nearly two years ago, but I am sure it only seems like yesterday to the hon. Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad).

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I endorse everything that the hon. Gentleman says about the work of the APPG. Is the difference between us and the Government not that we have been willing to listen to expert opinion, and to take that into account when deciding the appropriate way forward? Surely, this is the time to listen to expert opinion.

[Sir David Amess]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We have the privilege of not just one, not just two, but three former fire Ministers here today. It is about time that the present Government listened to their expertise on the subject. I cannot think of any meeting where the APPG has not had an item on the agenda about automatic fire sprinkler protection.

We should never have got to the position of the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy, especially after the warnings and recommendations of the coroner at the Lakanal House fire inquest in 2013, and the rule 43 letter to the Secretary of State. We have all the correspondence about what the APPG was trying to do at the time.

All Governments of all colours have failed us. On 4 July 2017, the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), said that

“we may have to confront an awkward truth. That over many years and perhaps against the backdrop of, as data shows, a reduced risk in terms of fire, in terms of number of incidents and deaths, that maybe as a system some complacency has crept in.”

Well, I think that is what Dame Judith Hackitt feels about the situation, and we will just have to see how that pans out. Claims of complacency could never be aimed at the APPG.

In 2012, the Building Research Establishment updated its 2006 research into the cost-benefit analysis of installing residential fire sprinklers and concluded that sprinklers are cost-effective for most blocks of purpose-built flats, all residential care homes, including those with single bedrooms, and traditional bedsit-type houses in multiple occupation, where there are at least six bedsit units per building and the costs are shared. The APPG has consistently asked why the Government have not reflected those changes in its guidance in approved document B. The intransigence is absolutely unacceptable.

I say again: the advice has been totally wrong. The APPG, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the London Fire Brigade, the Fire Protection Association, the National Fire Chiefs Council, the Fire Sector Federation, the Association of British Insurers and many others cannot all be wrong on this issue, but the advisers are still giving the wrong advice.

In March 2013, the Southwark coroner issued a rule 43 letter to the Secretary of State for the then Department of Communities and Local Government following the Lakanal House inquest, which stated:

“Evidence adduced at the inquests indicated that retro fitting of sprinkler systems in high rise residential buildings might now be possible at lower cost than had previously been thought to have been the case, and with modest disruption to residents. It is recommended that your Department encourage providers of housing in high rise residential buildings containing multiple domestic premises to consider the retro fitting of sprinkler systems.”

The response from DCLG was lamentable. It said that

“any fire safety measures which might need to be implemented or installed in any particular building will need to be determined primarily by a careful assessment of the life-risk to the residents and others in the building.”

We know that. The word used in the letter is “encourage”.

At the Lakanal House coroner’s inquests in March 2013, the London Fire Brigade commissioner was asked by the barrister assisting the coroner whether, if sprinklers had been installed, the lives would have been saved. The commissioner replied with an unequivocal yes. That is what happened at the inquiry. What happened at Grenfell is an absolute disgrace.

The National Fire Chiefs Council commissioned a research study by Optimal Research collecting data on five years of real fires that had occurred in the UK where sprinklers had been installed. Its findings, published last year, showed that, on 99.5% of occasions in all buildings and in 100% of occasions in flats, fires were avoided when sprinklers were installed. Sprinklers are not a panacea; they are only one of a package of measures. I am sure the Minister may make some remarks along those lines, but sprinklers can be used to make properties safe from fire.

Let me close by giving an estimated progress report on the retrofitting of automatic fire sprinkler protection in residential tower blocks. I am advised by organisations that manufacture automatic fire sprinkler systems that an estimated 1,000 towers have commenced or committed to installing sprinklers in existing tower blocks as a consequence of the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy. Already, Wales and Scotland are much further ahead in regulating for automatic fire sprinklers in their built environment. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister, who is a good and wise man: this nonsense can no longer go on and we will not accept it. We want action on this, and we want sprinklers to be installed retrospectively, particularly in all new school buildings.

Antisemitism in Modern Society

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

I cannot agree with my hon. Friend on that point because it is for the national executive to take that decision—

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Would my hon. Friend, who invoked the national executive committee of the party, of which I am a member, like to give way?

[Mr Speaker]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to take the intervention, we will then hear the content of it. Does he wish to do so?

[Barry Gardiner]

I will, of course, take, as I said before, one final intervention.

[Mr Howarth]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As a member of the Labour party’s NEC, may just say three things? First, we have been far too slow to deal with some appalling cases of antisemitism. Secondly, I do not know whether it has been formally announced yet, but Lord Falconer has offered his services to look at how we can deal more effectively with such cases that are brought to the attention of the party. Thirdly, on a purely personal view, I agree with the comment made a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) that, frankly, there is no place for any of these people in the Labour party. Sending them on courses is not good enough; they need to be kicked out.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I am glad he has been able to talk about the progress that the NEC is making. I believe that more progress will be coming in terms of education, but it has not been formalised at this stage.

