Financial Assistance to Industry

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Monday 24th May 2021 General Committees

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Gray. I thank the Minister for his opening remarks, in which he rightly laid out the context of the UK’s productivity challenge, a matter that I understand well. Indeed, I had intended to set up the first all-party parliamentary group on increasing productivity—I think it did get launched. The subject is a very important part of our parliamentary debate.

The Minister set out what we are debating: a motion to approve £220 million of financial assistance to business schools to help to fund the Help to Grow Management programme that was announced in the Budget on 3 March. As he said, the intention of the programme is to give 30,000 SMEs access to a mini MBA-style executive education for their senior management over the next three years.

SMEs are indeed the backbone of our economy. The almost 6 million SMEs in Britain are engines of growth and it is right to invest in the strategic management skills of SME leaders. We need to grow our way into the future and, as the CBI points out today, to seize this moment to create a more inclusive economy, so any support for innovation, productivity and the growth of SMEs—each of our constituencies will contain SMEs—is welcome. I hope that all our SMEs will take advantage of the programme.

We therefore support the funding to help our SMEs across the country to grow, but I and well-respected stakeholders in senior positions in academia and business have concerns about some of the Government’s decisions. We want the programme to be successful and to deliver on its aims of supporting productivity and growth, while providing value for money for the taxpayer and small business leaders. It is in that context that I would be grateful for the Minister’s response to the questions I shall raise, and for ongoing evaluation and feedback so that we can ensure that the programme delivers with its outcomes.

I would be grateful for two points of clarification. Section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 provides the Government with the general power to provide selective or targeted financial assistance, for example to specific firms or institutions, when they determine that such assistance is likely to benefit the economy of the UK or any part or area of it. Subsection (8) provides that sums to be paid in respect of any one project shall not exceed £30 million except when authorised by a resolution of the House of Commons, hence today’s proceedings to make available £220 million over three years to fund the Help to Grow Management scheme.

Sections 11 and 15 of the 1982 Act require the publication of an annual report describing the exercise of powers under the Act, which suggests that details will be available at the end of 2021-22, and in subsequent years, on how much of the allocated £220 million has been spent on the programme. However, section 75 of the Coronavirus Act 2020, which grants emergency powers to handle the covid-19 pandemic, amends the 1982 Act to disapply the overall limits that it sets for the total financial assistance that the Government can provide when the funding is “coronavirus-related”. It also creates a quarterly reporting obligation on the Government in relation to coronavirus-related funding. Will the Minister clarify whether the £220 million allocated to the Help to Grow Management scheme is “coronavirus-related” within the meaning of the Coronavirus Act 2020?

Secondly, the overall Help to Grow scheme has been allocated £520 million, with the second programme being Help to Grow Digital. Today’s motion relates only to Help to Grow Management, so will the Minister confirm whether he will seek approval under a separate resolution for the Help to Grow Digital scheme in advance of its launch in the autumn?

Labour believes strongly that small businesses should be at the heart of the recovery from covid. We are concerned by the drop in new start-ups, which are down 11% since 2016. I grew up above a shop in a local business in Osterley, and every year across the country we celebrate small business Saturday. In April, Labour promised £1 billion of funding to support the creation of 100,000 start-ups across the country in the first term of a Labour Administration. We do not want this programme to go the way of the Government’s green homes scheme which, despite significant demand among the public, had a lack of take-up due to its bad design. Supporting our SMEs to survive and thrive as we exit lockdown and move into a post-pandemic, post-Brexit economy means planning ahead and thinking through policy to get it right first time. We need this programme to be effective, and to be designed with usability and SMEs’ needs as the first priorities.

I would be grateful for the Minister’s response to a number of questions about design, accessibility and scale, and value for money. First, on take-up, businesses were able to register their interest as of 3 March 2021. Over two months on, will the Minister provide an update on how many businesses have done so? What forecasts or estimates do the Government have regarding how many businesses are expected to apply, and by when?

In the current climate, is the Department confident that business leaders will be able to give up the time needed to be successful on a 12-week programme? Was any consideration given to a pyramid of programmes, which some business leaders have raised with me? The programme could be a significant part of such a structure to allow for greater accessibility and targeted support for SMEs that might not have that amount of time. What measures are being applied to ensure that businesses that are under-represented by sector, or indeed female-led, ethnic minority-led, or disabled people-led businesses, are accessing the programme?

Secondly, on the curriculum and diversity of need, how will the curriculum for the programme be developed? Is that in progress and in what timeframe will it happen? Will the curriculum be standardised across the 33 business schools? On 19 May, the Business Secretary announced the expert advisory council for the programme. What role will that council play in setting the curriculum for the programme, given that the first cohort will begin in June 2021—I believe that the Minister mentioned that date—at certain business schools, including Aston University, where I undertook a masters myself?

Some business schools have raised with me the question of whether there is any room to customise part of their course to take account of local circumstances. There is concern that a one-size-fits-all approach will not meet a diversity of need on the basis of place or sector. Will the Minister also confirm whether any support to non-university-led programmes is being considered for organisations that work closely to help small businesses on the ground?

Thirdly, I want to raise the issue of exclusions, which covers charities and micro-businesses? Why are charities not eligible? I am sure that the Minister supports the view that innovation and business management are vital in the voluntary sector, too. Classes at business schools often comprise people from not only the private sector, but the public and voluntary sectors. Clearly charities would benefit from such a scheme. This point is particularly important because charities have experienced a severe capital shortage throughout the pandemic. Will the Government explain whether equivalent support is being offered to the leaders of small charities?

What is the policy basis for the exclusion of businesses with one to four employees? Much research suggests that moving from one to two employees can be one of the biggest hurdles that a business faces, but once that happens, it can lead to an acceleration of a business’s growth and the likelihood that it survives.

I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify the process by which the Small Business Charter, which does good work, was determined as the gatekeeper for the programme. There are schools outside the 33 charter members that are leading business schools for SME growth and support. Is the Minister suggesting—perhaps he was alluding to this in his speech—that they will need to seek accreditation in order to participate? I would be grateful if he would cover that point.

How is the £220 million to be allocated across schools? Will that be done on a pro-rata basis? Labour’s analysis of the start-up loan scheme shows that nearly £1 in every £4 has gone to London, while the north-east has seen just £1 in every £20. How will the Government ensure a fairer distribution of funding across every region and nation of the country?

How will the Government advertise the programme? The Minister mentioned the CBI and the Federation of Small Businesses in his opening remarks, but the advertising will need to reach those who need the programme the most. Social media is not enough. Will he use existing local infrastructure, including local chambers of commerce, post offices, community centres and bank managers, for example, to help promote the programme?

Can the Minister outline how the impact of the programme will be measured? Will the Government monitor and report on the growth and improvements in productivity and innovation from participating businesses? Will there be a longer term evaluation in order to see that impact? In the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee’s evidence session on 18 May, he struggled to articulate how sharing prosperity, or levelling up, will be measured. There are great risks of such programmes not succeeding unless there is a built-in, fast-cycle evaluation, with opportunities to learn and to tweak design. Is an interim evaluation planned, and if so, how will it be carried out? Will the results be reported to the House?

