Public Sector Pay

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is right. I am delighted to hear the news about the police force in Essex. Those police officers will receive a 2% rise and, in addition, they will get increments as they move up the pay scale, so many will see a rise in excess of that.

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

Cuts to school budgets have meant that some schools have had to make cuts to payments for support staff such as lunchtime assistants, for example, including by removing their holiday pay. How will today’s announcement benefit those lowest paid workers who have already suffered?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Last year we announced that we were putting £1.3 billion more into schools’ budgets to help them to cope with the issues they were facing. That represents a real-terms increase from 2015. Today we have announced an additional £500 million to support these pay rises for teachers. I say to the hon. Lady: let us look at the school results, such as the fact that our nine-year-olds are now among the best in Europe at reading. It is because of this Government’s reforms that we are seeing better results.

Summer Adjournment

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

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

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). I too congratulate colleagues who made such inspiring maiden speeches this afternoon.

I return to an issue that was raised a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth)—I also raised it at last week’s business questions—on the poor quality building and dire customer service experienced by buyers of new homes, such as those buying from Persimmon in my constituency. Since I raised the issue in the Chamber last week, I have been inundated with emails, tweets and Facebook posts from across the country reporting similar experiences not just with Persimmon but, as my hon. Friend said, with other major household names—Taylor Wimpey and Bellway among them.

Buying a home is probably the most important purchase that most of us will ever make. Young people save up to buy a home, in which they invest their hopes for the future. They look forward to putting down roots in the community, but I have too often heard stories of shoddy workmanship, failure to repair defects and homebuyers facing serious risks in the place where they should be safest. I have heard of unsafe staircases, dangerous electrics, gaps and cracks in walls and floors, leaking plumbing and gardens that are not safe for children to play in.

I have also repeatedly heard that house builders refuse to respond to owners’ complaints, but all the owners want is for someone to come round to make good the defects. Instead, they are fobbed off. Appointments are made and not honoured. Repairs are done that are as shoddy as the original work. Promises of improvements do not materialise. When MPs try to intervene, as I said in the Chamber just last week, the companies too often simply refuse to deal with us.

The Government are aware of the problem and, indeed, have recently consulted on improving customer redress in the housing market. We have also had two excellent reports in the past two years from the all-party parliamentary group on excellence in the built environment, which has proposed a number of measures, including a mandatory new homes ombudsman funded by a compulsory levy on house builders, a review of warranty schemes, timescales for settling disputes, and better recompense and inspection arrangements.

My first ask is that the concerns of the House on these matters are relayed to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, whom I urge to respond to the consultation and take action as quickly as possible.

Secondly, we also know there are problems with smaller builders that carry out renovations and refurbishments. My constituent Mr Clint Wiltshire has highlighted some of the problems people experience. There are advertisements for small traders on trusted websites that make no checks on the qualifications, experience or track record of those selling their services. Local authority trading standards departments are now massively overstretched as a result of local government funding cuts and are unable to intervene where poor quality workmanship is experienced. Insurance companies frequently try to wriggle out of liability. Indeed, I understand there is no requirement for builders to have professional indemnity insurance cover.

Again, I ask that my concerns are relayed to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and I ask the Ministry to look at how better protection could be afforded to consumers through a code of practice, increased capacity for trading standards departments and a recognition of the importance of our homes to all of us and of our need to feel confident that we are safe, secure and comfortable in our homes.

Finally, another issue of great concern to my constituents is the increasing pressure on our emergency services. I have heard increasing reports that our police are unable to respond in person to reports, often of serious incidents, including most recently in my constituency a case of homophobic hate crime and another of serious sexual offences. We are seeing similar pressures on the North West Ambulance Service, which has been unable to respond for some hours when elderly people have suffered falls or illness and needed the services of paramedics. It really is time we looked at the funding for these vital emergency services to make sure they can properly meet the demands of our communities, and I hope the Minister will convey my concerns to the relevant Departments.

Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I take the opportunity, as others have done, to wish all in this House the very best of summer recesses? I hope that everybody enjoys a restful break and returns refreshed in September.

Homelessness among Refugees

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Sir Henry Bellingham (in the Chair)]

Before we start the debate, it might be of interest to colleagues that there will be a Division at half-past 3. If anyone would like to remove their jackets, they are welcome to do so.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered homelessness among refugees.

It is an enormous pleasure to lead the debate under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on the financial support I received for research capacity in my office in relation to my work on asylum seekers, refugees and migrants. I apologise that that notification was not given in advance of the debate—I very much regret that omission.

Many of the debates that we have in this place regarding refugees and asylum seekers concentrate on the process of applying for refugee status. Prolonged delays, poor decision making, the irrational and cruel use of immigration detention, and the meanness of financial support provided through the National Asylum Support Service all rightly attract fierce criticism. However, what receives less attention—and this is the issue I wish to raise in today’s debate—relates to what happens when someone has the good news that they have been granted refugee status.

It is deeply concerning that even once asylum is granted, many refugees continue to experience homelessness and hardship. The homelessness charity Crisis reported that in 2016-17, 478 people—7% of those who approached it for help—had nowhere to live after leaving asylum accommodation. That was more than double the number in 2014-15. In a sample of night shelters over the winter of 2017-18, the No Accommodation Network report, “Mind the Gap”, which was published in May, found that 48 out of 169 people requiring emergency accommodation were refugees. In one shelter, 50% of the refugee guests had left asylum accommodation within the previous six months.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

The hon. Lady raises a list of things that surprise people regarding how refugees are treated. Does she share, as I do, the concerns expressed by the recent Jesuit Refugee Service report on the discredited nature of information about refugees’ home countries? Given the breadth of our Foreign Office’s reach, how does she think that has come about?

