Unsafe Cladding: Protecting Tenants and Leaseholders

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]]

Shortly before Christmas, residents in the Wicker Riverside complex in my constituency got a knock on the door one evening and were told to leave their homes immediately, with no indication given as to when they could return, because of multiple building safety failings. I am grateful for the quick response I got from the building safety Minister Lord Greenhalgh and for his help in getting residents back before Christmas, but their problems remain, as is the case in respect of many buildings across Sheffield. We are talking about ACM and other unsafe cladding, compartmentalisation problems, and issues with materials used on balconies, all of which are making homes unsafe. These problems were not created by the residents but they are being expected to pick up the cost for them. Clearly, that is the central issue we are facing today.

These people have stretched their finances to the limits to buy their home—often they are at the start of their working lives, although some are nearing retirement—and now they face unaffordable bills to make good the mistakes of others. These costs will break them, and this is taking an appalling toll on their health, as they face losing their homes and bankruptcy. These are lives destroyed by the actions of others—irresponsible developers, often those who have collapsed their companies having walked away with the profits—and inadequate building inspections. These leaseholders are the victims of comprehensive regulatory failure, which is why it is the responsibility of government to step in, own the problem and resolve it, without any of the costs falling on leaseholders, either now or in the future, through the loan schemes that we understand have been considered.

In addition, the Government must act now on building insurance, both to keep down escalating costs and to make sure that proper cover is in place in the small number of cases where buildings are uninsurable. Using the full resources of the state, backed by any new laws that are needed, the Government must then recover the costs from those responsible for the misery they have inflicted on leaseholders. That is the way to end the cladding scandal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 5th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for his question. I can confirm that, though he is correct that the £400 million made available for the brownfield regeneration fund was targeted at mayoral combined authorities, the home building fund has in it £5 billion to support new housing, including brownfield projects. More than 300 projects in England will receive a share of the £900 million to get Britain building: the getting building fund. That will also, I trust, support his constituency. I also remind him that just a couple of days ago we voted for permitted development rights, which will allow for the reimagining of town centres, and the demolition and rebuild of disused commercial buildings. That will also take the weight off any pressure on green spaces, so the Government are committed to the end that my right hon. Friend wants: building brownfield first.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

What steps his Department is taking to ensure that dangerous cladding is removed from residential buildings of all heights.

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

What steps his Department is taking to ensure that dangerous cladding is removed from residential buildings of all heights.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

We are taking action with the biggest reforms of building and fire safety in nearly 40 years through the Building Safety Bill. To tackle the most urgent problems, we have already made available £1.6 billion to remove unsafe cladding systems, and appointed expert construction consultants to review aluminium composite material remediation timescales and to work at increased pace. There therefore should be no excuse for delay.

[Paul Blomfield]

There should indeed be no excuse for delay, but a constituent of mine tells me that she and her partner are stuck between a rock and a hard place because they cannot sell their flat. Up to half a million people are now in the same position. The Minister will know that whether buildings are above 18 metres or, as in the case of my constituent, below that height, mortgage lenders are requiring EWS1 forms for fire safety clearance. My constituent’s management company refuses to test her building because it is below 18 metres. The Select Committee called for urgent action in June, so what is the Minister doing to help all those who are trapped by the failure of remediation and by these requirements?

[Christopher Pincher]

With respect to buildings below 18 metres, we are following the advice of Dame Judith Hackitt to target the tallest buildings—those over 18 metres—because they are at greatest danger of fire if they are clad. With respect to the EWS1 form—a Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors form—I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had discussions with lenders and that my noble Friend the noble Lord Greenhalgh has discussed with the insurance industry how to resolve these matters better. We are encouraging the industry to accept alternative evidence of assurances. Not all lenders require EWS1 forms, and we will encourage more lenders to take similar action.

Leaseholders and Cladding

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey]

I started my speech with the Secretary of State’s remarks about what we are doing, the actions that we have taken, and how we will deliver going forward. I want to ensure that people understand the rigorous work of the expert panel and the advice that we are taking from it. That work is checked and verified, and we are taking it forward at the right pace. Of course, we are here to discuss those issues, which are being dealt with—negotiations are ongoing. What the issue absolutely impresses upon us is how important it is that things are done as quickly and as thoroughly as possible.

