Shrewsbury 24 (Release of Papers)
Debate between Simon Hughes and Chris Williamson(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hughes
No, I want to try to be helpful, and out of respect for the hon. Member for Blaydon, let me, please, unusually for me, be uninterrupted; I want to respond to as much as I can.
May I tell the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and other colleagues that, not just as the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, I completely understand the issue to do with health and safety and decent wages generally and in the building industry in particular? I have campaigned on this issue. I understand the dreadful health and safety record in the past. Strong trade unions, particularly in the building industry over the past 40 years, were hugely important in ensuring that wages and conditions were better, which, thank God, they are now. I pay tribute to those who were part of that effort.
At the end of this episode, there were convictions for affray, unlawful assembly and conspiracy to intimidate. They are serious offences. They have led to people going to prison. I will return in a second to how the justice issues may be addressed. I know about the intensity of people’s views. I know about the efforts made to get the petition to the current number of signatures. I am clear what people hope I can say.
The Government are, of course, committed to transparency. We are agreed that as much information as possible should be in the public domain. The public would expect that, and the principles of the Freedom of Information Act, enacted by the Labour Government and now fully in force, are ones that we are expected to implement.
Most of the papers that relate to the Shrewsbury 24 are already available in the National Archives for public inspection. Of the records that date back to 1972, over 90% are available. Only 625 documents, I am told, are not yet publicly available—[Hon. Members: “Only.”]—across the Government, in relation to that year. The only material held by the Cabinet Office that is not available and that is the information at the heart of this debate is one report and three paragraphs—one in each of three separate documents—which I shall return to later.
Simon Hughes
No. If I have time a bit later, I will, but I am trying to make sure that all the information is on the record.
There has already been a decision, taken in principle by the Labour Government and implemented by this Government, to reduce the age at which historical records are made available. The period is coming down now from 30 to 20 years. [Interruption.] No “buts”. In parallel with that, we are reducing the maximum duration of the exemptions from disclosure from 30 to 20 years. That has started this year, and the period will also reduce, so that people in future will not have to wait as long to see records. So those are good changes, but let us be specific about the matters that relate to the request for these papers today.
The current law is, and the consistent practice has been, that under section 34 of the Public Records Act 1958, public bodies are allowed but not required to retain records after they would usually be required to be transferred to the National Archives—so, after the old 30-year period, which is reducing. Retention is allowed where it is necessary for administrative purposes or for “any other special reason”.
Since 1967, when Lord Gardiner was Lord Chancellor in the Labour Government, all Lord Chancellors—five Labour, five Conservative—have been satisfied that where the transfer of security and intelligence records would prejudice national security, they can be retained on the “other special reason” basis. That approval is recorded in an instrument, signed by the Lord Chancellor, which is more commonly referred to as the security instrument.
The current approval that governs security and intelligence records was, as colleagues have said—the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) referred to it—given by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) when he was Lord Chancellor on 19 December 2011. That does indeed last until 2021. That is public; it has been on the website. However, these papers are due to be reviewed by the Cabinet Office for their security and sensitivity every 10 years, as all other papers are, and they will fall to be reviewed next year, in 2015. I should like to tell the hon. Member for Blaydon respectfully that I suggest that he and his colleagues, who have a rightful interest in their being revealed, address that office and that deadline, and I will personally take an interest in this issue in the time up to next year, when they fall to be reviewed for their security.
What are the specific documents? One is a Security Service report, and the other three are single paragraphs, each of which has been redacted from letters and memorandums. The first was in a letter from the director general of the Security Service to the Cabinet Secretary dated 10 January 1975, which is public apart from one redacted paragraph. It refers—it is not a secret—to the fact that the assessment was that there was Communist party activity in relation to the campaign. The second was in a minute dated 13 January 1975 from the Cabinet Office to No. 10, which has been released apart from a single paragraph. The third was in a minute from No. 10 to the Cabinet Office dated 15 January 1975.