[Kate Green]

It is obviously not the same for every single country or every individual asylum case. It is important that we recognise that our obligation to give refuge is shaped by international treaties and conventions that we are long signed up to, and which look on a case-by-case basis at the danger that an individual faces in their country of origin. We need to be clear that we have a robust decision-making process that properly assesses that danger, and be confident in presenting to the country that our process works well. Sadly, at the moment, delays and poor decisions mean that often it does not.

For those who gain refugee status, there is an issue of becoming homeless once they are recognised as refugees. The Refugee Council interviewed 54 refugees for a study in 2017, and found that none had secured accommodation by the time they left asylum accommodation, and that more than half had slept rough, or in a hostel or homeless shelter, after being granted status. The decision to grant status—a moment that should represent relief from fear and the chance finally to rebuild a shattered life—can instead become the start of a new nightmare.

The problem lies fundamentally in the incredibly short move-on period, which allows refugees a mere 28 days to leave Home Office accommodation after they have been granted refugee status, and to move from NASS to mainstream benefits. In that time, they must obtain their national insurance number, open a bank account, receive their biometric residence permit, navigate a complex benefits system, and find somewhere to live and, if they are able to work, a job, while settling into their new life. For many—mentally traumatised, struggling with poor English and disconnected from mainstream services—it is simply too much to cope with.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady is making entirely the right points. In 2015-16, Northern Ireland had more than 100 refugees who we believed were in destitution. Is she aware that Belfast City Council commissioned the Law Centre of Northern Ireland to produce a refugee transitional guide? The Select Committee on Work and Pensions recognised that guide as describing best practice, and asked the Department to distribute it right across the United Kingdom so that when people find themselves navigating that system and process they get the best advice and help possible.

[Kate Green]

I am aware of the work of the Northern Ireland Law Centre, which was one of a number of organisations that helpfully briefed me for the debate. As the hon. Gentleman says, that guide is an extremely useful resource.

Although voluntary groups are providing such resources, the system is fundamentally making things harder for refugees. Their first universal credit payment will not be made for more than a month. Although advance payments are available, they cannot be paid until someone has a national insurance number and a bank account, and their availability appears not to be well signposted by either the Home Office or Jobcentre Plus. Meanwhile, local housing allocation rules may not give priority to new refugees, particularly those who move into a new area to be with other members of their community. Those factors are placing refugees at grave risk of homelessness and destitution.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing today’s debate. It must have struck all of us in the Chamber that any of the challenges she has outlined that refugees face in beginning to engage with life in the UK—whether it be opening a bank account, getting a national insurance number or accessing appropriate healthcare—would be difficult for a British citizen to do within a 28-day period, let alone somebody who may not have English as a first language and who may well have a number of complex needs and family needs related to the reason they were granted refugee status in the first place. Does she agree that the key, take-home message from the debate is that the 28-day period needs to be reviewed, and the Government need to do more to facilitate extra support for a very vulnerable group?

[Kate Green]

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. Those points will be the thrust of the remainder of my speech.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I am glad that she mentioned the 28-day move-on period, which the all-party parliamentary group on ending homelessness also recommended scrapping. Does she share my hope that the Minister will accept that recommendation for inclusion in the strategy, which is due by the end of the month?

[Kate Green]

I do, and I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s response.

I am grateful to charities and individuals who have shared stories to illustrate what it means for those who become refugees without either the resources or the home they need to rebuild their lives. The Boaz Trust, with which I have had the privilege of working in Manchester, told me about what happened to Mohsen, a 28-year-old man from Iran who arrived in the UK in 2015 and was found asylum accommodation in Manchester. He says:

“I left NASS in January 2018. They let me stay on for two more weeks because they knew I didn’t have anywhere to go. Then I stayed outside for 2 nights. It was very cold. After that I stayed in a shelter. After 3 weeks the NASS support stopped. Then after maybe three weeks my money came in from the Job Centre…When I left my NASS accommodation, I went to the council and registered with housing. I knew to do this because I have been here a long time. They said I am not priority, and I cannot have any hostel place. I applied for housing and I waited two months…At first the Council say there will be something in 4 weeks, then 8 weeks. In that time, I stayed at Boaz night shelter. Now I am in hostel and I am waiting for a house. I am bidding every week. It was hard staying in the night shelter, staying in different areas every night. During the day I have nowhere to go”.

Sadly, that is far from an untypical story.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is describing a situation that we certainly experience in Sheffield. Voluntary organisations and charities that work with refugees have identified another growing problem that is contributing to homelessness, which is an increasing number of people getting discretionary leave to remain. They are falling through the middle—they lose out on the support they were getting as refugees but do not have recourse to public funds. Does my hon. Friend recognise that that is another serious problem that the Government need to address?

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. It cannot be right that we allow anyone to be destitute in this country, whatever circumstances they find themselves in.