[Paul Blomfield]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on students, I wrote to the Secretary of State about HPL cladding after the Bolton fire. After two months, I had received no response. I raised it with him on the Floor of the House and he promised me an early response on 20 January, which I still have not received. Will the Minister give us some assurance about when the work on the risks of HPL cladding will conclude? Do the Government recognise that ACM cladding, about which colleagues on both sides of the House have raised concerns, presents exactly the same issues as HPL?

[Esther McVey]

I will take that message back to the Department and see what happened with the correspondence from the Secretary of State. I know that the Department replied to the letter from the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) on 6 February, so if she has not already got it, it will be with her shortly.

[Paul Blomfield]

Can the Minister say when that work will be completed?

[Esther McVey]

I will go through exactly what we have done and how we have done it, and note the significant steps that we have taken, including the provision of £600 million to support people and the further work led by an expert panel. We have accepted all the recommendations from the independent review, and are going forward at a rigorous pace, which we can do, obviously, once we have had all those negotiations with the Treasury.

In December 2018, we banned the use of combustible materials in external walls of new high-rise buildings and, after implementing the ban, we checked its effectiveness. In January, we launched a consultation on the ban, which went further and asked whether the limit should be lowered from 18 metres to 11 metres. The Government also announced the fire safety Bill, and the associated regulatory changes, to deliver the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry phase 1 report.

Building Safety

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I reassure the hon. Lady that whatever funds are required to ensure that the regulator succeeds will be made available. A very large number of individuals are already working on building safety in my Department —well over 100 people are engaged in this activity, many of whom will, in due course, transition to the new regulator—but, as I said before, the reason we chose the Health and Safety Executive is that it has the experience and the capacity, and it can move quickly.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I wrote to the Secretary of State over two months ago highlighting the case of a student housing block that had been evacuated, with all tenants relocated, as a result of multiple fire regulation failures. This was a building that had been signed off by a Government-approved private building inspection company without a site inspection. Does he agree—he has not replied to me yet—that he needs to review the entire process of building control in the context of that case?

[Robert Jenrick]

I will look up the hon. Gentleman’s letter and make sure that a proper response is given to him as soon as possible. However, the premise of Dame Judith’s work, which will be legislated for in our building safety Bill, is to ensure that there is a proper, robust system for the inspection of buildings at the point that they are constructed, meaning that we do not have building inspectors appointed by the developers, but that these are independent individuals working to robust procedures, and then that an individual is criminally liable for the outcomes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Wheeler]

I appreciate my right hon. Friend’s question, having recently visited Harlow to discuss this matter with him. In the round, 42,000 homes were delivered in the three years to March 2018 under permitted development rights with a change of use from office to residential. Earlier this year we announced a review of the quality standard of homes provided through permitted development rights for the conversion of buildings to residential use. The review is expected to conclude later this year. Today, I have written to all local authorities to remind them of their responsibilities regarding out-of-borough placements.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

T10. Funding for local welfare assistance, which replaced crisis loans, is threadbare. In Sheffield, the council has managed to retain the fund, but it has more than halved since 2014, which has left people in a desperate position and exposed to loan sharks. The Minister will know that simply identifying a notional figure within the revenue support grant is meaningless when local authority funding has been cut so heavily. Will she agree that the budget should be ring-fenced and properly funded by central Government?

[Mrs Wheeler]

The hon. Gentleman poses a really interesting question. I will write to him with an answer.

EU Structural Funds: Least Developed Regions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered replacement of EU structural funds for least developed regions.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. I am grateful that this issue has been selected for debate. I thank colleagues across parties and regions for supporting the application, particularly the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who is not currently in her place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley).

The application for this debate followed a report by the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions that crystallised concern that our regions should not lose out as a result of the decision made in the 2016 referendum. I intend to speak relatively briefly because I want to give plenty of opportunity to colleagues from across the regions to make their points. I have only one question for the Minister, but I will come to it at the end.

The CPMR report estimated that if the UK had remained in the European Union, we would have been entitled to €13 billion, or £11 billion, of support from EU structural funds—primarily the European regional development fund and the European social fund—during the next period, from 2021 to 2027. However, five regions would be set to receive a bigger share of that funding based on our position as having some of the poorest areas in Europe. Those areas are defined as “least developed regions” because our GDP falls below 75% of the European average. Clearly, that is not something that we should be proud of and it needs to be addressed.

Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, and west Wales and the valleys both already receive funding for that category.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we have already contributed that money to the European Union and are getting it back?

[Paul Blomfield]

I agree. The European Union has demonstrated itself to be a very effective redistributive mechanism, taking from richer areas and redistributing to poorer ones. In my area of South Yorkshire, I imagine that we are a net beneficiary of that, although the UK as a whole is a net contributor.

Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly and west Wales and the valleys are already recipients of funding for that category, but have been joined by Tees Valley and Durham, Lincolnshire and my own region of South Yorkshire, because those three regions have now sunk below the 75% threshold, too.

In preparing for the debate, I consulted the House of Commons Library, which, as ever, provided excellent independent assessment and support—I commend those in the Library for the work that they always do for us—and confirmed the CPMR analysis. The Library said that, if anything, the CPMR report underestimated the position because it had not taken account of southern Scotland, which would have been eligible, and added that

“the ‘Outer London – East and North East’ region is also on the borderline”

for classification for support. The amount of funding for which UK regions could have been eligible may have been even higher than in the CPMR analysis.

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

I will raise a point about the CPMR analysis that I was going to make during my speech, because it is hugely important to the hon. Gentleman’s argument. I saw a copy of the House of Commons Library briefing, which confirmed that the analysis said that some areas could see funding rise by 22%, but, as I am sure he knows, the European Union has said that it does not want funding to go up by more than 8% in relevant areas. I do not think that the Library covered that. That would be worth expanding on as the hon. Gentleman develops his argument.

[Paul Blomfield]

I will mention the 22% increase specifically as I proceed.

I am delighted that Members from across the regions that would have benefited are in the Chamber. Everybody will want to focus on the impact in their own areas but, as the Minister indicated, the projections indicate that the UK would be entitled to an increase of 22% in funding. I am sure that if we were a participating member, we would be arguing strongly to ensure that that assessment was matched in reality and that the funding came through.

The funding estimate is up from the €l0.6 billion that we received from 2014 to 2020 to approximately €13 billion. Part of the reason that the CPMR estimates that increase is that we would now have five less developed regions, compared with two during the current funding period. The analysis states:

“All five of these regions would stand to receive EU support in excess of 500 euros per capita for the seven-year period.”

On current figures, that would result in £605 million for South Yorkshire to support economic growth.

There is a sense of déjà vu, because South Yorkshire has been here before. When the Thatcher Government decimated our coal and steel industries, and our whole economic base with them, we became one of the poorest regions in Europe. The EU stepped in with funding that was critical to rebuilding our economy, funding projects decided by local politicians and delivered by local bodies.

We received £820 million of objective 1 funding—levering in matched funding—which was channelled into more than 250 organisations and 650 projects. That encouraged investment, stimulated the development of new growth and high-technology sectors, helped businesses to modernise and become more competitive, supported innovation, helped with the commercialisation of research, developed skills and provided infrastructure in the region. We saw real transformation in a variety of ways.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. In his calculations, has he taken into account any potential and likely changes towards the end of the seven-year period? With yet more additions to the EU of companies that would be net beneficiaries, the funding structure would change for the UK and other countries that happened to be part of the EU at the time.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but that is not part of the CPMR analysis, nor has the House of Commons Library suggested that it is a factor that should be taken into account.

In South Yorkshire, we saw real transformation. The advanced manufacturing park at Waverley—a partnership led by University of Sheffield with Boeing and Rolls-Royce—was held up by the Government as a flagship of growth through innovation. It was dependent on that funding and would not have got off the ground without it. That is just one example of the work in developing clusters, alongside advanced manufacturing and metals, investment in bioscience, creative and digital industries and environmental and energy technologies.

The funding was involved in the remodelling of the primary gateway to Sheffield in my constituency, by developing the station and the main pedestrian route into the heart of the city, and played a key role in making the city a more attractive place in which to invest. There was improved access to finance for small and medium-sized enterprises, which supported start-ups, scale-ups and incubator units such as the Quadrant Business Centre. Community projects in my constituency, such as Matrec and Zest, were funded for programmes to build the skills needed in a changing work environment.

Across South Yorkshire, there was investment in new roads and transport infrastructure.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

In Blaenau Gwent, the structural funds have made a big difference, particularly for transport, with the dualling of the heads of the valleys road. However, there is still bags to do, such as improving the Ebbw Vale train line to get more services to Cardiff. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister needs to confirm how much funding will be available and by when, particularly in advance of the spending review, so that we can get not only better trains from Ebbw Vale to Cardiff, but a boost to the local economies of our regions?