Simon Hughes
Of course it is not. I am just saying what the revealed documents have said, and they are in the public domain. The Ministry of Justice has no relevant information retained. I do not know whether any other Departments have retained any. I am not privy to that information, but I am clear that four pieces of information are retained by the Cabinet Office and are open to review next year.
As hon. Members know, under the Freedom of Information Act people can request that information. They then, in particular, have to confront the question as to whether it is covered by the exemption in section 23 of the Act. The application was refused in this case. It went to the Information Commissioner and he decided on 2 July 2008 that the four documents do relate to the intelligence agencies and therefore fall within the scope of the exemption. The exemption is designed to protect
“Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters”.
The view of the Government has always been—all Governments have said—that to provide details of the national security risks that might be posed by the release of information of this sort would be detrimental to the purposes of the exemption set out in the Act. So that is the view of the Cabinet Office, but these things will be reviewed next year. The Lord Chancellor has asked me to say that he has personally looked at these documents and come to the same view. I know that that will be disappointing and frustrating to people, but the position is that those documents cannot therefore be revealed now.
However, one other matter is very important. There is currently a legal challenge to the convictions, and the case went to the Court of Appeal. Miscarriages of justice are not matters for the Government to consider; they are matters for the Criminal Cases Review Commission—ultimately, for the courts. The hon. Member for Blaydon set out the arguments for a miscarriage of justice review, and I understand them. The cases of at least some of the Shrewsbury 24 have been referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and it is currently assessing that set of applications. It has the power to require, when it is reasonable, that any information held by any public body in relation to any case under review can be retained for, and produced to, it, irrespective of confidentiality. The Commission therefore has, potentially, the access to information of the highest sensitivity, including material withheld by the Cabinet Office—the Commission has the power to see that. My understanding is that the Commission has asked for this information. It is currently considering the application for a review, with this information before it. If the Commission sends a case to the courts, the courts have the power to see the information, and I would entirely expect them to be able to do so.
There are two routes ahead, and they include the point made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson). One is the review that is coming up next year by the Cabinet Office. The second is the miscarriage of justice review, which is currently actively being pursued. I hope that colleagues understand that I am, at the moment, unable to change the position that Governments have adopted over the years, but there are ways in which this matter can be reviewed again. I accept that. That is proper and appropriate, and therefore the efforts of the hon. Member for Blaydon, and those of the petitioners and colleagues, are not in vain.
Decent Homes
Debate between Simon Hughes and Chris Williamson(13 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Williamson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, which I welcome, and I apologise for misunderstanding him. I was making the point that many local authorities do an excellent job and do not necessarily need an ALMO to improve the housing stock for which they are responsible.
The hon. Gentleman also pointed out that successive Governments have neglected council housing. That was probably true of the previous Administration during their first four years, but the biggest problems built up over the 18 years of the previous Conservative Administration, and the decent homes programme went a long way towards addressing the backlog of dilapidation that was created by the under-investment from 1979 to 1997. He was hopeful that all the homes that are not currently decent will be brought up to standard by the end of this Parliament. I share his hope, but it is unlikely to be fulfilled.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) stressed the importance of good housing management. From my own experience of representing Derby North and as a councillor on Derby city council, I know that that is key to ensuring that people enjoy a good quality of life on their housing estate. Poor housing management can lead to a whole range of problems, and I am sure that there is cross-party agreement on that issue. My hon. Friend’s concern that the shortage of housing should be a key priority, if not the top priority, is again one that I share. However, the decision made by the Government to remove housing targets by getting rid of the regional spatial strategies will make it a more significant problem in years to come. Forcing people into the private sector is not a good way of proceeding, as my hon. Friend pointed out.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) referred to apprenticeships and to how it is a good thing to use the decent homes programme to build up jobs by offering training and opportunities through apprenticeships for people to take advantage of the investment in construction. That is another important angle, but to some extent it will be undermined by the cuts made to the decent homes programme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) said that too many people still live in substandard accommodation. She spoke eloquently about the impact that that has on people’s lives, and she referred to the embarrassment and shame that people feel, because they live in substandard accommodation. It is not their fault, and we have an obligation to people to ensure that they can enjoy their home. Nobody should be forced to endure that feeling of embarrassment and shame, because of inadequate investment by their local authority and central Government. I share her belief that, in certain circumstances, demolition is the only option. In numerous examples around the country, we have seen that selective demolition has had a significant impact and improved the overall standard of the housing estate, where it has taken place. She concluded by discussing the uncertainty about whether Lewisham will be able to deliver its decent homes standard.