Mohsen’s story is far from untypical and the situation is even more dire for families with children, sometimes creating serious safeguarding issues. Asylum Matters told me about Bao, who was originally trafficked from Vietnam and received refugee status in November 2017 after going through the national referral mechanism. Less than one month later, his daughter was born. The family survived on £35 per week in asylum support, but that stopped and he did not know how to apply for benefits. When he tried to find a home, the council told him he would need to find private rented accommodation. The private landlords all wanted a deposit or guarantor, which he could not provide because he had no savings. An integration loan could have helped him, but he was refused a loan by the Home Office, which claimed he was already integrated because he had been here for such a long time. That meant he could not secure a private tenancy because he had no money to pay for the deposit. He and his baby daughter were destitute for nearly four months, forced to survive on the charity of friends for food and milk and somewhere to sleep—on their floor.

Such cases are cause for enormous concern. I am glad that the Government have accepted that there is a problem and have attempted a number of measures to deal with that, but although it is a pleasure to see the Minister in his place this afternoon, I am a little disappointed that the debate is not being answered by a Home Office Minister as I requested. Fundamentally, we need cross-governmental action to address a mismatch of policies across different Government Departments and the failure of any one Department to own the problem. I believe the Home Office should be taking the lead in joining up policy and procedures. I hope the Minister will share the breadth of my concerns with all of his ministerial colleagues.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making some excellent points. Does she accept—I am sure she does—that a contributory factor to refugees being in severe hardship once they have been awarded status is that they are not permitted to work during the time that they are here? Would it not be better, not just for them and their families, but for the country, if they were able to potentially build up savings and contribute and pay taxes during the time they are waiting for their asylum case to be heard, so that they are ready to be fully fledged members of our society at the point at which they are given status?

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I strongly support the right of asylum seekers to work when the Home Office has singularly failed to meet its own obligations to process cases and make a decision within the given timescale. As the hon. Gentleman says, allowing them to do so would enable them to maintain their skills, build up some savings and remain connected with the wider community. Although that may not be a matter for today’s Minister to address, it is certainly one that I strongly support.

Let us consider what action has been taken to date by the Government, because some initiatives have been welcome. The Home Office is rolling out the post-grant appointment service to smooth the referral to Jobcentre Plus for making an initial benefits claim. That follows a pilot in two regions last year, but there were some reports of problems. During a two-week period in February, the refugee support team at the British Red Cross asked 20 individuals in South Yorkshire about their experience of the warm handover pilot. Only one individual stated explicitly that they had received a phone call from Migrant Help, which provided the service. Eight individuals said they had not received any contact, while 11 were unsure whether they had. It may be that those are isolated cases, or that problems have since been resolved, but in a parliamentary answer to Baroness Lister on 29 June, Baroness Buscombe refused to publish the results of the Government’s evaluation of the pilot.

Although the commitment to provide advice and support to new refugees in the move-on period is a welcome addition to the new advice, issue resolution and eligibility contract, charities have seen communication from the Home Office that suggests that the support will be limited to operating the post-grant appointment service only. Advice and guidance in the move-on period must be more comprehensive if it is to address the issue of refugee destitution. In particular, closer working between the Government and third-sector providers is needed. I urge the Minister to encourage ministerial colleagues to publish the evaluation report on the post-grant appointment service pilot and to ensure that the lessons about the wider advice needs of refugees are acted on.

Of course, I am pleased that 35 asylum support liaison officers are now being appointed in a number of local authorities, funded by the controlling migration fund, but it is not clear how their work will be monitored and evaluated. I hope the Minister will say more about that this afternoon. The Government’s integrated communities fund is also intended to provide support for refugees, but again there is little detail as yet on how it will do that. Perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten us.

It is welcome that national insurance numbers will now be included on the biometric residence permits that refugees receive. Usually, though not invariably, they arrive within a matter of days. That is helpful, because a national insurance number is required for payment of universal credit, although it is not necessary for making an application. The payment is essential for new refugees to pay for, among other things, their accommodation.

Significant problems continue with the issue of national insurance numbers. Some 65% of the new refugees seen by the British Red Cross in South Yorkshire over a two-week period in February during the move-on period had not had an application made to the Home Office for a national insurance number. Those who do not have one must complete the application process over the phone, which often takes 40 minutes. Apparently, 10 questions are asked at the start of the process before the individual is offered the services of an interpreter. Following that phone conversation, the new refugee has to attend a face-to-face appointment before the national insurance number is issued.

Those who lack a national insurance number include people who have joined a partner in the UK under the Dublin rules on refugee family reunion. The result is that sometimes quite large families are struggling to survive on the income from one single parent’s jobseeker’s allowance claim for six weeks or more, while their partner awaits their national insurance number. I have raised this issue previously with Home Office Ministers, but the problem remains unresolved.

Ultimately, this all places unnecessary barriers in the way of enabling new refugees to settle, receive benefits or wages and access suitable accommodation. Can the Minister say anything about what conversations are taking place across the relevant Government Departments to streamline and support refugees and to ensure that national insurance numbers are always issued swiftly and smoothly?

The Minister will be glad to know that I am now firmly in his ministerial territory. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 should be helpful, but its operation needs to be clarified and extended for refugees who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Under the Act, from this October public authorities will be required to refer those at risk of homelessness to the local authority. That provision should be extended to cover providers of asylum accommodation.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am glad my hon. Friend has mentioned the Homelessness Reduction Act. I led for the Opposition on that. There was a healthy degree of consensus then, as there seems to be in this debate. Is she, like me, looking for an assurance from the Minister that that consistency will now apply to extending the 28-day period to 56 days?

