Westferry Printworks Development

Debate between Rupa Huq and Steve Reed

Wednesday 24th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to repeat the same point: let us see the documentation from the Department and the advice that was given to the Secretary of State—openly, transparently, for everybody to see—and then we will know exactly whether what happened was in breach of the ministerial code of conduct and the planning code.

Instead of being open and transparent, the Secretary of State has gone to great lengths to keep the documentation secret. Tower Hamlets Council took out a judicial review of his decision and was rewarded with a high-handed and arrogant letter from the Department accusing it of going on a fishing expedition, until someone realised that a judicial review would require the Secretary of State to release all the documentation and correspondence about the decision in open court for everyone to see. He then took an extraordinary step. Suddenly that “fishing expedition” did not look quite so speculative, because he quashed his own decision and declared it to be unlawful because of apparent bias. That is explosive. A leading planning barrister says that it is without precedent and raises questions about the integrity of the entire planning system. That prompts the question of what in the documentation is so embarrassing and so bad that it is better to admit taking a biased and unlawful decision than to publish the documents in open court.

There is only one way to clear this up. Let us see the documents. Let us see that there was no breach of ministerial code. If the Secretary of State continues to refuse, let us have a full investigation by the Cabinet Secretary. Without it, there can be no trust in the Secretary of State or the planning system over which he presides. Without that trust, who on earth will believe that the Secretary of State has the credibility to take the numerous decisions that he makes every day, let alone reform the entire planning system, as he has said he wants to do?

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we do not need a detailed chronology or to go over the books with a fine-toothed comb to realise that this is redolent of the stench of sleaze? It brought down the Major Government. The suggestion of unfair advantage to donors or supporters is sleaze writ large. The wheels are coming off this oven- ready Government.

[Steve Reed]

I very much hope that the Secretary of State will agree to publish the documentation, because if he is right, it will lay to rest the concerns that my hon. Friend has shared.

Riot Compensation Bill

Debate between Rupa Huq and Steve Reed

Friday 4th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huq]

Sorry, I am not into zombie movies. It was Mr Melville’s example. They found cars burning and other such things one does not expect to see in Ealing. Bang & Olufsen closed early, as a precautionary measure, but even so, the glass was shattered and the footage attracted many millions of views on YouTube. Ravi found his store in flames. The London fire brigade was in attendance for 24 hours. It was not just the shop; there were flats above as well.

The Bill attempts to redress some of the imbalances in the current legislation and revamp the compensation provisions, as the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) described. The existing legislation is on the aged side, if that is not too much of an understatement. Very few statutes—very few anything—dating from 1886 continue completely unaltered today. It was a time when Queen Victoria was on the throne, and I think both Lord Salisbury and Gladstone had turns at being Prime Minister that year. A house dating from 1886 would at the very least have needed a bit of updating: a lick of paint, central heating and other mod cons. Riots in the UK are, thankfully, relatively rare, but the legal framework needs to be brought into the 21st century, as the hon. Member for Dudley South said.

A lot of people called the riots of four years ago the social media, high-tech riots. Some commentators even likened them to the contemporaneous Arab spring, which I think is going a bit far—the riots in Tunisia and those countries had a different cause. To pursue the parallel, if we were updating an 1886 house in line with what the legislation needs, we would need several coats of paint, not just a lick of paint, and total rewiring and heating, with a new boiler and radiators. The cumulative effect is that it becomes too much of a job to stick with the existing structure, so we do need new legislation. It makes perfect sense, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing the Bill to the House today, because we need to bring that Victorian legislation kicking and screaming into the present day.

Ealing council’s riot scrutiny panel report from 2012 stated that over 1,000 999 calls were made on 8 August 2011, many of which went unanswered. The report states that there was damage to 100 shops and businesses and that “one supermarket burnt down”—Ealing Green Local, which I referred to. It took 18 months to reopen. It now has half its original footprint and has been rebranded as a SPAR. When the riots happened, I was cowering indoors watching Twitter, but I remember going the next day and seeing an Edwardian turret from the roof structure of that building being lifted away by crane. It was quite surreal.

Ravi outlined what happened in the aftermath and told me what he would like to see in future riot compensation legislation. He said that the insurers had paid out, but that the process was painfully slow. He reckoned that his claim was accelerated somewhat because he knew someone on the inside. That should not be so: we should be a nation above corruption in those things. He pointed out—the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) also made this point—that consequential loss should be covered as well. Ravi said that, at present, compensation covers only fixtures and fittings, whereas he would like loss of earnings to be included.

Ravi’s other point was that the role of the council was relatively limited. Ealing’s report said:

“Feedback on the Council was very positive—the payment of £1,200 was delivered promptly, and the named officer had been in frequent contact with advice and support.”

That is what the council said.

[Mr Steve Reed]

If Ealing is the queen of the suburbs, Croydon is surely the king. There was another role for councils, in the receipt of riot recovery funds. Croydon council—run by the Conservatives at the time—received more than £20 million from the Greater London Authority, spent half of it in an area that was not affected by the riots and left the rest in a bank until the GLA tried to claim it back. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be a bigger role for communities and victims in overseeing how such funding is spent, so that the worst affected areas can recover faster?

[Dr Huq]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He anticipates what I was going to say about the Ealing example, but he is correct that these decisions should be taken at a local level.

Ravi said that the council was very good initially, but that

“after 18 months their door was closed.”

He also praised police actions after the event, but recognised that their role too was limited. His was a flat with a shop beneath, and both were subject to an arson attack, as in probably the most extreme case, which was in my hon. Friend’s constituency—or was it in Croydon Central?—with the famous picture of the girl jumping out of the burning building.