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, in particular about investment in transport infrastructure. Without that, the wider area of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) would have seen none of the road network in the Dearne valley that facilitated growth, with a whole series of new companies and the new jobs to go with them. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) is also right—he pre-empted my final question—to say that we need exactly that assurance from the Minister.

In South Yorkshire, the objective 1 funding worked: our economy grew by 8.5%. However, regional inequality has soared again since 2010. We are back in the same situation, qualifying as a least developed region and eligible for the highest level of EU funding had we been continuing as a member.

I know that the regional disparities concern both sides of the Chamber. Inner London is, unsurprisingly, our richest region, with GDP at 614% of the EU average—though I recognise that in London, too, there are pockets of deep poverty—but that figure falls to 69% for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. London is obviously represented overwhelmingly by colleagues from my party, but Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly by the Conservative party—this debate is about a fair deal for all our regions and about rebalancing our economy.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Given those regional imbalances and the question of how funding should be spent, is it not completely outrageous and unacceptable that we were promised a consultation on the shape of the shared prosperity fund, which should have started in late 2018, but have still not had one? My colleagues and I on the all-party parliamentary group for post-Brexit funding for nations, regions and local areas are sensing that there will not be a consultation before the comprehensive spending review. Does he share my view that that is completely unacceptable? Will he ask the Minister to confirm that he too thinks it is completely unacceptable?

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A feature of the wider debate on Brexit is that so many critical issues that will shape the outcome—structural funds, immigration and others—are just being kicked down the road. I hope that the Minister will respond directly to my hon. Friend’s point.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

In Wales, our wages are 70% of the UK average and we receive something like £440 per person in structural funding. Is my hon. Friend aware that with a new plan, we will lose some of that, and that in the case of a new deal, we will have no money at all? Only today, I was talking to representatives of the Swansea universities who said that they were shedding hundreds of jobs. The background to that is the doubling in size of Swansea University thanks to EU money. We are in a critical place in Wales, with closures at Bridgend, Tata and Airbus because of Brexit, so the structural funding is imperative.

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the impact on all our areas if there is not adequate investment in economic development.

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

On the shared prosperity fund, a recent report by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee called for consultations to begin before the end of April. The Government response simply stated that

“the Government will consult widely on the Fund and final decisions are due to be made following the Spending Review”,

and that

“the Government continues to review our approach to consulting on the Fund accordingly.”

That is not very definite. At some point, we will also need to ask the Minister what, if there were no spending review—which there probably will not be, or at least not a four-year one—that would do to consultations on sorting out the shared prosperity fund.

[Paul Blomfield]

That intervention clearly comes with the great knowledge and experience that my hon. Friend brings as Chair of the Select Committee. I hope that the Minister will pay attention to his concerns in the closing remarks.

I do not necessarily have a lot of confidence in that. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government back in February, bringing the CPMR report to his attention and reminding him of the Government’s commitment that regions should not lose out as a result of Brexit. I called on him to commit to providing the equivalent funding to what we would have received had we remained members of the EU. The Minister responded on the Secretary of State’s behalf, but did not make that commitment. I asked the Minister that same question again in May during the Westminster Hall debate on the shared prosperity fund led by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central. The Minister again did not make that commitment.

Our experience is that where the Government have the opportunity, they shift funding from areas in need to other parts of the country. We have seen that markedly with local government. I therefore simply do not have the confidence that the Government will do the right thing by areas such as ours. In conclusion, I will ask the Minister again, the simple and central question of the entire debate. We were told that there would be no losers as a result of leaving the European Union. Indeed, I pressed that with David Cameron at Prime Minister’s questions in the week after the referendum result. Had we remained a member, South Yorkshire would have received £605 million between 2021 and 2027; other regions would have received comparable amounts. Therefore, will the Government commit to providing, from whatever source, regional development funding at least equivalent to the money that we would have received from the European Union?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Berry]

The hon. Gentleman will have to send me the figures he refers to. Across the north of England, unemployment is lower than it has been for a generation. Picking up on the comments of the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), £450 million has been committed to a devolution deal for the Tees valley and £120 million has been invested in the SSI site.