[Kate Green]

In a moment, I will ask the Minister exactly that.

Newly homeless people can get easement from job search requirements, being asked to focus instead on basic actions such as finding accommodation. That is at the discretion of their Jobcentre Plus work coach. It is not clear whether new refugees will be able to access a similar concession. In addition, refugees are treated as tier-two priority for alternative payment arrangements under universal credit. Alternative payment arrangements would mean, for example, that rent could be paid directly to their landlord, potentially making it easier for them to secure a tenancy. Will the Minister confirm whether any discussion is taking place between his Department and the Department for Work and Pensions on reprioritising refugees as tier one for alternative payment arrangements and on granting them easement from work search obligations so that they can concentrate on looking for accommodation?

Although the changes made to date are welcome, more is clearly needed to make them fully effective. The most important policy change to make, however, as has been alluded to around the Chamber this afternoon and which would ensure that newly recognised refugees do not end up destitute and at risk of homelessness, is to maintain Home Office support until mainstream benefits are ready to start, by extending the 28-day move-on period.

I am aware that on 3 July Baroness Williams claimed in a written answer to Baroness Lister that NACCOM’s “Mind the Gap” report

“does not show that these problems will be resolved by extending the 28 days period”,

but Ministers must be aware that there is widespread agreement among campaigners and, it would appear, in this House that it would do so.

At the very least, the move-on period should not start until someone receives all documentation, including a national insurance number, but I invite the Minister to be bolder. The Homelessness Reduction Act extends to 56 days the period during which someone can be deemed threatened with homelessness, and the universal credit waiting period is five weeks. The move-on period should be extended in line with those timescales—to have it otherwise is perverse and illogical.

In conclusion, the Government have more to do to ensure coherent, whole-system support across national and local government for those newly granted refugee status. We can be proud to give refuge to those who flee persecution and seek safety here and proud that refugees are welcome in our country, but too many begin their lives here in penury, and the system is to blame for that. Today, I hope that the Minister will take the chance to tell us the steps the Government will take to improve things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

I thank all hon. Members who participated in this excellent debate. It was really good to have interest from parties on both sides of the House, sharing the concern about how we welcome and look after refugees.

[Nigel Adams]

I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, but I did not manage to mention this point. I know that she is keen for the Home Office to engage with this matter and I will ensure that the relevant Minister from the Home Office meets her and interested colleagues to take these issues forward.

[Kate Green]

I am very grateful to the Minister. I am sure that the all-party parliamentary groups that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) and I chair will be very happy to facilitate that meeting.

As we heard in the debate, what refugees, in common with all of us, need to be able to settle and build their lives is a chance to be in contact with their families, a chance to have a decent job if they are able to work and, importantly, a chance to have a secure home. As the Minister, I think, has acknowledged, that requires a response right across Government, and I am very grateful to him for his offer to pass on details of this debate to his colleagues in other Departments.

We have obligations—international obligations and human rights obligations—to ensure that we care for refugees here properly, and that will require an approach that extends right across national and local government, as I have said. I hope that the promises that the Minister has made of new policies and strategies delivering an improved service for refugees will come to fruition and will mean that some of the problems identified in today’s debate become a thing of the past. I can assure him and his ministerial colleagues that if that is not the case, we will be back here again to press the case for action in the best interests of refugees.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered homelessness among refugees.

Windrush: 70th Anniversary

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I agree entirely with his comments.

Windrush passengers from the Caribbean travelled as British citizens as a result of the British Nationality Act 1948, which created a new category of “citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies” for anyone born or naturalised in either the UK or any of the countries subject to colonial rule. Writing on the 40th anniversary of the Windrush voyage, Sam King described the mixed feelings of the passengers as the ship left Jamaica:

“In the cool afternoon breeze as the sun tilted towards the west, the ship gave out three or four mighty blasts and eased out of Kingston Harbour heading for the Mother Land. About half the immigrants would not look back. In their hearts they were leaving the ‘Rock’ to start a new life in England where, once settled, they would send for their children, brother, sister, mother and father. The other half gazed at the azure sky, the sparkling sea, the majestic Blue Mountain, the beautiful horizon as they disappeared from view, and pledged to go back to the ‘Yard’ within the next five to ten years.”

The arrival of the Windrush at Tilbury docks was captured by Pathé on a news reel, interviewing some of the passengers about their plans, including calypso singer Aldwin Robert, also known as Lord Kitchener, performing his specially written song “London is the Place for Me” on deck, capturing the optimism of that moment.

About 200 Windrush passengers found temporary accommodation at the Clapham South deep air raid shelter, from where they found their way to the nearest labour exchange, on Coldharbour Lane in Brixton in my constituency, to look for work and permanent accommodation. Many found accommodation from Jamaican landlord Gus Leslie, who had bought property in and around Somerleyton Road in Brixton, and they settled in the area.

The Windrush passengers found London still devastated by the war—undeveloped bomb sites were everywhere, many properties were still damaged and rationing was still in place—but the new arrivals found work. Many passengers were responding specifically to the call for nurses to work in the NHS, which was formally established in July the same year. In my constituency, they went to King’s College Hospital, further down Coldharbour Lane from the labour exchange. As we also celebrate the 70th anniversary of our NHS this summer, we must pay tribute to the enormous contribution the Windrush generation made in both building and sustaining our NHS.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the speech she is making. She notes the contribution made by the Windrush generation in her constituency and in London, but I am sure she will also want to recognise their contribution right across the country, including by the families who moved to my city of Manchester.