The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) referred to authorities having to have a two-star rating. In a letter to the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, the Minister said:
“To improve fairness in allocating local authority decent homes funding, we will no longer require ALMOs to have passed a housing inspection with a 2* rating”.
Hopefully the Minister will confirm that that is the case and that consequently Lewisham will be able to access the funding that it needs and deserves.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) made a number of important points and referred to the cuts building up problems for the future. I share my hon. Friend’s concern that it is short-sighted to make deep cuts now, because, in the long term, everyone pays a bigger price, both in human and financial terms. My hon. Friend also congratulated—I want to share in offering those congratulations—people such as caretakers, street cleaners and other public sector workers on doing an excellent job. They are all too often castigated, and they are not celebrated enough. I welcome his comments in that regard.
My hon. Friend also made an important point about high rents in the private sector, people being forced into the private sector and the problems associated with the quality of private-rented accommodation, because of inadequate regulation. The decision of the Government to impose restrictions on housing benefit is a blunt instrument, which penalises people who have, through no fault of their own, been forced to live in the private-rented sector. A better route may have been to restrict the level of rents that landlords can charge, as well as looking at restricting housing benefit. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. It is wrong to penalise people because they are poor. This impacts not only on poorer people, but on people on middle incomes as well. He rightly pointed out the impact that poor quality housing has on health, education and general quality of life. He referred to the need for greater protection, regulation and security for people living in the rented sector.
The hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) referred to the danger—she repeated the point that other hon. Members have made—of the housing stock deteriorating if we do not invest appropriately. She is right to worry, and she is right to be more worried by the cuts being pushed through, ironically enough, by her own Government. Interestingly, she made the point about the need for adaptations as well. That is another area for disabled people that is extremely important. More people are living longer now, and there is a greater need for disabled facilities grants. It is another area where local authorities will struggle to meet the demand. They are already struggling, but the problem will become even more acute, because of the cuts that are being pushed through.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) referred to the first four years of the Labour Government—I have already touched on this point—where housing was not given sufficient priority. She said that housing is the most important issue in her constituency, and she also repeated the impact of poor housing on health. She also stressed the importance of insuring that in any investment programme we secure value for money. She said that if we are not careful, there is a danger of cartels being created and the public sector not getting good value for money. We could actually get more bang for our buck, as it were, if we were to bear down more severely on that. My hon. Friend also made a good point about the use of empty homes and being more flexible, and she referred to the GLC. That is a good example to cite, and I am interested in the Minister’s remarks about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) referred to the withdrawal of a huge PFI scheme that would have dealt with the problems in the Meadows estate. I know that area well, given that it is close to my constituency. Indeed, I had a job with Henry Boot plc as a bricklayer on the Meadows estate when it was being built, but I must say that I am not responsible for it, as I took a job on another building site.
My hon. Friend eloquently outlined the impact of the decent homes programme on her constituents. She discussed not only bricks and mortar, important though they are, but how such matters impact on the lives of ordinary people and improve the quality of their life. Indeed, she said that 80 apprenticeships have been created, and as a result of the cuts to the programme in Nottingham, fewer apprenticeships will be taken on now than would have otherwise been the case.
The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark said that the largest proportion of council tenants is located in his constituency. He also had the good grace to refer to the legacy of previous, progressive Labour councils going back as far as the 1920s. Those councils set an excellent standard. I share his view about ALMOs being down to a local decision. When that is appropriate and tenants want it, that is fine, but it should not be forced on them. He, too, made the point about the private rented sector and the fact that most of the overall housing stock in the country that is not up to a decent standard is in the private rented sector. Only 56% of privately rented accommodation comes up to the decent homes threshold. That matter needs urgent attention, and I hope that the Minister will deal with it in his concluding remarks.