On value for money, the cost of the programme appears to be at the higher end for executive courses of this type. It is priced at £7,500 per place, which appears, from what is available publicly, to be for about 50 hours of tuition—so about seven days—with other study alongside. Can the Minister explain how that was costed, and what benchmarking and value-for-money criteria were applied? I have had a lot of contact with business schools over many years, including through my own MBA, but some figures that I was sent today appear to suggest that the cost per tuition hour of this proposed programme is considerably higher than that of the prestigious executive education courses run by some of the best business schools. We want to have the maximum impact and the best use of resources to support the SME sector across the country, so I would be grateful if he shared with the Committee the costing and the value-for-money exercise undertaken. If he cannot do so today, perhaps he could write to me with that information.

Finally, on creating an environment for success, this programme is being introduced in the context of short-term existential threats to thousands of SMEs. Although the funding is extremely welcome, the Budget that announced the programme did not contain long-term solutions for the debt crisis that, as the Minister will be aware, thousands of businesses across the country face. Innovation is important, but many firms are also fighting for their short-term survival. For example, what is the Government’s answer to the £7.5 billion of commercial rent arrears that the British Property Federation estimates will have accumulated by 30 June 2021? The Night Time Industries Association has warned that 75% of commercial tenants in the UK’s night time sector face the prospect of insolvency in the near future without a solution. I will be grateful for the Minister’s response.

[Paul Scully]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her place. I know that there will be plenty of opportunities for she and I to discuss this and many other issues in the time to come. I also send my best regards to her predecessor, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), with whom I had fruitful debates, often in this very room. The hon. Lady and I will get to know each other and Committee Room 10 quite well in the coming months.

This is not considered to be a coronavirus-related measure. It looks at the wider aspect of productivity under the Act. I hope that answers the hon. Lady’s question in that regard. The course is 32 hours of formal training, to be delivered over three months, accompanied by peer learning and one-to-one mentoring, and participants will also be able to join an alumni community. I therefore believe that the course offers value for money for the recipient, who will be asked to pay 10%—£750—as a joining fee. Equivalent executive education programmes can cost up to £10,000 per participant.

[Seema Malhotra]

The 32 hours has been published in the description of the programme, but there are also other taught hours, perhaps for case studies. I was just trying to understand what the full expectation would be of tuition hours—where an academic or speaker will be involved in delivering some of that tuition, whether in groups or lectures. Secondly, to clarify, I understand that the Minister is saying that the course offers value for money, but an exercise must have been carried out to come to the costing of £7,500. If he does not have that information, I would be grateful if he could write to me with it. It is quite significant in terms of ensuring that we are delivering value for money for the taxpayer, as well as value for the small businesses that need the support.

[Paul Scully]

Indeed, and if there is anything that I do not cover today, I am happy to follow up on it. As I say, we have worked with business schools across the country; 33 are accredited at the moment and another 33 are seeking accreditation. By the end of that, we will have quite an extensive list—well beyond the existing cohort—that will be able to provide coverage across the country.

[Seema Malhotra]

I am grateful for the Minister’s generosity in giving way. A number of business schools contacted me because they were not clear about this. Is the expectation that other business schools may be able to participate in the programme if they feel that they have either the resources or the opportunity to do so? That might be in parts of the country where there do not seem to be as many courses advertised at the moment, because I have been looking at the regional advertising of what is available. Will it be the case that other business schools could participate, but they would have to become accredited to do so?

[Paul Scully]

I can give the hon. Lady an absolute yes. We are encouraging more business schools to apply to the Chartered Association of Business Schools for accreditation to the SBC, and CABS will seek to complete that accreditation process within two months. As soon as schools gain accreditation, they will be able to deliver the programme. We want to ensure that there is a clear framework. I know that there are plenty of excellent business schools up and down the country, but we want to ensure that we can work within that framework to achieve the value for money that the hon. Lady rightly asks about, and to ensure that we have a consistent approach across the country.

The best description that I have heard of levelling up is that potential is equally distributed across the country, but opportunity is not, so we need to try to tackle that. Similarly, on business advice, we said in our manifesto, which we are trying to deliver, that the UK should be the best place to start, grow and scale a business, but we want to go further. I have seen this myself with my own business, and certainly in the last year working up and down the country. I want to ensure that we have a degree of consistency so that no matter where someone is in the UK, that should be the best place to start, grow and scale a business. That involves access to finance, mentoring, peer-to-peer networking and infrastructure, and this programme plays a major role within that.

The hon. Lady raised a really good point about not only geographical differences, but differences among the people whom the approach might benefit. We are working through our communications plan to ensure that we can get this out. We are converting registrations of interest into actual places and, similarly, making more registrations of interest available. What I am more interested in is the kind of businesses that we can speak to. Exactly as she said, it is female entrepreneurs, ethnic minority-led businesses and young people, whom I speak about and listen to on a regular basis.

The themes tend to be the same regarding what the barriers are for those businesses, but the answers are very different. With a tailored programme of work such as this, we can start to tackle that. However, we need to make sure that we do not go solely through the same people—the CBIs and the Institutes of Directors. Someone with an informal network will not necessarily be aware of those institutions or feel that they can engage clearly with them. What more can we do? I am always keen to hear more about how to reach those groups.

When we were handing out the first grants for retail, hospitality and leisure small businesses in the early stages of the pandemic—it was seemingly one of the easiest areas of support, because we knew exactly who qualified—we were still struggling with the relationship between the local authority and those businesses, because we did not have bank account details. Why? The businesses did not have a close transactional relationship with their local authority, so we had to do quite a lot of outreach through accountants, intermediaries and the local media in order to access the people who were running businesses based, as I say, on their informal networks. I am really keen to see what more we can do to drill down, because they are the people for whom this scheme will have the biggest effect.

The hon. Lady rightly talks about how we measure this. Frankly, there is little point in our subsidising someone who would pay the full £10,000 to go on a course over someone who perhaps could not afford it, would not be aware of it or would not think it was for them, although it actually would be very much for them. We ask for £750 because, frankly, if someone has a stake a scheme, they tend to get more out of it in the first place. I am really keen that we do more about finding those hard-to-reach people, and we will direct the funding more at places where productivity is lowest geographically. That is really important in the work that we are doing.

[Seema Malhotra]

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that that is indeed a priority for the Government. It is important for the House to be kept updated, because we want this to be successful. If places are not being reached, it will show in the numbers of those registering interest and the regions in which people are registering interest. I hope the Minister will keep the House updated on the numbers, including by region.

May I probe the Minister on one point? He rightly talked about consistency, and I have a great deal of sympathy with the idea that we want to make sure that the programme has the same quality, standard and consistency across the country, but will he respond to my point about whether a proportion of the curriculum could be more tailored? For example, it is English Tourism Week. We know that the tourism sector has been very hard hit—

[The Chair]

Order. Interventions should be brief.

[Seema Malhotra]

I would be grateful if the Minister could consider whether that could be part of the way in which the programme is refined.

[Paul Scully]

The programme is sector-agnostic, but the peer networking within it means that there can be a certain degree of tailoring towards a particular business leader’s business or sector. Clearly, the alumni aspect, as it develops and expands, will be really productive. I know from courses that I have done in the past—in politics and in the business world—that such learning is often the most beneficial to business leaders.