[Helen Hayes]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Many nurses trained in London and were then placed in hospitals all around the country. They were part of that outward move from London to all over the country, where they indeed made, and continue to make, such an important contribution.

Windrush passengers also found work on London transport and in the construction industry. Some rejoined the armed forces and many were entrepreneurial, setting up stalls and shops in Brixton market and elsewhere.

The lives of Windrush passengers and others from the Caribbean who followed them to Brixton were captured by commercial photographer Harry Jacobs, who set up shop on Landor Road close to Brixton town centre, providing photographic services so that people could send images to their loved ones back home. Many of Harry’s photos are currently on display in Lambeth Town Hall as part of the Windrush 70th anniversary celebrations. They capture, in a very poignant way, the hopes, dreams and achievements of people in the process of making a new life in their new home of London: a woman in her nurse’s uniform; families dressed in their Sunday best, showing off their prize possessions; the first image of a new baby or a new spouse.

In marking this important 70th anniversary, it would be easy to present a sentimental view of the Windrush generation, focusing only on their significant contributions to Britain, but that would not do their experience justice. The thing which makes the Windrush story so remarkable and so humbling is not just that those passengers came to the UK to work in the aftermath of the war, but that they did so despite facing many challenges: the experience of being far from home in an unfamiliar country with a colder climate and, worse than that, widespread racism, the most clear and ugly illustration of which was found on the signs on the doors of boarding houses reading, “no blacks, no dogs, no Irish”, and which in many situations ran much deeper, often resulting in daily discrimination and humiliation. It is devastating to read the words of John Carpenter, who travelled on the Windrush aged 22, speaking in 1998:

“I know a lot about Britain from school days, but it was a different picture from that one”.

He went on:

“They tell you it is the ‘mother country’, you’re all welcome, you all British. When you come here you realise you’re a foreigner and that’s all there is to it.”

Despite these hardships and injustices, the Windrush passengers and those who followed them settled in the UK and put down roots, often clubbing together to buy property in order to circumvent the racist landlords, establishing businesses and setting up churches. Sam King became a postal worker. He was elected to Southwark Council and became the first black mayor of the borough, an achievement that was also very brave since he faced threats from the National Front which was active in Southwark at the time. Sam was also instrumental in establishing the Notting Hill Carnival and the West Indian Gazette, and he later established the Windrush Foundation with Arthur Torrington, who still runs it today.

In my constituency, the Windrush generation helped to forge the Brixton we know today, bringing food, reggae, jazz, calypso and Soca music, stories and songs, and working in many different public services and businesses. In doing so, they made a huge contribution to a community where everyone is welcome, where difference is not feared but celebrated. Talented young people from Brixton recently designed a beautiful logo commissioned by Lambeth Council to mark the 70th anniversary of the arrival of the Windrush. It is based on the pattern of human DNA. The Windrush generation and subsequent migrants who have come to this country from all over the Commonwealth sparked the emergence of modern multicultural Britain. They are all part of the UK’s 21st-century DNA.

I am glad today to see Members in the Chamber who I know will speak of their families’ own direct experience of being part of the Windrush generation, including the shadow Home Secretary—my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)—my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler). It is not my role to do that, but, on behalf of my constituents in Dulwich and West Norwood, to pay tribute and to say thank you to those 1948 pioneers, and those who followed them, for helping to create the diverse and wonderful communities that I am so proud to represent—for helping to make Lambeth and Southwark, and communities across the country, some of the most open communities anywhere in the UK.

But saying thank you is not enough. It is a shameful fact that the injustices experienced by the original Windrush passengers have sadly not been consigned to the past. This has been seen most recently in the Home Office’s appalling systematic denial of citizenship rights to British citizens from the Windrush generation—the ultimate insult to those who came here responding to a call for help on trust that the mother country was their home. It is seen in racial inequalities that still extend through income and employment, educational attainment, physical and mental health, and the criminal justice system. It is seen in the horrific racism that is still to be found in the online spaces of social media. We need look no further than the Twitter timelines of some of my hon. and right hon. Friends here today for evidence of a problem that requires urgent action to address it.

Banking Misconduct and the FCA

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Martin Whitfield]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. It is right to say that, behind every one of these statistics, there are individuals, families, businesses and employees—who have their own families—who have suffered as a result of all this. I will come on to that in a moment.

The release of the section 166 report into Royal Bank of Scotland’s Global Restructuring Group not only underlined the toxic culture that existed in the GRG but, critically, identified the systemic failures that allowed such conduct to thrive.

Today I intend to focus on three key points. The first is dispute resolution, which has been covered extensively, and the all-party parliamentary group will deliver a report on it in the near future. Secondly, I would like to look at the associated industries involved in this scandal. Thirdly, there is the need for a full public inquiry into the treatment of businesses by financial institutions.

As the debate progresses, I would ask hon. Members to keep at the forefront of their minds the very simple notion of the balance of power and, indeed, the abuse of power, because that is ultimately what we are addressing here, not just with RBS but across the entire ecosystem of commercial lending. We have only to look at the HBOS Reading fraud to understand how corrupt the system can be and how that can thrive if it goes unchecked year after year.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on opening this important debate. Does he agree that one issue is the continuing refusal of many in the banking sector to accept their responsibility and their determined deflection of blame back to their customers?