It is important to recognise that the antisemitic views harboured by those people, a small minority within Labour, do not exist in a vacuum. No political party should fool itself that it is immune from this poison, and it would be wrong and dangerous to underestimate the scale of the problem across society at large. A few weeks ago, on Holocaust Memorial Day, a survey revealed that 5% of British adults do not believe the holocaust took place and one in 12 believe that its scale has been exaggerated. Clearly, something has gone deeply wrong with our education and our collective memory. The holocaust was the worst crime of the 20th century, in which 6 million Jewish people were murdered. Every single person in Britain should know that. I thank the Holocaust Educational Trust and Holocaust Memorial Day Trust for the work they do to ensure that this atrocity is never forgotten and never repeated.

Rough Sleeping

George Howarth Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend touches on something vital: we must deal not just with the phenomenon of homelessness and rough sleeping but with its causes. We need to make more effort on employment, the benefits system, young people coming out of care, people leaving the armed services without the necessary support and, yes, drug and alcohol problems. All those issues—including mental health problems, by the way—need to be addressed if we are really going to get on top of this problem.

[Neil Coyle]

My right hon. Friend is spot on. It is a sad truth that we know who these people are. We know which people are more likely to become homeless or sleep rough. They are an identifiable group. They are care leavers, women fleeing domestic violence, ex-forces people and people with mental health problems. We know who they are. We also know from experience—the scrapping of the Supporting People programme had direct consequences in this policy area—that there is no silver bullet. I do not think anyone suggests that there is, but we know who is more likely to become homeless, and we know how we can support them to avoid that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Will Quince]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. There are many reasons for what he refers to. The Government could tomorrow invest tens of millions of pounds—well, it would be more than tens of millions—in more temporary accommodation, and that would get more people off the streets, but it would not address the underlying problem, which is that we need long-term, permanent, secure accommodation for people up and down our country.

I come back to the fundamental point about social housing. I want us to get back to building in the region of 100,000 social houses a year. The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that in 2018-19 the total housing benefit bill is likely to hit an incredible £23.4 billion —£23.4 billion—and it is only going in one direction; it is only increasing. That means that we are spending more than £20 billion a year to mitigate the effects of a housing shortage brought about by successive Governments, without finding a long-term solution to the problem. Arguably, what is worse is that, because of the lack of social housing, those who need homes are being housed in the private rented sector, so taxpayers’ money is being transferred into the pockets of private landlords, which in turn only increases demand in the private rented sector and drives up rents for everyone else. I suggest that investing in social homes is a far more efficient use of public money. Once built, those social homes would be public assets that would appreciate in value.

[Mr Howarth]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. Does he agree with me on this point? The Government recently announced that they would make direct payments to private landlords to avoid escalating rent arrears. Would it not be sensible to make the same offer to social landlords?

[Will Quince]

I will have to look to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, because I believe that that is a recommendation that the all-party parliamentary group has made. It is one of those changes that would be a positive step.

The other reason why a large and ambitious programme of social housing would be a good thing is that it would provide—this is why there is a strong Conservative case for doing it—an immediate financial return through the reduced housing benefit bill. It would also alleviate hugely the pressure on the private rented sector and ultimately, I believe, lead to cheaper rents.

I will conclude because I am conscious that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. Although I hugely support the Government’s aim and ambition, I want us to be far more ambitious, and, through the all-party parliamentary group, we will continue to push the Government to be more ambitious. I said earlier that homelessness is a little like an illness. I want us to invest fully and properly in the treatment and cure, and that does mean significant resource. So I say to the Minister: please set out an ambitious strategy to tackle the root causes, and the whole House—I believe that this would be cross-party—will support you in making the case to the Treasury. It would lead not only to a financial benefit but to a huge social benefit. One family homeless or one person sleeping rough on our streets is one too many. Let this be the Government who put in place the long-term strategy to end homelessness, and Minister, we will all be behind you.

Local Government Funding Settlement

George Howarth Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I welcome the announcement of an increase in core spending power, but I estimate that it will be worth about £2.5 million in Knowsley. Set against that, however, the Secretary of State will be aware that Knowsley, with some of the highest need in the country, has also shamefully had the biggest cut in support from central Government, at £100 million. Is the Secretary of State not ashamed that need is now almost irrelevant to the allocation of local government funding?

[James Brokenshire]

I simply do not accept the core issue behind the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. Indeed, we are undertaking the fair funding review, which will allow further reflection on and recognition of some of the pressures that are felt between councils. Knowsley will see an increase of £2.8 million between 2018-19 and 2019-20, which will mean core spending power per dwelling of £2,282.

Budget Resolutions

George Howarth Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Thursday 1st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty). I think it would be fair to describe his speech as a bit of a mixed grill, but perhaps I should move on.

In a Westminster Hall debate on Tuesday, the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), talked about local government cuts since 2010. He said that they had been mitigated by what he referred to as “core spending power”, which had gone up by 2% this year and over previous years. He went on to say:

“The idea that the funding formulas do not take account of deprivation or the differing ability of areas to raise council tax is totally erroneous.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2018; Vol. 648, c. 332WH.]