The hon. Lady asked about charities. Unfortunately, the programme is not available to charities. It is a business-led programme, based on business productivity, but social enterprises clearly are well within the remit, so we want to make sure that we can deliver on that.

[Seema Malhotra]

I also asked why the programme is not available to charities, which I do not think the Minister has fully answered. If that is the case, what is the alternative? Leadership, management and innovation capability within the charity sector is also extremely important as such organisations play an enormous role in our local economies and are great employers.

[Paul Scully]

Charities are indeed great employers. Many of them do fantastic work, and there are always interesting things that we can do to support charities. This scheme answers a particular question. It is an outcome-driven thing: how do we increase productivity? It is especially aimed at businesses and social enterprises that have that sort of outlook, and that is the outcome that we are after. The hon. Lady asked how we will measure that, which is a really important point. On all of the productivity measurements that we already do, we want to make sure that we can see a company’s turnover and the prospects improving. The measurements that we want to make will be covered.

We need to drill down further into how we measure overall outcome, and therefore how we report it. The hon. Lady will undoubtedly ask questions, and rightly so. The easiest thing in the world would be to just give this to a young hotshot whose business is expanding anyway. We want to make sure that we can find the hard-to-reach people and increase their productivity, because that will be of use to the levelling-up agenda, and productivity will help the prosperity of communities as well as businesses. Businesses can be a force for good for not just UK plc, but communities, cities and towns.

The hon. Lady asked about the curriculum. As I have said, the curriculum has been run through business support specialists, including existing courses such as the Goldman Sachs 10,000 and formal learning at business schools, as well as other organisations that run their own schemes. We want to make sure that we learn from the best and get the best in. That means not only doing these informal comms, but working through banks, accountants and intermediaries. Every business has an accounts package such as Sage, Intuit and Xero. Small businesses know that they can work through these areas, and I am keen to make sure that we work with them to get to the harder-to-reach businesses, because we continue to be a champion of the needs of business and industry. That is why we have published “Build Back Better: our plan for growth”.

The supporting strategies will put the UK at the forefront of opportunities and give businesses the confidence to invest, boosting productivity across the UK and enabling our green industrial revolution, which is so important. “Build Back Better” can mean a wide number of things to a wide number of people. Building back better will not only increase productivity, but will build back fairer so that people working in such organisations can feel that they have productive jobs and careers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

The Minister is right about building back better, fairer and greener. We need to make sure that businesses are supported in the growth sectors that might be coming, particularly around the decarbonisation of our economy. I hope that there will be a connection, when future growth is planned within the industrial strategy, to help to support businesses to take advantage of some of those opportunities, too.

I am aware of the Goldman Sachs programme. Indeed, that has seen considerable success. There will be other initiatives that are important to learn from regarding how grassroots businesses have been supported to grow. Have the Government learned from other programmes in the development of the scheme and its curriculum?

[Paul Scully]

I used that as an example, but we have been working with business schools and the schemes that I have dealt with over the last year. In my 14 months as a Minister, I have spoken to about 5,000 or 6,000 businesses. A lot of those have gone through various schemes such Goldman Sachs’s, and also Be the Business, which is a Government-sponsored organisation doing fantastic work up and down the country. We will continue to work and learn from them, but we do not want to replace what is already there. We want something that is additional, that adds value and a degree of consistency, and that allows Britain to be proud, and to be the best place to start to grow and scale up a business that will attract investment, increase productivity for the UK and help us to build back better. I commend the motion to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the motion, That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake to pay, and to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, compensation to Business Schools in respect of a proportion of the indirect costs of funding the Help to Grow Management Programme up to a limit of £220 million over three years.

Post Office Update

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 19th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) is not able to attend today but, like me, she welcomes today’s statement, including the much belated conversion of the inquiry to a statutory footing and the extension of its scope, although we believe that it does not yet go far enough.

This is indeed the largest legal miscarriage of justice in our history. It is estimated that there have been 900 false prosecutions in total—each one its own story of persecution, of fear, of despair, of families destroyed, of reputations smashed, of lives lost and of innocent people bankrupted and imprisoned. I thank and congratulate everybody who has campaigned over so many years—for more than a decade—to reveal the truth, including the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance and the Communication Workers Union. I also congratulate right hon. and hon. Members across the House who have fought for justice for their constituents; I mention in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who has worked tirelessly on the issue.

The campaign for justice has been long fought, and there is still a long way to go. The Minister’s announcement is a step in the right direction. The Labour party and the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance have always said that the inquiry must be statutory, but less than a month ago in this Chamber, four days after the Court of Appeal’s decision, the Minister rejected calls for a statutory inquiry on the grounds that it would take

“three, four or five years”—[Official Report, 27 April 2021; Vol. 693, c. 254.]

Can he tell us what has happened to change his mind?

The horrific miscarriage of justice did not happen overnight. For a decade, we have known that there were serious problems with the Horizon system, but the Post Office denied all wrongdoing, pursuing the victims and imposing huge lawyers’ fees on the claimants. Even after the High Court ruling vindicated postmasters in 2019, the Government refused to act. The next step has been delayed and victims’ lives have been disrupted by this Government.

It is important to remember that having a statutory inquiry is not, of itself, justice. There remain a number of urgent questions for the Minister that he did not answer a few weeks ago. The Government are the Post Office’s only shareholder, yet time and again, the Post Office was allowed to abuse its power over postmasters. That was the finding of the Court, and it is a really important point. Will the Minister acknowledge the Government’s failure of oversight and due diligence with regard to public money? Will he apologise to the victims and their families today? The postmasters were criminalised for a culture that assumed technology is infallible and workers dishonest. How will the Minister change that, and what are the implications for the management of human teams relying on AI or computer algorithms?

We welcome any new powers for Sir Wyn and the review. It was reported—and this seemed to be in the statement—that Sir Wyn will have the power to summon witnesses to give testimony under oath and to force the Post Office to hand over documents. Can the Minister confirm that, and will that power apply to any other entity or organisation from which evidence is sought? While the terms of reference have been updated, they do not seem to reflect the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central previously. For example, compensation still appears to be out of scope of the inquiry—why? Who has been consulted on the revised terms of reference?

Fujitsu was the one that provided faulty software. An independent investigator, Second Sight, drew attention to that as far back as 2013, yet the Government do not appear to be doing anything to hold Fujitsu to account. Instead, the Horizon software has been renewed, rewarding Fujitsu with a new £42 million contract. Will ongoing Government contracts with Fujitsu be reviewed? Paula Vennells led the Post Office during this time and was honoured with a CBE, along with a long list of others. Is it right that she and others continue to be honoured?

The Minister has referred to a “full and final settlement” for some postmasters with the Post Office. However, he will know that of the £58 million settlement approved in the High Court case, only £12 million will go to the victims, with the rest taken up in legal fees. Does the Minister agree that they should be considered for appropriate compensation?

The JFSA and Labour want there to be a public consultation to guarantee that the inquiry will deliver for all the victims and provide conclusive answers. The Post Office is a Government-owned company that has been found to be at fault. It is vital that the Government act to improve the corporate structure of the Post Office, to prevent this kind of thing from ever happening again. It should never have been allowed to develop into this scandal, but all we can do now is ensure that we get to the truth, that those wrongly convicted get justice and that lessons are learnt.

