Housing Association Tenants: Complaints Mechanisms

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western]

The hon. Gentleman is right. The trouble is that there is almost a vacuum at present. I am sure that what I am pressing for would carry a great deal of weight throughout the House were it better populated at this time of night.

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities’ own English Housing Survey reveals that 43% of tenants—just under half the total—choose not to make a complaint because of the hassle and time involved, and 63% are then unhappy with the response. I apologise to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for not having the statistics relating to Northern Ireland, but perhaps he can look into that and share them with me at some point.

Many of the cases that I want to highlight this evening stem from the deep dissatisfaction felt by many social tenants. They are all constituents of mine, but I have no doubt that the issues raised this evening will resonate with many beyond the borders of my constituency.

Last Friday I met a constituent from a development operated through Stonewater housing association who finds himself bearing the brunt of a completely inadequate complaints mechanism. Eight years after my constituent moved in, no work had been carried out to address several persistent structural issues in the property. Eventually, Stonewater carried out improvements which cost £330,000 and charged 24 properties in the building for the work, equating to just under £14,000 each. Stonewater has given each resident until the next financial year to pay the full amount, despite much of the work being substandard or unfinished. Disappointingly, Stonewater has not yet responded to complaints about its remedial work, and my constituent is left with a substandard set of repairs and an enormous, looming bill.

In another—particularly worrying—case, a 95-year-old constituent was living in a property managed by Orbit Housing Association. It was covered in damp. The walls were so wet that my constituent’s grandson claimed that the support bars she used to get on and off the toilet could have given way. Partly owing to significant damp arising from a leak upstairs, one evening the bathroom cabinet fell off the wall and narrowly missed hitting my constituent. Orbit had previously visited the property and added some new paint and sealant, but had not addressed the underlying problem of the damp.

When I visited the property myself, a month on, the issues remained. Seeing the nature of my constituent’s accommodation—including the bathroom in which this 95-year-old was having to survive—I was in a state of shock. Short of refitting the whole bathroom, the repairs were simply a sticking plaster, leaving my constituent in a home totally unfit for a frail 95-year-old woman.

I could go on, because the issues identified in those two developments are not strictly limited to social housing tenants. I have heard from residents in affordable housing, new-build developments and right-to-buy properties, all of whom are suffering similar problems with raising complaints.

Unfortunately, the issues I have just highlighted seem to represent yet more consequences of a failed housing market and permanent underinvestment. Over the past decade, money has been directed away from secure, affordable social homes to unaffordable homeownership products. Investment in social housing has dropped from £13.7 billion in 1979-80 to £5.1 billion last year, based on today’s prices, with 79% of spending up to 2020-21 reserved for the private sector. Is it any wonder, therefore, that housing developers are making record profits, with limited mechanisms to hold them to account?

I understand that the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill currently going through the House provides one potential avenue through which the social housing sector can be reformed. Many of the changes proposed in the Bill are broadly welcome, if not long overdue. I am pleased that the Government recognised the need for a professionalised social housing sector in their social housing White Paper in 2020. A professionalised housing sector, with managers undergoing continuous professional development, will likely improve services, allowing residents to be treated with the care and respect they deserve when lodging complaints. I also understand that in the Lords the Government tabled a new clause to the Bill on professional standards, and that they are considering further changes on Report.

If the Department is working on this, what specific steps is the Minister taking to improve the complaints mechanisms available to social housing tenants, either in further amendments to the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill or otherwise? Likewise, what progress, if any, has the Minister made on reversing the 63% dissatisfaction rate with the complaints process identified in her own Department’s English housing survey? Will the Minister meet me to discuss the difficulties that my constituents are facing and to allow them to feed in their suggestions for how the process can be improved?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate and am grateful to him for doing so, because I share his concerns. L&Q runs the development on the old dog track in my constituency of Chingford. The service charges are astronomical; they are higher than the costs faced by people who have managed to get the capital together for a mortgage. This is a good illustration of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The housing association took three years to acknowledge people’s complaints about the terrible problems, including windows that did not fit the building and issues with heating, so they feel that they are not being represented. Councillor Catherine Saumarez has been raising this issue with me and the authorities for some time. Where do people go when they cannot get redress and are spending money without getting the sort of place or standards that they expected?