Note that he said not just “erroneous”, but “totally erroneous”. I want to spend a moment looking at the veracity of that statement. He must know that the Government’s grant cuts since 2010 have hit those councils with the greatest need the hardest. Knowsley’s cut to “core spending power”, as he puts it, amounts to £485 per person, compared with the average for England as a whole of £188.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

Knowsley is one of the most poorly resourced areas in the country. Indeed, it suffers from one of the highest levels of income deprivation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the impact on the streets is dangerous and sickening?

[Mr Howarth]

I very much agree, and if I have time, I will come on to say more about that.

This is not just about what I or those in local government are saying about why the Under-Secretary’s comments were—I was going to use the word “misleading”—an example of sophistry. Independent analysis from the University of Cambridge says that there are

“significant inequalities in cuts to council services across the country, with deprived areas in the north of England and London seeing the biggest drops in local authority spending since 2010.”

As councils all point out, that is because—again I quote from the study—

“These local authorities tend to be more reliant on central government, with lower property values and fewer additional funding sources, as well as less ability to generate revenue through taxes.”

It would not be permissible for me to say too much more about the effect of what the Minister said, but the truth is that it was not a proper portrayal of what is taking place, and his analysis of the grant system was plain wrong.

In the time that remains, let me say a few words about the consequences of this situation in the Liverpool city region, starting with Knowsley. The impact for the people in Knowsley, which has been the hardest hit of all local authorities anywhere, is that we have had our grant cut by £100 million since 2010. Children’s social care needs are rising faster than the resources for dealing with them, with a £3 million gap currently projected, and the increases announced last week barely scratch the surface of that gap. The same applies to adult care, for which demand is growing, yet the resources are just not there to meet it.

Since 2010 in the Merseyside police force area, we have lost 1,000 police officers. As the chief constable said, the service is reaching breaking point—it is a chief constable saying that. There has been a 14% rise in crime over the last 12 months. Similarly, 50% of the grant for fire and rescue services has been taken away since 2010. The number of firefighters has fallen from 927 to 580. Fire deaths are up by 10%.

The worst aspect of these cuts in services, as the Minister was unwilling to concede on Tuesday, is that the people who can least bear the brunt of them are among some of the poorest in the country. Frankly, what the Government have done to public services in the Budget is shameful.

Local Government Funding: Merseyside

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) on the typically thorough way in which she introduced this important subject. I will confine my remarks to the effects of the cuts in grant to Knowsley specifically, but before I do, I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) and other hon. Friends have said about the impact of cuts on policing and on fire and rescue services.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood indicated, Knowsley Council is the council in the country hardest hit by funding cuts, which amount to £100 million less to spend on vital local services. To bring that down to a human scale, that equates to a cut of £485 in grant support for every person in the borough, compared with a national figure of £188. To bring that down to an even more human scale, Windsor and Maidenhead Council has had a £49 cut in grant per head and Wokingham Borough Council has had a £43 cut in grant per head. I began to wonder whether something in the grant formula was weighted towards local authorities that begin with the letter w, but if that had been the case, it would have applied to the Wirral too. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) eloquently described, however, it does not.

Knowsley Council has told me that its biggest challenges are funding children’s social care, which my hon. Friends have mentioned; the need for a permanent funding solution for adult care; and the impact of moving the cost of funding services provision on to council tax payers. Funding social care is not just a problem for Knowsley. In the north-west as a whole, the number of looked-after children has increased by 12% since 2003. In Knowsley, the additional pressures on the budget for children’s social care are expected to exceed £3 million as a result of a combination of increased costs for all placements, even higher increased costs for specialised placements and the scarcity of suitable residential placements.

The Government’s response, however, has been wholly inadequate and falls well short of providing the funding and certainty needed to keep up with growing demands. The Minister will say that there was an announcement in the Budget yesterday. We have not seen how that will be distributed, and we do not know what it will mean for any given local authority, but if the total sum mentioned is distributed evenly, it will hardly make a dent in the difficulties that areas such as Knowsley are experiencing.

Some additional funding for adult social care has been announced in the past few years, but it does not reflect the resources needed to offer adequate and sustainable services and, moreover, it was a one-off. In March 2017, £9 million of additional resources was announced from the better care fund to help to fund increasing demand and rising costs. So far, however, the Government have not confirmed whether that support will continue beyond 2019-20. Can the Minister commit to continuing that funding? If he cannot, the council’s budget will inevitably mean that services suffer still further. Moving the cost of service provision on to local council tax payers is, frankly, nothing short of disgraceful. The move away from a grant distribution formula that provided a weighted recognition of the needs of an area is entirely regressive in how poorer, more deprived areas such as Knowsley end up as the biggest losers. How can that be fair?

The Government argue that need should be replaced by a funding system that rewards councils based on the level of economic growth and prosperity. Knowsley has some important and successful local companies such as QVC in my constituency and Jaguar Land Rover in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood, but their success and that of other companies locally, though important and welcome, can have only a limited impact on the revenue generated for Knowsley Council and falls short of the area’s needs.

