Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Steve Reed and James Brokenshire

Monday 22nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Government are still allowing the use of flammable cladding on school buildings up to 18 metres high, which of course means most school buildings. A disabled child would have great difficulty getting out if there were a fire. Why won’t the Government do what every parent wants and bring in a total ban on flammable cladding on schools?

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for flagging this up in the way he has. I took the step to introduce the ban on combustible materials on the surface of walls of high-rise residential buildings and others. We keep this under review. The Department for Education takes the lead on some of these standards, but I will certainly impress upon it the issues he raises, because safety and security are paramount.

Tower Block Cladding

Debate between Steve Reed and James Brokenshire

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I committed to working with the hon. Gentleman in respect of Birmingham, and I hope that he recognises the announcement last week about additional funding. The point is that it is retrospective. I hope that will give him some assurance, but I will continue to pursue it with the urgency he asks for.

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)]

There is no enforceable legal obligation on builders, freeholders or insurance companies to pay for the removal of flammable cladding from private sector blocks, which means that the cladding will remain in place. Leaseholders feel that they are being hung out to dry and that their safety is being disregarded. If the Government believe that they can enforce a moral obligation, why do they not pay to take the cladding down, keep people safe and recover the funds from whoever they believe is responsible for paying for it?

[James Brokenshire]

I do not want to let the private sector off the hook for its responsibilities. That is why in the time for which I have been Secretary of State I have underlined my commitment and why I will be talking to industry this week and next to underline that clear message. I can then consider the right next steps to ensure that this is followed through with that intent.

Riot Compensation Bill

Debate between Steve Reed and James Brokenshire

Friday 5th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Steve Reed]

I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the public purse, but what reassurances can he give that charitable donations from members of a community that were given to help victims in the locality will not be—rather than should not be—deducted from official compensation payments?

[James Brokenshire]

Again, the best place to deal with that and give clarity about the operation of the Bill is in regulations. I hope that given what I have said today about the intention to introduce regulations to sit alongside the Bill, hon. Members will be reassured on this important point about charitable donations. The right hon. Member for Tottenham indicated that he thought the best place to deal with that would be in regulations. That is our judgment too, but I hope that what I have said to the House is helpful in providing clarification and setting out the how the Government will seek to operate the provisions in the Bill. Obviously, right hon. and hon. Members will be able to examine the regulations when they are published, following Royal Assent—we hope that will happen, but both Houses need to give the Bill their consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Steve Reed and James Brokenshire

Monday 10th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. Freedom of movement is not and cannot be a freedom to claim benefits. The Government have introduced a series of domestic measures to restrict access to benefits and we are committed to working with our partners to reform the rules on access to benefits, which were designed for a different era and are no longer fit for purpose.

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

Does the Home Secretary agree with the Institute of Directors that the Immigration Minister’s first major speech in his new job was

“feeble, pathetic and divisive and more about political positioning than what is good for the country”?

Did she see it in advance?

[James Brokenshire]

I did not know that I had been promoted but I will obviously answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. There is nothing feeble and weak about an immigration policy that continues to attract the brightest and the best to this country while resolutely focusing on reducing net migration to sustainable levels. That is why our policies are having an effect, reducing net migration from outside the EU by 82,000. What was feeble was the last Government’s failures that let immigration get out of control. It is their mess that this Government continue to sort out and with our reforms cutting non-EU migration to its lowest levels since 1998, we are having an effect.