[Matt Western]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his extremely valid and pertinent point, and I appreciate him highlighting to me that he wished to come in on it. The real challenge is that so many people feel completely disempowered by what were the friendly societies of yesteryear—they expect better from these housing associations. They believed that they would be easier to deal with than the private rental sector and that the service they received would be better protected, but the opposite seems to be the case.

I am driving at the fact that the Bill gives the Government an opportunity to legislate to ensure that developments and organisations such as L&Q put in place a structure such that tenants have recourse to come back on these issues. The scale of the problem, as I said in my opening remarks with the percentages I mentioned, is staggering, and people are living in absolute misery as a result.

It is not just housing association developments that suffer from a lack of clear dispute mechanisms. I want to give a particular example of a shared ownership development in Leamington. I will keep its name anonymous. Apartments were being offered, claiming to be built to the “highest standards”, but in reality, the tenants were faced with an absolute litany of issues. I was first contacted by residents who were concerned about the poor construction back in November 2020. I went there last November to see for myself some of the problems that they suffered, which are legion. Some of those residents have now had to move out and are being housed in alternative accommodation.

As those issues came to light, the residents complained. They wrote to Clarion, the housing association, which passed them on to the management company, now named HML, and the construction company, Engie. A great many of the tenants are really frustrated with those companies’ failure to provide a clear process for the owners to move through in order to progress a complaint. These are significant structural issues that they have been struggling with and have been let down by, with each company blaming the others, therefore making it so difficult for a layperson to understand who should be responsible and who is accountable for those problems. It has taken two years to get to this stage—really, tenants should not be required to engage their local MP in a two-year campaign in order to have their issues addressed. I hope that we are now beginning to make progress, but these people have been living in absolute misery. I cannot go into the details of some of the problems they have faced.

It is a cruel irony that the 4 million households in the social housing sector are comprised of those most in need of safe, good housing. Over half of all households in the social rented sector, 55%, had one or more household members with a long-term illness or disability—that is a striking statistic—and half of all social rented households, 50%, are within the lowest income quintile. Just today, Warwickshire County Council’s director of public health acknowledged the link between poor health and housing in the council’s annual report, recommending that its housing, planning and health leads work together to prevent ill health caused by poor housing and living conditions. If I may say so—it is a sad point to make—the 95-year-old whose property I went to visit died fairly soon afterwards.

The first step on the road to preventing ill health is to ensure that poor social housing conditions are eradicated by establishing open, accessible and simple avenues of complaint that have to be underwritten by legislation, and certainly by some form of regulator. There is no reason why the Government should not be in listening mode on this issue, and I hope the Minister is prepared to work constructively for the good of housing association tenants, ensuring that every person benefits from a secure, safe place to call home.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)]

It is a privilege to serve under you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is an incredibly important issue: social housing is certainly very important for me. I have a lot of housing associations in my constituency of Kensington, and of course I also have Grenfell Tower in my constituency, so I want to work very collaboratively with the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), whom I congratulate on securing the debate. I also thank the other Members who have stayed late for the Adjournment.

I want to work collaboratively, because there is no question that we want all tenants to be living in safe and decent homes, and to be treated with dignity and fairness. I am grateful for the chance to talk about what we are doing to support the many thousands of housing association tenants in this country. The fire at Grenfell highlighted major failures, and in the aftermath of that fire we empowered tenants, helping them to make their voices heard. However, the tragic death last year of Awaab Ishak as a consequence of the untreated mould in his home showed that we needed to go further and faster to make sure that residents in social rented housing are safe in their homes, and know where to go to complain when they do not get the answers that they need from their landlord.

I shall go through what we are doing. The Social Housing (Regulation) Bill is clearly important. We introduced this landmark legislation to drive up standards and reform the regulation of social housing through tougher consumer powers, greater enforcement tools to tackle failing landlords, and new responsibilities for social landlords. The Bill will give powers to the regulator so that it can issue unlimited fines to failing landlords, enter properties with only 48 hours’ notice, and make emergency repairs where there is a serious risk to tenants. The Bill includes improvements to the housing ombudsman service, helping residents to know and exercise their rights. It will ensure that the ombudsman has the legal power to issue a code of practice on complaint handling, and that it will consult on that code, then monitor the compliance of member landlords with the code. The Bill also strengthens the ombudsman’s power to issue orders to landlords to review their policy in relation to a complaint.