We have already seen the effect on services. Anything that is not a statutory requirement has inevitably had to bear the brunt of the cuts. As we have seen elsewhere, we are at the point at which local councils cannot meet even those statutory requirements. As need is increasingly sidelined, that trend will sadly continue. The grim conclusion has to be that unless the Government acknowledge the need for a fair funding system that properly reflects local need and deprivation, areas such as Knowsley face a bleak future in which the consequences of the Government’s austerity programme are visited on the communities least able to bear them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

I totally reject the suggestion of hiding. It would be ridiculous to look at any local authority’s financial resources without considering the various ways in which such an authority funds itself. I am delighted that the hon. Lady is focused on keeping council tax low. Indeed, the Government have ensured that council tax today is lower in real terms, across the country, than it was in 2010. We have heard various suggestions from Labour Members about doubling council tax, which is something I assume the hon. Lady, being on the side of hard-working taxpayers like us, would reject.

The idea that the funding formulas do not take account of deprivation or the differing ability of areas to raise council tax is totally erroneous. For example, when the adult social care precept was introduced, it was understood that different areas would raise different amounts from it, which is why in the incremental billions of pounds that the Government have injected into the social care system directly through the better care fund there is an equalising measure to take that into account. That is exactly why, today, the most deprived authorities have a core spending power per household—taking into account all those things, council tax included—that is 23% higher than that of richer authorities. Indeed, that is why areas with larger council tax bases provide more of their area’s resources from council tax; Merseyside provides less than half of the amount those areas do, because the council tax base in Liverpool is that much lower. It is totally wrong to suggest that that is not taken into account.

I think it was alleged that I, or the Government, had removed deprivation from funding formulas. I can categorically say that I have not removed it from any funding formula. We are in a root and branch review of how local government is funded. We are in the midst of various consultations and I would be delighted to have hon. Members’ suggestions.

[Mr Howarth]

If that is the case, will the Minister explain why Knowsley, which is one of the most socially deprived parts of the UK, has had a £100 million cut in its grant? His figures just do not add up.

[Rishi Sunak]

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that Knowsley’s core spending power per household is about 20-something per cent. higher than the average for a similar metropolitan authority, which takes into account exactly his point. He talked about the fair funding review and, as I said, that is exactly where all the issues will be considered, ensuring that deprivation or, indeed, multiple other factors, are taken into account in the new funding formula.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rishi Sunak]

I will make some progress.

The second vision I outlined, which is undeniably one of the most crucial roles for local government, is to continue to help the most vulnerable in our society. It is local authorities, as we have heard, that support the elderly, the disabled and our children in need, and we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to councils for their incredible work. I am delighted that the Government back local authorities to carry out those vital duties. Last year, the Budget provided an additional £2 billion for social care. Earlier this year, another £240 million was announced for social care winter funding, and in the Budget yesterday the Chancellor announced that a further £650 million will be provided for care services next year.

In contrast to what we have heard, the flexibility to use the funding for things such as children’s services is something that local authorities have specifically asked for. They will have the flexibility in each local area to use the funding for different care services, rather than its use being dictated by central Government. I would have thought that all Members appreciated their local areas having such flexibility to make the best use of the money, in the way they see fit.

I am pleased to say that that increased investment and better working between the NHS and local government is paying dividends on the ground. We have seen social care free up 949 beds a day since the peak two years ago—a 39% reduction in social care delayed transfers of care. In Merseyside, progress has been seen particularly in St Helens, and I commend the local authority on reducing such transfers by 72% since the February 2017 peak.

I have mentioned the troubled families programme, which is making amazing strides to support our society’s most vulnerable families. When I visited the Clubmoor children’s centre in Liverpool, it was a privilege to talk to several of the families participating and to see the life-changing work at first hand. I am proud to say that the Government have invested £1 billion in the programme over this spending cycle, with 130,000 families nationally achieving significant and sustained progress against the goals they have been set. In almost 17,000 of the families, one or more of the adults has moved into work, and the families I spoke to told me that that was central to their ambitions.

Across Merseyside, 10,000 families are being helped with more than £20 million of funding, and I pay tribute to Liverpool City Council in particular for doing a very good job, working with early help assessments. We heard from the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) about the importance of early intervention. Referrals to children’s services in Liverpool were down 3% in the most recent year—

[Mr Howarth]

On a point of order Mr Hollobone. I want to place it on record that, had he been here, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) would have made a significant contribution, but he is, in fact, not here.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Thank you for that point of clarification. It will be on the record.

Northern Rail Services: Greater Manchester

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Howarth. I appreciate that many of your constituents in Knowsley have been frustrated in the past couple of weeks, whether travelling in the region or across the country. We heard about the issue in Monday’s urgent statement, of course. It was unprecedented: for 90 minutes 65 MPs of all parties relayed to the House the pain that passengers throughout the country were experiencing, including anxious students not able to get to college to sit vital exams, children late for school, adults late for work and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) has said today, people who have lost their jobs. Family life has been disrupted and childcare made impossible; people do not know when they are going to get home of a night, and businesses struggle when staff do not arrive. In the heart of the tourist season there is the fiasco of trains being cancelled at peak times in the Lake district—we stand with the businesses there.