Securing this statutory inquiry is a big victory for sub-postmasters, trade unions and justice, but despite the Government’s U-turn, this is only the start. The Government have failed to live up to their responsibility to prevent this scandal from occurring, and they have, until today, stood in the way of justice. I urge the Minister to apologise, to own the Government’s mistakes and to start work to ensure that justice is served and that a scandal of this magnitude can never happen again.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I did not want to interrupt the hon. Lady, but Mr Speaker would be annoyed with me if I did not point out that she has taken a minute longer than she ought to have had, and that is a minute that will not be taken later today by some other Member who wishes to speak.

Affordable and Safe Housing for All

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) pointed out, on jobs, that while the Gracious Speech may sound good, it is severely lacking in substance. It is not just on jobs that the Government are providing little more than rhetoric, but on housing, skills, employment rights and financial inclusion too.

The need for a deadline to make all homes safe was powerfully outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), and I congratulate her on her new role. I will be backing Labour’s amendment today. The Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill must make leasehold more transparent and as fair a system as for homeowners, but while the building safety Bill looks at the safety of future buildings, it does nothing to help those trapped in unsafe buildings, including many in Feltham and Heston. Indeed, it seems to be reinstating regulations removed by previous Tory Governments. The £50 a month supposedly maximum bill for leaseholders in buildings of under 18 metres still means a bill of £600 a year, with no clarity on how many years they will be paying it or any leverage over what landlords seek to charge them. Since 2017, Tory Ministers have promised at least 15 times that leaseholders will not have to pay unfair costs, yet that is what this Government voted for last month, rather than ensuring that those responsible must pay. Living safely is not a privilege; it is a right.

Let me turn to the economy. There was no announced employment Bill, which the Tories promised in 2019. TUC polling shows that 84% of working people want all workers to have the same basic rights. The Prime Minister promised that he would enhance workers’ rights after our departure from the EU, so what happened? Did he lose the memo? Did it get lost in his refurbishment? The time is now to finally introduce a long-awaited employment Bill that would include measures to create a single enforcement body to enforce employment law, improve rights to flexible working, and end the deeply immoral practice of fire and rehire. This has been a hugely unequal pandemic. The number of people on zero-hours contracts is at almost 1 million. Women, ethnic minorities, young people and the lowest paid have paid the worst economic price. Poor employment rights and low pay cause the in-work poverty that is a modern-day scandal.

Vital for employment is reskilling and upskilling. A decade of Tory Government has meant spending on further education has halved and 200,000 apprenticeships have disappeared since 2016. The Government’s proposed lifelong learning entitlement is, bewilderingly, set to start in four years’ time. If improving our skills system is so crucial, why is action being left until after the next general election and after the next spending review? Why are we only focusing on certain sectors?

On financial inclusion for businesses and consumers, the Government’s plans must also include the 5.9 million small businesses and sole traders who are at the heart of our local economies. Bringing small businesses into public procurement processes is well overdue and a vital first step, but there must be a focus on small business finance.

On the poverty premium highlighted by Fair by Design, people on low incomes are forced to pay more than better off consumers on a range of products such as energy bills and high-cost credit, and they pay more in insurance because they are more likely to live in areas considered high risk. This costs the average low-income household an extra £490 per year. In 2017, the House of Lords Select Committee on Financial Exclusion recommended the Government expand the remit of the Financial Conduct Authority to include a statutory duty to promote financial inclusion. That must be on the Government’s radar.

In conclusion, the Queen’s Speech should be the road map to getting our economy and society back on a path to a fairer future for all. Its gaps are glaring.

Fire Safety Bill

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have a sense of déjà vu, because we have been saying all this for some time, as have Members across the House. Of course the Government should sit down with the Welsh Government and work out whether any of this funding will go to Wales and how that will work.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about the needs of leaseholders. Does she agree that, as well as dealing with the gaps in the support so far announced, it is vital that there is much more clarity on what leaseholders should be entitled to—particularly those in shared ownership arrangements, where the quality of work done and the relationship with the social landlord can vary? This is causing them great confusion and anxiety and, indeed, great difficulty in selling their properties.

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The plight of people in shared ownership properties is dire and needs to be looked at by the Government, as does the plight of the many thousands of people who are still trapped in unsafe buildings or buildings they cannot sell, who face extortionate bills for remediation work or who face huge increases in insurance and waking watch costs and other costs that they simply cannot afford. People are going bankrupt.

We cannot feel it in this place, but every time we have a debate or a vote on this issue, thousands of people write to all of us and say, “We are hoping against hope that you do the right thing this time.” We have people writing with heartfelt pleas. Their stories are stark, and every time we have this conversation, people’s hopes are raised, and there is a groundswell on social media and in our inboxes of people saying, “Maybe now the Government are going to do the right thing.” They are watching us now, hoping that we are going to do the right thing. It is very sad that the Government are indicating at the moment that they are not going to take this issue seriously.

This is taking a heavy toll on people’s mental health and putting millions of lives on hold. Leaseholders have been trapped in this impossible position for too long. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have continually campaigned on this issue, and we welcome the latest amendment from the Bishop of St Albans. Like Labour’s previous amendments and those tabled by Members on both sides of the House, this amendment would prohibit the cost of replacing unsafe cladding being passed on to leaseholders or tenants.

In February, the Housing Secretary told thousands of people across the country that they will be locked into years of debt to fix fire safety problems that were not their fault, and we hear that the Government have decided to lay a motion to disagree with the Bishop of St Albans’s amendment. That is a direct and deliberate betrayal of the promise that Ministers have made over 17 times that leaseholders should not be left to foot the bill. Over the weekend, I wrote to Members of Parliament across the House who have constituents affected by this, urging them to back the amendment, and I sincerely hope that together we will stand up for the rights of leaseholders today and all Members will do the right thing. Given the risk of fire and looming bankruptcy, we cannot wait while the Government delay with inaction and failed proposals to keep leaseholders out of debt.

Today is another chance for the Government finally to put public safety first and to bring forward legislation to protect leaseholders from the deeply unfair situation of paying for fire safety repairs for which they are not responsible. Members across this House are united on this issue and are determined that innocent leaseholders should not foot the bill. Today should be the day when people across the country can go to sleep with a great sense of relief that the Government have listened and put into law protections for leaseholders, so I sincerely hope that the Minister will change his mind. It is not too late for the Government to do the right thing and protect innocent leaseholders across the country.

Unsafe Cladding: Protecting Tenants and Leaseholders

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

The Government’s handling of the cladding crisis has lacked any sense of grip or urgency. Almost four years on from Grenfell, it is heartbreaking to see the pain that families are going through. I thank The Sunday Times for its campaign.

Residents are facing lockdown in inflammable buildings with potentially huge bills for repair work, higher insurance, and interim safety measures such as waking watch. They are also unable to sell their flats. An estimated 4,000 residents in Hounslow alone are affected. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) has also supported many affected constituents. They include young couples, now with children, trapped and unable to upsize to a home big enough for their growing family.