A good complaints system starts with the response of landlords. Any resident who is not satisfied with the services of their landlord should, in the first instance, raise a complaint with them. All landlords have a responsibility to deliver a quality service to their residents. They are obliged to have complaints processes that are easy to use, fair, and designed to put things right. If, after the landlord’s complaints process has been completed, the complaint has not been resolved or the tenant is not satisfied with the response, that resident can escalate their complaint to the housing ombudsman, which will investigate and make a determination. The housing ombudsman may issue orders or make recommendations, and publish to say that the landlord has not complied with its determination if it considers it appropriate to do so.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

That sounds good, but the truth is that it does not happen. Instead, landlords are relentless in putting up service charges without much explanation, while tenants are concerned because their windows do not fit, or, if there is a unitary boiler, it does not work properly, or they have mould in their rooms. It takes forever to get that done, but if they miss their service charge date, the landlord is on to them like a shot. This needs to be connected somehow so that landlords do not impose service charges if service does not happen.

[Felicity Buchan]

There is no question but that enforcement is very important when it comes to housing. The purpose of the Bill is to tie things together. What we want to see is practical change on the ground, and I am happy to talk to my right hon. Friend about his suggestions. We need to ensure that we not only talk a good game but get the right delivery.

Building Safety

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 10th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman makes a number of important points. Yes, the Department needs to be more expeditious and yes, we are focused on doing just that. Yes, it is important that the freeholders—the ultimate owners—deal with all the fire safety issues and yes, it is absolutely right that, while ACM cladding is the most egregious example of buildings being unsafe, there are many other issues that require to be tackled.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. It is long overdue. Many in my constituency and elsewhere face huge bills, as he knows. The biggest problem is getting the developers to talk to those who have suffered. I spent two years trying to get representatives of Telford Homes to meet the leaseholders, but they have now gone to ground and will not say a word. The Government have been talking about talking to developers for some time now but nothing has come of it, so, with all due respect, how is my right hon. Friend going to drive them—and the insurance companies that insured those that have gone out of business—to meet the leaseholders? Taxes can take time, so what about instantaneous fines?

[Michael Gove]

By any means necessary. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. My preference is, wherever possible, to proceed consensually and to think the best of people. There are undoubtedly many people in the property development sector who have done the right thing and others who hope to do so, but if we need to, we will deploy heavier artillery to ensure that we get the necessary support to those on the frontline.

Fire Safety Bill

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

The cladding scandal and the fire safety scandal have been a protracted nightmare for leaseholders, and the Government’s failure to address the fire safety scandal properly is now a scandal in itself. I urge all colleagues to support the Lords amendment, because millions of homeowners are relying on us all to do so.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I support holding the Lords amendment. I think it is the right thing to do at the moment, although not because it is perfect—it is far from perfect and not without its flaws. My problem is that I do not see the Government responding to the overwhelming concern about what is happening to leaseholders, many of whom, as has been said before, were first-time buyers.

We face, today, an issue of concern both personal and public. The public concern is that the devaluation of these homes is now so dramatic that it will cause an economic shock. I remember the old negative equity problem that erupted as a result of a collapse, and I do not want to see us back there again. I accept that, as has been said, the Government have already put £5.1 billion into the process, but it is worth at least another £10 billion in settlement, and that is going to fall on the shoulders of leaseholders.

Let me relate what is going on in my constituency. Like everybody else, I have a set of estates, including Queen Mary’s Gate and Blackberry Court, among other blocks in my constituency. Many of them are under 18 metres and have cladding—this is the point that has been raised—that was not compliant at the time of their building. The leaseholders did not know that—they bought their homes with a sense that they were buying something that was right and reasonable—and are now not eligible for the safety fund.