I was struck by the experiences of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), who talked on Monday—column 63 in Hansard—about people who were fasting during Ramadan standing for five hours in blistering heat. Trains have been cancelled and delayed; they do not stop. People have been failed—“Northern fail” is the expression that comes to mind. The situation is not just in the north, but across the country. I know that passengers in the south-east in particular have also had years of that pain. We have a broken railway system.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Sir David Crausby), who eloquently highlighted the pain of his constituents, particularly the pain caused by Arriva Rail North. Electric trains in his area should have been running from Manchester via Bolton to Preston last year, but it will be lucky if they do so by the end of this year. Northern provides a poor service to passengers and they now have their worst punctuality rating in eight years. As we heard, only 83% of their trains arrived within 10 minutes of the scheduled time. Of course, in the past week things have got worse, with trains often being cancelled altogether at weekends.

The story for passengers in Bolton is one of broken promises, within a completely deficient system, and they are of course dependent on a completely deficient compensation scheme. As we have heard, it is far too complex for passengers to engage with, and it does not work for multimodal transportation, so fewer people claim on it. We have heard that disabled people and parents with prams have no chance of using the railway. At certain points on the line the trains are already packed, as there are too few carriages to meet the need. In the new upgraded rail system there is still a need to install the overhead gantries for the power lines at places such as Chorley, Bolton and Salford. However, because of poor ground conditions due to uncharted shallow mines around those locations, a third of the foundations were unsuccessful at the first attempt. All that work was outsourced to the failed company Carillion.

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate—the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), who put some pertinent questions to the Minister, and my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for Bolton South-east, and for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams)—for sharing the impact of the rail meltdown on their constituents. The upset, anger and frustration that have been heard in the House this week are nothing compared with the actual pain that we have heard about directly from the public. Despite all that, the Secretary of State could not find it in himself to apologise for the part that he played. The only reason he remains in his post this afternoon is that the Prime Minister is too weak to sack him. All that we got was his belief that he was clever in apportioning blame to everyone but himself. Others are to blame—I grant him that; but the person in charge, at the heart of it all, is the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister will offer an apology on his behalf for the fact that he has utterly failed the British public.

So what do we know? Network Rail ran into serious trouble during control period 5, not completing many of the planned infrastructure projects, including promised electrification upgrades. Did the Secretary of State know? Yes; he personally intervened, cancelling many electrification projects. Hon. Members will remember that that was the day after the House rose last summer—presumably to avoid questioning of the kind that happened on Monday. The right hon. Gentleman announced that trains that do not even exist would run in the future, and said they would replace the planned new electric rolling stock as on the TransPennine Express route.

It is deeply offensive that new trains that cannot accommodate wheelchair users have been put on that line. We heard how Network Rail failed to complete its timetabling programme and how the Secretary of State, despite initial denial, knew that that was coming over the horizon. He said on Monday that he took calls weeks before the new timetable was due to be introduced, but in his statement he failed to mention that, with regard to a company limited by guarantee, he was the one person in charge—allegedly. Therefore he is fully to blame. If he neglected or negated his responsibilities he should resign.

People in the industry whom I have talked to have told me that the crisis was long predicted. When the company moved the timetabling function to Milton Keynes a significant proportion of the very skilled timetabling staff were lost, so there were not the personnel to do the work required. I have also been told that the process of rescheduling an entire timetable normally takes the best part of a year, and at least nine months. Given that the project commenced in earnest in February, it was not likely to meet its own timetable, to be stress tested and to be sure to work.

The glaring absence is the fact that the Secretary of State did not at any stage intervene and postpone the new timetable—and we learned why. He is, it now appears, the only person on both sides of an apparent Chinese wall dividing his Department. On a wing and a prayer he ordered that the timetable change should go ahead. There was a threat that the operators—the private, fragmented companies that he always defends—would sue him or the Department if the timetable was withdrawn. They had received promises from him on the new timetabling: that in May they would be able to run their new trains, on new infrastructure and at new times. Their financial structures, including how they would afford to pay their levies to the Department and how they would pay their shareholders, could not be delivered unless all the new slots ran on the promised terms in the new timetable, as set out in the franchises.

I think that we can expect law suits to come flooding in now. After all, those private companies’ sole reason for existing is to drive profit out of the state. Those rail companies had hired their new trains for the new electrified lines and expanded timetables. I remind Members that they do not own their rolling stock, but lease it by contract at an exorbitant rate from consortia of investment companies and fund managers. These private profit companies exist to drive profit out of the train operating companies, which in turn drive profit out of the state, taxpayers and passengers. They have disposed of their old rolling stock and moved it on to their next customers, while the new rolling stock cannot operate on the de-electrified lines—you could not make it up, Mr Howarth.