The situation is now not just about cladding. There is also a worrying lack of transparency and speed from housing associations such as A2Dominion and FirstPort. They were slow to undertake the survey work needed on fire safety, despite residents asking for clarity a year ago. With permission, I will share part of a letter that my constituent Pamela Canales received last week from A2Dominion. It reads:

“We wrote to you in June 2020 to let you know your building needed an ‘intrusive survey’. Our fire safety contractor carried out an intrusive survey in several different areas of your building…The results showed that there are issues with timber cladding, insulation inside the masonry walls with incorrectly installed cavity barriers between flats and cavity closers”.

It goes on to say:

“If you would like to re-mortgage or sell your flat, the mortgage lender involved will probably ask for an (EWS1 form). Your building received an ESW1 rating of Option ‘B2’—confirming combustible materials are present and remedial work is required. It is likely a lender will ask for more information about what work is needed, the likely timescales and the costs of carrying out the work. Unfortunately, we don’t know that information at this stage.”

On who will pay for the remedial works, it says:

“At this stage it is too early to say. We fully understand this is a key area of concern for residents and this is a top priority for us. We do not wish to pass cost onto leaseholders and will only do this as a last resort.”

A2Dominion and others do not have a good track record on transparency of costs for leaseholders. This morning, residents told me:

“We don’t know how much this is going to cost us. We don’t know if we will have to vacate the building. It’s time for us to have answers. It’s stressful enough already with the pandemic. We can’t go on like this.”

We need a Government-led plan now to fix the cladding crisis that does not burden leaseholders with the cost. Those responsible must pay.

Oral Answers to Questions

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

The hon. Lady’s question is a good and important one. Obviously, that is something that the Government have published research on, and it is obviously a fast-evolving situation. We continue to work closely with councils that cover areas of high density of BAME population, including, for example, Bradford. We want to understand those pressures and as we do, then we will adjust our response accordingly.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

Hounslow Borough Council has identified spending pressures of around £15 million and income losses of £95 million due to covid-19, and the funding gap is rising. Our local authority is heavily dependent on aviation and my constituency has the fourth largest amount of furloughed employment. How do the Government plan to support partnerships between councils, industry, training providers and community organisations to ensure that our economic recovery and our community recovery go hand in hand?

[Mr Clarke]

The hon. Lady asks an excellent question. Clearly, it is important that local authorities and business work together. We have so far allocated a total of more than £103 million to Hounslow Borough Council precisely to help ensure that we support the whole community. That includes a generous settlement of grants for businesses as well as additional funding worth more than £14 million for the council. It is vital that any authority with particular issues—for example, links to aviation—that is struggling to make the books balance speaks to the Department and we will of course always be happy to offer detailed advice.

Sikhs: Contribution to the UK

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the contribution of Sikhs to the UK.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and to open this debate, which comes at the end of the first UK National Sikh Awareness and History Month. I am sure this debate will cover history, community, faith, economy and culture.

The Sikh community is an established community in the UK, whose members first arrived in significant numbers in the 1950s. We know that Sikhs are now well established with a significant and leading presence in almost all professions. In Hounslow, almost 10% of the population identifies as Sikh. There are almost 500,000 Sikhs across the UK—approaching 1% of the total population.

The “British Sikh Report 2019”, launched in Parliament last week as part UK National Sikh Awareness and History Month, describes the contribution of Sikhs across our economy. Sikhs have an 84% employment rate, with top sectors of employment including public service, charity work, healthcare, teaching, accountancy and finance, and IT and technology. Many businesses are run by those in the Sikh community, including many in my constituency. Dr Rami Ranger, who is Sikh, is perhaps one of the best-known Asian businessmen in the UK, having founded a company which has won the Queen’s award for enterprise more than six times.

The contribution of the Sikh community to our armed forces continues to this day. Sir Frank Messervy, quoted in “The Sikh Regiment in the Second World War” by F. T. Birdwood, said:

“In the last two world wars 83,005 turban wearing Sikh soldiers were killed and 109,045 were wounded, fighting for the British Empire. During shell fire, they had no other head protection but the turban, the symbol of their faith.”

By the beginning of the first world war, there were more than 100,000 Sikhs in the British Indian Army, making up 20% of the force. Before 1945, 14 Victoria Crosses were awarded to Sikhs, which was a per capita regimental record. In 2002, the names of all Sikh Victoria Cross and George Cross recipients were inscribed on the monument of the memorial gates on Constitution Hill, next to Buckingham Palace.

Despite that background, this shared history is far less known or understood by an increasing number of people.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Before my hon. Friend moves on from the incredible record of Sikh soldiers in service of this country and freedom, does she agree that it is appropriate that we should now have a war memorial recognising that effort? Fundamentally, the Government should get on with designating a site where that can be placed.

[Seema Malhotra]

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. I am sure that all hon. Members present would agree with him. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) will talk further about that point and the campaign he has helped to lead in Parliament.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Following on from what our right hon. Friend has just said, the Sikh contribution in the first and second world wars was very significant, particularly in places such as Burma. Sikhs played a prominent part in the battles of El Alamein, which were some of the greatest victories of the second world war, and that should not be forgotten. I reinforce what our right hon. Friend said about a memorial to the Sikh soldiers.

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend has a long-standing record of working with his local Sikh community. I will also make that point, as will my hon. Friend the Member for Slough.

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

I am pleased to be in this debate. My hon. Friend mentioned the lack of knowledge in this country of Sikh history. Will she join me in encouraging visitors to the Manchester Museum to see the Jallianwala Bagh exhibition, which has been prepared in conjunction with the Partition Museum in Amritsar? I think visitors from across the country and different cultures will find it very informative. I visited it during the Easter recess and I can warmly recommend it.

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important contribution. I hope to visit the museum in the near future. I am sure that hon. Members across the House and those watching will be interested to attend that exhibition, which comes at a critical time, 100 years since the awful event that took place on Vaisakhi in 1919, in Amritsar. I will comment more on that centenary later.

Despite the background of Sikhs’ contribution to the UK, it is extraordinary that our shared history is little known or understood. Understanding different communities is vital for not just community cohesion, but getting policy right, including the rights of Sikhs to wear their articles of faith—an important right that led to exemptions for the kirpan in new knife crime legislation in the recent Offensive Weapons Bill debate.

Sikhs, like other communities, have faced an increase in hate crime attacks. Last year we saw an attack on a turban-wearing Sikh visitor outside the House of Commons. This appalling attack sent shockwaves across the whole community and the Houses of Parliament. That incident triggered our idea of a National Sikh Awareness and History Month, which is also referred to as Sikh Heritage Month and takes place this month, during April, the month of Vaisakhi.

Other right hon. and hon. Members will make speeches raising the issues that are important to them, so I want to focus on two main areas. First, I want to focus on the purpose and place in our national life of National Sikh Awareness and History Month, of which this debate forms the final parliamentary event. Secondly, I want to share a perspective on the Sikh community in my local area and the range of contributions made to the wider community.

Last April I tabled an early-day motion with cross-party support, calling for the UK to recognise April as National Sikh Awareness and History Month, noting that 14 April marks Vaisakhi and the founding of the Khalsa in 1699, by the 10th Guru of the Sikhs, Guru Gobind Singh Ji. That early-day motion was supported by over 100 Members of Parliament from across the House, the all-party parliamentary group on UK Sikhs and many other groups. It recognised that the national Sikh awareness months that have been established in other western countries have successfully raised awareness of Sikhs, broken down barriers, and improved cohesion and dialogue.