Frankly, if the Labour local authorities in the Sheffield city region could get their act together and agree what powers they should hand to the Mayor of South Yorkshire—I know he is already doing an excellent job, but I want him to be given those powers so he can continue to drive the hopes and dreams of the people of South Yorkshire—the Sheffield city region could receive nearly £1 billion as part of its devolution deal. It is shameful that Labour councils are blocking this Government’s giving nearly £1 billion to the Sheffield city region. The councils should hang their heads in shame. We are debating European structural funds, but all this is connected; we cannot consider Europe on its own.

Let me set out some truths. There was reference to a report that mentioned growth of up to 22% in money for less developed areas. That report does not take into account the points made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, about European countries that may join the European Union during the spending period; it does not take into account the cap that the European Union itself has said it would like to see on spending increases; and it is an estimate. That estimate would go into the European Union and be negotiated.

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jake Berry]

I will in a moment. I will develop this point first.

Once the negotiation had taken place in Europe, the British Government would bring that figure into the comprehensive spending review and negotiate how it was distributed—which parts should go to European structural funds, to the Department for Work and Pensions and to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Only after that would any of the bodies have certainty about how much they were going to receive.

In fact, if we accept that the quantum of the UK shared prosperity fund should be negotiated through the comprehensive spending review, people will find themselves with exactly the same certainty under that fund as they would have had if we had continued with European structural funds. There is of course certainty until January 2021, when the current spending period ends, and the Government have been clear that the UK shared prosperity fund will start in 2021, so there will be no gap.

[Jake Berry]

I have to give way first to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, who opened the debate.

People talked about crashing out of the European Union with no deal. Frankly, I do not expect that to happen. Nor do I accept that, even if it did happen, it would look like a crash out of the European Union. However, even if we accepted that analysis—I do not—the Treasury has given a guarantee about the current spending period for European structural funds, which means people who are in receipt of them or want to apply for them should carry on as normal, regardless of Brexit.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Minister knows we are not talking about the current period of structural funds. We are talking about the next period of structural funds, and about what we would have expected to receive had we remained a member of the European Union. We should receive no less than that. I know the European Commission has said since the publication of the CPMR report that, in part because of the impact on the EU budget as a result of Brexit, it may be that regions can expect to receive not 22% but 8% more, but that is not the circumstance we are debating. We are debating what we would have got had we remained in the European Union. Even if I accepted the Minister’s premise, that would mean £536 million for South Yorkshire. Will he guarantee that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

I am sorry that the Minister deliberately misrepresented my intervention. That was a comfortable way of dodging the question before us, which is: will our regions lose out as a result of our departing the European Union? As the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth highlighted, the Government have given a commitment that they should not. As the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) highlighted, we are asking not for a handout but for a hand up—strategic investment in our economies—to ensure that we do not lose out. At the third time of asking, in debates and correspondence, the Minister has not answered the question. We will keep pressing.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Shared Prosperity Fund

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing this debate.

In the 1980s, when the Thatcher Government broke the industries on which our economy was built—steel and coal—we faced really tough times in South Yorkshire. We sunk to become one of the poorest regions in Europe, and because of that, the EU stepped in with funding. In reply to some of the comments that have been made, I say that that funding responded to what we asked for locally and funded programmes that were delivered by local organisations.

European structural funds were key to rebuilding our economy. Objective 1 funding provided £820 million to more than 250 organisations and 650 projects, from major projects such as the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, which has become a national flagship for industrial innovation, to small community initiatives that reskill people. The economy grew by 8.5%.

Shamefully, under Government policy since 2010, regional inequality has grown again. We are back where we were before: below 75% of the average gross domestic product of the EU and one of the poorest regions in Europe—formally designated a “less developed region” along with Tees Valley and Durham, Lincolnshire, west Wales and Cornwall, which have been mentioned.

On those regions, the February report from Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe, which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central mentioned, stated this for 2021 to 2027:

“All five of these regions would stand to receive EU support in excess of 500 euros per capita for the seven-year period.”

That would mean £605 million for South Yorkshire.

I was puzzled by the Minister’s intervention, as he seemed to suggest that because those areas voted leave they should not expect to receive that funding. That is not what they were promised in the referendum campaign, nor was it what they were promised subsequently.

[Jake Berry]

Nor was that what I said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

The Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position, but I hope he will respond to the question that I am about to ask.