Then there are the train operating companies, and today we have heard much about Northern rail and its failure. It went ahead and signed contracts, demanding that services be run down to the bone. We heard how it cut the number of crucial staff to maximise its financial gain, and it failed to maintain or recruit sufficient staff to run on the new timetable. It knew what was coming over the horizon, and it failed. It is also trying to get rid of train guards, the very people at the heart of looking after the needs of passengers. We have ended up with not enough trains or staff to meet the needs of a rushed and untested timetable, although I must say that the staff have been phenomenal across the rail network, and we salute them for all that they have had to contend with over the past few weeks.

Only the Secretary of State and his Ministers sit at the top table and the interface of track, timetable and train. He knew about these challenges but did nothing. He let this chaos happen, either through sheer incompetence or by hoping that it would be the least worst option. He is the head of every decision, which is why either he must resign or the Prime Minister should sack him.

One subject that was not mentioned on Monday was how much all this will cost the public or passengers through future ticket increases. The money has to come from somewhere. I am sure the TOCs will call for compensation—they always do—and we also have the compensation scheme, and a commitment to a new compensation regime, which fellow MPs are already saying will be insufficient and that more will be required. Will students who were not able to sit their crucial exams, or businesses that could not open their doors because their staff had not arrived, be able to claim compensation? How much will all this chaos cost? I put that point specifically to the Minister, because ultimately taxpayers or passengers will pay, and they need to know how much it will cost.

This story will not end happily ever after. First we get a revised timetable that, as we have heard, has in many places been much worse than the original one. Then we get the mass cancellations across the service. We have heard that whatever timetable is applied, the chaos will run for months and months into the summer. What has the Secretary of State offered? An inquiry that will report at the end of the year. Thank goodness the Transport Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), will provide answers long before then through its own inquiry. The Secretary of State’s inquiry will not report until after the next set of timetable changes have been put in place in December, although I have heard that those changes have fallen behind schedule.

This chaos has forced passengers off trains and into their cars—a modal shift. We talk a lot about a modal shift across our railway system, but we aspire to it going the other way. When rail services do not work and fail the public, people jump back into their cars because they have no other option. That leads to more congestion on our roads, more frustration and more pollution to exacerbate our poor air quality. I am sure that the rail companies will challenge the Government about that fall in patronage.

The great British public have been completely let down by this Government and their failed rail model, and they are right to be furiously angry at the Secretary of State, who blames everybody else—the bosses at Northern rail, for example—while forgetting that he is in charge. That simply could not happen under Labour’s proposals for a new model of public ownership. We will scrap the juggling of multiple private company interests and have one rail service that works together in the interests of passengers. The Secretary of State could make a start by moving towards that model—that would massively satisfy passengers across the north—and he could take the contract away from Northern rail, and use his powers to start providing reparations for this complete disaster on our railways.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I gently remind him that it is customary to leave enough time for the mover of the motion to respond briefly to the debate.

Cable Standards: Fire Safety

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I will try to live up to your splendid introduction, Mr Speaker.

Last year’s Grenfell Tower tragedy was, without doubt, one of the most shocking and disturbing building safety failures in living memory. As we know, the likely cause was a shocking failure of our building control regulations, and as a result, the Government established an independent review of building regulations led by Dame Judith Hackitt. A long-overdue national debate about buildings and safety has been taking place alongside the review. In her interim report, Dame Judith rightly stated that Britain’s building regulations are “not fit for purpose”.

I would like to place on record my thanks to the Safer Structures campaign, Electrical Safety First, the Association of British Insurers, the Fire Brigades Union and the Merseyside fire and rescue service for providing me with a briefing for the debate.

The focus for Grenfell Tower is on the specification and installation of the cladding used on the building. This debate concerns the need to eradicate substandard cabling from the market, because there is an overwhelming argument that our existing regulation is too weak and, as a consequence, exposes structures and those who live and work in them to unacceptable levels of risk.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this salient debate. Does he agree that, with electrical fires being the cause of 20,000 fires in United Kingdom homes per year, we have a duty to ensure that people are able to check their cabling and understand how to do so to ensure that it is safe, for not only the people themselves but the councils, which have responsibility?

[Mr Howarth]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I will be giving some statistics that exemplify what he just said.

According to the Approved Cables Initiative, more than 27% of all electrical fires are attributable to faulty wire and cables, and there are serious concerns about the risks in our built environment that need to be urgently addressed.

A related concern is that current regulation is not being sufficiently well enforced. For example, in October 2017 the BBC published evidence from an investigation it carried out which exposed the fact that a now-defunct Turkish cable manufacturer, Atlas Kablo, has sold 11 million metres of cable to the UK that pose a deeply concerning fire risk. The Health and Safety Executive, which labours under severe resource restrictions, decided against a compulsory recall of all 11 million metres of that cable. Consequently, as far as I am able to ascertain, so far only 7 million metres has actually been recovered. That poses a real fire safety threat in cases where that cable is still being used.

Interviewed by the BBC, Sam Gluck, the technical manager at the electrical fire consultants Tower Electrical Fire & Safety, said that this approach had

“planted a bomb in the system”.