[Martin Whitfield]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. There is genuine anger about banking businesses not taking responsibility for their actions and not looking to rectify the damage that was done in the past. That is what is fundamentally undermining the confidence that people and businesses have in the banking sector.

RBS Global Restructuring Group and SMEs

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Commons Chamber

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

If we did not think before that there was a systemic crisis in banking, this debate has confirmed that there is.

The actions of the Global Restructuring Group have impacted on businesses and jobs in my constituency. I do not want to speak today about RBS’s past mistreatment of its customers; instead I will concentrate on the way that the bank continues, today, to behave towards the businesses it has damaged. Some businesses seeking redress from RBS may be able to access the compensation scheme that the bank announced last year, but for those unable to pursue that route, the only course is legal action.

It is pretty shocking to watch the extraordinarily aggressive approach that the bank is taking to litigation. Costs are escalated to such an extent that all but the richest litigants are unable to pursue their cases. Satellite litigation is launched against claimants’ funders, lawyers, and other third parties. Perhaps most shamefully of all, the bank has repeatedly been criticised for failing to provide full and frank disclosure in the courts during its defence of those claims. In 2016, in a well-publicised and ongoing dispute between Property Alliance Group, which is based in my constituency, and RBS, the bank was expressly criticised by Mrs Justice Asplin in the High Court for taking what she described as a “cavalier” attitude to disclosure. Last week, with the case now heading to the Court of Appeal, the court was again forced to order RBS to hand over more documents—clearly the bank has paid no heed to demands for disclosure. That is not an isolated case. LEXLAW has detailed other cases where RBS failed to provide full disclosure to the court and the claimant. That is clearly not how litigation should be conducted.

Equally, there are concerns about how the bank is operating the compensation scheme announced last year. At £400 million, the fund sounds generous, but in reality it does not come close to recognising the true extent of the harm caused to businesses or the benefit that RBS has enjoyed from GRG’s activities. The fund addresses only a limited range of GRG’s misconduct and is available only to a fraction of the businesses that suffered. Research carried out by Property Alliance Group suggests that the real size of RBS’s compensation scheme should be at least 10 times its current scale—closer to £4 billion than £400 million—and that is because one of GRG’s most heavily criticised practices was the process by which the bank bullied customers into giving away equity stakes in their business in return for its continued support. These so-called upside instruments have been criticised widely but were profitable, and if we look at the balance sheets and reports and accounts of the RBS subsidiary that managed the assets, SIG Holdings, we can see that the bank profited to the tune of £400 million from these practices. As will be immediately apparent, that £400 million, from just one area of the bank’s misconduct, equates to RBS’s entire compensation scheme, which covers all areas of misconduct.

What is more, the accounts of SIG Holdings for the year ending 2016 show that the bank set aside just over £40 million in practice for the costs associated with the complaints process and the automatic refund of complex fees to customers. Andrew Bailey, the chief executive of the FCA, told the Treasury Committee last October that RBS had paid or made offers of about £115 million, which is well short of the £400 million fund, and neither is it clear that the money has been either paid or accepted by claimants.

In conclusion, this debate does not just concern RBS’s past actions; it continues to do all it can to avoid its responsibilities. Far from rebuilding trust, the bank continues to treat its customers with disdain, both in the courts and in the operation of its compensation scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2018 Commons Chamber

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

6. What recent assessment his Department has made of trends in the level of household debt since 2010.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

The household debt-to-income ratio has fallen from 152% at the start of 2010 to 138% in the third quarter of 2017. It has remained significantly below its pre-crisis peak of 160% in the first quarter of 2008. I also note today’s report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies on the same subject.

[Kate Green]

I, too, have read the IFS report, which points out that debt is a real problem for a significant minority of low-income householders who are struggling to pay the bills and make debt repayments. Does the Minister accept that imposing a freeze on benefits when inflation is standing at 3% will make things even tougher for those families?

[John Glen]

The report also points out that the percentage of households with financial liabilities in the four lowest wealth quintiles fell between June 2010 and June 2014. The Government are fully committed to helping the poorest households, and just last year the Money Advice Service spent £49 million on giving 440,000 free-to-client sessions to assist those in difficulty.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am sure he did, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend raises an interesting but technical point that has been raised with me by others, including the TUC. I will take what he said as a Budget representation and look into it carefully.

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

Getting second earners and couples into work is one of the best ways to reduce family poverty and protect women economically for the future. Rather than putting money into continuing to increase the tax threshold, which rarely benefits low-income families, will the Chancellor consider measures in his Budget on the work allowances in universal credit, which are currently a real deterrent to second earners looking to increase their labour market participation?

[Mr Hammond]

The Government made commitments on the personal allowance and higher-rate threshold in their previous election manifesto. We reiterated them in the 2017 manifesto, and we remain committed to those policies. Of course, I will take into account all the representations I receive from right hon. and hon. Members, and I shall take the hon. Lady’s comments on the work allowance as such a representation.

Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I draw to the attention of the House my interest as a policyholder—mercifully, a very small one—in Equitable Life. I lost a few hundred pounds, but others lost very much larger sums. I endorse everything that the hon. Gentleman says. He has mentioned the lack of information accessible to the public. Does he agree that one of the most shocking things was the fact that, right up to the end, advertising continued to encourage people to put their savings into Equitable Life? I remember distinctly seeing large advertisements on the tube in 2000, weeks before the company went down.

[Bob Blackman]

Quite clearly, there was irresponsibility. I would absolve the current leadership of Equitable Life from that, because it has been co-operative in every way. It has identified the policyholders and assisted the Government and EMAG to ensure that everyone could be compensated. That does not apply to the previous management, however.

Let us turn to the current position. I applaud the Government for honouring the pledge to provide compensation to Equitable Life policyholders immediately after the 2010 general election. At that point, £1.5 billion was set aside to provide compensation. That was too little, and there is still a debt of honour, as I have said.

There are effectively four sets of people involved. The with-profits annuitants, of whom there are 39,858, have been paid out £336 million. The pre-’92 trapped with-profits annuitants were left out of the scheme quite deliberately, because the Government took the view that anyone who took out a policy before 1 September 1992 was outside the compensation limit. That, to me, was wrong, because those people could not have known that this scandal was going on. But I am delighted that the then Chancellor provided an ex-gratia payment of £5,000 to 9,000 people and that he extended it to £10,000 for those on pension credit.

We also have the non-with-profits annuitants, of whom there are 1,000,605. They have received, thus far, £749 million, but that represents only 22.4% of their losses. That is an arbitrary number. If the Government have accepted that they are responsible for the pensions of those individuals, it cannot be right that they receive an arbitrary percentage merely because that is the balance left of the money that was set aside. All I ask is for my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to say that the Government will keep that under review and that, as the economy recovers, the compensation should be paid out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fabian Hamilton]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Unfortunately, the time available limits what I can say about the judgment, and I want to talk about what we need to do now.

By the time Equitable was forced to close, it had more than 1.5 million members, and was one of the biggest societies in the world.

[Kate Green]

Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the members were in modest employment with modest earnings, often in the public or voluntary sector?

[Fabian Hamilton]

I certainly do agree, and I will go on to make that point. It is the very reason I took up this cause in the first place. Like many of my colleagues, I had believed that only the wealthy invested in Equitable—people with hundreds of thousands of pounds to put into their pensions seeking to make a huge return—but I discovered that, in fact, the average pension pot was just £45,000. Ordinary people, saving £20 or £30 a month over a working life, were investing in Equitable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

My right hon. Friend is spot on about the gravity of the regulatory failure. It was not just the process—the nuts and bolts—that went wrong; there was a fundamental failure to see that something that had been put into the market should have been ringing alarm bells. That is a very important point. That is why the case that the Government should provide proper compensation is all the stronger. The superficially attractive argument that it was too good to be true so people acted at their own risk was put about quite early. It was also claimed that all those affected were lawyers—barristers and solicitors—consultants and the comfortable middle class. I have dozens of victims of Equitable Life in my constituency and most are modest people who had jobs that enabled them to put a little bit aside, which they did in good faith and were let down by the system. A Government-regulated system let them down. That is why the obligation is very strong.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East referred to EMAG’s work. I declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on the matter. I particularly pay tribute to my constituents, David Truran and Richard Collins among others, who galvanised our local group of Equitable Life victims. They work hard to keep people in their area, many of whom are elderly and quite frail, in the loop about what is happening. That is a valuable local service. As has been said, the information about the compensation scheme and the way it worked was less than user friendly, to put it mildly. There was a lack of transparency and it was sometimes difficult for people in difficult circumstances, in the latter years of their lives, to navigate the information. EMAG’s work, nationally and locally, to help them is important.

The moral case is overwhelming and I think that the Minister, given his background and experience, knows that. The coalition Government were right to move when the previous Government had sadly done nothing, and it is a fair point that something is better than nothing. However, that is not really a sound basis for policy, morally or in terms of good governance. Something was given, and circumstances now permit the Government to give more.

[Kate Green]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that policyholders do not regard what they are entitled to as compensation? They simply want back the money that they saved—their own money, which they put in to their long-term pension savings, believing it would be given back, with a reasonable return, when they retired and needed it.

[Robert Neill]

That is an entirely fair and proper point. We use “compensation” only in a technical sense rather than to reflect the morality of what has happened. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East was right to describe the scheme as effectively a Ponzi scheme. In other jurisdictions, it would undoubtedly have been regarded as a fraud on the investors. They put in their money, lost out and the regulator that was supposed to protect them failed abysmally.

When the coalition Government introduced the compensation scheme, finances were difficult. Things have improved and it is not unreasonable to expect those people to be recompensed by more now. The distinction between pre-1992 and post-1992 annuitants was at best arbitrary. Although the case is made in a legalistic, dry, desiccated-calculating-machine way, it does not hold water for anyone who examines it. I hope for a measure of human decency and a broad view of the impact on public confidence. The Government let themselves down somewhat with that arrangement, although it was better than nothing. Now we can do better and I urge the Government to do that.

As well as the moral case, there is a case to be made for the importance for this country of good governance in our financial services sector. I am a passionate advocate of Britain’s financial services; 36% of my constituents work in the financial and professional services sector. It is a massive earner for this country and a jewel in our economic crown. However, it succeeds because of its reputation for integrity, which is based on the strength of its regulatory structures. When there is a failure, which is not followed by proper redress for those who lose out, confidence in our financial sector is dented and damaged.