To cast our minds back, we were promised that we would not be worse off, and in February I wrote to the Secretary of State, asking him to commit to providing the £605 million that we would have received had the country remained a member of the European Union. Replying on behalf of the Secretary of State, the Minister sidestepped the question and instead told me about a stakeholder event in Huddersfield—I am sure it was very useful. Today, I again ask that simple question: will the Government commit to providing regional development funding that is equivalent to the money we would have received from the European Union as less developed regions—yes or no?

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I start in the traditional way by congratulating the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on an excellent speech. As with so many things that we do together, with our shared passion to drive forward the economy of the northern powerhouse, there was very little I disagreed with in his speech, although there were a few things I will mention if I get the opportunity. Many Members asked similar questions, so before I deal with individual contributions I will address some of the more general points.

Let us be realistic about this debate: Members have picked me up on my saying that many areas that voted leave have been recipients of EU structural funds. One of my jobs in Government is administering many EU structural funds, and some Opposition Members may have done that job during the Labour Government. Those funds are hugely bureaucratic, and they do not target many of the things that we are desperate, across the Chamber, to drive in every constituency—including mine in east Lancashire, which is a deprived area in the north of England. Those funds are often inefficient. Although we have heard about some of the brilliant things they have done, such as supporting Mencap, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, they have been hugely inefficient in many places.

My hon. Friends the Members for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) and for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) made interesting points about how some of those funds have been wasted in Cornwall. I suspect that may be part of the reason—although I would be the first to accept that the picture is very complicated—why 68% of the people who live in Barnsley and 60% of the people who live in Oldham voted to leave the European Union. We in this place have to address some of people’s deep frustrations about inequality, which traditionally have not been addressed or targeted by European structural funds.

We keep referring to European structural funds as European money. Let us be absolutely clear: this is British taxpayers’ money, which is given to the European Union and then, after a large percentage of it has been removed, returned to our country.

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jake Berry]

I will not, sorry—there have been many interventions.

That is why, looking to the future, in our 2017 general election manifesto, my party—the Conservative party—said we would come forward with a new UK shared prosperity fund that would be designed to reduce inequalities between communities across the four nations of our United Kingdom and target productivity. That was reiterated by my right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary in a written ministerial statement in July 2018 laying out some of the foundations of the UK shared prosperity fund.

The Government accept that tackling inequality is absolutely something we need to grip in this country. The hon. Member for Leigh (Jo Platt) mentioned that Leigh, which I know well—it is just down the road from my constituency—does not have a railway station. It is not the case that there was a railway station there that was closed by a Conservative Government; that is a sign of decades of under-investment in northern transport infrastructure by successive Governments. The UK shared prosperity fund should seek to challenge some of the inequalities that we see north, south, east and west across the United Kingdom.

Fire Safety and Sprinkler Systems

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I will keep my remarks brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick)—as has just been said, he speaks with enormous authority on this matter and the Government should listen.

Like many of our cities, Sheffield has seen a huge growth in high-rise developments in recent years. They are largely privately owned developments, and many are for students. I am grateful that my hon. Friend highlighted the need to include purpose-built student accommodation in the requirements for sprinklers. Many of the developments are for other purposes—mainly for rent, although some are for owner-occupation. There are complex ownership arrangements between developers and the owners of the freehold, and there are complex leasehold and management agreements. The people who live in them look to the local authority to guarantee their safety, and it is a responsibility that Sheffield City Council is keen to respond to. It acted unilaterally, without financial support, to retrofit sprinklers in its own properties after the Grenfell disaster, and it wants to go further on private sector properties.

When the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government wrote to local authority chief executives in March 2018 to say it was

“vitally important that we identify any remaining private high rise blocks with potentially unsafe ACM cladding”

and to offer funding, the council was quick to respond. It put together a plan to compile a comprehensive register of all high-rise accommodation, set out ownership and management details, provide information on construction and materials used, and undertake a risk assessment and outline what was needed to make the property safe, including sprinkler systems. It would have cost just £740,000 over two years, but the Government offered just 5% of that cost from the money that had been set aside. Recognising that councils have faced disproportionate cuts—Sheffield has lost around 60% of its funding from central Government—does the Minister think that providing only 5% support for that work was adequate?