To take that forward, we formed a cross-party parliamentary steering committee, and I thank all its members for their support in recent months. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), who is here today, and the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), who is chair of the all-party parliamentary group on UK Sikhs and is also present.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Slough, who is leading the campaign for a permanent Sikh war memorial in London. Sikh war memorials have opened in Bristol and elsewhere, but it is absolutely time that we showed leadership and had a permanent war memorial in London. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for working with me on the campaign for direct flights from London to Amritsar, which would serve communities in London and the surrounding areas. I also thank the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable), the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who is present, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).

Many across the Sikh community were part of the early establishment of the idea last year with the Sikh Council UK. I thank Jagtar Singh Gill and Gurinder Singh Josan, along with Kirat Singh, for their support in the early days when the idea was growing, which led to the launch this month.

This month is just the start. With the foundations in place, we look forward to expanding the steering group and including community members and groups from across the country, so the project will be truly community led. The programme of events in Parliament in April has been supported by a range of Sikh community organisations and community channels, all of which I thank for making it happen. I also thank Satwinder Sehmi, an artist and calligrapher who contributed to the development of the logo for Sikh Heritage Month, which respectfully and symbolically brings together faith and heritage.

Our programme of events has been extremely well attended and hugely inspiring and engaging. The Vaisakhi event in Parliament, which is organised annually by the British Sikh Consultative Forum, brought together representatives from gurdwaras across the country for the launch of the project. There were also supportive messages from all parties, including from the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. On the same night, a launch took place in the Scottish Parliament.

Last week, we had a packed event and discussion in Parliament for the launch of the “British Sikh Report 2019”. The Sikh Channel, Everything’s 13 and the Basics of Sikhi, which are also attending the debate, helped with the incredible Turban Awareness Day, which was educational in recognising and educating people about the significance and relevance of the turban. That event in Parliament was attended by almost 50 Members of Parliament from all parties.

Two lectures were given, one by Dr Opinderjit Takhar, the director of the Centre for Sikh and Punjabi Studies, on Guru Nanak and feminism, and one by Anita Anand on her new book, “The Patient Assassin”, which is about the principal actors, the story before and the story after the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, in which many Sikhs and people of all faiths were brutally murdered by the British. For her, the story is personal, as her grandfather escaped death by minutes while his close friends and colleagues were brutally murdered. She also told the story of Udham Singh, who made it his life’s mission to assassinate the lieutenant governor of the Punjab at the time, to whom she also had a strong personal link through her husband’s family, who had had contact with him in the past.

The massacre 100 years ago is a stain on our nation’s history to this day. It is time for an official apology. I am extremely disappointed that that was not forthcoming in our previous debate and during April. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that again today. It is no surprise that the “British Sikh Report 2019”, published last week, found that 79% of British Sikhs believe that the British Government should apologise for the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, and that 85% believe that it should be taught and in school syllabuses. It is a huge disappointment that we continue that battle. The massacre was condemned by Winston Churchill, then Minister for War, as

“an extraordinary event, a monstrous event, an event which stands in singular and sinister isolation”.—[Official Report, 8 July 1920; Vol. 131, c. 1725.]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East for his work and for the way he has brought together Members of Parliament from both sides of the House to call on the Government to make sure that the official apology happens.

Through April, a range of community-organised events have also taken place around the country, with MPs and councillors involved in Visit My Gurdwara and Langar with your MP events, which often coincided with important Vaisakhi Nagar Kirtans or community processions. This month takes on greater significance this year, as Sikhs around the world mark the 550th birth anniversary of Guru Nanak Dev Ji. I hope that National Sikh Awareness and History Month plays its part well in raising awareness and understanding of the Sikh faith, history and community, and continues to strengthen the bridges we build with Parliament and across nations with all our communities.

I will talk briefly about the gurdwaras in my constituency, Gurdwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha on Alice Way and my gurdwara on Martindale Road, which is run by the Nishkam trust, which play a huge role in many different ways, as I am sure gurdwaras across the country do. They extend charity and welcome and they support those in need. Every week, they welcome people who may be homeless or hungry. They welcome all, irrespective of background, through their doors. They run weekend classes and Punjabi classes, and host our surgeries as Members of Parliament so that we can reach all those in our communities. They have run immigration workshops —a huge issue in many ethnic minority communities— where immigration advisers are supported in providing confidential support and advice to those who desperately need it.

The Gurdwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha on Alice Way hosts the Hounslow Disability Network, which again provides vital support to those who need it. There are wellbeing events with the NHS, the police and many others across our community that make a huge difference. They also support the arts, culture and education. My constituent, Hardyal Luther, the former vice-chairman of Guru Nanak Worldwide’s council of supporters, organises a Guru Nanak essay competition every year that brings together talent and encourages the younger generations to take part and explore their history, culture and faith.

We live in a peaceful and respectful society because we choose to make it so. The structures that we build between us as a society help to nurture those vital links that make us a safe place for all communities and a place in which we can be sure that future generations will also be safe and will understand and respect one another. The respect that we hold and the understanding that we nurture are part of a statement about how we as a nation recognise that we have more in common than that which divides us.

[John Spellar]

I realise that my hon. Friend is reaching the end of her excellent contribution, but she has come to a key point about the Sikh community in the United Kingdom. While enormously proud of its history, culture and tradition, it is also enormously proud to be British. Something like three quarters of the Sikh community in this country were born in the UK and are hugely proud of this country. Being proud to be Sikh and proud to be British identifies the Sikhs and is why the Sikh community makes such a great contribution to our country.

[Seema Malhotra]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point that goes to the heart of what this debate is about. Whatever our heritage, as we play our part in British public life, it is vital that we respect each other and show that, in a time of rising hate crime not just across our country but across the world, we take the time to value each other, respect each other, understand each other’s history, and understand our nation’s history through the context and lens of all those who make a vital contribution.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, given that she is coming to the end of her speech. I thank her for an admirable and comprehensive contribution to the debate. The contribution of Sikhs to public life has gone unrecognised so far. I had the privilege of being the deputy to Lord King when he was leader of Sandwell Council. He was the first Sikh leader of a major metropolitan authority and subsequently became a Member of the House of Lords. I put on record his contribution to breaking down barriers and providing inspiration for subsequent generations of Sikhs to enter public life.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We all remember Lord King and the contribution that he made.

I will also make reference to our two Sikh Members of Parliament who are here today: our first turbaned Sikh Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough; and our first female Sikh Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston. They do us all proud and make a huge contribution, not only to debates in this House but to making sure that, as a minority community, we play our part and are seen to play our part in Britain’s mainstream public life.

With those words, I will end my speech. I thank you, Sir Edward, for chairing this debate, and the House for allowing me to call this debate and make my contribution to it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the Minister and all who have taken part. I am sure that the debate on the issue of a formal apology for the Jallianwala Bagh massacre will continue. I hope the Prime Minister will use her Vaisakhi event next month to move things forward.

I echo the words of my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill): raising awareness has a purpose, which is to build relations and to tackle hate, inequality and injustice. Where that requires Parliament to act, I hope we will have the courage to do so. In this debate, we have heard that people from the Sikh community have contributed to our society in so many ways—from Princess Sophia Duleep Singh, who campaigned for suffrage in my constituency, to Fauja Singh in sport. We have not mentioned him, but this is a marathon week.