What has happened because of all this? We have tried to get hold of the developer, Telford Homes, but it has not engaged for more than a year now. Telford Homes does not answer anything or engage about what it might do; it has gone to ground. That is the problem that lies at the heart of all this right now: there is no way that the leaseholders can get redress because they cannot go to those who did this wrongly at the time and the Government have not brought forward any mechanism to allow leaseholders to get after these individuals, who will sit there and wait for the leaseholders to waste their money.

The Lords amendment is not perfect, but I am trying to articulate a cry for help from my constituents and others around the country. I agree with and support the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox). Let us find a way to make sure that those who were responsible stand up and pay the bill. They have made a lot of money in the past, legitimately, on building homes; those who did not put up the right cladding should automatically be in the frame. Meanwhile, the costs spiral and my constituents will pay them.

Today, for the first time, I shall vote to maintain and hold the Lords amendment. I say to the Government that if they do not want it, they had better get to the Lords and get us something decent that allows us to give support to our leaseholder constituents, because that would be doing the right thing.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]]

I speak in favour of the Bishop of St Albans’ amendment. As the UK Cladding Action Group has previously reported, there have already been leaseholder suicides and, worryingly, 23% of those surveyed by the group have considered suicide or self-harm.

The Government must realise that the building safety fund only covers unsafe cladding, yet 70% of the buildings surveyed have non-cladding fire safety defects. They must understand that providing cladding remediation funding for buildings over 18 metres, yet forcing leaseholders in buildings under 18 metres to pay, is entirely unfair. They must recognise that there is no support available at all for interim measure costs, including increased insurance premiums and waking watches, which often run into figures of more than £15,000 per week.

To add further devastation, as we have heard today, Inside Housing has reported that even the minority of leaseholders who could apply for loans face a wait of potentially years. In the meantime, many residents still live in unsafe buildings and are understood to have already received requests for up-front payment, with freeholders sometimes instructing solicitors to carry out debt recovery. This could result in a tide of bankruptcies and evictions. The situation is so bad that I understand that analysts at the Bank of England are now assessing whether Britain’s building safety scandal could cause a new financial crisis.

It is clear that the Government’s approach is untenable and it must change today. Even the National Housing Federation states that the only way to prevent leaseholders and social landlords from having to pay to remediate buildings they did not construct is for the Government to provide up-front funding to remediate all buildings. I hope all MPs today can recognise the moral duty they personally have to protect our constituents and will vote in favour of the Lords amendment.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 1 Report

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I cannot give the hon. Lady an exact timetable, but it is worth saying that we have already—I will come on to this in my remarks—made available £600 million for building owners in both the social sector and the private sector. On expert advice, I have targeted that public grant funding towards ACM-clad buildings of over 18 metres. I will say again that all of the expert opinion I have seen has confirmed the decision that those are the most unsafe buildings and that they should be the priority for public funding. A number of building owners are already helping to remove cladding in their own buildings, and coming up with funding arrangements to help leaseholders to meet those costs, such as low-cost or zero-interest loan schemes. If the Government can assist in that, I think we should do so, because we want to see this cladding removed as soon as possible.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

May I slightly extend that point, as these issues reach across the Floor? Since the terrible Grenfell disaster, people in a privately owned block of flats in my constituency have faced massively increased insurance costs. They have been unable to get anyone to give them a confirmed view about the cladding, or to receive information from the fire brigade about the real nature of the threat and danger. Everybody has run for cover, and as result those people have already spent a vast amount of money—they are not wealthy people. They have now been told that the cladding does not pose a threat, but they have a backwash of costs and are still affected by this issue. Will the Secretary of State consider whether insurance companies, and others, should have been charging leaseholders those extra costs until it had been confirmed that there was a real threat?

Housing

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

No.

In addition to our affordable homes guarantee scheme, which gives £3 billion of guaranteed support, making it cheaper and easier for housing associations to raise funds and get building, we are increasing supply as the means to make the most of the space we already have, including land that has already been built on. With that in mind, the planning proposals and consultations announced in the autumn statement aim to give people more flexibility to build upwards on existing buildings and in converting commercial properties. This is a positive step that ensures we conserve precious land, accelerate supply and help to revive our high streets.

We are also looking at how we can close the gap between planning permissions and homes built, and we will be taking action on the back of the review by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) to do just that.