Mr Gluck added that

“if it overheats, it will ignite anything that touches it. If it’s against a plasterboard wall that will ignite”.

Dr Maurizio Bragagni, chief executive of Tratos—it has a factory in my constituency—and a founder of the Safer Structures campaign, added that

“it could be in any shopping centre, any venue, any building”.

Even where cable regulation is properly enforced, the standards are too weak. By way of background—the Minister will be aware of this—on 1 July 2017, the European Union introduced the construction products regulation. As a result, all cables sold in the EU now have to adhere to common standards, which should result in safer, more consistent building regulations and much improved public safety. The EU, however, has not been prescriptive in specifying which classification of cable performance should be used for buildings and infrastructure in each country. Instead, it is the responsibility of each EU member state’s regulator to decide this, and in the UK, this is the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

At present, the Department has not specified which class of cable should be used for buildings, and instead requires all electrical installations in buildings to comply with British standard 7671—a minimum requirement equivalent to European class E. This means that flames can spread through a cable to 3 to 4 metres in under five minutes, and the fire will continue to propagate at the same rate, while at Euro class C, for example, the fire growth rate is limited to below 2 metres. On the range of Euro classes A to F, the A standard is virtually fireproof. Adoption of a higher standard at Euro class A, B1, B2 or C would lead to much greater resistance for permitted cables. In short, it would mean much improved levels of fire safety.

The official statistics on domestic fires make for sober reading. In 2016-17, 14,821 primary fires were caused by electrical distribution, space heating appliances and other electrical appliances. These three categories resulted in 44 fatalities and 1,353 non-fatal casualties. Another cause for concern is the electrical safety of white goods such as dishwashers, tumble dryers and fridge freezers, which are a major cause of electrical fires. In 2016, 1,873 fires were caused by domestic electrical white goods.

As you will recall, Mr Speaker, on 1 November 2017 there was an excellent Westminster Hall debate on the subject of product safety and fire risk in residential premises, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). I will not go over that ground again, other than to say that this is a serious problem and it needs to be addressed urgently.

Analysis by the Fire Brigades Union indicates that the number of fires and fire deaths is increasing. In the year ending September 2017, there were 346 fire-related fatalities compared with 253 in the previous year, which is a 37% increase—and it was even up by 9% if the tragic deaths at Grenfell Tower are not included. An improvement in standards must, by definition, lead to reduced fire deaths, less property damage and lower demands on already overstretched fire and rescue services. We should bear in mind that, since 2010, more than 11,000 firefighter jobs have been cut across the UK, and that represents one in five frontline firefighter jobs.

There are, as I have highlighted, genuine concerns about buildings such as Grenfell Tower and fire safety. I also have serious concerns about the growing private rented sector, which is far too lightly regulated. Electrical Safety First recommended that properties in the private rented sector should be subject to mandatory five-year checks and the fitting of residual current devices. This would enable substandard cabling to be identified, rather than, as at present, leaving it undetected until it causes serious property damage, injury or even death.

The post-Brexit landscape for regulation and compliance must, at the minimum, maintain the current protections afforded to consumers. There should be no deregulation of the product safety standards currently implemented. Following our exit, the UK should continue working closely with European friends to ensure that products entering the UK market are safe, and dangerous products are intercepted and reported.

One further point I want to make before I move to a conclusion concerns regional variations. Merseyside had 53% of its fires recorded as being electrical in origin, which is below the national average. During the same time, Manchester had 61%, and Norfolk, the Isle of Wight and Cornwall had in excess of 70%, of dwelling fires recorded as electrical. Of the 628 incidents defined as electrical fires on Merseyside, 133 were deemed to be “structural/fixtures/fittings”, and cables would fall into that category.

To conclude, I ask the Minister to consider the following questions. First, Dame Judith Hackitt’s review of building regulations must inevitably go through all the evidence thoroughly, and I accept that that will take time. However, in the case of cabling, would the Minister consider introducing immediate measures to properly regulate cable standards along the lines I referred to? The evidence is already there.

Secondly, will the Minister consider providing the resources to enable the Health and Safety Executive to identify the remaining 4 million metres of Atlas Kablo cable so that it can be recalled? Thirdly, will she undertake to see what further action can be taken on white goods to more fully identify the risks and any action that could be taken to eradicate those risks?

Fourthly, will the Minister carry out a review of the regions most prone to electrical fires to identify the common characteristics and what more can be done to deal with the problem? Finally, following our exit from the EU, will she commit to ensuring that there is no deregulation of cable standards in the UK?

I hope the Minister will accept that this is a very serious issue and that it is in need of urgent attention from her Department. I hope she will inject some energy into the work the Government need to do to combat it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Wheeler]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his second contribution tonight—the usual high standards for Strangford. The important thing is that BS 7671 in its 18th iteration will have that at its heart, because what we all want is safe cabling for the future for all our sakes.

I mentioned the independent review of building regulations. Dame Judith’s interim report was published in December. She is looking at identifying product testing and quality assurance as one of the key areas that she will focus on as she drafts her final report. I believe that that will answer the fifth question—I think—from the right hon. Member for Knowsley.