I close by thanking the Sikh community in my constituency and the leaders of our main local gurdwaras for all they do in working in an interfaith way, recognising the words of Guru Nanak Dev Ji that there is no Hindu and there is no Muslim. That we are all one together is a strong message that comes from the Sikh faith. I would like to mention Zora Singh Khangora, Gurmej Kaur, Gurmit Singh Hanzara, Premi Singh from the Afghan Sikhs, Sarup Singh Mahon, Gurmail Singh Malhi and our deputy mayor, Councillor Sumra, and all the other Sikh councillors who do a huge amount to keep the bridge strong between our community and our politics.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

On a personal note, it has been a great privilege to chair this wonderful debate, in which we have all come together to celebrate the contribution of the Sikh community to our nation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the contribution of Sikhs to the UK.

Clyde House and A2Dominion

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

Indeed, and I will come on to what I think could be some of the solutions. The hon. Lady highlights one of the other issues that came out of the experience of Clyde House residents, which is that nobody is willing to take responsibility. On the one hand, A2Dominion said initially that the responsibility for rectifying some of the major urgent issues was down to the developer, which was responsible because it had built the building. On the other hand, the developer was clear with me that it had handed over that responsibility and that the issues within the footprint of the building itself had been passed on to A2Dominion, which is responsible for maintenance. While that discussion was happening between those two organisations, my constituents were left with no action, from which there are lessons to be learned.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for securing this debate. She is making a clear case about the lack of responsiveness and responsibility from the housing association, A2Dominion. It is incredible how common these issues and stories seem to be.

Over the past two months I have had an issue with a broken lift at Camellia House in Feltham, where the issue has been between A2Dominion and FirstPort, with neither seeming to take responsibility for resolving the issue as quickly as it could be. There has been poor communication with residents throughout the process. They also said that a fob was available for an alternative lift, which was not available to all the residents.

Where people have been affected, whether they are families with young children or people with disabilities, it has become even more of a stress and a strain at the beginning and end of every day. Does the right hon. Lady agree that we need to do much more to ensure there is transparency of service charges and accountability so that housing associations work in the interest of residents, and not in their own interest?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The work now under way at Clyde House will steadily make a difference to residents. Communal areas on all the floors will be redecorated, and fresh flooring will be put down. Work is beginning on upgraded CCTV, and the entrance doors will be much friendlier for disabled people who will now not have to reach the doors to open them—the doors will open automatically with a fob. A whole series of improvements will be made, which is welcome, but it should not have reached a crisis point for my local community and residents before action was taken. They should not have had to call me, as their local MP, to step in and force the issue to get action.

I will briefly address some of the possible solutions, because it strikes me that people see housing and homes as the ultimate public utility, yet whatever expectations we have of any other utility, whether mobile phones, water or energy, we have a completely different approach to the one on which we are most reliant, the home we live in. Who built it and to what standard?

I know the Government are looking at how we can have a more streamlined approach, but I will finish by setting out where positive differences could have been made in the case of Clyde House. First, when buildings are completed, obviously an independent inspection is needed to sign them off. My suggestion is that there should be a further follow-up inspection in, say, one to two years to consider whether issues have emerged since the building was finished and occupied that simply were not there to be identified at the beginning.

In cases like ours, the issues were clear from the first three months of residents moving in, but there was no independent person to pick them up. This suggestion would allow the industry to take quick action before problems become worse and more costly to rectify. It should also happen on an independent basis so that residents have the reassurance that somebody entirely separate from both the developer and the managing agent is able to come in and look at whether the building is performing and being maintained as expected.

I thoroughly agree on the need for more transparency on service charges and the whole range of costs that residents often experience in such homes. I do not know why we cannot have an approach like our approach to energy ratings, which is more consistent and transparent across buildings, wherever they are in the country, so that residents can get a sense of whether the various charges they are being asked to pay to live in their flat are at the high end or the low end for an average flat of the same nature. People are used to seeing that for other utilities and should be able to see it for the flat they live in.

We need a more pan-regulatory system that allows us to identify issues that are not just specific to a particular residence but symptomatic of an organisation with failings. Based on what other MPs have said to me about A2Dominion—I must repeat that it has now responded to the issues at Clyde House and is working hard to resolve them—my sense is that my constituents are not the only ones who have had issues. Organisations such as A2Dominion need to consider whether particular issues are in fact symptomatic of wider organisational problems around promptness, the efficacy of what they do and whether they follow up to make sure residents are content with the work done.

From what I can gather, the ventilation at Clyde House might not have been the best approach for that building, given its circumstances. Where such issues are systemic—for example, if the developer at Clyde House is repeating them in block after block—we need an approach and a regulatory system that can pick that up so that developers can learn from building mistakes and suboptimal approaches and get them rectified and so that the industry as a whole can rectify problems. It would also enable people thinking of living in a particular property to find out whether it was built by someone who tends to get these buildings right or someone who tends to get them wrong.

We urgently need a broader review of this area. It is unacceptable that people are living in the sorts of conditions I saw in Clyde House. It does not matter on what basis they are living in those conditions. People should know they have redress to get urgent action taken, and taken effectively, so that they do not have to live like that for long.

[Seema Malhotra]

The right hon. Member is making an important point about the need for a wider review and rightly draws a distinction with developments where there have been positive experiences. On the management of properties, particularly where there is shared ownership, is it not also important that there is fairness in the system—that people feel they are being treated fairly—and that the system works for those doing their best to have a home they can feel secure in, not exploited in?

[Justine Greening]

Indeed. It is really important that residents have access to redress, independent oversight of the quality of the work and somewhere to go when there are issues, and it is important that the system be streamlined so that it is simpler for residents. They should not need to have access to expensive lawyers to get proper advice about how to get their problems sorted out.

This is important. I was shocked at the kinds of environments that Clyde House residents were having to live in. I am pleased that A2Dominion is now responding to them, but the situation has raised some systemic issues and it would be good to hear from the Minister about what action the Government can take to ensure they are addressed.

[The Minister for Housing (Kit Malthouse)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) on securing this important debate. I understand her concerns and those of her constituents about the terrible situation at Clyde House, the state of their homes and how this has been addressed by the landlord, A2Dominion. I also congratulate her on the obviously pivotal role she played in resolving the situation. It is obvious from events that her intervention has brought A2Dominion up short and made them acknowledge its mistakes and errors. Indeed, I read in The Guardian that the director of property services had issued an apology saying:

“We recognise that things are not right and we’re going to put them right. We haven’t performed well, and you have my personal apology.”

She no doubt has the gratitude of her constituents and my congratulations as the Minister and those of the many Members who deal with these sorts of issues on a daily basis, as I do in my constituency.

Let me first make it clear that everyone has the right to be safe and to feel safe in their home, and they should expect their complaints to be dealt with promptly and effectively. The Government have taken steps to ensure that happens. Last year we published our social housing Green Paper, which sought views on how to improve redress for social housing residents in particular, and on a number of other issues that my right hon. Friend has raised this evening.