[Mr Steve Reed]

That was at Reeves Corner in Croydon Central.

[Dr Huq]

He’s not here, is he?

[Mr Reed]

No, Gavin Barwell is not here.

[Dr Huq]

Never mind. Not to worry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huq]

I am talking about loss of earnings. The store owner, his wife and two kids had to live off their savings for 18 months. It is an extreme case: 18 months is not the norm, and riots are not the norm. We do not usually expect these occurrences. Let us hope they never happen again.

Helen from Bang & Olufsen remarked that the shop front had not been smashed. The video was shared so many times because people were saying that the rioters had been defeated, along the lines of “Hooray: victory against the rioters”. In the end, she faced a bill of £10,000 for the glass splinters. High-end products were involved, as expensive televisions behind the glass were also damaged. Helen’s point was that a cheque had to be written from the firm’s business account, which caused a problem for cash flow afterwards. She said that she had sunk all her savings into the business, which had been open only for six years, and when it started there was a massive recession. The hit to cash flow to pay the glazier was huge. She suggested that a temporary loan would have been helpful in that instance. It was a frightening time for her: she had a little kid and a second one was on the way.

[Mr Steve Reed]

It was not just Reeves Corner that was affected. Nine businesses and 40 flats were destroyed in London road, west Croydon. Some of the businesses had to continue to pay mortgages or rents on properties that had been destroyed, which is enough to put businesses or individuals who are not wealthy in severe financial difficulty. Does my hon. Friend agree that riot compensation should apply to those who have suffered serious losses of that kind?

[Dr Huq]

That is an excellent point. There were the headline cases that got all the attention and went viral, but I believe that the proprietors of many small Asian shops in the London road have been waiting a long time to be compensated. I am not sure whether they have received any compensation yet. We may focus on the headline cases, but these are all tragic stories.

Urban Regeneration (England)

Debate between Rupa Huq and Steve Reed

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) on securing this debate on the Government’s failure to secure investment in regeneration in our town centres and district centres away from the main urban centres. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she has done with the community in her constituency in supporting regeneration initiatives that have already had a big impact, such as the Port Sunlight river park, which I believe she helped to open, and the award-winning New Ferry farmers market, which certainly sounds as though it is worth a visit if hon. Members are in the vicinity of the Wirral.

My hon. Friend has also spoken, however, about many of the concerns that her local residents raise with her—the sight of empty shops blighting a previously thriving town centre; the lack of new investment in the area; a general sense of decline that people do not want to feel about the area where they live and bring up their families; and the general lack of opportunities, not only for young people who are growing up and will feel as though they cannot stay in the area but for adults who are already making their lives in such places.

We are not just talking about New Ferry; we have heard many examples from other parts of the country that are suffering in similar ways. We have heard from Cardiff and Liverpool about the success of their urban regeneration projects. Those projects are, on the whole, led by Labour councils that are doing a fantastic job, but the Government have denied them the tools that they need to do even more for the communities that they serve. No one has mentioned London yet, but London is not exempt from this problem.

[Dr Huq]

I did.

[Mr Reed]

I do apologise; of course my hon. Friend mentioned London. No one has mentioned south London, then. I will mention Croydon, which is, like Ealing, in outer London. Because of that, it feels forgotten sometimes. Even in an outer London borough, district centres such as Thornton Heath or South Norwood in my constituency also feel as though they have been forgotten by the main town centres in their boroughs.

I want to draw attention to three areas in which the Government could do better— first, cuts, funding and resources, secondly, the role of local enterprise partnerships and thirdly, devolution. The Government continue to ignore the unfair impact of the way in which they allocate funding across the country. Only last weekend, new figures showed that the reduction in councils’ spending power per head in the worst-off areas has been 10 times higher than in the wealthiest areas. It does not seem fair to penalise poorer areas. Doing so will push areas that are already struggling to succeed into a downward spiral, which does not benefit anybody. In the Wirral, there has been a cut of £228 per head of population in spending power since 2010, which is nearly nine times higher than the reduction in the least deprived parts of the country. How is that helping the Wirral to overcome the kinds of problems that my hon. Friend spoke about so eloquently in her opening contribution?

Let us turn to local enterprise partnerships. I speak as a former board member of London’s LEP, the London Enterprise Panel. LEPs could be much more effective than they are at the moment, but they need two things that they are not fully getting from the Government: a long-term commitment and the resources to do the jobs that they are looking at properly. Regional development agencies, which LEPs replaced, were able to make single three-year funding agreements that offered stability. LEPs, however, have access to far smaller overall budgets and many different funding pots, so they cannot combine them in ways that could be more helpful and beneficial to the communities that they serve.

Labour has proposed rationalising the LEPs where they do not properly reflect functioning regional economies. For instance, they should look at covering a travel-to-work area as an indicator of a regional economy rather than subdividing them as they do in some places, with the result that they cannot work effectively across the whole area. Government need to be much clearer about the core purpose of LEPs, because that would enable them to work much more effectively and build stronger partnerships with local authorities.

I will conclude by speaking about devolution. We believe strongly that powers should be removed from Westminster and handed to communities across the country, but we cannot do that in the piecemeal way attempted by the Chancellor. The Government cannot dump a one-size-fits all model on each part of the country and leave them to it. Devolution deals must properly reflect the different characteristics and needs of the area that they are being set up for. We need to ensure that, when the Government strike a deal with Liverpool, the needs of places on the fringes of that great city, such as New Ferry and Ellesmere Port, are not neglected. I look forward to the Minister addressing the many serious concerns that have been raised by Opposition Members, and I hope that he will reflect on what he has heard and conclude that the Government need to do a much better job.