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I want to take my hon. Friend to one particular issue. One of the big problems we have had is that the building regulations are set against a new type of homes—prefab homes made of wood or steel—which can be built throughout the year, which would accelerate the whole building programme and which are ecologically far better than brick-built houses. Yet people always tell me that they have to make all sorts of adjustments just to meet the building regulations. Will my hon. Friend undertake to look at that, because these homes would accelerate the whole process of house building and make it much more affordable too?

[Kit Malthouse]

My right hon. Friend, with his usual wisdom, has prefaced the part of my speech I am moving on to. He is quite right: we believe that modern methods of construction hold enormous potential not only to produce more homes but to produce them faster and better. I recently visited a factory in Walsall, in the west midlands, where Accord is building 1,000 homes a year using modern methods of construction. So good are the environmental standards that those homes for social rent have lower arrears, because people can afford to heat them.

That is something we are backing through our £4.5 billion home building fund, £2.5 billion of which is to champion small and medium-sized enterprises, custom builders and more diverse builders to get modern methods of construction and other cutting-edge tech into the mainstream. The fund has already allocated all of the original £1 billion of short-term funding. Over 94% of the funding contracted to date has gone to SME builders. We expect the fund to deliver more than 30,000 homes—around 5,000 more than the original target.

Budget Resolutions

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

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

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am afraid that I only have 10 minutes. The hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) did not give way, so I am not going to be able to either.

This is a Budget that will help working families and that will grow our economy, and I am pleased to say that it has been welcomed from all quarters—from the cider drinkers of Somerset, to the whisky drinkers of Scotland and Britain’s motorists, who will see better roads and a continued freeze on fuel duty, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mrs Badenoch).

Families have had their taxes cut and their wages hiked, and the FSB says that we are firmly on the side of Britain’s small businesses. The Resolution Foundation has welcomed our changes to universal credit, and even the shadow Chancellor has welcomed our tax cuts, saying that our measure

“will put more money in people’s pockets”

and inject more demand into the economy. It is just a shame that his party does not agree. I can almost hear Momentum sharpening their pitchforks. But I want him to know that all is not lost because, shadow Chancellor, you have friends on this side of the House. You might have to sit on the Home Secretary’s knee, but there is space for you on our Front Bench.

It is not an accident that we have seen an additional £100 billion coming into the public purse in this Budget. Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) suggests, this is not a fluke or luck. It is because of the decisions that this Government have taken since 2010: reforming the welfare system, cutting taxes for people, and cutting corporation tax to bring more investment into our economy and get more business start-ups going. What happened on the Opposition Benches? Well, Labour Members opposed all those measures, tooth and nail. They opposed our welfare reforms that got more people into work; they opposed our corporation tax cuts that brought more tax into the public coffers; and they opposed our measures to improve skills and education that have meant that our children are doing better.

Instead of Labour Members realising the error of their ways, they have come up with even more extreme policies. They want to create a socialist superstate controlled by the politicians at the top of the Labour party. Their eye-watering spending pledges would mean £1,000 billion more in tax and borrowing, job-killing tax hikes on hard-working families, and the relentless talking down of everything that is good about our country. If we listened to Labour, there would be fewer jobs, lower wages and less money to spend on public services, so we refuse to listen to this catalogue of envy and despair.

Instead, we have delivered a positive, aspirational Budget, giving people more control over their own money. We have put £630 a year for families into universal credit. We are cutting taxes for those on the basic rate by £130 this year, making people £1,200 better off. And we are raising the higher rate threshold so that people do not start paying higher rate tax until they earn £50,000. This is not about giving tax cuts to millionaires; these are people on medium incomes who were dragged into the top rate of tax under the Labour Government.

At the same time, our strong economy means that we can fund the services on which everyone relies, which is why this Budget has included extra money for defence, schools, the health system and local authorities, and we are going to spend this money in a way that delivers results. The hon. Member for Bootle talked about children’s services. Not only are we giving councils an extra £650 million to pay for adult and children’s social care; we are also rolling out programmes such as “No Wrong Door” in North Yorkshire. That programme has meant fewer children in care, fewer ending up in trouble with the police and fewer ending up in accident and emergency. It is a great example of how, by spending money in the right way, we can cut long-terms costs for the taxpayer and, more importantly, ensure that our children get the best possible start in life.