We engaged extensively with residents to inform and shape the Green Paper. We heard that residents want redress quickly when things go wrong, and for processes to be clearer and simpler. The Green Paper asked a range of questions on how we could deliver that, including a question on the future of the democratic filter, which is the process whereby a complaint is referred to the ombudsman via a designated person, or the complainant must wait eight weeks, which can further delay the complaints process.

The Green Paper also set out proposals to hold landlords to account more. To that end, we are reviewing the regulatory system for social housing so that the regulator can take action when a landlord consistently fails its residents. We want to rebalance the relationship between landlords and residents, and we will underpin that with a robust regulatory framework. We will publish our response to the Green Paper and the outcome of the review of regulation in due course.

I held roadshows across the country with hundreds of residents, particularly in social and affordable housing. I made a pledge that at some point before the summer we will publish that action plan. It will have a clear sense of direction and a clear timetable, because I was asked repeatedly by residents whether it was worth attending the roadshows, and whether they will actually see some change. I have made that pledge. How long I will be in this job, I am not sure—Housing Ministers do not often last that long—but I will try.

I also want to mention the other actions that the Government are taking to help all tenants. The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 will strengthen all tenants’ rights and protect them from poor practice. The Act, which comes into force on 20 March, will empower all tenants, both private tenants and those in social housing, to take their landlord to court if their property is unfit for human habitation. Under the Act, landlords must ensure that their properties are fit from the start and throughout the tenancy. If they do not do so, the tenant has the right to take legal action. We have published guidance for tenants to help them understand their rights and responsibilities under the Act, and guidance for landlords and local authorities on how the Act might affect them.

[Seema Malhotra]

Can the Minister clarify whether, under the new arrangements, which I think we are all pleased to see coming into force, if a resident takes a landlord to court and wins, there are any circumstances in which they might be required to pay the landlord’s legal fees?

[Kit Malthouse]

That is a very good question, to which I do not actually have the answer, but I will make inquires and write to the hon. Lady. In most cases, as I am sure she knows, it is at the judge’s discretion where costs fall, and often it is decided on the merits of the case.

The 2018 Act does not place any additional responsibilities on social landlords, as they are already required to maintain their homes to a decent standard; it will act only as a backstop. We expect any problems with properties to be resolved far before they reach that stage.

The first step for residents with a complaint is to report problems to their landlord. The regulator expects all social landlords to have in place a complaints process that deals with issues promptly, politely and fairly. The onus is on individual landlords, working with residents, to set their approach and timescales for handling their residents’ complaints. I want to stress that if any hon. Member, acting on a constituent’s behalf, is unhappy with the response provided by a registered provider once their internal complaints process has been exhausted, that hon. Member may take the matter further.

Social housing residents can also approach the Housing Ombudsman Service at any time to seek advice. However, in order to refer a complaint formally to the ombudsman, a resident’s complaint must pass through the democratic filter. That involves referring a complaint to a designated person—a local councillor, a Member of Parliament or a tenant panel—for them either to deal with the complaint or to refer it to the ombudsman, or waiting eight weeks after their landlord’s complaints process has been exhausted. If the ombudsman determines that a complaint falls within its jurisdiction, it will investigate the complaint to determine whether there has been maladministration by the landlord. It will then issue a determination letter, which may include orders and recommendations to resolve the dispute. The landlord is expected to follow any orders within a specific timeframe.

Oral Answers to Questions

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I look forward to discussing that issue with my hon. Friend, because there is a sense of a need for change. Some of the abuses that we have seen are unacceptable. Although we have already put forward proposals to make that difference, I will certainly continue to talk to colleagues who may have some further imaginative thoughts.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I was shocked to hear that A2Dominion has sent leaseholders of a block in my constituency a landlord water bill of £900 per flat payable within 30 days, with the only explanation being that it had not read the water meter for two years. This has caused huge stress for residents and is the latest in the long line of unacceptable, sudden invoices with little or no explanation. Does the Secretary of State agree that there needs to be a change in the transparency and standards of housing association service charges, because leaseholders are treated like cash cows and the law is weighted in favour of landlords?

[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.

Housing Bodies: Accountability

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Cunningham]

My hon. Friend has highlighted another major problem: at times, housing organisations hide behind the Data Protection Act 1998 to obscure the fact that they are bad managers of housing estates. That suggests that there is a wider issue with competition in the market, allowing poorer customer service to go unchallenged. Like most parts of the country, Coventry has recently seen some new, small-scale housing developments, and issues have arisen in a significant number of those developments as a result of the quality of the build. One recent example in Coventry has been the Philmont Court development in Tile Hill. That development of 48 flats is actually in my neighbouring constituency, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), who cannot be here today because he has other business.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making some powerful comments, and I thank him for securing the debate. Over the past few years, I have had considerable issues in my constituency, particularly with A2Dominion and FirstPort. Does he agree that the quality of build requires stronger regulation? I have had issues with letterboxes where mail can be taken from outside, and with residents saying that poor-quality materials are being used, particularly in areas where there is shared ownership rather than private ownership. All of that reduces confidence, particularly among first-time buyers, and those who are struggling and making ends meet in order to get on to the housing ladder and feel proud of the home they live in.

[Mr Cunningham]

That is why I mentioned the Philmont estate in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West. There, there has been bad workmanship—to say the least—and a bad build. Residents have been moved out of their houses for a period of about 40 weeks and cannot get any compensation. They have to rent privately to get accommodation; who is going to compensate them? My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) has highlighted similar problems to those we have in Coventry. The builders, Persimmon, have particularly let down residents by refusing to take any responsibility or pay compensation.

Of course, there are sometimes unforeseen issues with the quality of the design and building of a house. However, there seem to be widespread problems with new builds due to rushed building and substandard resources. I also hear from an increasing number of constituents about delays in moving into their new-build houses. I have one constituent who has had a seven-month delay in the building of her new home this year, which has made her and her children homeless: they are having to get by in a friend’s spare room. I am certain that that is the case across the country, as my hon. Friend touched on. I am also sure that there are many more people out there who are affected by delays, but who never contact us because they do not think they will get anywhere.

I would like the Government to review the checks that are currently in place regarding the design and build of houses. They should also look at the support offered to customers by housing organisations when issues arise. We must make sure that mistakes and errors are found early in the process, and that delays are lessened as much as possible.

[Mr Cunningham]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. Given local government cuts, trading standards officers cannot police this sector any more—it is as simple as that. That is one reason why these housing organisations are getting away with it, but the law should be tightened up as well.

[Seema Malhotra]

Does my hon. Friend agree that poor-quality materials can have other impacts, not just on the benefit of the asset if it is in shared ownership, but by creating situations where the quality of the ceilings or the walls results in greater noise going through from one property to another—people being able to hear each other’s toilets flush, for example? That impacts on neighbourly relations and puts residents in a difficult position. Finally, regarding the architecture of how blocks are built, there have been cases where bin storage areas have been built on the ground floor of flats. That has resulted in rats running riot through those properties, causing tremendous damage and requiring expense on the part of residents to put it right.

[Mr Cunningham]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We are building up health problems among future generations, particularly the young children who are growing up in these properties. We had thought we had moved away from the type of housing that people used to experience in the 1930s.

I now want to discuss the accountability that Members offer when we work on behalf of constituents through our casework.