Dame Judith is due to produce a final report in the spring, after which the Government will consider her recommendations, including any specific recommendations concerning product testing and safety. I am happy to tell the right hon. Gentleman that as part of our consideration of Dame Judith’s recommendations, we will review the evidence of risk associated with electrical cabling to consider how we should respond. If he or other hon. Members have evidence that it would be useful for us to consider, please send it in to the Ministry.

In conclusion, a system of regulation is in place that controls the fire safety of cables. We do this through a number of regulations that work together to consider the fire performance of cables in the context of the building and to manage the risk appropriately. However, we recognise the importance of the issues that were raised by the right hon. Gentleman and the Safer Structures campaign. We await the recommendations of Dame Judith Hackitt’s review.

[Mr Howarth]

I am trying to reconcile a couple of statements that the Minister has made. On the one hand, she recognises that there is room for improvement, but on the other hand, she seems to be saying that everything is okay. They cannot both be right. Does she accept the point that I made in one of my questions, which was that this really does need some energy behind it if we are going to reach a constructive and better system?

[Mrs Wheeler]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for repeating his question. The difficulty is that there is not agreement in the market. He has one producer in his constituency and he is doing a grand job of standing up for them, but the market is not in agreement on this matter, which is why we have to look at all the evidence and take it forward from there.

[Mr Howarth]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Wheeler]

No, if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind, I am just going to conclude. We await the recommendations of Dame Judith Hackitt’s review. In the light of those, I am happy to confirm that we will work with the industry to review the evidence base for enhanced cable fire safety performance. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to our attention.

Question put and agreed to.

Supported Housing

George Howarth Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) on the work that has been done on this important issue.

I am sure that I am not alone in having been contacted by constituents who support St Mungo’s. It is worth quoting something that they said in their letters:

“People who are homeless should enjoy the same level of security as those with long-term needs, and therefore should have their housing costs met through the welfare system wherever possible. The current proposals leave them with less security than those in long-term supported housing or private renting, as they must rely on local funding based on estimated need rather than claiming benefits directly to pay their rent.”

That shortish sentence sums up well the dilemma that we face with short-term housing. I intend to confine my remarks to short-term supported housing, because I think there is an emerging consensus that that is where the problem lies.

First, I pay credit to Riverside, which has been cited on more than one occasion, and in particular to Jenny Luckett, for its briefing. I should point out that any errors of fact or misjudgments are mine, not Riverside’s. This issue is important to Riverside, because it currently has 2,600 bed spaces in short-term accommodation, which accounts for 64% of its supported housing. Obviously, it has a significant stake in the Government’s proposals, as do the people who rely on it for those services.

I will raise four issues and then make four suggestions to the Minister. By the way, I congratulate her on her new responsibilities. I apologise that I will not be present until the end of the debate—I need to go to a constituency engagement—but I shall read her response with great eagerness tomorrow.

The first criticism that housing associations make is that the Government’s proposals are a lost opportunity to prepare tenants to engage with the welfare system and develop a direct relationship between their housing costs and their personal budgeting. Given the way it is proposed the system will work, that relationship will be broken.

Their second criticism, which others have made more fully so I will not labour the point, is that tenants in short-term supported accommodation will lose basic rights. People already find themselves in difficult positions only to find that they have fewer rights than others in different circumstances. Surely, we do not want that situation to get worse.

Thirdly, Riverside makes the point that providers will lose independence because of the way it is envisaged local authorities’ commissioning role will work. Control over things such as cleaning, the provision of heat, light and power to common areas, and paying the mortgage will, to a large extent, be taken out of providers’ hands. Riverside believes that, in the long term, that loss of independence may undermine the viability of providers and stifle innovation.

Fourthly, there is concern about the impact of the proposed changes on the growth of the sector. I will not labour that point because it has been made by others, but lenders in some such schemes have great concerns and say they will have problems with lending on some schemes in the future. If that is the case, it is a problem that clearly needs to be addressed.

In concluding, I will make four quick points. First, the default position for all supported housing, including short-term, should be that housing costs should remain in the main universal credit system, allowing the Government to meet their wider policy aim of moving everyone on to a modernised welfare system. Secondly, the Government should review the administration of universal credit, in particular the speed with which claims are administered, so that it works better for tenants living in supported housing. That point was made in different ways by others, but I am sure the Minister will agree it is important.

Thirdly, providers should be able to opt into a localised scheme based on a grant system for the small number of schemes where the typical length of stay is such that it will not be possible for tenants to establish universal credit claims to cover their housing costs. Finally, any staffing costs currently met through housing benefit that cannot be met through universal credit under the revised service charge eligibility rules should be met as part of the local authority-administered grant system. Such support from dedicated staff often makes the real difference in moving on to something more suitable and, after traumatic experiences, enables people to get their lives in order.

Those are the points I want to make. I know the Minister will listen carefully, and I apologise again to her and to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) for not being here for their winding-up speeches. I hope the Minister will take into account the important points made by so many during the debate.