Sprinklers are key to saving lives when fires start, but we need to remove the risk of them starting in the first place. The Minister will be aware of the formation of the UK Cladding Action Group to voice the concerns of people who own flats in tower blocks with ACM cladding. It was reported in the last couple of days that only 10 of the 173 private buildings that were discovered to have combustible cladding have been fixed—this point was raised by the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) a moment ago. The barrier to action appears to be disputes over the funding and responsibility for the work.

Among the blocks affected is Metis Tower in my constituency. Residents there face a bleak future. One of those who contacted me, William Martin, summed up his situation in a plea to the Secretary of State:

“I’m a first time buyer stuck with a property covered in failed cladding. The freeholder is denying responsibility and the developers have ceased trading. I’m currently living out a nightmare and facing financial ruin. I and many others desperately need your help.”

A company called HomeGround represents the freeholder, Adriatic, and says that it is not the landlord and is therefore not responsible. It points fingers at the property management company, Fairways, which says that it is awaiting legal clarification on who is responsible. The suggestion is that the responsibility for the re-cladding will fall on those who own the flats, who face individual bills of upwards of £20,000 each. That is a disgrace—the residents cannot afford those sums. William says that he cannot get rid of the property or move on when he wants to, and that frankly, he feels trapped in a prison. That is not acceptable. If someone buys a dishwasher that is found to be faulty because of a fire risk, we put safety first: the product is recalled and the manufacturer takes responsibility. If that is good enough for domestic products, why is it not good enough for the homes that house them?

I recognise that some developers and freeholders accept responsibility, but others do not. The Government must act. We need first to make the building safe, and we need to make sure that the individual residents who own the flats do not foot the bill. The Government should hold the developers and freeholders to account. If the law is not currently up to the task, we need to change it. I hope that the Minister will outline what action the Government will take in that respect.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting that particular example. It is especially appalling that leaseholders should have been presented with such a significant charge in that way. If she can send me some more details, I will look into the matter further.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

6. What assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of the new grant funding for the delivery of adult social care announced in Budget 2018.

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

21. What assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of the new grant funding for the delivery of adult social care announced in Budget 2018.

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

We have listened to the sector’s concerns. The Government will provide an additional £240 million for winter pressures next year, as well as a further £410 million to address pressures in social care.

[Paul Blomfield]

I recently met local carers, whose unpaid work for loved ones takes enormous pressures off budgets, but inadequate funding for adult social care is putting additional strains on them. Some gain support from local councils and others from local groups such as Sheffield Carers Centre, but most are invisible. What support is the Department providing to local authorities to identify carers so that they can get the help that they need?

[Rishi Sunak]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the valuable work that those carers do in our society, and that should be recognised. It is for individual local authorities to decide how best to support carers in their areas. As the Secretary of State previously said, £650 million of incremental funding for social care was announced in the Budget. That funding could be used to provide support in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Street Homelessness

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Adam Holloway]

As I said, I would like to be in the Government, but I am not. We will hear from the Minister, who I think will confirm that enormous amounts of money are being poured in. The hon. Gentleman may have a case in terms of sofa surfers, but for the hard-core rough sleepers, I cannot agree with him. I did not come across the sort of people that he characterised. I accept that, in terms of the other group, he may well be correct, but I think that the number of rough sleepers has much to do with the very high levels of eastern European immigration over the last few years. But he is absolutely right that we still have the intractable problem that, whether or not people think we are pouring in money, we are not getting to the people at the very bottom—I will come to them in a minute.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his initiative to put focus on this issue. Over the Easter recess, I did the 6 am shift with police community support officer Steve Hart, in Sheffield, where I met all the people sleeping in doorways and stairwells. None of them were foreign nationals—they were all British—and they all had the sort of complex problems that he describes. I talked to the agencies that worked with them; the reason why those numbers have gone up each year over the last few years is surely that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) highlighted, starving money from local authorities has minimised not only their ability to deal with the issue, but a key source of funds for the charities in the third sector, which cannot provide the intensive support that people with complex problems need.

[Adam Holloway]

Again, I do not want to be a cop-out, but I will throw that to the Minister. If someone is fit and of sound mind, there are all sorts of services, although not quite 24 hours a day, that make it possible to sleep out. I am 52 years old and I was in the Army; to be honest, sleeping rough in central London is a lot more comfortable than going on exercise when I was in the Army. For those who are mentally ill, drug addicted, old or personality disordered, it is a very different thing.