I also want to applaud the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for what she said in this debate. I applaud her for her bravery in standing up against those gangs targeting young women in her area. I am very happy to discuss in the spending review the issue that she raised.

As well as addressing the immediate issues we face, this Budget backs entrepreneurs to take risks, make investments and grow their operations. We have slashed business rates by a third, which has been welcomed by my hon. Friends the Members for St Ives (Derek Thomas), for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) and for Solihull (Julian Knight). We have cut corporation tax to the lowest level in the G20. We have increased capital allowances from £200,000 to £1 million. What all that means is that companies want to grow, want to invest in Britain and want to take more people on. It means more jobs for people across this country. It means higher wages. We are now seeing real wages rise for the three quarters of people who are employed in the private sector. It also means that we are able to afford money for our public services. We are launching 10 new development corporations across the country, so we will not just have Canary Wharf—we will have Canary Wharf in the north and all other parts of the country. We are creating a special economic zone in Teesside, with new freedoms to grow.

But this is not just about cold, hard cash; it is about realising people’s aspirations, dreams and hopes for the future. It is about being able to afford a holiday or a car, and it is about more opportunities for young people emerging from our schools and our colleges.

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

This is a good Budget and I will, without any question, support it enthusiastically tonight. However, there is the issue of the starting date for the reduction to £2 for fixed odds betting terminals. This is clearly not something we can deal with this evening, but I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would give an undertaking that we will certainly return to it in time for the Finance Bill.

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his point. We have brought the date forward for FOBTs by six months. I do not believe that it is an issue for the Finance Bill, but I am certainly happy to discuss with him what more we can do.

Whereas we are making sure that young people emerging from our schools and colleges have opportunities, and that people are able to fulfil their dreams and aspirations, Labour Members would kill those dreams.

Windrush

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her kind remarks at the start. She asks whether Members are aware of just how angry so many people from the Windrush generation are. Of course we are aware. My predecessor was aware and the Prime Minister was aware, which is why they rightly issued apologies for the treatment of some members of that generation. I am angry, too. I shared with the right hon. Lady just a moment ago just how angry I am and the reasons why I am angry. Like her, I am a second-generation migrant, and I know that she shares that anger, but she should respect the fact that other people share it, too. She does not have a monopoly on that.

The right hon. Lady asks whether I am aware that the same issues could—I stress “could”—have an impact on other Commonwealth citizens, perhaps people such as my parents and others from south Asia who settled in this country. I am aware that that could be the case and I intend to look at that carefully. Right here and now, though, all the cases that have come up relate to the Windrush generation of people from the Caribbean who settled in Britain. That is why they are rightly the focus.

The right hon. Lady claims that protections were removed in 2014, but no such protections have been removed. People who arrived pre-1973 have the absolute right to be here, and that has not changed.

The right hon. Lady asks whether I am aware of anyone who may have been wrongly deported. I am not currently aware of any such cases, but I stress that intensive work is being done right now in the Department, going back many years and looking at many individuals, so I will keep the House updated on that.

The right hon. Lady closed her remarks by rightly reminding everyone that her parents were members of the Windrush generation. My parents were also part of the generation of migrants who came to this country in the 1960s. I hope that she can work with the Government to help those people.

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Notwithstanding my sadness at my right hon. Friend’s predecessor’s departure, may I unreservedly welcome him to his new position as Home Secretary? He is absolutely right to have divided the subject clearly. Those who were wrongly taken up in the drive to get those who are here illegally out of the country should have their rights restored; they should be dealt with appropriately and helped accordingly. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is also right, for very good reasons, to pursue those who are here illegally? [Interruption.] Actually, many of them are abused by the people who traffic them over here. What happened to the cockle pickers in Morecambe bay and many others was the result of illegal migration that had not been cleared up. Will he therefore show his determination both to sort out the Windrush generation and help them and to continue to ensure that illegal migrants are taken away?

[Sajid Javid]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s warm remarks. I very much agree with him that our first priority is to help those members of the Windrush generation who have been affected. I also remind people that there is a separate issue of illegal immigration, and everyone in the country expects us to deal with that.