As we emerge from the European Union—hon. Members know I regret that, but that is where we are—the financial services sector’s international reputation will be all the more important. It is in our national self-interest to ensure that we are seen to be 100% behind those who invest prudently and sensibly in our financial institutions. Britain is a world leader in the insurance sector, but this failure has the potential to damage us and it will always be held against us unless we do something to get it right. Given the national benefit that the sector brings, doing justice to the Equitable Life losers would be a drop in the ocean financially. Perhaps even for that reason, as well as for our long-term national economic self-interest, if not out of moral decency, the Government will think again.

Value Added Taxation

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2017 General Committees

[Jane Ellison]

On Report of the Finance Bill last year, we included provisions to legislate by this spring or by the time that we had left the EU, whichever was legally possible and feasible. We have continued to engage with the Commission at official and ministerial level quite extensively since that debate. We are not likely to be in a position to move this spring, for the reason I spelled out in my comments, but we have given a commitment. We have the same view on this matter in all parts of the House; we want to deal with this long-standing anomaly. I am sure Members of all parties would also support the fact that we are equally committed to abiding by the rules for as long as we are in the club. We will not, and cannot, act outside the rules—that would be counterproductive to a negotiation in good faith—but we have included legislative provisions to move on this matter as soon as we are legally able. The clock is ticking on it. We are not moving towards a distant and unsighted point—we have a sense of the backstop date.

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

I have two questions. The Minister said a few moments ago that she looked forward to European Union alignment, after we have left, with our own VAT successor system, but that is surely the wrong way round. We will want to look at the opportunities to align our systems with a very large trading bloc sitting on our doorstep. First, to what degree does the Minister accept that the Government will wish to continue down a route of as much harmonisation as possible post-Brexit between our VAT system and whatever is developed in the European Union?

My second question is a prosaic one on behalf of my constituents who are trying to understand how their travel arrangements and holidays in the European Union might be affected after Brexit. Does the Minister envisage it will be possible to reclaim VAT paid in European Union countries as consumers leave the European Union to return from their holidays to this country?

[Jane Ellison]

On the first point, I did not express a specific aspiration about harmonisation. I said there was a clear national interest in continuing to engage with the EU. As I said before, the OECD and the EU are moving broadly in the same direction around VAT systems. There is therefore a wider interest in the UK’s continuing to pursue some of its key objectives around simplification and making the arrangements less burdensome, particularly for smaller businesses. The precise aspects of VAT arrangements are, as with so many things, a matter for the detailed negotiations ahead, once article 50 has been triggered.

It is reasonable to say that we would look to have arrangements in future that allow us to continue to trade easily and successfully with all our major trading partners, of which the EU will be an incredibly important one. It remains the case that it is sensible for us to stay engaged with the debate, but the detail of all of those things once we are outside the EU, including issues around things such as harmonisation, are for the negotiations. We cannot be clear yet, but I assure the Committee that the Government will seek the best deal, obviously. It is clear that, after we have left the EU, VAT will continue to be a major contributor to the Exchequer. In the UK we estimate we will raise £120 billion this year, which is important revenue for the Treasury.

Although the exit from the EU will offer the UK greater flexibility, it is important to manage expectations just a little. Colleagues might be interested to learn that requests for reliefs have already been flooding into the Treasury in anticipation of our leaving the EU—to date, a total of more than £30 billion—so the ready reckoner is already ticking over. Colleagues will have done their mental arithmetic and realised that £30 billion is rather a large proportion of the estimated £120 billion that we hope to raise this year. That is on top of the range of zero and reduced rates that have already been applied, estimated to be slightly less than £45 billion in 2016-17.

The issues around future rates for us outside the EU and all other issues have to be carefully considered, not only in terms of our trading relationship with the EU, but in terms of our domestic policy and economic and budgetary constraints. As with all such things, it is a complicated picture, but we will continue to engage with the debate. It is worth putting on the record that UK officials are not only engaged but making an extremely positive contribution to the wider debates on the technical policy-making areas, and we will continue to do that to good effect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

We have taken the House’s instructions very seriously. There was not just the debate on Report last year, to which I responded; this has been a live debate probably for my adult lifetime, and there have certainly been a lot of debates in the House in recent years, so we have been actively pursuing this issue. I recently detailed in a written answer some of the extensive engagement we have had at ministerial level and through letters at official level.

While we are in the EU, both sides continue to be bound by existing rights and obligations, and EU law allows for a reduced rate of not less than 5% to be applied to those products. We apply the lowest reduced rate, but we cannot apply a zero rate until there is an EU legislative change. We continue to push for it and to engage on the issue very actively, but the EU legislation can be initiated only by the Commission, and to date it has not provided the proposal that it was planning to bring forward before the EU membership referendum. We continue to push for the proposal, and we have tried to find ways of accelerating the prospects of a change, but it is likely that it will feature only as part of the VAT rates review that we anticipate will happen towards the end of this year. We will continue to keep the House updated, and no doubt we will return to the issue in the debates on this year’s Finance Bill.

[Kate Green]

Irrespective of Brexit, what is the Minister’s assessment of the likelihood that the European Union and its component member states will be able to develop and introduce a modernised VAT system, as the Commission hopes? What difficulties does she envisage for the other member states in reaching agreement on doing so?