Simon Hughes
I wonder whether the Minister will at least lodge the Select Committee’s recommendation, which the previous Government did not pick up—it might not be possible to do so immediately—that VAT changes to allow renovation and new build should be treated similarly. That could be a Government policy, because it would address the renovation backlog, including that in the private sector.
Chris Williamson
The right hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point with which I entirely concur. Earlier, he reiterated comments made by other hon. Members about the important of flexibility to deal with empty homes. It is important that we put on the record what a wonderful scheme the decent homes project was and note the £40 billion investment. The decent homes programme has delivered more than 700,000 new kitchens and 525,000 new bathrooms for tenants throughout the country. One million people have received new central heating systems and 750,000 people have had their homes rewired. It has certainly gone a long way to address the legacy of dilapidation that the Labour Government inherited from the previous Conservative Administration, which was in power from 1979 to 1997, and 92% of the country’s social housing stock meets the decent homes standard. It has helped to regenerate local areas, and it has particularly helped to address the problem of low demand.
The Chartered Institute of Housing has said:
“The setting of the standard, the ten-year target, the allocation of the resources and the near achievement of the target can be regarded as a major success story”.
The National Housing Federation has said that the programme has
“undoubtedly helped to raise the quality of homes benefiting millions of tenants.”
However, as hon. Members have said today and, indeed, as the recommendations from the Committee’s report point out, there is still more to do. The standard should include a minimum energy efficiency rating, which is clearly important. The backlog needs to be cleared, and there should be funding to deliver both new homes and the maintenance of and improvements to existing stock.
The think-tank for London Councils has pointed out that London Councils remains concerned about the funding shortfall to deliver the decent homes programme. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) pointed out, London alone needs £2.5 billion to complete the programme, and about 10% of London’s stock is below the standard, which represents 46% of the national total. That is a major issue that clearly needs to be addressed.
In a series of letters to the Chair of the Committee, the Minister stated that
“the Government is constrained in its ability to commit to specific housing policies, including the way forward for tackling poor housing and energy efficiency.”
He went on to state in that letter, which he sent in July:
“The Government’s key priority is to devolve power from Whitehall to people, neighbourhoods, communities and…institutions”.
He also stated:
“Councils need the freedom to make the best long term decision for their housing, and it is critical that reform is able to deliver that.”
Of course, that has been done in the context of unprecedented cuts in funding for local authorities. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how he thinks councils will be able to deliver the ambition that he set out in his letter, when he is responsible for imposing huge cuts. In the letter, he also referred to the green deal. Although the green deal is welcome, it is inadequate for addressing the need for energy efficiency in people’s homes.
In a second letter, the Minister stated:
“Throughout the spending review the Government has been guided by a commitment to fairness, protecting the most vulnerable people in our society and as far as possible protecting frontline services.”
However, the reality is that the cuts are impacting disproportionately on the poorest people in society. Local authorities with the greatest needs are bearing the biggest cuts, so I wonder how the Minister can square that statement with the reality of their funding decisions.
I am running short of time, so I will conclude simply by saying that if we compare the policies being pursued by the present Government with those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), when he was the Minister with responsibility for housing, hon. Members will see that he published a paper that would have enabled the decent homes programme to have been completed. His proposal would have ensured that local authorities could keep 100% of the capital receipts and would have seen an expectation that at least 75% of those receipts were reinvested in housing. That would have been a boost not only for the people living in those areas, but for the construction sector and jobs. It would have helped to deliver the Government’s stated intention of a private sector-led recovery. There are many questions that the Minister needs to answer in relation to this whole agenda because, if the ambition of a private sector-led recovery is to be realised and if the interests of tenants are to be met, the Government need to consider a significant change in direction.